Silvestre Reyes

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Pastor]. (Mr. PASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Ortiz]. (Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, under the rules when there are two proponents of the motion which have been recognized, is one-third of the time allotted to a Member in opposition?

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about efforts by some of my colleagues to prohibit any further action on the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, which was proposed by President Clinton in his State of the Union Address earlier this year. In the committee report accompanying the Agriculture Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1998, H.R. 2160, language is included stipulating that ``Funds for [the American Heritage Rivers] initiatives are not available until justification and reprogram requests are approved.'' In addition, Representative Helen Chenoweth has introduced a bill to prohibit any further action on the initiative. I am a very strong supporter of this initiative and am working very actively with my colleagues along the Rio Grande River to submit a proposal for consideration for designation as 1 of the first 10 rivers to be designated. The Rio Grande River is rich in history, with dramatic contrasts. Some stretches offer incredible scenery and a pristine environment, while others are marred by the stench of pollution that threatens public health. For roughly 1,000 miles, the Rio Grande, known in Mexico as the Rio Bravo, serves as an international boundary. The river has provided the water needed for border towns to grow into sister cities. It has nurtured industry, agriculture, and the development of commerce on both sides of the border, but demand for its water is exceeding supply in many places. How we secure the quantity and quality of water needed from the Rio Grande and other sources will be crucial to the prospects for sustaining growth for our region in the 21st century. The possibility for designation of the Rio Grande as an American Heritage River offers an opportunity for communities along the Rio Grande to work together and gain easier, more direct access to existing Federal assistance. The designation would help us celebrate our heritage, draw attention to the natural wonders of our river and, at the same time, address very real and complex challenges facing its wonders of our river and, at the same time, address very real and complex challenge facing its future. Proposals for designation will be evaluated on whether the plans have strong or solid community support which involve partnerships between the public and private sectors. The Federal Government is to offer a partnership determined by the needs of the local communities, offering them ways to cut through redtape and develop innovative arrangements for new or existing objectives. There are to be no new regulations or standards, and property rights are not to be impaired. It is important to note that this opportunity comes at the same time that the Texas legislature has passed a major overhaul of our State's water law to help communities and regions work together in planning for the future. The Rio Grande was cited as a special case and agencies were instructed to seek Federal assistance. Regional councils of government along the border are meeting now to frame a proposal to be sent to the White House on behalf of those local jurisdictions that wish to participate. The proposed partnership is to have key Federal agencies assist the communities of the Rio Grande develop the long-term assessments of their water needs called for by the water plan that Governor George Bush recently signed into law. A broader partnership is being proposed under which the Federal, State and local authorities working with business and civic groups will assist Rio Grande communities to participate in the 1998 Smithsonian Folklife Festival in Washington, DC. That year's festival will focus on the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo and provide a unique opportunity for us to share our rich heritage with over 1 million visitors. A focus on the Rio Grande is something Texas can get behind. We are proud of our river and want to assert our stake in its future. The proposed being drafted will make sure that Federal jurisdiction is not expanded, that no new regulations are imposed as a result of the designation, and that no one's property rights or water rights are affected. Our effort is being designed and managed by Texans on behalf of a heritage we share with our neighbors and fellow Americans. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting the American Heritage Rivers Initiative and opposing efforts to kill this important initiative. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am submitting for the record a list of questions I submitted to the Council on Environmental Quality and the responses I received. I believe this documents answers all of the concerns that have been expressed by citizens and my colleagues. Executive Office of the President, Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, DC, July 18, 1997. Hon. Silvestre Reyes U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Reyes: Thank you for your recent letter requesting additional information on the American Heritage Rivers initiative. I appreciate your continued support and outstanding leadership in the Congress. I have attached answers to the 25 questions. I hope this information is helpful to you. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Kathleen A. McGinty, Chair. Enclosure. Answers in Response to Questions Submitted Regarding the American Heritage Rivers Initiative 1. Q: Can the designation be, in effect, a contract between the local jurisdictions and the federal government in which the terms, the scope and the limitations of the designation are set out clearly and agreed upon by all parties? A: There is nothing in the initiative that requires applicants to enter into any type of agreement with the federal government. Designation is the recognition of local communities' efforts to enhance and protect their river resources. As a practical matter, the federal government cannot enter into ``contracts,'' in the legal sense, with communities. However, the federal government often enters into Memoranda of Understanding with state, tribal and local governments and nongovernmental organizations. Designated communities will have the option of entering into Memoranda of Understanding at the local level to explain the terms, scope and limitations of designation and how they want to work with federal agencies. 2. Q: Will a designation carry with it any new federal regulation, mandate, or increased eligibility standards? Can that be asserted in a designation proclamation? A: No. Designation as an American Heritage River will not carry with it any new federal regulation, mandate or increased eligibility standards. As stated in the Federal Register Notices of May 19 and June 10, ``The [American Heritage Rivers] initiative will create no new regulatory requirements for individuals or state and local governments.'' This can be asserted in a designation proclamation. The goal of the American Heritage Rivers initiative is to support communities, within existing laws and regulations, by providing them with better access to information, tools and resources, and encouraging private funding of local efforts deserving of special recognition. 3. Q. Will and AHR designation affect property rights and/ or water rights in any way? A: No. An American Heritage Rivers designation will not adversely affect property or water rights. The initiative will not grant any federal, state or local government entity any new authority or control over private property. The comment period was extended, in part, to work with landowners and other interested parties to better understand the initiative. During this period, we have listened to these concerns and have developed the following language that will be included in the final description of the American Heritage Rivers initiative to demonstrate our intent not to diminish property and water rights: ``In implementing the American Heritage Rivers initiative, Federal departments shall act with due regard for the protections of private property provided by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.'' 4. Q: Can there be procedures for prohibiting any changes in existing private property, water and/or development rights on land along a river in connection with activities recognized under an AHR designation? Or: Can there be procedures for geographic areas within the designated geographic area to be exempted from activities recognized under the AHR designation? A: The local and state governments establish procedures for changes to existing private property, water and/or development rights. Any geographic areas within the designated geographic area to be exempted from such activities will be identified by the local sponsoring organization. 5. Q: What is the procedure that makes the projects of an American Heritage River designee a priority to federal agencies? What could be the practical benefit of that? A: After the President designates the rivers, the Secretaries of the participating federal agencies will enter into a Memorandum of Understanding describing how they will work together to create the American Heritage Rivers initiative. The practical benefit is that communities will have easier access to information about existing federal resources and help in targeting funding and technical assistance resources most appropriate to their needs. As stated in the Federal Register Notices of May 19 and June 20, an ``interagency task force will work with each River Community as it is designated to identify technical and funding needs. First, a team of planning and technical assistance experts will help each designated River Community assess its strategy and implementation plan to identify technical assistance and funding needs. Then, federal agencies will commit field staff and resources to the teams, which will also include non-federal partners, such as state, local, tribal governments and nongovernmental organizations.'' This means that each interagency task force will work closely with the community to meet identified community needs. Not every community will require the resources and programs of every federal agency. The ``River Navigator'' will be a full-time liaison between the community and the federal agencies. The resources and staff of the agencies will be accessed as appropriate and needed. 6. Q: Does an AHR designation have to include the full watershed/basin of the river? How does an applicant set the geographical limits of the designation? A: An American Heritage Rivers designation does not have to include the full watershed or basin of the river. Communities set the geographical limits of the application and the designation is confined to those limits. 7. The Federal Register mentions the restoration of rivers. a. What is meant by restoration? Restoration is any activity that returns an area to a former use or condition. The extent of restoration activities will be defined by the communities in their applications. b. If there is a designation, will that mean local acquiescence to a federal effort to restore that river to previous uses or to a natural state untouched by human activities? Absolutely not. The community will identify what they want to do within a designated area. The American Heritage Rivers initiative is not about ``local acquiescence to a federal effort.'' It is about federal agencies working closely with communities to achieve the communities' goals. c. Does ``restoration'' have to be a part of the proposal in order to secure a designation? Restoration does not have to be part of any designation. The community decides its priorities and seeks designation based on that community's needs. 8. Q: Could a designation enable local jurisdictions along the Rio Grande to have a stronger and more active voice with federal and international activities such as Border XXI, NADBank, BECC and the IBWC? If so, how? A: We are hopeful that the American Heritage River designation will provide many more avenues for the federal government to form partnerships with local communities. There are a number of existing opportunities along the border, including Border XXI, NADBank, BECC and IBWC, that the communities along the Rio Grande might identify in their application. Representatives from these programs would be included in the federal assistance team working with the designated river's community to ensure that the community's goal and objectives are integrated into these institutions' decision making. 9. Q: Once a river has been designated in response to the communities' application, can the projects and activities within the original application be modified or added to at a later time? Who can make such changes and who would decide or approve them? A: The community can make changes or modifications to their plan consistent with the process and criteria used to develop and recognize the application by the community and the federal government. 10. Q: How can the designation be used to encourage Mexican enforcement of environmental laws that deal with discharge into the Rio Grande? A: The American Heritage Rivers initiative does not alter existing environmental law or dispute resolution processes. 11. Q: As a Rio Grande application is drafted, could representatives from relevant federal agencies be made available to field questions regarding the AHR program and how each agency might give priority to the designated rivers? A: Yes. Federal agency representatives were trained in a video uplink on June 17 to answer questions about the American Heritage Rivers initiative. Lists of these employees will be available in mid-July. 12. Q: Does federal attention to water flow needs and water quality automatically follow a designation or must it be something specifically identified in the application? A: No federal attention automatically follows a designation, unless it is requested by the community in its application. The federal agencies will assess whether such a request is authorized by Congress, that funds are appropriated for such action, or can be appropriated if the action is approved. 13. Q: Would a designation of the Rio Grande mean federal funds would be diverted from other activities in the state to the designated river's program? A: No. The initiative will help communities through better use and coordination of existing programs and resources. Communities will only receive funds for which they would be otherwise eligible, under the authorization and appropriation terms of Congress. 14. Q: Can the CEQ make public the designation proposals it has received from Texas? A: As the application process has not opened, no proposals have been received from Texas, or any other state. Many communities requested nomination of their rivers following the President's State of the Union Address. These communities have been asked to submit formal applications, once those applications are available in mid-September. American Heritage Rivers is committed to an open process and full disclosure. Information will be made available about applications received. On the American Heritage Rivers homepage, we are asking people to self report their interests in specific river designations. You can access the homepage at: http:// www.epa.gov.owow.heritage.rivers.html 15. Q: Will procedures be put in place whereby the applicant can ask to have a designation rescinded and/or given activities and/or geographical rescinded? A: Yes. As stated in the June 20 Federal Register Notice, ``Any community which nominates a river for designation and has its river designated, may have this designation terminated at its request at any point in the future.'' 16. Q: How is the AHRI associated with the United Nations or the NAFTA or their agencies? A: The American Heritage Rivers initiative has not been associated with the United Nations or NAFTA. As stated in the June 20 Federal Register Notice, ``Foreign governments and their international organizations will not have a role in sponsoring a nomination to be an American Heritage River nor will they have any authority granted to them as a result of an American Heritage River designation.'' 17. Q: If planning of a capital intensive scenic route or nature trail along a river was part of an AHR designation, would a subsequent proposal for appropriation of new money for the projects planned be prejudiced by the ``no new money'' commitment? A: No. Substantial federal resources have already been authorized and appropriated by Congress. Therefore, projects otherwise eligible for funding would not be prejudiced against because of an American Heritage Rivers designation. In fact, for some projects, the cooperation of the federal, state and local agencies through the American Heritage Rivers initiative could strengthen a subsequent proposal for funds. 18. Q: Why is the AHRI needed to get the federal agencies to do what they are supposed to be doing anyway? A: The federal agencies have done an excellent job of cooperating more effectively. Interagency cooperation is at an all-time high, which is good news for taxpayers. But as the Administration's effort has found, the job of reinvention is never complete. The National Performance Review, directed by Vice President Gore, continuously seeks to create a government that works better and costs less through focusing on customer service, developing partnerships and delegating power to the front lines. The American Heritage Rivers can help accomplish this in four ways: 1. To recognize outstanding community-led efforts. The American Heritage Rivers initiative is the most important recognition of local river efforts in 20 years. 2. To serve as models of the most innovative, successful and sustainable approaches to river restoration and protection for communities across the United States. The lessons learned from these models can be applied to programs across the country. 3. To ensure that federal agencies are cooperating to the greatest extent possible. At a time of declining federal resources, the Administration believes the decisions about prioritizing federal programs should come from the affected communities. 4. To encourage greater agency cooperation across disciplines and programs. There is a continuing need to integrate the environmental, economic and historic disciplines of not only the federal government, but state and local governments as well. 19. Q: What protection is there in the AHRI for the rights of those in a community that do not favor a designation? A: As stated in the June 20 Federal Register Notice, ``A local mechanism will be required that allows members of a community to comment on the nomination of a river or river stretch by their community.'' The nomination process will be fully controlled, discussed and organized at the local level. The concerns of all members of a community should be aired as the nomination is prepared. Communities submitting applications should make opportunities available for members of the local public to comment on the nomination. Elected officials are expected to participate in the nomination process. The Administration will also make public the nominations that it receives. 20. Q: Will a designation application gain points in the scoring process if it has bipartisan support? A: Yes. Bipartisan support will help a community demonstrate that it meets the criterion of broad community support. 21. Q: Would requests for federal agency help to prepare for participation in the Smithsonian Institute's 1998 American Folklife Festival be an appropriate activity under the AHRI? A: Yes. The community defines appropriate activities under the American Heritage Rivers initiative. 22. Q: Could local requests for federal grants and cooperative assistance to improve use of river water in irrigation be recognized as part of an AHR designation? A: Again, the community defines appropriate activities under the American Heritage Rivers initiative. If a community decided to seek federal grants and cooperative assistance to improve use of river water in irrigation that would definitely be considered if the river gained American Heritage River status. The American Heritage Rivers initiative would not alter or affect any laws or rights relating to river or water flows. 23. Q: Are applications for designation required to include specific projects for implementation under the designation? If yes, what is the impact on other projects in the designated area that are not included in the designation application? A: One of the criteria for designation is that communities have in hand, or are developing, a well-defined plan of action for the river. Projects and products, including any anticipated impacts beyond the designated river area, are part of this plan of action. Other components of the action plan are community vision, operating procedures and policies, description of how the proposal takes into account existing plans for the area, public participation and public education, committed and anticipated resources, schedule of actions, the community's expectation of the federal role, obstacles to community action, including those the community believes can be resolved by joint federal, state and local support, and measures of success. There is not necessarily an impact on other projects in the designated area that are not included in the designation application. Some projects, of course, may be dependent on each other. 24. Q: can an AHR designation create a situation to allow one of its projects to circumvent existing and required local and/or regional planning processes? If not, would an application for designation be eligible for consideration if specific projects were not mentioned, but the application stressed the desire to acquire designation to attain an increased federal focus to aid in encouraging and supporting local, regional and state planning processes that would result in projects that are in compliance with local, state and federal requirements? A: No. American Heritage Rivers designation will not be a means for projects to circumvent local or regional planning processes. Quite the contrary. The goal of American Heritage Rivers is to look to local or regional planning processes and to ensure that the federal agencies are cooperating sufficiently to streamline processes to help communities realize their goals wherever possible. All actions, by all involved with the initiative at the federal, state and local levels, must take place within existing laws and regulations. If the community wished to identify appropriate roles for and services from the federal agencies, assistance with local, state and regional planning processes would be eligible. All the projects under consideration in a designated area do not necessarily have to be mentioned in the application. However, to the extent that these projects demonstrate how the community meets the criteria, including broad community support and strategies that lead to action, their inclusion is to the benefit of the applying community. 25. Q: Is it the intent of the AHRI to designate rivers on the basis of demonstrated historical, cultural, economic and environmental significance, or to designate rivers based on the merits of proposed projects? A: Both. It is the intent of the American Heritage Rivers to designate rivers on the basis of their demonstrated historical, cultural, economic and environmental significance and the commitment the communities have to preserving and restoring these resources. Projects identified by the community should integrate, to the largest extent possible, the environmental, historic and economic aspects of their communities.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, today we will continue consideration of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education amendments. I rise this afternoon to support vocational education because of its importance to this country and to my district of El Paso, TX. Carl Perkins provides Federal funding to improve the quality of vocational education and to provide access to quality vocational education to special populations which include disadvantaged students. My home in El Paso is one of the poorest districts in this country. Many students there cannot afford to attend college. Vocational education, especially as funded through Carl Perkins, provides these students the skills that they need to move immediately into higher paying jobs, and upon graduation for some it provides the skills developed that will set them for a career path in life. For others, vocational education provides job opportunities which will allow individuals to work and to save for college in their future. Schools in my district are using this funding to teach our kids in innovative ways and to prepare them for the working world or to continue their education and college if they so choose. I was very disappointed to learn that the bill excludes a requirement to spend vocational education funds for programs for single parents and pregnant women. The Ysleta School System in my district has developed a very important program which could make use of such funds. This program at Ysleta Academy of Science and Technology helps teenage parents through its Teen Parenting Academy and the Teen Parenting Program, which takes pregnant students out of the regular classroom and provides them academic and vocational education. The Teen Parenting Academy uses State funds for academics and Carl Perkins funds for vocational education. Within 6 weeks of the child's birth, other schools would send the student back to regular classes. This program, however, allows students to complete their academic career at the Teen Parenting Academy. Normally teenage parents, male and female, have a very high dropout rate, especially soon after their babies are born. In this program, however, students stay in school, complete their academic education and learn a vocation. The dropout rate for single parents in the Teen Parenting Academy is well below the national and local dropout average. Continued vocational education funding for single pregnant women and single parents would help this school continue to provide these kids opportunities that they might otherwise miss, and it helps to keep these kids from falling into the vicious cycle of poverty. The support a bipartisan amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink], the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Sanchez], and others, which will restore this requirement. I believe that quality education is the key to helping children and adults in communities like mine to raise their standard of living. We must, therefore, continue to provide Federal support for important educational programs like Carl D. Perkins. The way to make this country a better, more productive society is to increase the educational level of all its residents.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the committee report accompanying the VA-HUD appropriation bill because it contains report language that would delay the continued implementation of VERA, the veterans equitable resource allocation system. VERA provides for veterans health care to be allocated according to locations and concentrations of veteran populations. The committee report language does not allow for the allocation system to go forward, and thereby prevents health care dollars from being distributed fairly and evenly. Essentially, over the last two decades there has been a major shift in veteran populations with more and more veterans settling in the South and West. El Paso, in the 16th District of Texas which I represent, is part of the southwest network, Veteran Integrated Service Network 18 which includes Arizona, New Mexico, and west Texas. El Paso has over 70,000 military retirees alone, and is comprised of up to 56,000 veterans at any one time. Moreover, Texas as a whole, has the second largest veteran population in the country. The El Paso and Texas Veteran populations clearly reflect the substantial shift of veteran populations in this country to the Southwest. VERA provides the mechanism for the Veterans Health Care Administration to look at these changes in the demographics of veteran populations and determine where resources should be allocated. As veterans move across our country, so should resources to support the health care needs of veterans. Without these additional resources to address greater needs, our facilities are strained, and accessibility and quality of care goes down. Resources for health care must move as our veterans move. Unless this committee language is removed, vital veteran health care resources will not flow and track this movement in veteran populations. This will result in overcapacity and underuse in some areas, while desperately needed services for veterans like those living in my district will be strained. This is not a matter of politics or partisanship, but rather a matter of equity and fairness. Veterans where ever they are found, are entitled to the healthcare that our country promised our men and women who sacrificed on behalf of our country. In addition, we must recognize the real and significant shifts in our Nation's populations. Unless resources are distributed to reflect this reality, insufficient resources will be dedicated where needed, and we will fail in our obligation to our Nation's veterans. As a veteran, and a member of the Veterans' Committee, I urge your support for this change in committee language. Let us do what is right for all veterans, and allow the equitable allocation of these limited resources to take place.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed several votes this evening. I ask unanimous consent that my statement be inserted in the Record immediately after the recorded votes. If I had been here, I would have voted Yes on rollcall 267; Yes on rollcall 268; Yes on rollcall 269; No on rollcall 270; Yes on rollcall 271; No on rollcall 272; No on rollcall 273; Yes on rollcall 274; and No on rollcall 275.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, this morning I want to put a human face on one of the hundreds of thousands of elderly and disabled legal immigrants who are the targets of a mean-spirited welfare bill. Piedad Gonzalez entered the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1986, then a healthy woman with no history of any physical or mental illness. Like countless other immigrants, she came to this country willing to work hard and contribute. She soon found employment and had worked for 4 years before she began experiencing severe back pain. She became too disabled to continue working, having contracted arthritis. In 1994, Ms. Gonzalez applied for SSI benefits and in November 1996 received a favorable decision. However, 1 month later, this was overturned, denying her SSI benefits due to the restrictions of the welfare bill. Ms. Gonzalez should not be punished for coming to this country legally and working hard and playing by the rules. Instead, this bill wants to punish her and leave her with no means of support. The gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra] had an amendment to the spending bill which would have provided men and women like Ms. Gonzalez the means to survive. It was not made a part of the manager's amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, first a few remarks in Spanish. (The following paragraph was delivered in Spanish.) Mr. Speaker, a lot of people have come to this floor in recent weeks to talk about NAFTA. And several of those Members have talked about what is going on in my district, El Paso, TX. Tonight, I want to talk about my district. The reason I have opened my remarks in Spanish, Mr. Speaker, is because it is important to the story that I want to tell my colleagues this evening. The district that I represent, El Paso, TX, has experienced more NAFTA-related job losses than any other community in the country, more than 5,600 jobs. This week, a delegation of dislocated workers from my district, who call themselves the La Mujer Obrera, or The Working Woman, are here in Washington, DC to tell their story and share it with Members of Congress and administration officials. They are here this evening in this House to listen to my remarks. La Mujer Obrera is a community-based, nonprofit organization dedicated to working to improve the social and economic conditions of low-income Hispanic workers and their families in the El Paso area. Many of these workers had jobs in El Paso in the garment industry. And as most of my colleagues know, a lot of those jobs have now gone to Mexico, leaving these workers and others like them without jobs and without the skills needed to get new ones. When Congress passed NAFTA, it provided training assistance for workers dislocated by NAFTA. The workers of the La Mujer Obrera in El Paso were eligible for training assistance. What they got instead was remedial English lessons. It is important to understand that many of the people I am talking about have been working and paying taxes for 20 and 30 years. While you and I probably agree that the ability to speak English will help, it will not by itself secure jobs for these workers. Since I became a Member of Congress 6 months ago, I have been working with La Mujer Obrera and the Texas Workforce Commission to provide the kind of assistance that will make a difference. As a result, a pilot project was launched in El Paso that we hope should effectively address the needs of dislocated workers. This pilot project will provide bilingual job training and prepare dislocated workers for new jobs. Approximately 1,200 dislocated workers will benefit from this project. Some Members of this body will listen to the story of La Mujer Obrera and conclude that NAFTA is bad. Others will point to the fact that the new jobs have been created by NAFTA and conclude that NAFTA is good. I think the truth lies somewhere in between. NAFTA was and is a bold initiative. But as with all great experiments, we should not be surprised when we hit some problem spots. We must be willing to make corrections along the way. This is especially true when it affects people like Armida Arriaga, a 56-year-old woman in El Paso who worked in the garment industry for 18 years before losing her job. Ms. Ariaga has used the NAFTA benefits, but she would rather have a job. In a recent report, the Forum for International Policy, whose members include Brent Scowcroft, Carla Hills, Colin Powell and Robert Strauss, said it best: ``Increased international trade may well lead to U.S. job losses for certain companies in certain sectors. The response should not be to impede greater trade, but rather to develop effective programs to provide American workers with training to acquire new skills and develop new business. Of course, meeting this challenge cannot be underestimated. Some workers may find developing new skills difficult, if not impossible. But dealing creatively with job transitions is preferable, for the people concerned and society as a whole, to denying ourselves increased trade opportunities.'' I think it is appropriate that on this date in 1647 Margaret Brent proclaimed herself as America's first feminist by demanding a voice and vote for herself in the Maryland Colonial Assembly. Brent came to America in 1638 and was the first woman to own property in Maryland. Mr. Speaker, the workers of the La Mujer Obrera are here today to demand a voice in the decisions that we make that affect their lives. As this body ponders serious policy questions, I encourage all of my colleagues to listen carefully to the voices of these people, the dislocated workers, and remember that what we are here to do is the people's business. They expect and deserve this.

Mr. REYES

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

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank my esteemed colleague, the gentleman from California, for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Traficant amendment this morning. Mr. Chairman, if the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio is adopted, the Department of Defense will be allowed to send 10,000 troops to our southern border. With more than 26 years of experience in the U.S. Border Patrol, I can tell the Members that this is a very, very bad idea. Exactly 1 month ago today a young 18-year-old boy was shot and killed by a Marine assisting the Border Patrol in Redford, TX. Ezequiel Hernandez is the first American killed by troops on U.S. soil since 1970, in the Kent State incident. Unfortunately, we cannot do anything to bring him back, but we can and we should do everything we can to keep this from happening again. We already have almost 7,000 Border Patrol agents patrolling our Nation's border. Congress, this Congress, has authorized an additional 1,000 agents every year until the year 2001. What we need to do is make sure that these men and women are professional, bilingual, well-trained law enforcement officers, properly trained to deal with situations and problems along our border. Their mission is dramatically different from the mission of the U.S. military. It does not make any sense to me or any of my former colleagues in the U.S. Border Patrol to put 10,000 troops on the southern border. By putting armed troops on our border, we will be forced to deal with a new set of problems: Problems of jurisdiction, problems of authority, and problems of responsibility and personal liability for those troops. Mr. Chairman, this body should focus its time and energy on giving the Border Patrol the resources they need, instead of jeopardizing our troops and civilians alike. The cost of doing this is, furthermore, outrageous. According to our own Department of Defense, if this amendment is adopted, it will cost the U.S. taxpayers $650 million a year to deploy 10,000 troops to our southern border. The military already spends more than $800 million per year assisting law enforcement with drug interdiction and border security, mostly through support and high-tech equipment. For example, the U.S. Air Force provides AWACs aircraft to monitor the southwest border. Some of these missions are dedicated solely to detecting drug traffickers. Last year, the AWACs provided information that led up to a seizure of 945 million dollars worth of cocaine. That is about 35 percent of the cocaine intercepted into the United States. This issue that we are talking about here with the Traficant amendment is dramatically different. We are talking about putting troops to patrol our border, and jeopardizing citizens in the districts such as mine that I represent along the border with Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I think, finally, that since the end of the cold war the military's mission deployments have increased by about 300 percent. We are doing this with a substantially reduced number of soldiers. We cannot and should not be able to afford to pull 10,000 men and women away from other missions, and further adding to the aggravation and pain of family separation, to help the efforts of the U.S. Border Patrol that is already provided for by this Congress. I strongly urge my colleagues to remember that I have 26\1/2\ years of experience along our border fighting drug trafficking and illegal immigration. I think this is the wrong thing to do at the wrong time. The Attorney General does not support this amendment. The Secretary of the Treasury does not support this amendment. The Commissioner of INS does not support this amendment, and neither do the colleagues that I worked with for 26\1/2\ years. I would ask, Mr. Chairman, if you have any influence, please beam this gentleman up.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say, in the brief time that I have got left, that this is not an emotional argument. This is an argument that needs rationality. This is an argument where we need to vote against this amendment because those very people that are enforcing our laws on our southern border are not in favor of this amendment. We do not need it. We do not want it. We should not tolerate this kind of rhetoric on the floor of Congress.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to offer an amendment today, but it was ruled not germane to the bill. The amendment would have provided for displaced workers affected by NAFTA, which I believe qualify for disaster relief. I appreciate the opportunity to enter my remarks, written remarks, into the Record. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to offer an amendment today but I've been told that, under the rule, my amendment is not germane so I'm not going to offer it but I would like to tell my colleagues about it. Last week, the New York Times ran a lengthy article about workers who have been dislocated by NAFTA. The dateline on the story was El Paso, TX, which I represent. Mr. Chairman, during the first 2\1/2\ years of NAFTA, Texas had almost 8,000 certified job losses as a result of NAFTA. More than half of those dislocated workers were in El Paso. Under current law, after these workers exhaust their unemployment compensation, they are entitled to cash benefits for 52 weeks while they are retraining. Many of these workers have exhausted those cash benefits and they are still jobless. My amendment would have appropriated an additional $10 million for these workers and extend their eligibility for benefits an additional 6 months. My amendment would also have appropriated an additional $1.6 million for the retraining programs, which would bring the appropriation up to $30 million, the maximum amount authorized. Today we're considering a supplemental appropriations bill primarily for disaster relief. As far as I'm concerned, these dislocated workers need disaster relief, too. Unfortunately, under this rule, we're not going to be able to help them. Mr. Chairman, we have an obligation to these workers and I will be on this floor every chance I get to speak on their behalf.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the men and women, officers and inspectors of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the U.S. Customs Service and ask all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1215 which was recently introduced by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner]. This bill will grant the same law enforcement status to inspectors of the INS and Customs as all other Federal law enforcement officers. This action is long overdue, in my opinion. The inspectors of the INS and Customs carry a badge, a gun, and are exposed to the same rigors, challenges, and dangers of any other law enforcement officer in the United States. Last year alone, there were more than 280 million border crossings, all requiring inspection and many escalating into violent conflicts, yet we have not provided our inspectors with the same benefits and security as other law enforcement officers. I know firsthand what these inspectors are asked to deal with on a daily basis. I spent 4 years as an inspector at the various ports of entry around El Paso, and I can tell my colleagues that I sympathize with these men and women who put their lives on the line each and every day. In the past 2 years, 140 inspectors have been assaulted along our Nation's borders. During fiscal year 1995, we had 88 assaults on our inspectors. During fiscal year 1996, there were 52. I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that we recognize that on any given day, our officers, our inspectors at those ports of entry are subject to being attacked and being injured. It is time that we recognize these courageous men and women and provide them with the benefits that they have earned and rightfully deserve. I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1215. It is time we recognize the inspectors of INS and Customs as law enforcement officers. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner].

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honor and a privilege for me, knowing exactly what these men and women go through each and every day as they carry out their duties at the frontline of defense for this Nation. I again would like to urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1215. It is time we recognize the inspectors of the INS and Customs for the law enforcement officers that they truly are.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about an important event being held in Washington this week and to invite all my colleagues to attend. The United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce and the University of Texas at El Paso are sponsoring a conference this week in Washington about issues that are important along the United States-Mexico border. The border between our countries is almost 2,000 miles long. We have a common border, and we have common challenges to meet. This conference will be held Wednesday and Thursday. It will address such issues as the economics of the border, environmental concerns of the border, transportation and infrastructure needs of the border, cultural aspects of the border and a status report on the impact of NAFTA on the United States-Mexico border. I invite all my colleagues to a congressional reception from 6 to 8 p.m. on Wednesday, April 16 in B-369 Rayburn. I also invite all my colleagues to attend all the conference or parts of the conference. I also ask my colleagues to look for my Dear Colleague letter this afternoon.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, as a Vietnam veteran and a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I rise today to talk about veterans along the border and opportunities that we have to bolster our commitment to our veterans. This is the 105th Congress's first piece of veterans' legislation, and I am here to rise in support of this bill, because in this era of downsizing, it provides increased job opportunities and security. Let us send a strong message to our veterans by overwhelmingly passing this bill. Furthermore, while back in the district, I invited local veterans to participate in my veterans' advisory panel, a panel that will meet regularly to advise me on ways to improve the lives of our veterans. I am proud to say that we have an overwhelming response. Already, they have expressed their concerns about our Persian Gulf war veterans and the need for continued research. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to seek similar ways to stay informed, and with tomorrow's vote, take a first step in this Congress for our veterans.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to commend R.E. Thomason General Hospital, El Paso's only not-for-profit hospital, for being recognized for the second year in a row as one of America's top performing hospitals, according to the 1996 ``100 Top Hospitals--Benchmarks for Success'' study. I would like to congratulate R.E. Thomason General Hospital for their dedication to the community and outstanding performance. The ``100 Top Hospitals--Benchmarks for Success'' study is conducted annually by HCIA, the industry's most comprehensive source of health care information, and the Health Care Provider Consulting practice [HCPC] of William M. Mercer, a leading international management consulting firm. HCIA and Mercer HCPC annually develop a model for high performance among general acute care hospitals in the United States. The model is then used to identify 100 of the top performing hospitals on key measures related to clinical practices, operations, and financial management. Mercer HCPC and HCIA undertake this study each year to establish industry benchmarks in the context of a rapidly and constantly changing health care industry and to recognize those hospitals that demonstrate superior performance. To qualify, hospitals had to rank above their peers on a combination of eight measures that indicate high value through high-quality outcomes, effective use of resources, and efficient provision of care-- a balance R.E. Thomason General Hospital has achieved. I would like to thank R.E. Thomason for their vision and dedication to the community and commend the staff for their devotion to caring for the people of El Paso.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to come again for the third time, I think, today to urge my colleagues to stop and think about the ramifications and the serious consequences of what we are doing in this great institution today. I say that with a tremendous amount of trepidation because, having firsthand experience, having the background that I share in common with my colleague from Florida [Mr. Shaw], my colleague from Texas [Mr. Ortiz], it is difficult to sit here and watch what is going on here in terms of the statements that are going on the Record that will be scrutinized not only by our constituents in respect to our districts, but also will be scrutinized very carefully by the people of Mexico, by the Government of Mexico and the people of Latin America. I think there have been a number of points that have been made here. I think there have been way too many statistics that have been thrown around. I think we have obfuscated the real issue and the real context of what we ought to be doing in this body representing the people of this great Nation. I know that all of us share a frustration about what the scourge of drugs has done to our neighborhoods, what it has done to our children, what it is doing to our institutions, but no one understands these issues better than the Government of Mexico, better than the citizens of Mexico. Certainly nobody has paid a higher price than the Government of Mexico, nobody has paid a price and continues to pay the price and will continue to pay the price if we stand here and allow the amendment or the resolution to go forward to decertify Mexico. I am proud to tell this body that I was probably the first to urge the President to certify Mexico. I think to not certify Mexico would be very counterproductive. Not only does it send the wrong message to the Mexican Government, but it sends clearly the wrong message to the Mexican people, a people that collectively have paid a very high price. I ask my colleagues in this Congress to listen to the implications, to listen to the consequences. For anyone to think that a decertification move on Mexico would not have serious political consequences and would not destabilize the country and would not lead to economic destabilization, is to me incredible. But then in the context of the argument, in the context of what we have discussed, in the context of what I have heard in this Chamber today, that, for me at least, would not be surprising. Mr. Speaker, I just hope that sanity and reason prevail. I hope that we understand the implications of what we are about to do if we do not stand with the President and agree to certify Mexico.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding the additional time to me. Mr. Speaker, I would call attention to a Dear Colleague letter that I sent out to my colleagues yesterday. It is a follow-up to another letter that I had sent last week, and before I read a portion of this, I would like for my colleagues in the House to know that when I first heard about the question of certification of Mexico for this year, I was in El Paso. I sent a letter to the President urging him to certify Mexico. I did so because the impact that decertification would have on border communities on both sides of the international border would be devastating. We have a border that is interdependent economically. We have a border where we have made significant progress since the passage of NAFTA, and I know that NAFTA for some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle is still an issue of controversy. But the progress that we have made is significant. One of the things that I want the record to reflect that has not been mentioned here is that Mexico has not been sitting on its hands. Mexico has lost a presidential candidate to their effort on the war on drugs. Mexico has lost a bishop to the war on drugs. Mexico has lost a number of clergy that stand up and address drug trafficking and the scourge of the impact of drugs on the society in Mexico, and they have paid with their lives, they have paid with their lives. Mexico has in the past lost lives of its policemen and soldiers fighting in remote regions of that country against very well-financed and well-armed drug traffickers. So the price Mexico has paid has been significant. I think when we get caught up in the rhetoric and in the language even of the certification process, where we say we have to have proof that they have fully cooperated, well fully can mean different things to different people. One of the issues here has to be clearly defined and attainable goals in the context of what we expect on this war on drugs, clearly defined objectives, even of what we expect of ourselves. We should not be on the floor taking this opportunity to again take it out on Mexico in terms of the frustration that we all feel about the impact of drugs in our communities. I think we can reach consensus on this floor on both sides of the aisle that all of us are opposed to narcotics, all of us are opposed to seeing what is going on, even in the neighborhoods around this great institution. I think we have to understand that from the perspective of the Mexican Government, from the perspective of the Mexican people, decertification, even decertification with a waiver, even with the amendment that we will be voting on and are considering this morning, in all probability, even with all of those things being fully understood by Mexico and Mexican citizens, it is still an affront to them, and an affront to the price they have paid in helping us to try to deal with what can best be termed, from my experience, as an issue of national security for this country. But we forget in the process that it is also a threat on the national stability and the national security of Mexico. I would urge my colleagues to step back and rethink their position on this. I thank the gentleman for the time.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time to speak on a very, very emotional issue, and a very important issue to us. I want to say to my colleagues in the House that I deeply appreciate the comments made this morning both by the Speaker and the Democratic leader in the context of the Hershey retreat that half of us attended over the weekend. I think it is important that we listen to what the Speaker said immediately preceding these arguments on the rule. I stand this morning against the rule because I think at times those of us that understand, those of us that have the experience of the impact of decisions made in Congress and how they impact border communities, not border countries, but border communities on both sides of the international boundary are often disregarded and not taken into account. We have heard this morning, and probably will hear some more, some rhetorical statements such as there is a war going on, that this issue is tough, but fair, that 75 percent of crime committed in this country is related to drugs, and that drug use is up 100 and something percent. We all know this; I know this. Yet, over the course of the last week or so, I have been talking to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to try to educate them about the implications of something we are about to do that is going to have long-term and profound impact on the relationship that this country has with our neighbor to the south, namely, Mexico. I think certification of Mexico is critical. I think it is critical not as an issue of checking off on a report card, but I think it is critical from the context of, we cannot expect cooperation, we cannot expect teamwork if we do not provide our fellow members of the team an opportunity to work with us. I can tell my colleagues from personal experience, experience predicated on 26\1/2\ years of working this Nation's border to enforce immigration and narcotic laws, that the issue is tough, the issue is serious. What we are about to do here in voting to decertify Mexico and voting on the alternative amendment is serious business. This morning we are being watched and monitored throughout Latin America. This morning we are being monitored because people south of our border know that we do not have our own house in order, yet we are taking a position that we are making an attempt to tell people that they have to have their house in order. I think it is critically important that we understand that a vote for this rule is a vote that ultimately will come back to haunt us in many different ways, including a profound way where our neighbor to the south may choose a path and a road that ultimately comes back to haunt not just us, not those of us in this Congress today, but ultimately future relationships with future generations of this country. I think we deserve better; I think our children deserve better. I think we need to step back and we need to have a cooling-off period. From that perspective, I appreciate having had an opportunity to be heard by the Speaker, by the leader, and by Members of both sides of the aisle in terms of what I offer in terms of my experience on that border. I would urge my colleagues to vote against this rule because it is the wrong thing to do at the wrong time and gives us the wrong kinds of consequences.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to urge my colleagues to support the President's decision to certify Mexico and vote against House Joint Resolution 58 to decertify Mexico. Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that I know something about. Before being elected to Congress, I spent more than 26 years as a member of the U.S. Border Patrol enforcing this Nation's interdiction laws. I have personally observed Mexico's commitment to stem the tide of drug trafficking and have witnessed its strong cross-border drug interdiction efforts. I have been on the front lines in the so-called war on drugs, and I am here today to tell my colleagues that this resolution to decertify Mexico may be only symbolic to us, but it has with it some serious implications and consequences to those of us that live along the border, and I do not mean just people that live exclusively in Mexico. We have developed a spirit of cooperation with Mexico in many areas: trade, environment, immigration, as well as drug interdiction. Our economies are interdependent along the border. In fact, more than 280 million people passed back and forth between Mexico and the United States during fiscal year 1996. A vote to decertify Mexico would greatly jeopardize the spirit of cooperation we have developed with Mexico. In addition, the threat of decertification causes the peso to plunge, as we saw late last month, which not only has an adverse effect on the Mexican economy, but can also increase the pressures on our border communities and has the potential to increase illegal immigration. Drug trafficking is not just a Mexican problem or issue. We on the northern side of the border must do more to stem the demand for illicit drugs. The good news is that the number of people using drugs last month declined. The bad news is an estimated 12.8 million Americans, or about 6 percent of the household population aged 12 and older, have used illicit drugs within the past 30 days. Illegal drugs are readily available almost anywhere in the United States. We have not done enough to deter drug use among our Nation's children and in our Nation's neighborhoods. Illegal drug trafficking is not just a Mexican problem, it is our problem, and we must do more to reduce drug use and not just point fingers at our neighbor to the south. Mexico has taken a number of steps in the last year to strengthen its efforts to fight the spread of illegal drugs, and they have done so by aggressively fighting corruption, they have done so by overhauling Federal agencies and recruiting qualified personnel. They have done so by strengthening counter-drug cooperation with the United States, and they have done so by improving their extradition policy. All of these things produce positive results in Mexico's fight on drugs. The Republic of Mexico has been certified since 1986, and, moreover, the historical relationship between Mexico and the United States has been one of increasing cooperation and furtherance of mutual interests. Over the past 10 years our southern neighbor has cooperated with our efforts to stem drug trafficking while at the same time dealing with severe economic, political, and serious trade developments. Mr. Speaker, if we want to address the basic problems surrounding the certification process, then let us do that. If we are serious about our efforts to combat drug abuse, then we need to do better on our side of the border. But this resolution does not resolve anything. It does not do anything to take drug dealers off the street, it does not do anything to help law enforcement agencies on our border, and it does not do anything to promote good will and understanding with our neighbors in Mexico. It only strains our relationship with our neighbor, and it is very counterproductive. When all is said and done, Mr. Speaker, more is said than actually done. I urge all of my colleagues to refrain from political posturing in the name of fighting drug trafficking and to oppose this resolution.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to join my colleagues in recognizing the many contributions that our esteemed colleague and my good friend Congressman Frank Tejeda, made to this great institution, our great Nation, and in particular the people of Texas and the 28th District. Much has already been said about Frank and his influence on the lives of those he touched, but I rise this afternoon as one more testimony of what will be his legacy, a legacy that will ensure that the memory of Frank Tejeda will live forever in the hearts of all of us. Frank was a man of extraordinary character and integrity. Frank understood what was required of public service. At a time when some Americans are wondering about and sometimes questioning those that seek and aspire to public service, we have been left with the legacy of a devoted father, a selfless public servant, and an honorable man to reassure us that America can and still provides us with those that seek no other measure than to serve with dignity and simply aspire to do what is right and just. Frank Tejeda was an example of what is right and noble. But more than that, Frank will forever live in the hearts of his people, in the hearts of all people, for he was a man of the people. In death, as in life, he stirred within his people a dignified and moving tribute for all of us to see last Monday as whole neighborhoods of San Antonio turned out to show respect and farewell. It was a sight that will never and must never be forgotten. It is the ultimate tribute that a grateful community gives a warrior statesman. It was fitting and proper and, to use Frank's own words, it was the right thing to do. Straightforward, honest, respectful, dutiful, and courageous, Congressman Frank Tejeda fue un hombre entre hombres, a man among men, and he will be missed but he will never be forgotten. God blessed us all with Frank and now it is up to us to keep his legacy alive and thriving within this great place, with great responsibilities to this great Nation. I thank the gentleman for this opportunity.