Ciro Rodriguez

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, the peanut farmers are family farmers. The average peanut farm is 98 acres, based on the census. It is not a big farm, it is a small farm. I have the luxury of representing some of them, and they are having a great deal of difficulty. One of the things we need to recognize is that in 1996 we had an agreement, and we brought that price down from $678 to $610. I ask you, did you see a price cut on the peanut butter and the candies out there? No, and you are not going to see it either. The main thing is that we need to begin to support our farmers in order for them to be able to get a good price for their product. Consumers have yet to see any cost savings from those cuts that were made in the previous time. Now they want to cut again, arguing much more that the consumers deserve the savings. In fact, just like before, there are no savings. Mr. Chairman, I ask that Members vote against this amendment.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join this bipartisan group of my colleagues to recognize Nelson Mandela and to award him the Congressional Gold Medal as President of the Republic of South Africa. As this is President Mandela's last year as President, I am encouraged that we will move as quickly as possible so that he will be able to receive this as President of South Africa. Nelson Mandela sacrificed the prime years of his life, risking everything in the struggle against apartheid. He loves his country, he loves his fellow man, always striving to serve his people. His story is an inspiration to all of us. He loved everyone, regardless of color, class or creed. I have been especially moved by the profound patience and mercy exhibited by President Mandela. When he came to power, he did not express feelings of anger or revenge. Rather, President Mandela convened a panel to address the brutality that was existing, the murders and apartheid as it existed. We also take this moment to honor the work and sacrifice of American student Amy Biehl. I ask Members to join me in this effort.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, race violence reared its ugly head in the small Texas town of Jasper this past weekend, making it all too clear in our minds that racism is no phantom of a bygone era. A 49-year-old father of three children, James Byrd, Jr., appears to have been brutally murdered because his skin color is black. All of us must stand up, here in Congress at every street corner across America, and shout out this hatred from our midst. The murder was especially brutal. According to local authorities and media reports, the hate-motivated perpetrators tied Mr. Byrd by the ankles to the rear bumper of a pickup truck and then dragged him for at least a mile. When it was all over, only a decapitated and dismembered corpse, with clothes bunched up around the ankles, remained. It took fingerprint records to identify the body as that of Mr. Byrd. The alleged murderers appear to have significant ties to hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups. These organizations prey on the disaffected and convert their fears into venom. They preach of race wars against African-Americans, Jews and other minorities. Ultimately, they are at war with all of us. Even as we castigate those who committed this brutality, it is worth remembering the many good people of Jasper, people of different races and backgrounds who work and live together in peace. They too are victims, because this act of hatred has shattered their peace. We should all take this tragedy and give it meaning by committing ourselves to fight bigotry and senseless hatred, and to build even stronger bonds of trust and understanding among all people. The San Antonio Express-News in its editorial stated that the ``monster of racism is born in fear, fathered by hate, and mothered by ignorance.'' We can and must challenge racism. Together, we can chain the beast. The full text of the editorial is reprinted below. [From the San Antonio Express-News, June 11, 1998] Racism and Violence Exploded in Jasper Two of America's great obsessions--race and violence-- intersected on a small-town Texas street last weekend. They collided in an act so barbaric as to transform James Byrd Jr. into the Emmitt Till of his generation. In 1955, while visiting relatives in Mississippi, the 14- year-old Till became a symbol for racial violence when he was beaten to death by two white men who then tied him to a cotton fan and dumped him into a river. Forty-three years later, 49-year-old Byrd, a father of three, was murdered because he was black. Not for acts he did, words he spoke or for something valuable he possessed. That is what has transfixed the nation's horrified gaze on the East Texas town of Jasper. At least two of the ignorant thugs accused of his murder sport tattoos suggesting they are members of a white supremacy group. When they looked at Byrd, they did not see a human being. So they beat him, tied him to a pickup truck and dragged him for two miles until he was literally torn to pieces, his body parts strewn along a country road. It's easy to condemn this murderous act and to denounce the murderers. What's not so easy is to be vigilant against the more subtle acts and attitudes of racism out of which such violence grows. The racism exhibited by these men did not spring full-blown from their hearts. As long as its seeds are planted and nurtured, such atrocities will persist. The monster of racism is born in fear, fathered by hate, and mothered by ignorance. Byrd's murder is a reminder that lift unchallenged, the monster grows stronger, always ready to strike. The last street on which James Byrd Jr. walked before he was murdered is named after Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The distance between King's vision of a nonviolent nation living in racial harmony remains greater than the two miles of country road on which Byrd was dragged and murdered. Murdered because he was black.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, it is my sad duty to report to the House of Representatives that a great friend and leader--Jim Hummel--has died. This man, perhaps the epitome of humility and service, always gave more than he took. A lifelong political activist, Jim served more than 35 years as a San Antonio firefighter. He retired with great honor just last year from Station 17. I knew Jim personally. He visited me here in Washington only a couple of months ago. Despite his disease, he continued to fight for the cause that meant most to him: the rights of his fellow firefighters. A lifelong member of San Antonio Fire Fighters Local 624, Jim served as their vice-president and led their legislative committee for years. His concern for other workers led him into the leadership ranks of the San Antonio AFL-CIO Central Labor Council, where he served as Second Vice- President. Jim began his life in 1937 and received his education in San Antonio before joining the United States Navy in 1954. He served for two years before becoming a firefighter. He was active in community and church, devoting time to the fight against muscular dystrophy and the Make-a- Wish Foundation. Jim was an active member of St. Gerard's Catholic Church and St. Joseph's Catholic Church. We will miss Jim's humor, his warm smile, and his constant and extraordinary devotion to civic service. Jim Hummel stands as an example of what one person can do to relieve suffering and better the lives of those around him.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, in this budget resolution, why are we asking our veterans to give up more than they have already sacrificed? We looked in terms of the recommendations that were being brought up, and it was brought in terms of a ``new vision.'' It was presented as a ``new vision.'' Mr. Speaker, what kind of a new vision is it? I cannot even imagine cutting one of the following programs. This new vision eliminates the cost-of-living adjustments for education and service-connected veterans benefits. It eliminates the cost-of-living adjustments for low-income wartime veterans who receive a pension. It eliminates dependent benefits for veterans whose service-connected disabilities are rated at 30, 40, and 50 percent. It eliminates compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities rated at 10 percent. Is that the new vision that the majority is presenting? Is this the vision that goes after those individuals who have fought for our country? Again, even if such drastic benefits reductions have changed and continue to be made, we would still have met less than half of the savings required under the Budget Resolution. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs has done its fair share through the era of downsizing and cutbacks. I find it profoundly unfair that at this time we come back and hit those individuals that have fought for our country. We are asking to cut $10.4 billion total from veterans service. At this time, I ask Members to vote against the rule and consider reassessing that warped vision that they have.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Gold Star Parents Day, commemorated in my home state of Texas on June 8. Gold Star Parents is dedicated to honoring those who inspire service to our nation in their children. Celebrated halfway between Mother's Day and Father's Day, Gold Star Parents Day is a reminder that behind every veteran who serves his or her nation, there is a mother AND a father who directly or indirectly motivate a son or a daughter into service. Founded in Laredo, Texas in 1971, Gold Star Parents boasts a membership that spans the state. Among patriotic family organizations, Gold Star Parents is one of the few of its kind in that it offers full membership to both mothers and fathers of veterans. Last week on Memorial Day we paused to reflect upon the service of our nation's veterans. Today, I urge you to consider the tremendous sacrifice the brave mothers and fathers of those veterans endure when they send their beloved off to war. Our nation's freedom is built upon the sacrifices of our nation's veterans. We must not forget that those sacrifices are borne foremost among the mothers and fathers of those veterans. For that I honor the parents and urge the remembrance of the mothers and fathers of our fallen heroes on June 8.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on National Security, I oppose the amendment by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). An increase of U.S. troops on the border with Mexico is a dangerous proposal that will put the border residents in danger. Our military is the world's best trained fighting forces, and they are not the police officers, and they are not the border patrol agents. They are trained to fight, and we put our own citizens in danger. I would like to remind my colleagues, exactly 1 year ago an 18-year- old high school student, American citizen, was shot to death by the Marine on patrol in west Texas. This tragic incident highlights the complexities of placing soldiers on the border and the potential harm to many residents. I represent the border, and I recognize the importance of fighting drugs. And border residents also, just like everyone else, want to stop the influx of illegal drugs, and they believe in stopping the flow of undocumented immigrants. But the solution they support is more border patrol and Customs Service agents. The Customs Service agents are the ones that are directly involved in assuring when products come across that those things are well checked out. It is no wonder that the Department of Defense and Justice and the Immigration and Naturalization Service all oppose this proposal. The border patrol has nearly 8,000 agents patrolling our national borders, and the Congress has authorized an additional 1,000 agents every year up to the year 2001. Last year, the San Antonio Express and News pointed out that the incident in west Texas is an isolated incident. Yet it is one that puts everyone in danger. We need to be concerned about the possibility of future incidents such as those when we put people that are untrained on the border that are U.S. citizens. Mr. Chairman, I serve on the Committee on National Security Subcommittee on Military Readiness. At a time when readiness concerns are at their highest and with the troops sent for extended periods of time to Bosnia and elsewhere, we cannot afford to pull additional men. I would ask that my colleagues vote no on the amendment.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the House National Security Committee, I oppose the amendment offered by the gentlemen from Ohio. An increase of U.S. troops on the border with Mexico is a dangerous proposal that will put 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 grave risk by deploying them on American soil. I represent two counties along the border with Mexico. In my town hall meetings, almost everyone I spoke with opposed putting troops on our border. Many of them had served in our military, and I respect their opinion. Border residents, just like everyone else, want to stop the influx of illegal drugs, and they believe in stopping the flow of undocumented immigrants. But the solution they support is more Border Patrol and Customs Service agents who are well trained to deal with the challenges of patrolling the border. Exactly one year ago, an 18 year old American citizen was shot to death by a Marine on patrol near Redford, Texas. This tragic incident highlights the complexities of placing soldiers on the border and the potential harm to border residents. It is no wonder that the Departments of Defense and Justice and the Immigration and Naturalization Service all oppose this proposal. The Border Patrol has nearly 8,000 agents patrolling our nation's borders, and Congress has authorized an additional 1,000 agents every year until 2001. Last year, the San Antonio Express-News pointed out that the Redford incident may be isolated but warned against deploying soldiers into an area lawfully and peacefully used by private citizens. Mr. Chairman, I serve on the House National Security Readiness Subcommittee. At a time when readiness concerns are at there highest and with troops sent for extended periods of time to Bosnia and elsewhere, we cannot afford to pull additional men and women away from their posts to do the work of Border Patrol agents. It is unfair to our fighting men and women, and it does harm to 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 our border is extremely costly; it is a bad use of scarce resources. The drain on our defense budget puts our readiness at risk. The Department of Defense has warned that the troops' work along the border are of minimal value to military readiness and detract from training with warfighting equipment for warfighting missions. This lack of training would directly reduce unit readiness levels; it could require troops to spend more times overseas with less time to train between deployments. These funds could be better used training our Armed Forces for their warfighting missions or ensuring Border Patrol agents are properly trained and have the resources needed to enforce our nation's laws and to protect themselves. The substitute offered by Congressman Reyes seeks to partially address these concerns by requiring data from the Department of Defense on the costs, military value, effects on readiness, training, and preparedness of deploying military personnel to our borders. Mr. Chairman, I, and the tens of thousands of residents I represent along the border, urge my colleagues to vote against this misguided proposal and for the substitute offered by Congressman Reyes. Hopefully, in conference, this entire provision will be removed. The placement of additional soldiers on our borders is a dangerous proposal that could have deadly consequences for border residents. We must remember who we are protecting.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the generous efforts of 560 Norman Thomas Elementary School students and staff in Freer, Texas, to collect thousands of cans and boxes of food for the Freer Food Bank. The school's venture helped stock the pantries of 70 neighbors in desperate need of food. This good deed is especially remarkable because about two-thirds of the Norman Thomas Elementary School students qualify for free or reduced school lunches. Despite the personal challenges many of these students face they saw a need to help those less fortunate than themselves and learned a very valuable lesson while volunteering in their community. For their efforts the school was recognized with a community award by the USA Weekend magazine sponsored by Make a Difference Day. The students and staff at Norman Thomas Elementary School have made a difference which will help feed people in their community. Volunteering in one's community sets a high standard for better living. And such a young group of individuals accomplishing community goals means Freer, Texas, will look forward to a fruitful future.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for the Motion to Instruct Conferees offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey. This motion instructs BESTEA conferees not to cut benefits for veterans to pay for the transportation bill. The House already agreed with this position last month when we passed H.R. 2400. Our version of BESTEA included language that called for any increased spending by conferees not change any veterans programs. I believe in BESTEA. I voted for BESTEA. I think a strong transportation system is vital to our continued economic development and our national security. However, we owe a debt to our veterans. We cannot let them down by denying currently available benefits to fund even the worthiest projects. The transportation bill is not the place to modify veterans benefits. That is an issue under the jurisdiction of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Any changes should be for the benefit of the veterans. Over the last several months, the DAV, the VFW, the American Legion, and all of the major veterans' service organizations, have urged Congress to reject the VA's proposal to deny service-connected disability compensation for disabilities related to tobacco use. They want to know why service-connected disability compensation should be taken away from seriously ill veterans or their survivors. They want to know why these benefits are seen as a waste. After all, these benefits are not just given to each and every veteran that smoked. Veterans must undergo a rigorous claims process to establish their entitlement to these benefits. So far, only 299 veterans even qualify for this benefit. It is unfair to ask those who have already served to keep making sacrifices time and time again. Veterans are already being asked to forego long overdue increases for veterans programs: increases in Montgomery GI funding to keep up with the rising costs of education; certain survivors' benefits; improved disability benefits. What are we going to tell our veterans? I urge passage of the motion.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, a little over a year ago, on the night of May 3, 1997, Jessie F. Bricker, Jr., a brave fire fighter from San Antonio, Texas, responded to a four-alarm fire. After joining in a battle that lasted over 7 hours. Soon after he returned to the station, Mr. Bricker succumbed to smoke inhalation and died. Over 100 others like Mr. Bricker have paid the ultimate price for their service to our communities. Let us stand here today and convey to the loved ones of these fallen personnel that these sacrifices do not go unnoticed. I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 171, which recognizes the sacrifices of the men and women who risk their lives each day to protect us in cities and towns all across the country. We cannot bring back those brave emergency personnel like Jessie Bricker who gave their lives to protect us. But we can take action today to recognize the risks that our fire fighters face each day. This bill would honor the National Emergency Medical Service Memorial Service which each year recognizes those who have fallen in the line of duty. Furthermore, this legislation expresses the gratitude that we show for the dedication of volunteer and career emergency personnel, who each day leave the security of their homes and families to serve those in need all across America.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disturbed by the way the Drug Free Borders Act of 1998 came to the floor. Instead of fashioning a bipartisan bill to help the U.S. Customs Service protect our borders from contraband such as illicit drugs, child pornography, money laundering and counterfeit merchandise, a partisan group which clearly does not understand the dynamics of our nation's Southwest border has decided to attack the people on the front lines of the war on drugs. Outside the partisan efforts to cripple federal employees, I support this bill. I have three international ports in my district on the Texas-Mexico border. My constituents want those ports to have the best equipment and personnel possible to keep illegal drugs out and to facilitate legal trade. I have traveled the border with U.S. Customs employees and seen the challenges they face. I have also seen the pride Customs employees have for their jobs. I have shared the excitement they experience when a truck filled with drugs is caught. There are few things I want more than to end this nation's drug epidemic. But we cannot end the problem by busting labor agreements and demoralizing U.S. Customs agents and inspectors. The majority leadership is stooping to a familiar low by bringing this bill to the floor under a suspended rule. We have no opportunity for full debate; all amendments are prohibited. This bill is take it or leave it. The majority leadership wants this bill to fail and blame the Administration or pass without any input from the minority. The majority leaders should be ashamed of their partisan games at the expense of our Nation's war on drugs. If the majority leadership wanted to pass effective legislation they should have allowed Members of Congress the chance to amend the labor portions of this bill and pass effective drug fighting legislation. I am voting for this bill with strong objections and a hope that it will change before it reaches the President.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, let me, first of all, thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Spence) for giving the opportunity to me to serve on that committee, and also to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Ike Skelton) for allowing me also to work with him. Let me just share two concerns that I have with the existing bill, and I think they are very important. One of the first ones is the fact, and I was real disappointed that the Committee on Rules did not allow an opportunity for the language that would have struck out the segregation language that exists in the bill. I think we have a real serious problem in that particular bill if we are going to segregate women. We are going in the wrong direction in that area. When we talk about separate but equal, it was not equal for blacks, and I can assure my colleagues that it is not going to be equal for women. There is a need for us and I would ask the leadership to ask the Committee on Rules to reconsider that opportunity. If not, then I would ask the leadership and the conference committee that as they go into the conference with the Senate, that they strike out that language because I think it is very detrimental. When we hear the arguments as it deals with the separate but equal doctrine and what we want to do with women in the military, I think that I hear what I used to recall back in the 1960s, when we talked about co-ed education in our universities and some of the same language, and it is unfortunate that that is the case. I want to also share with my colleagues an additional concern that I have as it deals with cost. I know we have had a great number of individuals come up here and talk about the need for more resources. We also need to look in terms of the language and what it is in there. Number one, I want you to look very specifically as it deals with the C-17 language. That particular language, number one, sets a very negative precedent. Number two, it is extremely costly, and number three, when it comes to readiness, puts us in danger. I want to be able to share a little bit with you when it comes to the President. At this particular time, the language that we have there begins to tell the Department of Defense what should be core and what should not. As you well know, the last time we did the piece of legislation, we indicated that that is the responsibility of the Department of Defense, not the Congress. I think we are setting a very negative precedent. Secondly, as it deals with cost, one of the estimates is $500 million in terms of the cost just by that particular amendment alone in terms of what it is doing, not to mention that if you begin to move the C-17 work from the private sector where it is right now into the depots, we are going to have a situation that it might be up to $1.5- to $2 billion in cost. So I would ask you seriously to look at that language and be able to take that into consideration when you make those decisions. Thirdly, I think we are all concerned about readiness so that if, as we move, and if you look at that language on the C-17, when it comes to the readiness issue, it really sets a situation in which the depots are not ready to deal with that. They have not been working with that. As Members well know, one of the engines is a commercial engine on the commercial flights, and moving them towards that would be extremely costly and, in terms of readiness, is going to cause a situation where it might take a year and a half to 2 to 3 years before we would even be capable, not to mention the cost of $ 1.5- to $2 billion, so that as we talk about cost and our concerns regarding readiness and regarding other options, we also need to look at the existing language that is extremely detrimental. I would ask that you consider those options as we move forward as it deals with the language on the C-17 and again on the previous item that I had talked to you on the segregation of the armed forces and not allowing the women to have equal opportunity. If we expect them to be able to participate, they should be able to practice. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express concern with a provision in the Defense Authorization bill regarding the maintenance of the C-17 cargo aircraft. The provision added in committee will significantly increase the costs of maintaining the C-17 by potentially billions of dollars. This increased cost will likely reduce the procurement of future C-17 aircraft, decrease Air Force readiness and airlift capability, and force the Air Force to hire more acquisition personnel. The C-17 is essential for our nation's sustained global power projection and the future backbone of our expeditionary force. Specifically, the bill preempts the Secretary of Defense's authority to determine what systems of the C-17 must be maintained in-house, abrogating the depot provisions adopted in last years defense bill. The C-17 provision structures weapons systems support without regard to Air Force readiness requirements; hobbles partnerships and competition essential for maximizing limited budgets, and delays defense acquisition reforms. For years Congress called on the Department of Defense to implement acquisition reform. The C-17 program is a prime example of the Department's acquisition reform advances in significantly reducing the life cycle costs of new aircraft. However, this bills restrictive C-17 provision will reverse those advances. In addition, last years authorization bill attempted to reduce the Department of Defense's acquisition workforce, or ``professional shoppers,'' by 25,000. However, this bill would require the Air Force to hire hundreds more of professional shoppers rather than streamlining the bureaucracy. Other fiscally irresponsible aspects of the C-17 provision discourage public-private partnerships that would save taxpayers millions of dollars while maintaining a high mission-capable rate for the C-17. The bill forces the Air Force to waste more than $500 million to create in- house maintenance capabilities before an intelligent decision can be made on this new weapon system. In addition, the engine on the C-17 is a commercial engine developed for the Boeing 757. To create an in-house capability for the engine, which the authorization would, would cost the Air Force between $1 billion and $2 billion for the purchase of propriety data alone. In today's constrained defense budget, we cannot expect the Department of Defense to come up with billions of additional dollars to maintain the C-17 in an antiquated manner that doesn't capitalize on the strengths of both the public and private sector and advances in manufacturing. The C-17 was efficiently designed to be maintained on the flight line to reduce maintenance costs. The billions of dollars the C-17 provision would likely decrease procurement of future C-17 aircraft. This is totally unacceptable. In closing, Congress should not preempt the warfighter on the decision of maintenance of the C-17, the C-17 provision will force the Air Force to spend billions on the tail instead of the essential tooth, and the measure will have a detrimental impact on readiness.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the Texas-Maine-Vermont low- level radioactive 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 in 1993, when the Low-Level Radioactive Compact was approved. At that time the supporters of the bill insisted that only waste generated by the three member States would be disposed at the site. It was on that understanding that the legislators approved the legislation. For this reason, I believe we should maintain the amendment by my colleague from Texas and the distinguished Senator from Minnesota to guarantee that the site will not become a national dumping ground in west Texas. Supporters of the waste site oppose this amendment on the grounds that it may force the 3 States to re-ratify the compact. I have seen the arguments, and this is not the case. Even if that is the case, however, I think that is the right thing to do and we should not avoid the issue merely because of convenience. There should not be any hurry to move on this particular motion, to move on this particular piece of legislation. Furthermore, we should retain the other amendment from the Senate which allows the party to bring suit in case of discriminatory waste dumping. I believe that this safeguard for the residents of the Sierra Blanca is necessary in light of the predominantly minority population in the region where this facility may be located. Approximately 76 percent of the residents are Hispanic; 39 percent live in poverty in the area. The site is not for relatively harmless medical waste. In fact, there is an effort at amending the site permit to include dumping parts of reactors, not just clothing and instruments. This is not an issue about States rights. It is about self- determination, self-determination for the community and the land around it and the impact that it has. The residents have not received a fair chance to be able to make a decision on what will be occurring in their backyards. A recent study, by the way, showed that, of the three existing sites that we have out there in Utah, Washington, and South Carolina, I want you to listen to that, the study indicated that there is a life expectancy of over 29 years. So there is no need for us to move until the year 2027. Listen to this, in addition to that, beyond that, they have the potential of going up to almost 260 years in the existing sites. So why are we doing what we are proposing? The only thing I can figure is for economic reasons and deciding to move in that direction. I would ask that we take this very seriously, that we take the time to study. Finally, it is a bad policy and is divisive. As we look at our agreements with Mexico, we had an agreement in 1983, the La Paz Agreement. In that particular agreement, we talked Mexico into making sure that nothing occurred 60 miles from the Rio Grande on either side so we would not pollute the area. So what has happened? We are the ones that have polluted. We are the ones that are doing the site right next to it. I ask Members to vote against it.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, on behalf of myself and a number of my colleagues to introduce a bill to grant a federal charter to the American GI Forum (AGIF), a National Veterans Family Organization. I am proud to join an effort which is being advanced by the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and his colleagues who have filed identical legislation, S. 1759. The American GI Forum was founded on March 26, 1948, 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. Though predominately Hispanic the AGIF is an inter-racial organization open to all veterans and their families. 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. At that time, as now, the AGIF had the broad-based national and patriotic characteristics which would have entitled it to a federal charter. While numerous groups with similar stature as the AGIF were almost routinely given charters, the American GI Forum was effectively left out. As the American GI Forum enters its 50th year, we believe it is fitting to secure passage of this important legislation which would finally grant the American GI Forum a federal charter. A federal charter is an honorary recognition that does not convey any special rights or authority. However, 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. Other entities sometimes distinguish between Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs) which are congressionally-chartered and those which are not. For example, the Department of Veterans Affairs publishes a directory of VSOs, in which it separately lists groups based upon whether or not they are chartered. 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 over 1,000,000 Hispanic veterans alive today. On behalf of my colleagues and myself, I urge you to join us in sponsoring this legislation to grant a federal charter to this deserving organization.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of HR 2829, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1997. I believe this legislation takes an important step towards providing badly needed funds to law enforcement officers in communities facing violent crime. According to the Uniform Crime Reports, between 1987 and 1996, nearly 700 officers were killed in the line of duty. Of those officers, 63 were feloniously killed by firearms. We cannot bring back those brave officers who gave their lives to protect us. But we can take action today for those police officers who continue to risk their lives in the line of duty. We should pass this legislation to offer needed protection from gunfire. Bulletproof vests will not prevent all deaths; but they will prevent many and provide a means of mitigating the danger that our officers face on a daily basis. This bill will make grants to units of local government to purchase bulletproof vests for use by law enforcement officers, while giving preferential consideration to communities with the greatest need, a mandatory wear policy, and a violent crime rate at or above the national average. I believe this is a fair and sensible approach to protecting our officers to better help them protect and serve.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Riggs amendment. Even after being redrafted by its sponsor, this measure punishes minority students and shortchanges institutions of higher learning. The amendment assumes we are in a society that is free from discrimination, and that Hispanic and African American students have equal opportunity. The fact of the matter is that discrimination is alive in our society and that while much lip service is paid to equality--for minority students it is far from a reality. This is why our colleges and universities across the country have turned to affirmative action. Our institutions of higher education take race and sex into consideration because they know that a diverse student body benefits everyone and provides an educational setting for our students that mimics the real world. I think everyone in this chamber would agree that students learn as much from each other as they do from their professors and books--and this is all the more true when students are fortunate enough to be in a richly diverse campus. We must not revert to the days of the educational `haves' and `have nots' and keep some of our brightest minds from seeking out public colleges. If this ill-willed amendment is adopted, some students may be able to take the road to private campuses. But, what is most distressing is that many minority students may have no option at all--and that the cleavages in our society will continue to expand. The problem here is that the Riggs amendment does not really address the problem of discrimination or equality. What it really does is prohibit our public colleges from using the most effective tools to help remedy past discrimination. Surprisingly the Riggs amendment would dramatically expand the federal role of education in an area where states and localities should have control. We preach about limiting the federal government's role in education--but what we are doing here is in fact grossly expanding it. In a recent letter to members of Congress, both Attorney General Reno and Secretary Riley promised to call for a presidential veto to HR 6 if the Riggs amendment is included. Let us not be fooled by the new Riggs amendment. I urge my fellow colleagues to take a close look at the fine print in this amendment and see how detrimental it will be to our schools and to students. In my home state of Texas, where affirmative action has been killed, the University of Texas law school now has only four entering African American students, where former classes had more than thirty. The same holds true for the California schools where a similar proposal has been adopted--there has been a significant drop in the number of minority admissions. This is a step backwards and it must be stopped! We are talking about the future of an entire generation of students. We must offer our FULL support and help them pursue their educational dreams. I urge my colleagues to reject this measure and stand up for diversity and strength.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called Student Opportunity Scholarship Act, another voucher proposal. Vouchers are not the answer to the many problems that confront our schools. It is seen as a panacea but it is a scapegoat to our existing situation. Yes, it might help some of the youngsters that are out there and it might be beneficial, but it is going to be at the expense of all the other youngsters that are out there. In fact, the vouchers take away tax dollars from public schools where our children have the greatest need. If we are going to commit to helping, we ought to be out there providing the resources that are needed. At this present time there is a press conference out there because there are being cuts right now at teacher training, there are some cuts that are being put out in terms of not allowing sufficient resources to be able to build our classrooms. There are also some proposed cuts that would not allow for construction of schools. There are some cuts that will also have some direct impact in terms of wiring our classrooms. We should be adding additional resources instead of taking existing resources from the youngsters that are now out there, instead of coming up with this program that is only going to be responsible for only impacting a few at the expense of all the rest. Let us not be fooled into believing that this bill is for the benefit of our students and for our parents. In fact, most parents will not have a say-so in terms of who will be able to get in there. In fact, one of the difficulties about the voucher system is that it does not allow the opportunity for youngsters to participate. If you have any type of difficulties, any kind of handicap, those youngsters will not be included. So yes, it is very exclusive. It is only for those individuals that will be able to get in there, again at the expense of all the others. Public policy should respect the parental choice but the choice of benefit of all the students, not at the expense of the rest. Let us not abandon our public schools. I would ask and look at what has happened. There is a direct correlation between the proposals and the individuals supporting this proposal and the lack of commitment to fund our particular classrooms out there, lack of commitment to support public education as a whole. That is where it is needed.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss an issue of importance to the families of my district and to our nation as a whole--access to higher education for all children. While I agree with many aspects of the legislation, I want to focus on significant sections of H.R. 6 that need improvement--teacher training and diversity on our college campuses. Let me first say that I applaud the bill's inclusion of the Frank Tejeda Scholarship Program--appropriately named after a Member of this Chamber who fought to advance the education of some of our neediest students. The initiative would help bilingual individuals pay for their college education in exchange for service in schools with large limited-English proficient student populations. While I applaud this effort we must first look at programs that will address some key problem areas such as teacher recruitment, retention and scarcity. The current proposal would put all teacher training funds into block grants to the States. This is unacceptable. It does not ensure that we will hire, train and keep the very best teachers for our students. And it will not ensure that smaller school districts receive necessary funds to pilot professional development programs. As a former State representative, I value local input and state control. But the Federal Government has a positive, affirmative role to play--and it is more than simply transferring money. Students not only need well trained teachers, they also need rich learning environments. We know that college students learn as much from each other as from the formal education they receive. Therefore, we have a duty here today to ensure that we keep our colleges as a place where diversity is welcomed and respected. My colleagues on the other side say they want a ``color-blind society''. The reality is that we don't have one and that equal opportunity does not exist for minority students. Because there is not equitable access to education we must use what we know works-- affirmative action. In my home State of Texas, overall Hispanic and African-American enrollment dropped sharply at the larger institutions of higher education as a result of he Hopwood decision, and we can't allow the trend to continue. I oppose the Riggs amendment. It would overturn the 1978 Supreme Court decision recognizing the value of affirmative action and would deny the substantial advances that have been made through affirmative action by women and minorities. Don't be fooled into believing that you are voting for equality. Voting to end affirmative action is a vote to perpetuate inequality. Mr. Chairman, protecting and ensuring our children's access to a good education is a most important goal. I applaud the efforts of my colleagues and the administration in bringing this important bill to the Floor, and I look forward to our collective work on this crucial issue.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the efforts to ensure Social Security remains viable for the next generation, for our children, and for our grandchildren. I have met with various constituents, and they agree that we need to make some tough decisions that are before us to assure the viability of Social Security for future generations. I support the creation of a bipartisan commission, but I would caution those efforts in terms of privatization, and I would caution my colleagues and remind them in terms of the S&L scandals that occurred during the 1980s, where their pension funds could be depleted. I would urge the House leadership to also work closely with President Clinton on ongoing initiatives on Social Security. And I commend the President for his leadership on moving forward in ensuring the security of Social Security. With all the past borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund, we need to ensure that our baby boomers and subsequent generations are assured access to Social Security. I would ask that, as the Commission moves, that we look first, number one, to the existing senior citizens that are there now to make sure that they receive what they deserve; secondly, that as we move beyond the year 2012, and the baby boomers start reaching that area, that we assure that generation that they will have also access to Social Security. And thirdly, for the youngsters that are now beginning to pay, those that are 20, 30 years old, we need to assure with that piece of legislation that would become in terms of the recommendations that they also will have access as they move forward in the next generation. Future generations rightfully worry that they will not be able to have fair returns on their Social Security, so it is up to us to make sure that we take those populations into consideration. We can help assure that Social Security be ensured for the next few generations. We also need to remember and recognize the fact that Social Security is there for the disabled and the blind, and we need to remember that and be cautious with that, because that has also helped half of our senior citizens out of poverty because of Social Security. So I want to urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to recommit this bill so we can add firm language that would reserve any surplus to also help fix Social Security.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the resolution honoring Israel on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of its independence. From ancient prayers to modern dreams, the State of Israel has blossomed into a strong, thriving democracy and a steady ally of the United States. We have witnessed two solutions to the so-called Jewish Problem this century. One was evil and named the Final Solution. Seeking to destroy the Jewish people, the Nazis murdered 6 million Jews and millions of other innocents. The other solution, which we join together to honor today, was one of hope and promise--the return of the Jewish people to their ancestral home in the land of Israel. That dream remains alive. Israel has overcome the most daunting obstacles in its quest to create a haven from persecution and the world's only Jewish state. After 2,000 years of Jewish wandering and exile, the modern state of Israel was born on May 14, 1998, only to face the onslaught of its neighbors and constant threat of destruction. Against all odds, Israel defended itself and began to plant the seeds for its future. Following the war of independence, Israel has time and again fought for its very existence. Even today, the threat of war and the promise of terrorism weigh heavily on Israel. While many of the threats and anti-Israel rhetoric of 50 years ago unfortunately remains the same today, much has changed for the better. Egypt and Jordan have signed peace agreements with Israel, and the Palestinian Arabs and Israel have begun a formal, if not shaky, process toward peace. In the name of peace, Israel has ceded valuable territory to those who vowed its destruction. Israel has created a thriving economy, a free press, regular free and open elections, the rule of law, and other firmly established democratic institutions. The once-barren hillsides now are green with trees and the fields again are plowed for the growth of food. Israel has successfully fulfilled the dreams of thousands of immigrants who fled tyranny and poverty and stands as a model for the absorption of the outcast and homeless. High literacy and educational achievement have produced an extraordinarily capable and creative workforce which boasts achievements in agriculture, medical research, emerging technologies and many other fields. Israel stands as a significant trading partner of my home State of Texas. I salute the people of Israel on this anniversary. May your future be one of peace and security, prosperity, and continued friendship with the people of the United States.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my constituents and other members of the Muslim community in the United States and throughout the world who this month celebrated the holy day of Eid. Muslims celebrate two Eids (festivals) every lunar year, Eid-ul-Fitr and Eid-ul-Adha. Eid-ul-Fitr is celebrated after fasting for a whole month. During this month a Muslim distributes 2.5 percent of his annual savings in charity to the poor. Eid-ul-Adha, Feast of the Sacrifice, takes its roots from the Patriarch of our three great faiths, Judaism, Christianity and Islam-- Abraham. In recognition of the act of sacrifice and obedience with which Abraham was ready to sacrifice his beloved son, for the last 1,400 years Muslims have followed Abraham's tradition by sacrificing a lamb at the end of Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca. I ask the Congress to join me in congratulating the six million Muslims in the United States and over a billion Muslims across the globe who follow the tradition of Abraham upon this occasion of celebration, sacrifice and charity.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of Texas' great contemporary leaders, the Reverend Doctor C. William Black. On Sunday, May 1, 1998, Dr. Black will officially end nearly 50 years of pastoral service to the Mount Zion First Baptist Church in San Antonio. He is a living testament to the dictum that ``one man can make a difference;'' he has made a great and positive difference to his church and to the entire community he serves. Dr. Black is an icon, a preacher with a fiery delivery and a mission of positive change. Neither his mission nor his ministry ends inside the four walls of the historic church building. Dr. Black has taken his message out into the community to lift up the broken hearted and to proclaim the fundamental equality and liberty of all persons. An African-American born in San Antonio in 1916, Dr. Black learned at an early age that his inalienable right to liberty had not yet become a living reality. He began his quest for freedom for those trapped in post Civil War segregation. The harsh laws of a ``separate but equal'' society greatly restricted opportunities for African Americans. Even in those dark days of overt discrimination, Dr. Black earned great respect. In his role as minister, he served as the preacher, the civil rights leader, the business leader, and the community leader. Dr. Black lives up to the high expectations of his community and congregation. He is well educated. He holds a masters degree and two honorary doctoral degrees. He is an Alamo Community College Foundation Board Member and a founder of San Antonio Mothers` Service Organization. Dr. Black initiated this organization, over 50 years ago, to raise money for scholarships to give to deserving students who were not likely to be recognized for their scholastic achievements in a segregated society. He founded the Mount Zion Day Care Center in 1957 in early recognition of the need for quality child care. Despite racism, he gained a seat on the San Antonio City Council and served with great distinction. While at that post Dr. Black distinguished himself as the first African American Mayor Pro Tem. The Eastside Y.M.C.A., the Carver Cultural Center, and the Eastside Boys and Girls Club continue to thrive today thanks to his successful battles many years ago. The Eastside Multi-Purpose Center, part of Saint Paul Square, and a street near his church bear the name of this vibrant leader. In his role as business leader, Dr. Black organized the Mount Zion Federal Credit Union giving his congregation and members of the community access to alternative offerings for automobile loans, other types of loans, and various financial transactions. His concern for the housing needs of his community led Dr. Black to acquire financing for the building of the Mount Zion Sheltering Arms Senior Citizen Complex. In 1984, he organized the New Community builders, a non-profit housing corporation. Reflecting on Dr. Black`s years of leadership and accomplishments I know that his wife ZerNona was always there for him, as a friend, sounding board, consoler and mother of their two children. Ms. ZerNona Black is the epitome of King Solomon's words about the treasured wife. I admire her quiet strength of character, and celebrate with her the many accomplishments she made possible. We need more leaders like Dr. and Mrs. Black who showed with their actions, and not just their words, how to be good citizens. We need leaders like them who display integrity while forging more paths to accessible education, housing, and economic mobility. We look forward to their continuing mission as drum majors of positive change, understanding, and creativity showing us the way of making our community a better place to live.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, we have to recognize that there is still disparity out there. And if we do not recognize it, we do not see it. For them to stand up there and talk in terms of being in favor of affirmative action, in favor of trying to do the right thing reminds me of the slave owner who basically said, you are better off in slavery because we will be able to take care of you. It is appalling in terms of the comments that I hear when I stand up here before my colleagues. It is not a quota. We need to recognize the fact that there is preferential treatment that is occurring out there and that is discrimination that is happening, and we need to see how we can best respond to that. And this program is one of the programs that has been proven to make sure that the individuals have an opportunity to be able to participate. My colleagues cannot tell me that women are having a fair deal out there, because they are not; and for my colleagues to stand up there to say that they are is contrary to what is actually happening. It is contrary to what the statistics will show and tell us. I would ask that my colleagues consider what has been done too. To say that it is contrary to the Supreme Court decision, I would ask my colleagues to also consider the Adarand decision, because this particular decision does not deal with this particular item, and it is a safe item, and we should continue to support it.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, the emergency supplemental appropriations bill for 1998 is a vicious Republican attempt to pit children against the disaster victims. It is an attempt to pit children against the situation that we find ourselves in in Bosnia. The bill cuts bilingual and immigration education programs by $75 million. The cuts mean that half a million youngsters will be denied the opportunity to be able to learn English as quickly as possible. I want to add again that this particular cut will strike deeply into the States of California, Florida, Texas, and several other States; that at the same time yesterday the particular amendment that came up regarding the investigation of making sure that citizens were made citizens before they vote, that that particular amendment struck at those particular States instead of trying to make it universal. Mr. Speaker, it is a deliberate attempt to go after Hispanics. The administration strongly opposes these offsets, none of which are included in the Senate-based version of this bill. The President's senior advisors are recommending a veto of the bill as drafted in the House. In addition, the Republican leadership has refused to let the House debate the bill under a fair rule, and we only ask that the leadership give us an opportunity to debate it in a fair rule so that we have an opportunity, so that the House, both Republicans and Democrats, will be able to vote up or down whether we should cut those education programs or not. Bilingual and immigration education services for the neediest children are critical. This is important for them to continue to be able to learn English. For the House leadership and the Committee on Rules to deliberately not allow this democratic process to go forward, to not allow us an opportunity to continue to be able to debate this issue, is an outright attack on Hispanic youngsters throughout this country. At a time when we are moving to a global economy, we should be making sure that youngsters learn as much about other languages as possible. We are doing just the reverse. Mr. Speaker, I ask that we make sure that we vote this down.