Ciro Rodriguez

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the resolution that is before us. The problems do exist in Tijuana but they also exist along the entire length of the U.S.-Mexican border, including my south Texas district. I represent probably the next largest sector next to one additional Congressman in Texas. I want my colleagues to know that I have problems also with potable water. I have problems with sewage. I have problems with Third World conditions and I am not talking about Mexico; I am talking about the United States. We also have an obligation to make sure that our cities have appropriate sewage plants, and we do not. We are having a serious problem. I recognize that the efforts that are being made, and hopefully this will be an opportunity to bring to light what occurs in the area. But if anyone has received most of the NAD Bank money it has been Tijuana and not south Texas where we are suffering also for some of those same conditions. At this time is not the time to start pointing fingers at Mexico. We need to look at ourselves and what we are also doing to the river, what we are also doing to the environment, and in the way we are also allowing Maquilladoras to go across the border and create part that have pollution. This resolution is a heavy-handed, counterproductive approach that could set back existing cooperations with Mexico to deal with serious environmental issues along the entire border. I would attest to my colleagues that Mexico is making a sincere effort at moving in some of those areas, just like we are trying to do. I am frustrated because I recognize that my communities do not have the resources. I need 30 million in 1 little community, and I am talking again about the U.S. I am not talking about Mexico that requires some money for potable water. So, as I indicated to my colleagues, I do represent constituents on the U.S.-Mexico in south Texas who are facing pressing environmental problems on both sides of the border. Through the International Boundary Water Commission, the Border Environmental Cooperation Commission, and the NAD Bank, we are working to solve some of these problems. I know it is going to take a long time. I am hoping that the U.S. provides assistance to those Third World conditions that exist in the United States, and that we should take the initiative, and we should set the example, also, before we start to throwing stones across the river. The Board of environmental Cooperation Commission has approved 24 environmental projects on both sides of the border with 14 in construction phase and eight pending construction. For every dollar we appropriate to the Board of Environmental Cooperation Commission, Mexico has been matching that. Do we want to jeopardize that ongoing projects? I do not think so. Sure, three or more problems are delayed with these projects, but the bottom line is this particular resolution will not solve those existing problems that we have there, and we need to begin to work cooperatively as we move forward. I want to also emphasize that the U.S. Department of State has indicated that they oppose this effort and that this is not the way of going about making things happen. I would ask that, as we move forward, that we look at that infrastructure that needs to be developed. I would also attest to my colleagues that we have got to be careful when we do that. We are right now at the verge of putting a waste site which is nuclear and right on the Sierra Blanca, right on the border. That has direct impact. Mexico has protested the fact because it violates certain other treaties. When my colleagues talk about the language on their particular, it does talk about treaties. What are we talking about? Look at all the treaties that we have had with Mexico ever since. Are we going to go back to the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. I think we need to be realistic about some of these items. I think we need to really look at the problems. But it does give us an opportunity to hold our own government accountable for Third World conditions that exist in the border. I am hoping that, if nothing else, this issue allows us an opportunity to look at that. But I would also ask my colleagues to vote against this effort. I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Luther) for allowing me this opportunity to say a few words. I ask my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, this particular bill is an attack on our educational system in the country. At a time when we should be concentrating on making sure that we take care of our youngsters, at the present time this particular bill will cut $160 million from the administration's proposal on Head Start, at a time when we need those resources to assure that those youngsters have that Head Start in order to be able to start at school. This particular piece of legislation cuts the funding for bilingual education by $25 million. This is not the time to be doing this kind of activity, and we should be moving forward. This particular piece of legislation also denies $237 million sought by the administration for three higher education initiatives, including the High Hopes initiatives that would have provided new funds for mentoring, tutoring, college and various other programs. One of the other things that this particular bill does is hit at the most important aspect in education, that is, after-school learning programs. It cuts $140 million below the administration's request in denying over 3,000 communities the opportunity to be able to provide after-school programs. Again, Mr. Speaker, I ask that we look seriously and we reconsider what we are doing with this particular piece of legislation. I would ask that we vote against this particular rule.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of Texas' true humanitarians, Seguin City Councilman Sam Flores. On August 29, 1998, Councilman Flores was recognized for his dedication to the people of his community when he was selected as the Seguin Hispanic Chamber of Commerce's Humanitarian of the Year. Councilman Sam Flores's career only begins to tell the story of his devotion to his community and the people in it. Born in San Marcos, Texas, during the midst of the country's worst depression, a young Sam Flores learned the value of hard work at an early age. As soon as he was old enough to perform manual labor Sam began his adult life as a migrant worker, traveling as far north as Michigan to work the fields. Although he recognized the value of education, Sam dropped out of school during his sophomore year to serve his country in the Far East as a member of the U.S. Marines. He served in the Marines for six years as a Platoon Sergeant in the Korean War and also helped evacuate Americans from Shanghai during the communist revolution in China. Upon returning home he enrolled at Southwest Texas State Teacher's College where he earned his teacher's degree in 1955. In 1959 he earned his Master's degree in school administration. It was in 1959 that Sam and his wife, Velia, moved to her hometown of Seguin. Sam took a position with the Harlandale Independent School District in San Antonio. He served the Harlandale ISD for 35 years teaching education and special education to elementary and secondary school students. For ten years he held the position of Director for Special Education for six different school districts. He also served as Principal of the Harlandale School District for eleven years. Even after retirement Sam stays involved with education by serving as the Attendance Officer for Seguin High School. Community leadership defines Sam Flores' life. As a member of the Seguin City Council for 33 years, Sam championed community improvement. He was one of the founders and the President of the Seguin Boys Club. He held a leading role in the establishment of the Seguin Housing Authority and the agreement to build a new Seguin Post Office. His leadership brought about the completion of the Walnut Creek Flood project and the paving of 22 miles of Seguin's gravel streets. He has also provided leadership in the fight against the discrimination of minorities through full integration of the Seguin Independent School District and service on a special committee which brought Mexican American Studies to Texas Lutheran University. Sam Flores now serves the community of Seguin as the Chairman of the ``Seguin Memorial Committee,'' a group developed to honor the city's namesake, Juan N. Seguin, with a statue in the downtown city park. Sam Flores has made tangible and intangible contributions to the city of Seguin. All those whose lives he has touched, from his students to other council members, can attest to his true humanitarianism. Their description of him is more accurate: ``Sam is a soldier for the people of his community and state.'' We need more soldiers in our communities like Sam Flores.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Madam Chairman, Dollars From the Classroom is a more appropriate term for this bill. There is no doubt that we want to ensure all of our children access to quality education. But block granting these 31 proposed programs will do nothing to enhance the quality of education--only harm it. A recent GAO study of Federal and State education financing patterns found that States overwhelmingly are less likely to focus state directed education funding on low-income students than are programs with funding that is federally directed. What this bill does for schools that have low-income children is put them at a disadvantage. For example, one of the provisions in H.R. 3248 eliminates the existing requirement that 50% of a school's enrolled children be from low-income families in order to conduct a schoolwide program under Title I. School districts like mine need this 50% threshold in order to ensure that schools that have significant levels of poverty are able to conduct total school reform. We have these requirements because poor school districts have traditionally been underserved and the children often undereducated. Reforming a program like Title I without even having committee hearings is completely irresponsible. If we really want to expand the Title I program, let's wait until the reauthorization of ESEA, when a greater number of individuals can have the opportunity to give this full consideration. This has been the problem with many of our education bills that have come to the floor this session--attempts to rework ESEA at an inappropriate time. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of fairness and vote against H.R. 3248.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. That was a very passionate speech. Let me just talk about the fact that we do have a real serious problem in this country, but part of that seriousness is taking an obligation that we also have a problem in this country, in this country in terms of what exists in our area and providing that assistance to those individuals. I would ask to those individuals who stand up here and talk to also inquire how many times they are willing to fund those programs that are out there and those youngsters that are in need of those programs to be able to respond to some of their concerns and some of the problems that they have. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on National Security and a member representing communities along the U.S. border, I represent two counties right on the border in the Rio Grande. I oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman that would allow the troops to go in there and I support the amendment, the substitute that is being submitted by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes). An increase of U.S. troops on the border with Mexico is a dangerous proposal that would put border residents in danger and reduce military readiness. I would repeat that again. It is going to reduce military readiness. Our military is the world's best trained fighting force. They are not police officers. They are not Border Patrol agents. They are trained to fight. We put our own citizens at risk by deploying them on American soil. I represent two counties, as I indicated, right on the Mexican border. In the town hall meetings that I have had during the month of August, I had 11 town hall meetings during the month of August, not once did anyone raise that this is a key issue that we need to do. In fact most of my constituents do not approve putting troops on the border. We do have existing troops that are working there now that are working directly with the Border Patrol, that are working there directly with the Customs. Those individuals are doing a tremendous job. But to put them in the way that we have had them in the past that has created problems is not the way that we should approach this. Again I would indicate to the gentleman that spoke before, it is fine to scapegoat other countries, but we have a responsibility to take and fight it here at home, also, because our citizens are the ones that are also choosing to also take those drugs. Border residents just like everyone else want to stop the influx of illegal drugs. They believe in stopping the flow of undocumented immigrants. But the solution they support is more Border Patrol that are well qualified, more Customs Service agents which we have failed to put enough money to assure that we have those Customs individuals. The Customs Service is the one that opens those trunks, is the one that looks into those cars. Those are the individuals that we should be supporting. Those are the individuals that we should be increasing their budgets. That is where the trade has increased and doubled and tripled in the last few years, but we have failed to put enough resources for the Customs where it is needed. In the last two years, an 18-year-old young man, an American citizen, was shot to death by a Marine on the border in Redford, Texas. That particular case after it came out, and this was a tragic incident that highlights the complexity of this issue, and places our soldiers on the border and the potential harm to other residents. The military itself has come back after the settlement, has indicated that it was a very serious mistake to even put those Marines there on the border. They were there in camouflage as they worked the border. They shot this innocent young man who was in high school and he was out there herding his goats. They shot him. They indicated there after the settlement, and it is no wonder, that the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, all of them, oppose this process. The Border Patrol, they have nearly 8,000 agents patrolling the national borders. Congress has authorized an additional 1,000 agents up to the year 2001. We are going to have an additional 1,000 agents on the border. Last year the San Antonio Express-News pointed out that the Redford incident may be isolated but the warning against deploying soldiers into an area lawfully and peacefully used by private citizens needs to be seriously looked at. Mr. Chairman, again let me inform my colleagues that I serve on the Subcommittee on Military Readiness of the Committee on National Security. At the time when readiness concerns are at their highest and with troops sent for extended periods to Bosnia and elsewhere, we cannot afford to pull additional men and women away from their posts to do work that Border Patrol agents should be doing. It is unfair to our fighting men and women and it does harm to our national interests. I ask that we support the Reyes alternative.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I also wanted to add, I think of anyone here I think I am probably the only one that has worked as a case worker. I had a caseload of over 60 heroin addicts, and I worked for about 3 years with them. I worked about 2 years with adolescent substance abuse, and we do have a very serious problem. And one of those areas is in our backyard where we really need to come down, and I am going to give my colleagues one example: In Bexar County during the 1970s, it was occasionally, every time the D.A. came up for reelection, most of my addicts were picked up, in all honesty, and those were some of the individuals that, yes, they might have been selling and, yes, they might have been using. But they were the ones that were fixing, they were not the ones who had the money, they were not the ones making the big profits. There is a need for us to really look at our own backyards and go after those individuals that are making those millions. When that money comes in, there is someone there that is capable of dishing out several million dollars to get involved. Those are the ones that we need to get after, those are the ones that we need to make sure that we go after. The other thing that I wanted to share with my colleagues, I think there has been some discussion talked about the fact that the military can provide assistance, and they are. They are doing a great job there with the Customs, they are doing a great job there in the form of assistance, but not in the form of troops. We have a real serious situation with the budget, and it is time, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz) has indicated, and I am also in the Committee on National Security, and we recognize the importance of the fact that we are real tight when it comes to the budget. But putting troops on our border is extremely costly and is a bad use of our scarce resources, and I would ask for support.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees to agree with the Senate amendments to the Agriculture Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 1999 providing emergency funds for agricultural disaster assistance. Our nation's farmers and ranchers, especially those in Texas, have faced extremely difficult financial times due to brutal natural disasters and very low commodity prices over the past five years. They need these emergency funds, and they need them now. Texas farmers have suffered extraordinary losses. This summer's extreme heat and drought conditions have resulted in near total crop losses for every county I represent. The drought has forced many Texas ranchers, who cannot afford to feed cattle any longer, to liquidate their herds. The crisis has cost the state nearly $2 billion in economic losses. Our nation cannot sustain this type of loss. Farmers and ranchers in Texas and other states deserve our assistance in this time of extreme need. They feed us and clothe us providing high quality agriculture products throughout the year. Supporting the Senate amendment for emergency funding is an essential step in the right direction. We cannot afford to put anymore farmers and ranchers at risk. Although the Senate increase is minimal, it is necessary insurance for our nation's farmers and ranchers who risk losing their livelihood.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that that is not the case. In fact, there are some beautiful programs that are labeled bilingual. One of them is dual-language instruction that allows non- English speaking youngsters to be able to participate and be able to enhance their language and learn other languages also.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. If the gentleman will yield further, Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to vote no.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No. I am not saying that. In fact, if the gentleman heard me well, I am talking about the dual language instruction program that is a beautiful bilingual approach, where it also brings in the monolingual English-speaking child. That is part of that program. It is a beautiful program.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Do not be fooled by the arguments of the proponents of this legislation, I say to the Members. This legislation does everything but provide an opportunity to learn. It begins to provide some restrictions to the local districts. They have those options to provide those opportunities. Yes, my colleague is correct in saying that the bilingual programs that are out there are a variety of different types of programs. There are some beautiful programs that are there. I mentioned earlier the dual program approach, where it takes a mono-English child, and be able to participate with the mono-English speaking child in the same way, and they will be able to learn together and go forward. This particular proposal, the only thing it does, it cuts and does not allow them to go beyond the 2-year period. That is restrictive. I do not know what they call it, but that is a government law that they want to pass that will restrict the local option for them to be able to go forward and be able to do the things that they are doing now. I also would mention that the Governor of Texas has recognized the beauty of the bilingual program. At a time when we have the global economy, at a time when we are asking our youngsters in high school to have three to four different years so they will be able to learn a different language, we are now saying no, we are going to limit it to 2? Let me ask the public, if they want to learn a language, do they think they can learn it in 2 years? No. Even the people, the educators, tell us that a minimum of 7 years is required to be able to grasp the language and be able to understand it. So that opportunity needs to be there for all Americans to be able to pick up, especially those youngsters as they move on in our particular schools. This particular legislation, all it is is to restrict, and what I see, there is no logic to it. It is based on ignorance and apparently it is based on political motivations; also, in terms of racist attitudes, because it hits this, applying it just because of the elections that are coming up in November. That is the reality. It is not based on any kind of educational soundness.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, what rationale did the gentleman use to limit it to 2 and 3? Because it was not educational at all.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, by doing that, in restricting it to 2 years, how is he allowing that to occur when he is actually telling the individuals in the districts they can only offer it for 2 years, when there is no pedagogical basis, educational rationale? And we all recognize that the research says that you have to have a minimum of 7 years before you even grasp a language. In fact, all educators would disagree with the gentleman, that there is no reason whatsoever for limiting it for 2 years.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of granting a federal charter to the American GI Forum (AGIF), the nation's oldest and largest Hispanic veterans organization. As the original sponsor of the House bill, HR 3843, I am especially gratified by the imminent passage of this bill. For too long, the American GI Forum has waited for this recognition. Now, on the eve of its 50th Annual Convention, to be held in its home state of Texas, we are in a position to present the AGIF membership what it rightfully deserves. The American GI Forum was founded fifty years ago in Corpus Christi, Texas by the late Dr. Hector P. Garcia, a medical doctor and Army veteran of World War II. This year, the AGIF celebrates its 50th year of service to our Nation's veterans and their families. Today, the AGIF has over 100,000 members in 500 chapters across 32 states and Puerto Rico. This is not the first time the AGIF has sought a federal charter. At least as early as the 1960's, in an era when Hispanic veterans were facing exclusion and discrimination, AGIF approached Congress for a federal charter. Several groups were almost routinely given charters, but the American GI Forum was left out. As the American GI Forum enters its 50th Year, it is fitting to secure passage of this important legislation. Within the veteran community, a federal charter is deemed to be recognition of a national veteran organization's commitment and service to our nation's veterans. The Hispanic community is among the most patriotic in America, historically ready to answer the call to service. Having earned the highest number of medals of honor per capita, Hispanic Americans have a distinguished record of valor and patriotism. There are more than 1,000,000 Hispanic veterans alive today. I urge you to join us in passing this legislation to grant a federal charter to this worthy organization. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, Mr. Smith of San Antonio, for his help and his staff's help in passing this bill. I would also like to thank the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and his staff for their work in expediting passage of this historic legislation.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I agree with the gentlewoman totally, and I recognize that anyone's rights that are violated, we run the risk of losing our own rights. It is important for us to understand that and recognize that. I urge my colleagues to raise the level of the spending by $109 million and to vote for the amendment.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment to restore $109 million funding for the Legal Services Corporation. We must bring up the House appropriation level for this worthy program. Even $250 million is not enough, but it is a step in the right direction. The Supreme Court recently restricted certain legal service programs. Now is the time to increase the current level of $283 million rather than to cut the budget in half. Legal Services programs have been unfairly targeted by those who wrongfully believe that they are political. These accusations are merely a smoke screen for denying funding for the programs that help those who need it the most. Legal Services programs are the livelihood for the poor, and those are the rights that they are entitled to. One of the key things that we must recognize is that these individuals have rights. Many of our legal protections today came from the cases made possible by the Legal Services work. Protections such as due process, voting rights, property rights, women's rights, and many other areas came from the Legal Services Corporation programs. In today's society, we need lawyers, as my colleagues well know, and any person's rights that are violated, everyone else is in danger, rights such as voting rights violations, other violations about not getting the minimum wage, other violations that involve withholding of wages for outrageous reasons. Other violations includes paying women less for the same type of work that men are doing. Other violations include youngsters not having access to textbooks because of various other reasons. I urge my colleagues to raise the level and to vote on this particular key amendment. I ask my colleagues to vote in assuring that these individuals have certain rights.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay tribute to the ultimate sacrifice made by Detective John Gibson and Officer Jacob J.J. Chestnut while conducting their duty protecting the Capitol. I admire the tremendous sacrifice made by these individuals and my thoughts are with their families as they cope with the departure of their loved ones. Like countless others, I did not personally observe the tragedy. But like them, I have been shaken by the event and moved by the warm reception all have provided in memory of the fallen men. No one can bring back these brave officers who gave their lives to protect us. But I stand today to recognize the risks that our law enforcement personnel face each day. I express the gratitude that I have for the dedication of these people, who each day leave the security of their homes and families to protect and serve those in need all across America.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to H.R. 629, which is the Texas-Maine-Vermont low-level radiation waste dump bill. This bill, as originally written, would allow waste dump operators to dispose of waste in Texas from States other than Texas, Vermont and Maine. That is simply unacceptable. I served in the Texas legislature; and, in fact, of the Members that are here, I am one of the few that voted for the bill in 1993 when the low-level waste radioactive compact was approved. At that time, supporters of the bill insisted that the only waste generated of the three-member States would be disposed of at that site. It was on that understanding to the legislators that it was approved that only those three States would be able to dump in Texas. The House and the Senate have both passed amendments by my colleague from Texas and the Senator from Minnesota to require that only that waste generated in those three States be dumped there. Now, this is the first time, and I find it very unconscionable, that an amendment that is both put in on the House side and on the Senate side would now all of a sudden be stripped from both sides. Now, if my colleague from Texas indicated earlier that only waste from those three sites would be acceptable, then why not accept that amendment? Because we know otherwise, that basically they want to be able to dump from throughout the States; the other 49 States will be able to dump in Texas. Furthermore, I urge inclusion of the environmental justice amendment that was put on the Senate. This allows a party to bring suit in the case of discriminatory waste dumping. This particular locality has a major concentration of Mexican-Americans. I believe this is a safeguard for residents of the Sierra Blanca, and it is necessary in light of the predominantly minority population in that region where the facility is located. Supporters insist that the site is not finalized, but, in all honesty, they have already picked their site, and the judges have ruled against the site and they have ruled. I would disagree with my friend from Texas, there has been an earthquake there. I was in the Texas legislature prior to 1993 when we allocated some resources because of some structural damage on some State facilities in the region. So we need to honestly look at this issue and take it into consideration.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a gentleman who has endeared himself to the cause of equality and justice in Northern Ireland and distinguished himself as a community leader in Texas. Pat Patton has served in many capacities, both professionally and as a volunteer, for his community. As the Executive Director of the Ancient Order of the Hibernians, he worked diligently and effectively at seeking recognition of inequalities in Northern Ireland. Before assuming that position, Mr. Patton played an instrumental role in the Irish community throughout Texas. He produced and hosted a weekly radio show in Houston called ``Irish Aires.'' In 1991, I had the privilege of working with Mr. Patton as he spearheaded the lobbying effort to pass the MacBride Principles in the Texas Legislature. His tireless efforts over a period of two legislative sessions ultimately succeeded. To this day, this law dictates principles of fairness and equality within companies in Northern Ireland in which the State of Texas owns shares. For these and other efforts, Mr. Patton, on July 21, will be honored at the National Convention of the Ancient Order of the Hibernians in Pittsburgh, PA. By profession, Mr. Patton is a social worker, having completed his undergraduate degree from St. Mary's University in San Antonio, which is my alma mater. As a social worker myself, I am aware of the sacrifices and patience required in this profession. After receiving his Masters of Social Work (MSW) from Tulane University in New Orleans, he provided counseling for the US Air Force. He continued his services at Catholic Charities in Los Angeles where he served as a therapist and family marriage counselor. Later, he moved back to Texas where he continued serving those less fortunate as Vice President of Houston Lighthouse for the Blind. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the selfless devotion of Mr. Patton to his community and his country. We owe him, his wife Mary, and their family, our debt of gratitude.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 285 for H. Res. 501, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to protest the political game this rule plays on this most crucial of deadlines: the Year 2000. We can fix this problem. There is a winning solution. But we must address it today. The American people have seen us hold emergency bills hostage, even shut down the government over certain disputes. This is one area where America can no longer tolerate delay. This is a critical emergency, as important as any natural disaster. It is a matter of national security that we directly appropriate money to fix the Year 2000 problem. In addition to the technical problems, we have a perception problem. If the American people think there is a problem, they will react accordingly and we could face a national panic. I urge opposing this rule, unless we allow the immediate appropriation of funds to fix this problem as soon as we can. We are already almost out of time.