Ciro Rodriguez

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, let me urge colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this is embarrassing. We need to do the right thing. It is not going to be enough just to show the votes that are out there, we have to make it happen. I know I get sick and tired when I go back, because I know we are doing the wrong thing. Those veterans are still approaching me and asking me. I can tell them that we did the language, and the President is supposed to do this and that, but we need to make it happen now. I ask both Democrats and Republicans, let us vote on this. Let us make sure we do the right thing. I ask the conference committee that, after they look at this vote, that they go out there and stick to their guns and make it happen. The reality is that these veterans have fought; they have been there. It is the fair thing for us to do. They have been our heroes. If we can declare war, this is the time for us to stand up. This is the time to make it happen. I ask very seriously after this vote and after we make it happen, let the conference committee take a stand, and let us support them.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, today we are debating whether and under what considerations we will consider sending our young men and women into battle. That is an awesome responsibility, and I have given it much thought. I rise to offer my support of the Spratt substitute. It is a balanced, very careful approach to a serious problem. I stand before you as a father, as a husband, as an American, and as an elected representative of the people who live in the 20th Congressional District of Texas. Since the terrible attacks of September 11, we, as a Nation, have felt a new vulnerability; and we set out on a war against terrorism to safeguard our future. During this past year, I have listened to my constituents' concerns, sharing their fears and consoling those shaken by disruptions and the issue of security in our Nation. I offered my full support to the fight against terrorism, and I will continue to do so. We must not lose sense of the purpose, but we also must not lose our perspective. In recent months as the administration has begun to call for a war against Iraq, I have spoken with parents, brothers and sisters; and I have read heartfelt letters of young and old, and I have met with American men and women in uniform who proudly serve this Nation. As I visited churches and restaurants, shops and homes throughout the San Antonio, South Texas region, I have heard patriotic voices, yet voices filled with concern about the war we are today asked to authorize. As the administration has tried to make its case for the unilateral war against Iraq, I have had many questions. I am troubled because many of these questions remain unanswered, even as we debate whether or how to put American troops in harm's way. We have also heard mixed messages when we heard the Secretary call for a cut of 23,000 in the Army while at the same time we have heard our generals indicate that we need 40,000 in the Army, 20,000 in the Air Force and 8,000 Marines. Those mixed messages have not been helpful. But we also do not get the answers to our questions, questions such as, Who will pay for this war? We should have a tax bill on this House floor to pay for this war. What are our mission goals and our exit strategy? The other reality is that there has been no dialogue and no real thrust in that with terrorism, also, it is a fight of ideology and ideas. One thing we are clear about is we know that Saddam Hussein and the government he controls brutally, Iraq, are without question a danger not only to the United States but also to the world community. We know that Saddam Hussein has gone to great lengths to seek, develop, and then conceal weapons of mass destruction. I believe I join my colleagues here today in stating that we must end Saddam Hussein's quest for these terrible weapons. The issue before us is how we do so. It is crucial that we as representatives of the people translate the concerns about the execution of war against Iraq into a concrete plan to ensure the congressional representatives have a role in the decision to send our troops into harm's way. The administration seeks a blank check from the Congress to authorize the use of force broadly. But the administration's proposal does not encourage multilateral cooperation and also does not anticipate further congressional input. The approach offered by the Spratt substitute offers a better option. We are today the world's greatest superpower; our military might and economic power reach around the globe. Our democracy is an example to which other nations aspire. We are a diverse Nation united by our love of liberty, our thirst for freedom, and our belief in justice and the rule of law. That status as a world superpower brings with it great responsibilities. Yes, we have the power to go it alone, but I feel very strongly that the power to do exactly that would be the wrong thing to do. In the case of Iraq, I believe going it alone under the circumstances we now face is not the best approach. First, by working with the United Nations, we will act not only on our own behalf, but on behalf of the world community. Let me ask that you support the substitute, the Spratt substitute, because it is also the best military option, because that would allow us an opportunity to seek out those biological and chemical weapons before our soldiers go in. And if they have to go in, at least we will identify those areas where they might be able to be hiding, and there is no doubt that that would be the best way to go at it.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the contributions of ``Braceros,'' to the United States workforce. During World War II the United States suffered from a shortage of labor as young men from across the country were shipped overseas in the armed forces or took factory jobs to support the war effort. In order to compensate for the lack of workers, especially in physically demanding jobs such as agriculture and railroad construction, the United States made arrangements with Mexico, Canada, Jamaica, and Puerto Rico to welcome hundreds of thousands of guest workers a year to fill the labor gap--the birth of the Bracero. On August 4, 1942, the United States government signed the Mexican Farm Labor Program Agreement with Mexico, the first among several agreements aimed at legalizing and controlling Mexican migrant farm workers along the southern border of the United States. Managed by several government agencies, including the Department of Agriculture, as a temporary, war-related measure to supply much-needed workers during the early years of World War II, the Bracero program continued uninterrupted until 1964. The agreement guaranteed a minimum wage of thirty cents an hour and humane treatment (in the form of adequate shelter, food, sanitation, etc.) of Mexican farm workers in the United States. It has been estimated that in the 1950s the United States welcomed as many as 300,000 Mexican workers annually. By the end of the 1950s, Texas and other border states were receving large numbers of Braceros. Mexican agricultural workers, ofter considered an unlimited supply of cheap labor, have unfortunately often been the target of repressive work and living conditions and have been forced to seek assistance from a host of economic, political, social and humanitarian interests. Regrettably, poor wages, lack of educational opportunities for their children, malnutrition, poor sanitation, and discrimination have often colored these workers' exposure to the United States. These inexcusable conditions did not discourge or slow the flow of workers, but rather raised consciousness and unity amongst these exploited class of workers--leading to the creation of several mutual aid societies and the facility of labor organizing. Between 1942 and 1964 more than 4.5 million Braceros entered the United States. Most remained to contribute their labor to the domestic economy. September 29, 2002, marks the 60th anniversary of the first arrival of Bracero guest workers into the United States. Without the many and great contributions of Braceros, the foundation upon which our great country has been built would not exist. I congratulate the more than 1,000,000 Braceros and their families or descendants who still live in the United States for their relentless work ethic, pride, strength and endurance. I congratulate you today not only for the historic contributions you have made to our workforce, but also for your commitment to seek justice and equity in your homes and workplace. You have been relentless in your pursuit of enhanced opportunity for all workers and the improvement of opportunities available to you and your families through political and legal advocacy.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the contributions of Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI's). An HSI is defined as an institution that has at least 25 percent full time Hispanic enrollment, and of the Hispanic student enrollment, at least 50 percent are low income. There are over 200 HSI's in the United States, and eight in my 28th Congressional District in Texas. As a former educator, I understand the importance of a quality education-- both to the success of the individual student, and ultimately to the success of our country. It should be clear that in order for America to maintain and build upon our global competitiveness we must have a capable and technologically advanced workforce. Studies show that by the year 2008, 60 percent of all new jobs will require skills that are held by just 20 percent of the current workforce. To meet this goal, we must ensure quality instruction and resources at our institutions of higher learning, especially in the areas of science and mathematics. Even if students do not pursue a career in these fields, they still will need basic knowledge in science and technology to be successful in our competitive work force. As a country we cannot afford to have students complete high school and pursue a higher education scientifically and technologically illiterate. According to a study by the Department of Education the number of Hispanic Americans enrolled in college is growing twice as quickly as overall enrollment at all colleges. With the beginning of the 21st Century, a larger proportion of the U.S. population will be composed of African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans. As a group, these populations have traditionally been underrepresented in the science and engineering disciplines compared to their proportion of the total population. A recent report produced by the National Science Foundation (NSF) reveals that African Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans as a whole comprise 23 percent of the population and earn, as a whole, 14.7 percent of the bachelor degrees, 8.2 percent of the masters degrees, and 5.5 percent of the doctorate degrees in science and engineering. There are few within the scientific community who argue about the effect of demographics on the future science and engineering workforce. These fields have been the primary domain of white males. This can and must change. African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans, with Hispanics, being the fastest-growing, will comprise a more significant segment of the workforce and will need to fill more positions within the scientific community. Hispanics are improving their academic achievement levels. They have increased their share of earned bachelors degrees from 4 percent in 1990 to 6.5 percent in 1998. The proportion of masters degrees received by Hispanics increased from 2.2 percent in 1990 to 3.5 percent in 1998. In doctoral candidates our progress has slowed in 1990 at 2 percent in 1998 at 2.8 percent. We must continue to move forward and in order to succeed it will take a national commitment to education. The success illustrated by these increases reflect the hard work of HSI's and other institutions in recruiting, and retaining Hispanic students. Today I congratulate all HSI's, especially those in San Antonio: Our Lady of the Lake University Palo Alto College, San Antonio College, St. Mary's University, St. Phillips College, The University of Texas at San Antonio, The University of Texas Health Science Center, and The University of the Incarnate Word, for all their wonderful contributions. HSI's recognize how indispensable the contributions of Hispanics will be in the future, as they continue on their path of growth and dominance within our workforce. I commend HSI's for their many contributions to the academic excellence within the Hispanic community and society at large. Further, I encourage all the presidents, faculty and staff of our nation's HSI's to continue their efforts in recruiting, retaining and graduating students who might otherwise not purse a post-secondary education. Our country's future is in your hands.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, the events of September 11 highlight the danger in continuing to ignore our oil dependence on other countries, especially our dependence on Middle East oil. More than 51 percent of the oil we use is imported. Our Nation is in a very vulnerable position, at the mercy of unstable regimes in the Middle East and other volatile regions. Our dependence on oil has many negative ramifications including the threatening of our environment and our economy. Our oil dependency places a heavy burden on our environment. It contributes significantly to making the United States the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide, responsible for one-fourth of the world's total global warming pollution. Our high demand for oil also pressures us to drill in our remaining unspoiled wilderness such as Utah's Redrock canyon county and the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. Our land, water, wildlife and the livelihood of coastal communities are also threatened by oil spills, an inevitable consequence of oil transportation. Our oil dependency is also very costly to our economy. The United States spent $106 billion on imported crude oil and petroleum products in 2000. That is equivalent to almost one third of the total U.S. trade deficit. Over the past 30 years, Americans have transferred $1.16 trillion of their wealth to oil-producing countries. As we develop our energy policy, we must ensure that it is one that can both reduce oil use and its burden on our environment and economy. Shifting the drilling for oil from one country to another will not resolve our oil crisis. We need to reduce our oil dependence by utilizing innovative technologies that focus on reducing oil use such as gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles which get double the mileage of today's cars. We must also encourage smart growth in our cities instead of suburban sprawl so that communities are more liveable with less driving. The only effective way to reduce dependence on foreign oil, and at the same time protect our environment, is to reduce our oil demand. If we lower our oil consumption, more of America's wealth will stay in this country.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Dolores Huerta, the most prominent Chicana labor leader within the Latino community. Dolores Huerta is the co-founder and First Vice President Emeritus of the United Farm Workers Union of America (UFW), AFL–CIO. For decades she has dedicated her life to the struggle for justice and dignity for migrant farm workers. Honored with countless awards for her tireless commitment, she is a role model for the entire Hispanic community. In the mid 1950's Dolores Huerta began her work empowering workers by joining the Community Service Organization (CSO), a Mexican American self help association founded in Los Angeles. Dolores understood early on that empowerment was the key to leveraging power within the Latino community. She registered voters, organized citizenship classes for immigrants, and pressed local governments for improvements in the poorest of barrio communities. Given her passion and determination the CSO sent her to lobby on behalf of these under served communities in Sacramento. It was in this capacity that Dolores began her historic work serving the needs of migrant workers. Life for migrant farm workers is incredible harsh. They endure painful work conditions during the day—with the hot sun beating down on them as they spend long hours bent over picking strawberries, grapes, lettuce and other crops. The conditions did not improve in the evenings—they retired to run down shacks, if they were fortunate enough to have a home. Often their cars or the floor were their only retreat. The workers were paid nominal wages, $.10 to $.20 a basket, and often were subject to further deductions in pay for water they consumed in the hot sun. The majority of these workers were Mexican immigrants or Mexican Americans who were monolingual Spanish speakers and had no voice. Dolores would soon lend her voice, in fact shouts, for justice to their cause. She joined the Agricultural Workers Association (AWA), a community interest group in northern California. Through her work with the AWA she met Cesar Chavez, at that time the director of the CSO in California and Arizona, soon to become her colleague in the organization which would improve the quality to life for migrant workers across the country the United Farm Workers Union (UFW). The UFW was founded in 1972 with a commitment to justice, heard through the shouts of “si se puede” or felt through the pounding rattle of their traditional unity claps, has won many significant struggles for Latino workers. As a co-founder and second in command to Chavez, Dolores helped shape and guide the union and contributed to their significant successes. Her style has always been forceful and uncompromising, yet she has been able to build successful coalitions of feminists, community workers, religious groups, Latino associations, student organizations, peace activists and countless others. Many of Dolores activities on behalf of the UFW have placed her in personal danger. She has been arrested more than 22 times for non-violent peaceful protest and in 1988 during a demonstration in San Francisco, she was severely injured by baton swinging police officers. She suffered two broken ribs and a ruptured spleen. However, this painful and life threatening experience did not stop her resolve. After recovering from her life-threatening injuries, Dolores resumed her work on behalf of farm workers in the 1990's and today at 72 years of age she continues to make appearances, lobby, and advocate on behalf of Latino workers. She has truly devoted her life to ensure that workers in this country are treated with dignity and justice.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 100th anniversary of the 4-H Youth Development Program. Mr. Speaker, over the past 100 years, the 4-H Youth Development Program has helped our Nation's young people become more involved in leadership, citizenship, and community service. The program has also provided youth with valuable life-skills and a safe, educational after school environment. 4-H program in my home state of Texas began in 1908 with a small ``corn club'' of 25 young boys. Under the Texas Cooperative Extension Service, the Program has grown into a modern youth organization with over 80 project areas. These projects areas include not only agriculture, but also non-agricultural interests such as photography, music, sports, consumer studies, science, and safety. In and around the district I am privileged to represent, the 28th District of Texas, more than 72,000 young people are enrolled in 12 county 4-H programs. In addition, 4-H youth from the entire state of Texas come to the City of San Antonio, in my district, each February to compete at the San Antonio Livestock Show and Rodeo. In addition to its 100th birthday, the 4-H Youth Development Program will celebrate National 4-H Week October 6-12, 2002. National 4-H Week is a week of community service, 4-H promotion, and celebration that has been held annually since 1942. Mr. Speaker, I commend the 4-H Youth Development Program for its dedication to developing and educating our nation's young people, and I congratulate the organization on its 100th anniversary.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 523, a resolution that recognizes the many contributions of historically Black colleges and universities to American society. The 105 historically Black colleges and universities throughout the United States provide a diverse community of students with a high caliber and quality education, a necessary tool in our competitive workforce. Not only do these campuses foster a strong history of educational achievement, they also provide students with exposure to a rich heritage and significant historical perspective. It is imperative that all students feel that they have access to institutions with allow them to attain their full potential through the pursuit of higher education. Historically Black colleges and universities have demonstrated success throughout their 100 years of educating our youth, proving that they are worthy of our national recognition and praise. Historically Black colleges and universities have provided many economically and educationally disadvantaged students with critical educational training and guidance--necessary components to building bridges to opportunity and access. The inroads made by these institutions are empowering communities which have historically been forgotten or dismissed. We are fortunate in the 28th Congressional District of Texas to have an outstanding institution which exemplifies the rich tradition of historically Black colleges and universities. St. Philip's College was founded in 1898 by Bishop James Steptoe Johnston of St. Philip's Episcopal Church of the West Texas Diocese. The school, which opened on March 1, 1898, began as a sewing class for girls with fewer than 20 students in a house located in the historic La Villita area in downtown San Antonio. Today, St. Philip's College has been a vibrant multi- campus institution of the Alamo Community College District, joining three other colleges--San Antonio College, Palo Alto College and Northwest Vista College--in meeting the educational needs of San Antonio's growing and diverse community. A Historically Black College and a Hispanic Serving Institution with a semester enrollment of more than 8,000, St. Philip's is among the oldest and most diverse community colleges in the nation and one of the fastest growing in Texas. I urge the presidents, faculty, and staff at historically Black colleges and universities around the country to continue their impressive work, providing a caring, nurturing, and respectful environment in which all may learn. We must all be dedicated to the education of all of our youth, and in particular those whose families have historically been shut out of educational opportunity, for leadership and service to our Nation and global community.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the amended version of H.R. 3253, the Emergency Preparedness Act. As an original co-sponsor of H.r. 3253, I recognize the significant role the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) can play in our quest as a nation to restore a sense of security following the horrific events of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent anthrax attacks. This measure would authorize the VA to become a full partner in our defense efforts through the establishment of four ``Medical Emergency Preparedness Centers'' at VA hospitals throughout the nation. These centers would be charged with conducting medical research, and developing health care responses for chemical, biological, radiological, incendiary and explosive threats to the public. The centers would also provide education, training, and advice to VA and outside doctors, and other health care professionals on how to diagnose and treat illnesses caused by exposure to chemical, biological and radioactive materials. Especially important is the role the proposed centers would play in providing rapid response assistance and other aid to local health care authorities in the event of a national emergency. This legislation recognizes the critical role the VA can play in our homeland security efforts. The VA operates the nation's largest integrated health care network with over 20,000 health care professionals, 163 medical centers, 800 outpatient clinics, 115 medical research centers, and has affiliations with more than 100 medical schools. Several VA facilities have already initiated efforts to serve our country in this effort. For example, the Audie Murphy Memorial Hospital in San Antonio, has developed relationships and shared teaching and research arrangements with various medical school sin Texas and the county hospital system. Audie Murphy also works closely with several military medical missions with expertise in chemical, biological and radiological hazards. The collaborative efforts of veterans health care providers, like Audie Murphy Hospital, not only help veterans, but our nation as a whole. Further, it puts the VA in a critical position to attract high level scientists in fields relevant to bio-chemical and radiological threats. I believe that through the development of National Emergency Preparedness Centers, the VA can become an important partner in our nation's homeland defense efforts.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I expected that the United States would have taken a leadership role in the recent international summit on sustainable development. Instead, I am disappointed to report that this Administration has taken a back seat in international discussions on global warming and increasing the use of renewable energy.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to Lieutenant General Paul K. Carlton, Jr., Surgeon General of the Air Force, on the occasion of his retirement. On December 1, 2002, General Carlton will end 37 years of extraordinary military service. A distinguished graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1969, General Carlton completed medical school at the University of Colorado and launched a spectacular career as an Air Force surgeon. I have personally come to know General Carlton since he was commander of Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas. Then, as now, Wilford Hall Medical Center is a major presence in our community. Under his leadership and support, the 311th Medical Systems Wing at Brooks AFB has become a worldwide leader in research, development and training for bioterrorism surveillance, detection, and response. The Air Force medical professionals in San Antonio have been active leaders in that city's remarkable successes in developing a disaster response plan. Over the last 2 years as Surgeon General, General Carlton has revolutionized the Air Force Medical Service's readiness mission to fully reflect the Air Force doctrine of shape, respond, and prepare. This has not been an easy undertaking--as with any change, it means upsetting the status quo. General Carlton's leadership and perseverance has prevailed, giving the United States Air Force, and this country, a medical response second to none. The light, lean, mobile medical capability that General Carlton championed has literally brought state- of-the-art medical care to our forward-deployed troops. This approach to responsive medical capability has much to offer our nation as we address homeland security issues. We are privileged in this country to have patriots like General Carlton who devote their lives to the defense and betterment of this country. On behalf of the state of Texas and this nation, I extend to General Carlton our gratitude and sincerest best wishes.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of workers' rights. As we meet today to engage in the important work of enacting legislation which would guide the creation of the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS), H.R. 5005, it is disconcerting that we are also put in a position to introduce an amendment to protect the rights of workers who will engage in the important work of protecting our country from terrorists attacks. The Waxman-Frost amendment will ensure that workers are provided full civil service protections as they engage in the important work of securing our homeland. As we move to reorganize and consolidate our efforts to ensure a strong and efficient DHS it is imperative that we not place in jeopardy the rights of its workers. H.R. 5005, as amended within the Select Committee on Homeland Security, would allow the DHS Secretary to have complete control over pay and classification systems, including whether or not to provide DHS workers with an annual Congressionally-passed pay raise, whether to remove workers from the locality pay system established in 1990, and how to establish the initial pay rate for a particular occupation. Essentially, we would be asking federal workers, already involuntarily transferred to a new agency, to be completely left at the mercy of an agency head who would not be bound by the pay system under which the employees had previously worked. This places in danger DHS's ability to retain its workforce and to provide for the adequate worker protections available to all civil service employees. This is wrong and dangerous especially given the great need for DHS to be successful. If in the purpose of DHS is to ensure the physical security of America, then included in its charge should also be the economic security of its workforce. Stripping the workforce of their civil service protections, would put in danger the success of this department and ultimately the security of our country.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman: the debate today should be on improving our homeland defense. We should be focused on finding ways to encourage the responsible development, testing and deployment of new technologies and products that will enhance the protection of the American people. Mr. Chairman, we hear so much about responsibility in this House. Yet when it comes to corporate responsibility, the Majority seems to run and hide. The bill crafted by the House majority, and the amendment offered by the Majority Leader, represent a wholesale attack on our longstanding system of justice. They rob the American people of their ability to receive compensation for irresponsible or even grossly negligent conduct. In the name of homeland defense, they conduct a brash assault on our ability to hold corporate wrongdoers accountable for their misconduct or simply their failure to make a product that works. That's right. The product could fail completely, but the manufacturer would have no liability. The product could backfire, misfire, or not fire at all, yet the company that made it could simply walk away with not even a slap on the wrist. It is an outrage. It undermines our security. One of the foundations of our democracy is the system of checks and balances. Within the world of product development and the provision of services, our legal system is the check on substandard conduct. Without that check, without the threat of being held accountable, we will seen an increase in poor product design and faulty service delivery. It is simply human nature. Corporations won't need to worry about making sure their products are safe and effective. They won't have to worry about the potential harm they cause. They won't have incentives to improve their safety. They will simply have blanket immunity. Forever. Those injured in the process--whether it's our soldiers, police officers, firefighters, homeland defense volunteers, or victims of product failure--will be left out in the cold. With no legal recourse, they and their families will suffer, they will not receive the care they need, they will receive no compensation for the harm caused to them. This is nothing short of the legalization of corporate irresponsibility.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I fully support the amendment offered by the Gentleman from Texas [Mr. Turner]. This amendment balances the need to encourage responsible development of new homeland defense technologies and products with the need to maintain a system that holds wrongdoers responsible for their misconduct. His amendment would allow under appropriate circumstances the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide indemnification to the manufacturers of anti-terrorism products, much like the Secretary of Defense today can provide indemnification to companies making products critical to our national defense. Under this approach, any victims of product failure would still be able to receive full compensation. They would not be left to suffer alone. Companies do not get a free ride: they must take out the maximum level of insurance possible, and they can get the indemnity coverage only after they convince the Department of Homeland Security and the White House's Office of Management and Budget that they qualify for indemnification. At the same time, the many companies which make the products and develop the technologies we need also won't be asked to take inordinate risks. The Turner Amendment would provide them the incentives to invest aggressively in homeland defense technologies without upsetting the entire system of checks and balances within our civil justice system. Just earlier this week, we celebrated the passage of legislation to hold corporate executives accountable for misconduct. Shockingly, the majority now tries to exempt those same companies from any responsibility for the products they make.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to offer my full support for passage of HR 2990, the Lower Rio Grande Valley Water Resources Conservation and Improvement Act of 2001. This bill would authorize additional projects critical to the improvement of water quality and infrastructures in South Texas while encouraging the federal government to focus more resources on the border region. South Texas faces a grave water crisis. Even as counties to the north suffer from flooding that has caused millions of dollars in damage to businesses and homes, the border region suffers from a terrible lack of water. It is evident that we need to take a long, hard look at our water management practices and find new ways to improve our water resources. In the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas, communities continue to battle with an eight-year drought. The land is parched. The crops have died. The Rio Grande River has literally stopped flowing into the Gulf of Mexico. How can I express the seriousness of the situation to my colleagues? The lack of water in South Texas has all but destroyed the way of life for the farmers and ranchers of the region. During this same time period, Mexico has accumulated a substantial water deficit. Under terms of the 1944 U.S.-Mexico Water Treaty, Mexico now owes us close to 1.7 million acre-feet of water. This is water that could have provided enormous relief to South Texas. Farmers and water district managers had held out hope that Mexico would release a portion of water owed so they could make it through the summer. We were recently informed that the Administration had struck a deal with Mexico for the release of a mere 90,000 acre-feet. As South Texans have said, this is too little water, too late. To add insult to injury, the agreement gives Mexico access to substantial loans without requiring a firm payment schedule for water still owed. While we need substantial investment on both sides of the border to improve our water resources, we need Mexico to meet its treaty obligations to offer immediate relief to the parched lands of the Texas Valley. We have a real opportunity to provide some needed relief today. HR 2990 will direct badly needed resources to South Texas to improve water quality and infrastructure. I ask for my colleagues support of this important bill. Mr. Ortiz. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, let me start and indicate how important it is for us to not forget our seniors when it comes to prescription drug coverage. Our seniors right now represent 34 percent of the prescriptions that are dished out every single year. Out of every dollar, 42 cents represents the amount of money that they dish out. Forty-two percent. Despite that, it is expected that sales and benefits of pharmaceutical companies will be over 18 percent. So at the expense of our seniors, the pharmaceutical companies continue to make these huge profits. It is up to us to make sure we do what we can to make sure that we allow that opportunity for our seniors to have accessibility and be able to have affordable coverage when it comes to prescription drug coverage. We know that those same pharmaceutical companies sell those prescriptions elsewhere, throughout the world and throughout Europe, at lower prices. These are the same products that are sold to our seniors here at higher prices. So it is up to us to push forward a prescription drug coverage and allow Medicare to cover the prescriptions.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Madam Speaker, today I rise once again to ask for us to look at the prescription drug plan that would provide our seniors with immediate relief. As prices continue to soar out of control, our seniors struggle on fixed incomes. They struggle to pay for their blood pressure prescriptions, they struggle to pay for their anti- inflammatory medication that costs over $1,800 a year. Our seniors deserve better. They deserve to live their lives in dignity and without anxiety over whether they can eat or pay for their medication, or whether they can turn their heaters on or their air conditioners on. It is with great frustration that I continue to ask the Republicans to do the right thing, but they continue to push a limited plan that will not work. It will leave too many seniors behind. Madam Speaker, it is time for us to bring a real prescription drug plan to the floor, one that is voluntary, one that is universal, one where every senior would have access, no matter where they live or what they do. Let us do the right thing and respond to our seniors.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, we heard from the gentleman from Florida a lot of talk about democracy. Today we stand here talking about democracy, and yet we are going to be adding $750 billion to our citizens' credit cards, increasing their credit card debt. And at the same time we fight this war, this war is being paid for by our seniors, the ones that are least capable of doing that, from our Social Security and Medicare fund. Every single war that we have had, we have had a tax, all the way from the Spanish-American War. And in fact we still have it to this day. Every single war, we have been there and we have been willing to pay that tax to pay for that war. This is the first war that I know of that we have rewarded the corporations by giving them a tax cut to the most wealthy, and we put it on the backs of the ones who least are able to pay. In addition, not only are we doing that, but we put it on the backs of our soldiers that are out there fighting the war. We expect them also to pay the debt later on after we are gone. The amendment before us, authored by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and we all know him to be the ranking minority member on the Committee on Armed Services, is an amendment that I would ask for my colleagues to look at seriously. It is an amendment that talks about the fact that for the longest time in South America we talked and they learned the lingo. In South America, they learned, well, if we talk about Communists down here, we might get some money from the Americans; if we talk about drug dealers, we might get some money from the Americans. And now the lingo is, let us identify them as terrorists, and we might get some money from the Americans. The reality is that in Colombia the commitment on their part when we look in terms of their expenditures for the military and our expenditures, we are basically funding their war. I know later on we will hear from the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) about the haves and a large number of have-nots. So we have a struggle for the last 35 years, a genuine struggle for democracy in that effort; and we have a struggle that we are now deciding to get involved in. I sit on the Committee on Armed Services; and when they first came to us, I will be honest, I voted for the amendment to go and get involved in Colombia. One of the first questions I asked, because we asked the military for a military response, and that is what we got, we got a military response, and I asked them, how are you going to make a distinction between who the dealers are, who are the good guys and who are the bad guys? Initially, they could not respond. They said they were going to go after the drug dealers. We recognize that there are both drug dealers on the right, on the left, on the genuine side and even on the government side. They are all over. The key is, who do we go after? The gentleman from Florida talks about the fact that it is a democracy. Yes, it is a democracy, and we need to push it forward. And we can do some things to help them to move forward, but this is not the way to do it. When they came before us, I also asked them, in dealing with drugs, how do you expect to be able to contain it to just Colombia? We talked about it, and there was analogy made that if we put the squeeze on Colombia, we knew darn well that, like a balloon, when you squeeze the balloon, and if there are drug dealers there, they are going to move elsewhere. And sure enough, now they have come to us and they have said, you know what, this thing has gone into the other surrounding countries. So now we are funding about seven other countries around there because there are also drugs occurring there. That is exactly what we did not want to occur, but we have that happening now. We put the squeeze on them and they are gone. The reality is in dealing with drugs in this country, and we have to face it, and we know it full well, that we have been unwilling to deal with it here in this country. I worked as a drug counselor, as a social worker for 7 years, with both heroin addicts and adolescent substance abuse. And in the 1970s and 1980s, I recall the district attorneys every election time they would come up and pick up a lot of the heroin addicts. Very few times did they ever pick up the ones who were actually pushing to make the money. Most of those people, as we well know, some are pillars of our community that we have chosen not to go after. We have chosen our scapegoats. It is better to go spend our resources in South America and elsewhere, because we have chosen not to go after those pillars of our communities after those drugs. And until we decide to do that, and until we decide that is the way we will be able to fight this, this is only going to escalate and go further.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, the events of September 11th and the subsequent anthrax attacks have forced us as a country to reevaluate our ability to respond to chemical, biological, and radiological contingencies. As a member of the House Veterans Affairs Committee (HVAC) Subcommittee on Health, I participated in a hearing to assess the readiness of the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) to be a third line responder in the event of a threat of this sort. The news was not good. This is why I am an original co-sponsor of HR 3253, the Emergency Preparedness Research, Education, and Bio-Terrorism Prevention Act of 2002. Through the establishment of National Medical Emergency Preparedness Centers, we would enhance the work that the DVA is already engaged in, and strengthen our national homeland defense efforts. In recognizing that the DVA is the nation's largest health care system and engages in some of the most promising research, and provides first-rate medical training and education should signal to us all that herein lies an opportunity. Considering all that the DVA already does successfully, I see no reason why they cannot be positioned as a first responder in the event of a biological or chemical attack. With the proper allocation of resources and support, those provided by the passage of HR 3253, many DVA medical centers will be well positioned to provide our country with the necessary support in these crisis situations. In my district, the 28th Congressional District of Texas, the South Texas Veterans Health Care System, Audie L. Murphy Division, already engages in shared teaching and research arrangements with medical schools and has been able to attract several high-level scientists in fields relevant to bio-chemical and radiological threats. This facility is among the top ten research and development facilities within the DVA and is a tribute to the rewards of collaborative research efforts like those suggested by this legislation. I am excited about the prospect of National Emergency Preparedness Centers, which would not only engage in research to develop methods of detection, inoculation, and treatment, but also coordinate research with universities and federal agencies in the dissemination of the latest information to healthcare workers at public and private hospitals across the country. Through the passage and enactment of this measure the DVA will become a key partner in our nation's homeland defense efforts.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, it is shameful that our seniors are still without a workable prescription drug benefit program. Because of the rapid increase in the price of prescription drugs, and the costs related to medical care, the price of medicine is now out of reach of millions of seniors. Tragically, many of our seniors are now faced with a choice between food and prescription drugs. I go home, and every weekend people continue to reach out and tell me they have a problem with buying their prescriptions. I had a lady come to me and say I have to buy the prescription for my husband, and I choose not to buy for myself. We continue to hear that day in and day out. It is shameful that we have not taken a position on this. As Democrats, we support a prescription drug benefit plan that covers all seniors that is voluntary and universal. No senior would be faced with a prospect of not being able to afford medicine regardless of income. We understand back in the 1960s when we established Medicare that if Lyndon B. Johnson had known that prescriptions were needed at that time, and now we know that they are needed for care, they would have been included in the Medicare process. We also know that the insurance companies, even back then, the reason why we have Medicare is because the insurance companies, as soon as the elderly were getting sick, they were being dumped. As soon as they were not making a profit on the senior citizens, they were being let go. We know now that the proposal that the Republicans have, and that is to try to provide an additional insurance to our seniors who have a fixed income who cannot afford additional insurance, who the insurance companies do not want because if they get sick, they are going to be dumped again, very similar to what the HMOs are doing now in those situations where they are not making a profit. We looked at Medicare, and we know that we tried to bring down the cost and we established HMOs so that we would bring down the cost, but we know now that the HMO has actually cost us more than Medicare services. We need to stop playing around and respond to this serious issue before us, and that is meeting the needs of our seniors and the prescription drugs that they need. We also recognize that those same prescriptions, and this is a crime, those same prescriptions are sold outside this country for cheaper prices, and our seniors who can least pay for them are the ones that are having to carry the burden. This is where the profits are being made from the pharmaceutical companies. It should be a crime for this to be occurring. Mr. Speaker, we need to pass a meaningful prescription drug plan that uses Medicare to make drugs affordable and provide universal voluntary benefits for all seniors. Congress can vote to bail out Enron, and they can also vote to help the most wealthy of this country by providing them tax cuts, but we do not take care of our elderly, and that is shameful. While the Republican proposals claim to help seniors, it does not cover all seniors, and it provides no real guarantees for coverage. The much more narrowly constructed House Republican plan would not reach many middle class Americans. Less than 6 percent would be covered. The reality is when you get sick and are in need, those private companies are not going to be there for us. They are not going to be there for our seniors. We need to make sure that Medicare provides this service. We need to make sure that we treat our seniors in an appropriate manner when they reach their twilight years. Also, the Republican plan forces seniors to shop and buy a private insurance plan, making it a hassle for older Americans who will have to contend with insurance plans which come and go. As I have indicated, even the insurance companies are going to be trying to get those more healthy seniors out there so they can make a profit. We know most of our seniors, when they get ill, are going to need not 1, not 2, but some cases up to 8 to 10 prescriptions. Insurance companies are not going to want to cover those. The administration knows that, and we need to recognize that and be able to do the right thing when it comes to our seniors and treat them in a manner of dignity as we should. In addition, the Republican plan does not address the rising cost of prescription drugs. We have talked about those costs. The pharmaceutical companies, it angers me because we know they are selling that same prescription in Canada and Europe for much less than what it is sold for to our seniors here. We ask and plead that we pass a prescription drug plan that benefits all.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, today it is my privilege to recognize SBC Communications for receiving the Ron Brown Award for Corporate Leadership. This award highlights SBC Communications' commitment to South Texas and many other communities it serves. It is a tribute to SBC's desire to expand small business and volunteer opportunities in America. Few companies have matched SBC's efforts to foster economic development in the communities it serves. By creating and maintaining relationships with diverse companies, the Supplier Diversity Program, an initiative developed to ensure minority-owned companies are an integral part of SBC's supply chain, has been extremely successful in integrating local minority entrepreneurs into its economic development strategy. In 2001, SBC spent $2.8 billion, or 23.5 percent of all procurement, the companies highest level of diversity spending ever, with companies owned by minorities, women, and disabled veterans. SBC continues to be a model of corporate responsibility. SBC has not only been recognized by Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans with this Presidential award, but it has also been recognized by the Women's Business Enterprise Council, the National Minority Business Council, Working Woman magazine, Fortune magazine, and the National Minority Supplier Development Council, NMSDC, for its tireless efforts to provide opportunities for minorities. The company has set the standard for minority involvement and has never shied away from its responsibility to facilitate community involvement and service. As evidence of this commitment, SBC spends more than $1 billion annually with diverse businesses and was one of 10 companies inducted into the Billion Dollar Roundtable, an initiative of the publishers of Minority Business News U.S.A. and Women's Enterprise Magazine to recognize corporations that make investments in minority owned enterprises a priority. In addition, SBC challenged its fellow telecommunications companies to improve their supplier diversity and, because of that challenge, 70 telecommunications companies have pledged to do so. We should all commend SBC for its 30 years of dedication to creating opportunities for minority business owners. I am proud that SBC calls San Antonio home. The city is a better place because of SBC's efforts, and our communities across America are stronger because of its service. I wish SBC Communications the best in its future endeavors and urge it to continue to reach out to minority communities.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the House Committee on Armed Services, I oppose the amendment that has been raised. Let me first of all say that this amendment is a very serious amendment because of the fact that the President right now has the right to call for troops if he wants them. He has the right to call them. What this amendment allows is the opportunity for the Department of Defense or the Secretary of Defense with a request of the Secretary, Attorney General and Secretary of Treasury to be able to have that influence and be able to move on that as consented by the President. We ought to leave this responsibility to the Commander in Chief and to the President and to do this is a major constitutional change. In addition, the increase of U.S. troops on the border with Mexico is a dangerous proposal that will leave border residents in danger and reduce military readiness. Our military is the world's best trained fighting force. They are not police officers and they are not border patrol agents. They are trained to fight. And we put our own citizens at risk. As we know, we have had cases in the past, 4 years ago, when we had the young man killed on the border at Redford, Texas, 18 years old. He was a high school student killed by Marines, so that has already occurred. At the present time I also want to share with you that for the very first time in recorded history we have over 79,000 both guardsmen and reservists doing full time. At a time when the Army has asked for over 40,000 troops, this bill that we are dealing with today will call for 2,500 additional Army people. But we need over 40,000 of them. So it is a serious situation. When we ask them to do additional work such as this, it is unfair to our fighting men and women and it harms our national security. The military can provide assistance in numerous ways without this unwarranted diversion of troops. All of our budgets are tight. Putting troops on the border is extremely costly. It is bad to use scarce resources that drain our defense budget and put our readiness at risk. So I ask we vote no on this amendment.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, it is shameful that our citizens are still without workable prescription drug coverage. Because of the rapid increase of prescription drug use, as we know, it is critical and needed; and at the time we established Medicare, prescriptions were not used as much, but now we understand that those senior citizens do need prescription drugs to be able to take care of their illnesses. We need to be there for them to make sure that we will get that prescription. It is unfortunate, but I keep hearing stories about our senior citizens that continue to make decisions between buying food and buying prescription that they need. I hear from the spouses where they sometimes go without prescriptions to get their husbands their prescriptions. We as a community and as Americans need to make sure that our seniors have accessible prescription drug coverage. And as Democrats we support a prescription drug benefit coverage for all seniors that would be voluntary and be able to have access to them. No seniors should be faced with the prospects of not being able to afford medicine, regardless of income. We need to be there for our seniors. They have been there for us.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Dooley motion. Let me just say that I rise in support of what is best for America. As Americans, we have been negligent. We have allowed for this policy to be hijacked. It is now up to us to really look in terms of what is happening and begin to do the right thing. Nothing brought this to light any better than the situation with Elian, the young man who, when we saw that situation, it brought to light the fact that we need to begin to do the right thing. The right thing is to begin to trade. When we look at American support as indicated earlier, there is support there for the sale of food and medicine to Cuba. An October 2000 public opinion poll found that over 85 percent of Americans support that. And so it is about time that we begin to do the right thing. The majority of the Members of this Congress have repeatedly voted in favor of that measure. But it continues to be hijacked. A majority of both the House and the Senate agriculture committees support unrestricted food and medicine sales to Cuba. The embargo prevents U.S. businesses from doing good business, and it does not make any sense. When we look at it and say we expect them to have an electoral process and vote, I believe that strongly. But if you hold that to every single country that has a dictator or has other forms of government that do not elect their officials, we would not be having too much trade throughout this world, and it does not make any sense. The other most important thing we need to remember is that when it comes to our national security, I have always said we should act unilaterally and act as quickly as possible. But when it is not in our interests in terms of national security, and I sit on the Committee on Armed Services, and I have never been given information in terms of the threats that are out there. Our major threats come from other countries. So when we look at that, we ought to act in a multilateral perspective and reach out to Latin America. All of Latin America has always questioned why do we have this policy that is irrational and blinded.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the motion to instruct conferees of the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) to include Senate provisions on restoring the food stamp benefits for legal immigrants. Food stamps are a critical part of the safety net, and they are woven into helping individuals and families in time of need. This should hold true for immigrants who are legal immigrants and play by the rules and pay taxes. We are not asking for special treatment, we are asking that they be treated the same. To do otherwise would be discriminatory. We are simply asking that legal immigrants, and we are not talking about illegals, we are talking about legal immigrants, be treated in a fair manner. Despite the calls by President Bush to provide legal, permanent residents access to Federal nutrition programs, House Republicans, conferees on the farm bill, have refused to budge. I cannot understand the lingering biases against these immigrants. The President would allow legal permanent residents who have been in this country for 5 years to be able to get access. Why would not the conferees do that? We are talking about individuals that might be disabled, we are talking about people that might have lost their jobs, we are talking about possible children that are in need. In too many cases, immigrant children suffer from hunger right here in our own back yards. Their parents work hard, they pay their taxes, and they play by the rules, but they are in need and require assistance. Nutrition is just the first step to a host of health and social problems. Let us not play any more games with immigrant children. Let us treat them as we would treat anyone else. When we ask them to join us and fight in our wars, in fact, I want to share with the Members that we have over 62,000 immigrants serving in our military right now. Twenty percent of the Medal of Honor recipients are immigrants. In addition to that, of those, 19,928 are permanent residents that are still not citizens but serving our country. By the way, as we do not pay them enough, a lot of those military people qualify for food stamps, but not these particular ones.