Ciro Rodriguez

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill which would advance the protections of the landmark Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. Since 1940, USERRA has been the source of employment protection and remedies for veterans and reservists against all employers, government and private. Veterans and members of the armed services have had to fight for some of these rights in the courts. This bill addresses the problems which employees have faced against individual State employers and U.S. employers which control a foreign entity. I wish to focus on the provisions of H.R. 3213, which would expand veterans and uniformed service employment rights to employees in a foreign country working for an entity controlled by a U.S. company. Let me give my colleagues an example. We have individuals in the maquiladoras right across the border in Mexico. If they are called into the service of this country, we want to make sure that those individuals will be able to keep their jobs when they return. This bill provides that if a U.S. employer controls that overseas entity where the reservist works, then any denial of employment, reemployment or benefits by that foreign entity will be actionable against the U.S. employer. Foreign countries should not worry about this law imposing on their sovereignty, since the bill specifically does not apply when employer compliance would violate the law of the foreign country in which the workplace is located. Mr. Speaker, I also would add that every effort needs to be made to assure that these individuals that have given of themselves and that are called to defend this country and called to serve this country, to make sure when they get back that that particular job is there waiting for them. I welcome this legislation and commend the House for its swift passage. I want to thank both the chairman and the ranking member of the committee for their work on this measure.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bipartisan substitute which brings some common sense and fairness to the debate. No one doubts the importance of English for all Americans. It is our common language. I tell my students and my constituents back home that to succeed in this global economy, in this modern world, we must learn English, and not only learn, but master in English. English is the key for opportunity. This amendment allows this opportunity to provide that instruction and that training in English. It would treat Puerto Rico in a just manner, as it would treat all the other existing States. I would like to remind all the Members in this House that the territories prior to being accepted, such as Hawaii, we also allowed them the opportunity to be able to keep their native language. When we dealt with the Territory of Oklahoma, we also recognized the Native Americans in that area. When we looked at New Mexico, we also took into consideration the Spanish in that particular community. The Solomon amendment would prevent millions of Americans and would discriminate against a lot of individuals in Texas and others and in Puerto Rico itself. This is not fair. It is not right. I would ask that Members vote for this particular amendment. Mr. Chairman, in the age of increasing global competition, we should be nurturing some of our Nation's most valued treasures, our culture, our language and our skills, not curtailing them.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX, I hereby give notice of my intention to offer a resolution which raises a question of the privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: Whereas, Loretta Sanchez was issued a certificate of election as the duly elected Member of Congress from the 46th District of California by the Secretary of State of California and was seated by the U.S. House of Representatives on January 7, 1997; and Whereas A Notice of Contest of Election was filed with the Clerk of the House by Mr. Robert Dornan on December 26, 1996; and Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the 46th District of California met on February 26, 1997 in Washington, D.C. on April 19, 1997 in Orange County, California and October 24, 1997 in Washington, D.C.; and Whereas Mr. Dornan's unproven allegations and the actions of the Committee on House Oversight have resulted in an unprecedented attack against Latino voters and created a chilling effect with a message to Latinos that their votes are suspect; and Whereas the allegations made by Mr. Robert Dornan have been largely found to be without merit: charges of improper voting from a business, rather than a resident address; underage voting; double voting; and charges of unusually large number of individuals voting from the same address. It was found that voting from the same address included a Marines barracks and the domicile of nuns, that business addresses were legal residences for the individuals, including the zoo keeper of the Santa Ana zoo, that duplicate voting was by different individuals and those accused of underage voting were of age; and Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has issued unprecedented subpoenas to the Immigration and Naturalization Service to compare their records with Orange County voter registration records, the first time in any election in the history of the United States that the INS has been asked by Congress to verify the citizenship of voters; and Whereas the INS has complied with the Committee's request and, at the Committee's request, has been doing a manual check of its paper files and providing worksheets containing supplemental information on that manual check to the Committee on House Oversight for over five months; and Whereas the Committee on House Oversight, subpoenaed the records seized by the District Attorney of Orange County on February 13, 1997 and has received and reviewed all records pertaining to registration efforts of that group; and Whereas the House Oversight Committee is now pursuing a duplicate and dilatory review of materials already in the Committees possession by the Secretary of State of California; and Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the 46th District of California and the Committee have been reviewing these materials and has all the information it needs regarding who voted in the 46th District and all the information it needs to make judgments concerning those votes; and Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has after over nine months of review and investigation failed to present credible evidence to change the outcome of the election of Congresswoman Sanchez and is pursuing never ending and unsubstantiated areas of review; and Whereas, Contestant Robert Dornan has not shown or provided credible evidence that the outcome of the election is other than Congresswoman Sanchez's election to the Congress; and Whereas, after nearly a year and the expenditure of over $500,000, the continued probe of the Sanchez election unfairly targets Latino voters and discourages their full participation in the democratic process; and Whereas, the Committee on House Oversight should complete its review of this matter and bring this contest to an end and now therefore be it: Resolved, That unless the Committee on House Oversight has sooner reported a recommendation for its final disposition, the contest in the 46th District of California is dismissed upon the expiration of November 7, 1997.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Madam Speaker, I want to first of all take this opportunity to congratulate the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn], and the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump] for their efforts and leadership in this particular area. I rise today in strong support of this bill to increase veterans disability payments. From December 1, 1997, all 2.3 million veterans and 307,000 survivors receiving compensation payments will see the amount of their disability check increase by 2.1 percent. The boost cannot come any sooner. Today we find many of our Nation's veterans and their families living from paycheck to paycheck. The least we can do for these individuals is to provide them with this opportunity and these cost of living increases. That is the right thing to do, especially after they have given to this country as much as they have. I want to thank again the members of the committee for their efforts.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the leadership for taking swift and precise action to prevent violent criminals from being honored in our Nation's veterans' cemeteries. The bill we are passing today amends earlier provisions which may have unfairly targeted those who would be blamed, veterans' families or veterans who suffer from mental illness. I believe the focus of this bill on actual convicts and veterans who obviously committed the crime with the requisite mental intent protects due process for veterans and their families. In protecting veterans and veterans' families from the arbitrary elimination of benefits, this legislation strikes the resounding chord that we will not bless criminal veterans with the honor of burial in our national cemeteries. Madam Speaker, in closing, let me thank the chairman and the ranking member, as well as the gentleman from New York, Chairman Quinn. I think the gentleman did an exceptional job in reaching out to us in a bipartisan manner.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate that this is no compromise. It is like someone stealing your wallet and then offering only to return a few dollars. The bottom line is, this is not an appropriate agreement we can deal with. The language in this bill prevents fair competition for Defense Department maintenance work. This means higher costs for U.S. taxpayers. I repeat, the depot language in this bill will cost the taxpayers money. We just completed a competition for work done at Kelly Air Force Base. Warner-Robins Air Force Base in Georgia won the contract, at a savings of $190 million. The language in this bill would prevent us from seeing such savings in the future. Without the ability to conduct a fair public-private competition, the Air Force and Defense Department will not be able to fund the modernization program needed for our military to remain superior. Whether one thinks we should be spending additional money or not for national defense, everyone should agree that we should use every dollar most effectively. The language in this bill is to the contrary. It makes public-private competition next to impossible. Supporters of the language freely and proudly admit that it will make it too expensive and too restrictive for the private contractors to bid on depot work at San Antonio and Sacramento. The deck is stacked against free competition and against the U.S. taxpayer and military modernization. It should come as no surprise that the most punitive restrictions fall on the competition workload at the closing depots in San Antonio and Sacramento. Private bidders must comply with arcane rules not imposed on the public bidders, so we do not have a level playing field. The Depot Caucus believes this work should go to the depots, regardless of cost and regardless of what the Defense Department needs. They are protecting their home turf, and I respect that, but it is also bad policy, and this is not what we should be supporting. It puts our troops at a disadvantage. The Secretary of Defense and his military commanders need the flexibility on the current law to modernize. To do so, they need to have the ability to take the best and most appropriate public or private bid. Let us not tie the Pentagon's hands with a requirement on design, because, at the end, it is only to protect the existing bases that are there now. It will be at the expense of modernization and at the expense of readiness. A vote against the defense authorization bill is a vote for competition and for the future of our military readiness. Mr. Speaker, there is also evidence in the newspapers by some individuals indicating that on the contracts that are out there, ``Contractors will have to include in their bids millions of dollars of costs that were previously required.'' I think this will make it unlikely that the contractor will even bid.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to read a letter that was sent by the Executive Office of the President. It is signed by Franklin Raines. It talks about the existing legislation that is before us. I am going to read some aspects of it: The bill includes provisions which intended to protect public depots by limiting private industry's ability to compete for the depot-level maintenance of military systems and components. If enacted, these provisions would run counter to the ongoing efforts by Congress and the administration to use competition to improve the Department of Defense's business practices and it would severely limit the Department's flexibility to increase efficiency and save the taxpayers' dollars. It also adds that the bill could reduce opportunities to allow the industry to participate in future weapons systems. In addition, it also dictates how the Department of Defense should treat certain competitive factors, and I quote, that the bill seeks to skew its competition in favor of public depots. One of the things that I want to read in the back, I think this is very critical, it says, If the numerous problems cited above cannot be overcome, the impact on the Department's costs and our national military capacity would be profound; the President's senior advisers would recommend that the bill be vetoed. The opportunity that we have now before us is to be able to hopefully clear this area so we will not have a veto. Unfortunately, we do. I have received word that the bill is going to be filibustered both by Senator Hutchison and Senator Gramm as well as some of the Senators from California, because of the fact that it does not allow for the opportunity to compete in an appropriate manner. I want to go back to the letter and emphasize the fact that these are words that are also coming from the Department of Defense, which says: ``We need to encourage more competition from private industry, not less. Billions of dollars in potential savings are at issue. These resources should be used to maintain the U.S. fighting edge,'' and not to hinder it.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Veterans Administration and the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities [HACU] for undertaking a new partnership aimed at increasing Hispanic participation in health care professions. The program is being launched this morning at the Audie L. Murphy Memorial Veterans Hospital in San Antonio. VA Under Secretary for Health Dr. Kenneth Kizer and HACU President Dr. Antonio Flores will be present at the kick-off ceremony. The program's goal is to place Hispanic interns in VA facilities across the country, providing them hands-on experience in a variety of VA health care settings. Students accepted into the summer internship program will work at medical centers, outpatient clinics, nursing homes and community-based clinics, thus providing a broad spectrum of experience opportunities. The interns will complement over 100,000 health care professionals who are trained at VA facilities across the country. This experience is designed to educate interns who are pursuing careers in health care services, ranging from physical therapy to health care administration. I commend the VA for its commitment to develop a workforce which reflects the communities served by the VA health care system.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Thomas R. Brown, Chief of Recreation Therapy Service at the Veterans Administration Medical Center in San Antonio and national advisor to the National Veterans Wheelchair Games, for receiving the 17th annual Olin E. Teague Award for outstanding work with disabled veterans. The Teague Award, named for the late Texas Congressman Olin E. ``Tiger'' Teague, is given once a year to the VA employee or group of employees whose work benefits veterans with service-connected problems. Mr. Brown has been involved with recreational therapy at the VA since 1976. A world-class athlete in his own right, he served from 1986-89 as Chairman of the VA's National Sports and Recreation Committee, which oversees the National Veterans Wheelchair Games, the Disabled Veterans Winter Sports Clinic, the National Veterans Golden Age Games, and the National Veterans Creative Arts Festival. Each year, these events inspire thousands of veterans to get out of the hospital and be active and competitive in the community. Mr. Brown continues to serve as national advisor of the Wheelchair Games, which he helped found in 1980. Mr. Brown's work in the daily therapy of veterans at the VA Medical Center and his leadership in organizing events for disabled veterans at the national level serve as an inspiration, not only to disabled veterans, but to all of our citizens. In dealing with those who have suffered injury while in the service of our Nation, Mr. Brown stands as a beacon to take the road less traveled, and we commend him for his initiative and industriousness.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, they are at it again. The House majority has planned to help only a select few of the students that exist. Nine out of ten students attend our public school system. Once again, 9 out of 10 students attend our public school systems. We have to be responsive to those individuals, and our obligation as elected officials is to those people that attend our public school system. We have to assure that they have the resources. We have to make sure our teachers have the training that is required. We have to make sure that our buildings are adequate and, at the same time, we have to make sure that they have access to the latest technology. As taxpayers, our obligation is to the public schools, not to the private or religious schools. The majority's plan to abandon our public schools is not an option. Vouchers are not the answer. Abandoning our public schools will only make it worse. What we need is a commitment of repairing our buildings, a commitment to our students that are out there, commitment to our teachers, a commitment to our communities. We must work for all our students that are out there. Let us not abandon our schools.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the dedication, public service, and patriotism of Col. Jimmie D. Holmans. Colonel Holmans, a native Texan, will retire from the U.S. Air Force on October 1, 1997 after more than 29 years of faithful service to our Nation. Since the beginning of his military career in November 1967, Colonel Holmans has risen through the ranks of the U.S. Air Force, always ready and willing to serve our country in any capacity. Recognizing his potential to serve our great country, the Air Force selected him to attend Officer Training School. He was first assigned as a personnel officer at Reese Air Force Base, TX. Colonel Holmans was then assigned to Korat Royal Thai Air Force Base, Thailand, in 1974, where he worked in direct support of the Cambodian and Saigon evacuations and the recapture of the S.S. Mayguez. Upon his return from Thailand in 1975, Colonel Holmans was assigned to Hanscom Air Force Base, MA, and was named the Air Force Systems Command's Personnel Officer of the Year for 1976. He returned to Texas with an assignment to the U.S. Air Force Military Personnel Center at Randolph Air Force Base where he was responsible for responding to Presidential, congressional, inspector general, and other high level military inquiries. In 1983, he was reassigned to the 96th Bombardment Wing at Dyess Air Force Base, TX, as the wing transitioned from B-52H to become the first B-1B wing in the Air Force. After graduating from the Armed Forces Staff College in 1986, Colonel Holmans served as the manpower and personnel staff officer, Plans Branch, North Atlantic Treaty Organization Airborne Early Warning Force Command, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, Mons, Belgium. In 1987, he was selected to be the commander, Detachment 1, 1141st United States Air Force Special Activities Squadron at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe. During this assignment, he served as the senior personnel advisor to the Chief of Staff, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, and was additionally responsible for all administrative support to the U.S. Air Force personnel stationed at Headquarters North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Brussels, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, and throughout the BENELUX region of Europe. He was reassigned to Headquarters United States Air Forces in Europe, Ramstein Air Base, Germany, as director, Senior Office Management in 1989. During this tour, he was awarded the United States Air Forces in Europe Senior Personnel Manager of the Year for 1991. In 1992, he returned to the United States to attend Air War College, and upon graduation in July 1993, he was reassigned to Headquarters Air Force Intelligence Command, Kelly Air Force Base, TX, serving as chief, Personnel Programs and Systems Management Division and chief, Senior Officer Management. In November 1993, he served as chief, Assignments and Plans Division, Directorate of Personnel, Air Intelligence Agency at Kelly. For the past 18 months, Colonel Holmans has held the position of chief, Assignments Division, Air Force Colonel Matters Office, where he has been directly responsible for assignments and professional development of over 4,500 Air Force colonels and colonel-selects. Colonel Holmans has earned the Legion of Merit, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Meritorious Service Medal with four oak leaf clusters, and Air Forces Commendation Medal with two oak leaf clusters. Our Nation, the Department of Defense, the U.S. Air Force, and his family can truly be proud of the colonel's many successes. He is a man of extraordinary talent and integrity, and we owe him a debt of gratitude for his many years of dedicated service to this country. And, let us not forget the contributions and sacrifices made by Colonel Holmans' family, his wife Myra, and his daughter Melissa. On behalf of the citizens of the 28th District of Texas, we wish Col. Jimmie D. Holmans all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, let me first of all thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] for his efforts in ensuring that veterans are prioritized as No. 1. I have sat back and listened to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Whitfield] indicate that it does not make any difference. If it does not make any difference, I would ask him to reconsider and accept the amendment and do the right thing. I think it is unfair that as we move forward and listen to Senator Helms and his prioritizing, there is no doubt that businesses out there have suffered. There is no doubt that the industry and construction has suffered, but we need to just ask one question: Who suffered the most in the Persian Gulf? It was our veterans who were out there. They were the ones out there on the front line. They were the ones that made the difference. They were the ones that made it happen, and we need to be there for them. For us to not consider them as our first priority when we look at that $1.2 billion is not appropriate and it is unfair. We need to make sure that we are fair and that we are not insensitive, and so I will ask for my colleagues' support to make sure the conference committee takes into consideration and puts veterans No. 1. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Mr. Doggett's motion to instruct conferees concerning H.R. 1757, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. There is not enough money from the $1.2 billion Iraqi frozen assets to pay all the claims of our citizens, businesses, and Government. Therefore, we have to decide who should take first, and how much they can potentially get. This is a tough decision. I recognize that many individuals and businesses who have dealt with Iraq have faced losses on shipments, commodities, and unpaid consulting and construction contracts. We must ask ourselves: Among us, who paid the highest price in the Persian Gulf war? I do not even have to leave my district to answer--the gulf war veteran suffering from disease and illness. I can think of several cases off the top of my head, one even involving birth defects to a veteran's child. The other side argues that care for veterans has traditionally been the sole responsibility of the Government, which it is. But what do you do when the Government does not recognize the illness as service- connected? What do you tell the veteran whose own Government is telling him that he or she does not have a problem? I believe that telling the veteran that he or she will not get a chance to collect on a claim is adding insult to injury. While our Government deliberates on whether and how to compensate those so clearly affected by their service in the gulf war, how can we break the bank for anyone else? I respectfully advise the conferees to look beyond the heated and sometimes misleading rhetoric on priorities of businesses versus veterans. Then, I believe, they will do the right thing.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, in the 1990 census, the census missed an estimated 4.7 million people, 1.58 percent of the population. We are bound to have some undercount; but the undercount of minorities and inner city populations is unacceptably out of proportion to the national average. For minorities, the undercount was nearly tripled: The census missed 4.4 percent of the African-American population and 4.9 percent of the Hispanic population. We need an accurate census. A count that does not leave minorities and inner city and rural populations behind. Without accurate census information, minorities, inner cities, and rural areas do not receive equal political representation or distribution of government resources. State and local governments with missed populations lose millions of dollars in Federal aid. Sampling is not a new issue. In 1991, Congress passed a law requiring the Census Bureau to determine improved census methods and to consider the use of sampling to get a more accurate count of the population. Sampling is simply a way to get the most accurate census from available information. Based upon detailed analysis of areas that the Census Bureau counts by hand, it can quite accurately determine the population of similar places for which inaccurate or incomplete data was collected. We all agree that we need an accurate count. Why do Members on the other side of the aisle oppose sampling? Because they fear it would mean counting more Democrats? Since its beginning, the Census Bureau has abstained from political posturing and continues to remain independent. We must let the Census Bureau do its job and use the method that is most accurate, and that avoids unfair undercounts. That is the American way.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, we are today discussing how to give our children the tools they need to succeed in school. This administration, one of the most committed to improving opportunities for all students to learn, has gone a step too far in proposing the national testing initiative. Don't misunderstand me. I agree with the administration's desire to raise standards for our children. We must have high standards. We must know what and if our children are learning in the classroom. Their success is our success. We are discussing which tools will best serve schools, teachers and students. There is no question that we need to continue to find innovative approaches to meet the challenges of the late 20th century. Students who can't read can't learn to the fullest. But national standardized testing is not necessarily the best tool to encourage learning and measure progress. In Texas, our kids are already tested every which way. It's not just students who think there are enough tests, but also teachers and parents. Testing is necessary, of course, but too much testing, like too much of just about anything, can work against us. Teachers want their students to succeed. If success is measured only by test after test after test, then teachers will teach to the test rather than teach to learn. Students must learn how to think not just how to fill in the bubbles with a number 2 pencil. Each child learns differently, and they all learn at a different pace. This is especially true for children with limited English backgrounds and for children with special needs. These students need to be challenged to learn and grow. With the proper tools and attention, students with limited English skills will succeed. But they must be given a fair opportunity to do so. Mandatory national tests won't help all kids. Testing should be optional; their should be alternatives; we should make sure that we don't have a one-size-fits-all national education program. The best tools we have for teaching kids are the teachers themselves. We should direct our resources to them. Almost every teacher I have met, and during my time as a school board member I met many, wants to succeed and genuinely cares for the students. But they face terrible challenges: crumbling buildings, crime, drugs, lack of parental support, overcrowding, and a dearth of financial resources in our poorest neighborhoods. I am afraid that national testing will ultimately stigmatize students who already face the greatest challenges. They need teachers empowered with proper resources, they need challenge, and they need a safe and secure place to learn. But they don't need another standardized test in the morning.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, let me first indicate, I think one of the things that we need to look at is the whole issue of readiness. I am on the Committee on National Security. One of the things that we have been informed is that those 10,000 troops are going to cost us $650 million. I want my colleagues to think about that. Second, as the gentleman rose and talked about what is so wrong about defending our country, we are there to defend our country. But do we want troops there that might jeopardize our own citizens, as has already happened? That is what we are concerned about. When I went up there during the last 30 days, I had an opportunity to travel through my district, and it goes all the way to the Rio Grande, and, yes, they are against drugs, by the way, and, yes, they are against immigration, illegal immigration, and there is a need for us to respond. But they have also indicated that they would prefer to have Border Patrol people handle that, individuals that are well-trained to be able to deal with that. When we talk about drugs, we are going to need sophisticated individuals who will be able to handle and know the terrain, know the area. We run the risk of having incidents that would occur that happened to that young man, Mr. Hernandez, unfortunate incident where one American citizen got killed. We should not jeopardize that to occur, and we should do every effort to make sure that that does not happen. I also want to inform my colleagues that both the Department of Justice has considered this very inappropriate and is not in support; the Department of Defense has indicated, and I would like to read some of the things that they have said. The general counsel of the Department of Defense warned in a letter to the Committee on National Security chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], that the troops that work along the border are of minimal value to military readiness and detract from the training with war-fighting equipment for war-fighting missions. This lack of training would directly reduce unit readiness. If we look at it in addition to the Department of Defense, they have indicated that this is not the right thing to do. The INS has also indicated that they would prefer to handle this in a way that the Border Patrol is involved, and I want to ask my colleagues: Would you want to see troops in your own neighborhoods, in your own community, people that might not know the area? I would ask that you seriously consider that because I would think you would not want them in Ohio, in your own back yard. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the National Security Committee, I opposed the amendment to authorize up to 10,000 additional troops on the border, and today I rise to oppose this motion to instruct conferees on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998. 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 risk grave consequences by deploying them on American soil. Such a dramatic increase of troops on the border is a dangerous proposal that will put border residents in danger and reduce military readiness. During the August break I travelled throughout my district in South Texas, including counties I represent along the U.S.-Mexico border. At every meeting, residents of the border region expressed overwhelming opposition to the proposal to increase the number of soldiers on the border. The residents expressed concerns that the soldiers are unfamiliar with the people and the area, are not trained to deal with the complexities of immigration along the border, and may not be bilingual. Border residents, just like everyone else, want to stop the influx of illegal drugs and believe in stopping the flow of undocumented immigrants. But the solution they support is more Border Patrol agents. The recently implemented Operation Rio Grande is a first step toward that goal. Last May, an 18 year old boy was killed by a Marine assisting Border Patrol agents 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 7,000 agents patrolling our nation's borders and Congress has authorized an additional 1,000 agents every year until 2001. 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. Speaker, I serve on the House National Security Readiness Subcommittee and the Readiness Panel of the Defense Authorization Conference Committee. At a time when readiness concerns and the increased operation tempo of our military are at their highest we cannot afford to pull 10,000 men and women away from their posts to do the work of Border Patrol agents. The military can provide assistance in numerous ways without this unwarranted diversion of troops. The General Counsel of the Department of Defense warned in a letter to National Security Committee Chairman Spence 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 and would extend the time required before these personnel could be deployed to support contingency operations. The General Counsel summed up his concerns be stating that the proposal would reduce the level of military preparedness and overall combat effectiveness of the Armed Forces. The Department of Defense estimates that the placement of 10,000 soldiers on the border would cost in excess of $650 million per year. This enormous sum could be put to better use ensuring Border Patrol agents are properly trained and have the resources needed to enforce our Nation's laws and to protect themselves. Mr. Speaker, I, and the tens of thousands of residents I represent along the border, urge my colleagues to vote against this motion to instruct conferees. The placement of up to 10,000 soldiers on our borders is a dangerous proposal that could have deadly consequences for border residents. We must remember who were are protecting.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, six of my colleagues from the Texas delegation--Mr. Brady, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Green, Ms. E.B. Johnson, Mr. Sam Johnson, and Mr. Turner--and I all had the privilege of serving in the Texas Legislature prior to being elected to the U.S. Congress. During our respective tenures in the State Legislature, all seven of us were honored to know a wonderful lady--and native of San Antonio--by the name of Karyne Jones Conley, who served as a member of the Texas House of Representatives, District No. 120 of eastern Bexar County, from January 10, 1989, to July 10, 1996. From July 1996 to present, Ms. Conley--now relocated to the Washington, DC metropolitan area--has served as director of Federal relations for S.B.C. Telecommunications, Inc., a post which has brought her great pleasure and personal satisfaction. At the initiative of her former Capitol office administrative assistant, Mr. Gregory D. Watson of Austin, TX, who now serves in that same capacity for State Representative Leo Alvarado, Jr., also of Bexar County, the recently-concluded regular session of the 75th Legislature honored Ms. Conley with the adoption of House Concurrent Resolution No. 320, which was presented in the Texas House by Representative Alvarado, and in the Texas Senate by State Senator Frank L. Madila, Jr. The resolution was then signed by Texas Governor George W. Bush on June 18, 1997. Mr. Speaker, having known and having worked with Ms. Conley for many years in San Antonio, then in Austin, and now in Washington, DC, I, too, would like to pay tribute to this outstanding public servant. I respectfully ask that the full text of House Concurrent Resolution No. 320 be printed in the Congressional Record as follows: The State of Texas House of Representatives House Concurrent Resolution No. 320 Whereas, The Texas Legislature is proud to congratulate former State Representative Karyne Jones Conley on her latest career achievements with SBC Telecommunications, Inc., in Washington, D.C.; and Whereas, A native San Antonian, Ms. Conley earned a bachelor's degree in political science from Clark Atlanta University in Georgia and a master's degree in public affairs from Northern Illinois University; in 1995, she completed her second master's degree at Harvard University, focusing on the study of economic and political development; and Whereas, Ms. Conley began her distinguished public service career in our nation's capital as a congressional aide to former U.S. Representative Andrew Young of Georgia, and when he was appointed by then-President Jimmy Carter to the post of Ambassador to the United Nations, the youthful Miss Jones served as Young's Public Affairs Officer at the United States Mission to the United Nations in New York City; and Whereas, After returning to her hometown of San Antonio, Ms. Conley drew upon her deep interest in both education and the arts as Director of the Carver Cultural Center and as a grant writer for The University of Texas Institute of Texan Cultures; she also served as Program Developer for Continuing Education at San Antonio College, and in 1985, she was elected to her first public office, the East Central Independent School District Board of Trustees; and Whereas, Highly regarded throughout the community for her professionalism, integrity, and dedication, this esteemed lady was elected to the Texas House of Representatives in 1988, representing eastern San Antonio and Bexar County and was re-elected without opposition in 1990, 1992, and 1994; during her four terms of office, Representative Conley demonstrated intelligence and leadership as a member of the Appropriations, House Administration, Corrections, and Judiciary committees, and she was tapped to serve as vice- chair of the House's Urban Affairs Committee; and Whereas, Since July 1996, Ms. Conley has served with distinction as Director of Federal Relations with SBC Telecommunications, Inc., in Washington, D.C., and although this position has temporarily drawn her away from her beloved San Antonio, her neighbors and many friends in the Lone Star State are hopeful that she will eventually return home; and Whereas, In this, as in all of her endeavors, Ms. Conley has enjoyed the love and support of her family, which includes her husband, attorney Jim Conley, and four children: James, Jason, John, and Karyne Jalon; and Whereas, Both in her personal life and in her professional service, the Honorable Karyne Jones Conley has exhibited an abiding concern for the well-being of her fellow Americans, and she is indeed deserving of recognition as she pursues this new chapter of her life; now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the 75th Legislature of the State of Texas, Regular Session, 1997, hereby congratulate former State Representative Karyne Jones Conley on her new position with SBC Telecommunications, Inc., and extend to her warmest best wishes for continued success; and, be it further Resolved, That an official copy of this resolution be prepared for Ms. Conley as an expression of highest regard by the Texas House of Representatives and Senate.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to defend the peanut farmers in my district and throughout the Nation. Once again we see the multicorporations trying to come in and be able to take the profits. When we look at it, the family farmer is less than 100 acres, and so we are looking at a situation where less than 100 acres for the average family farmer in this country. These farmers must compete with multicultural corporations in dealing with them. They had, last time around they had, and it was cut from 678 to 610; now they are coming back for more. My colleagues, before you is a Snickers. I paid 60 cents for it. It has gone up 5 cents. Have my colleagues seen a cut on it? No. In addition to that, the peanuts that are in this Snickers is approximately 2 cents. Do my colleagues foresee that there will be a cut of 58 cents? I will attest to my colleagues that that is not going to occur. What we see before us is an attempt by the multicorporate corporations to be able to get some additional moneys. I thank my colleagues, and I ask them to vote no on the amendment.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join in supporting H.R. 1585, the Stamp Out Breast Cancer Act. Breast cancer is an especially horrific disease that attacks one out of eight women in the United States. With these numbers, almost no family in the United States is immune from this disease that kills thousands each year. Too many of our mothers, sisters, and daughters each year suffer from the ravages of this disease. Nearly 45,000 women will die this year from breast cancer alone, with more than 180,000 new cases diagnosed. In Texas, 2,800 women will die, and we will add 11,500 new breast cancer cases to the rolls. We have made progress in recent years, in early detection, diagnosis, and treatment. But we are too far from adequate treatment and too far from a cure. We need to make cancer research, and breast cancer research in particular, a priority. This bill would provide an innovative, new source of badly needed funding for breast cancer research for a 2-year demonstration period. The Postal Service would create a new postage rate for first-class mail as an alternative to the regular rate, and customers would have the choice of buying either. The Postal Service would distribute 70 percent of the revenues raised to the National Institutes of Health and 30 percent to the Department of Defense breast cancer research program. These moneys will not displace any other funding. I support this effort and urge passage of the Stamp Out Breast Cancer Act. My hometown of San Antonio is a growing cancer research center, where doctors and researchers work with brave, valiant women to improve treatment and further our understanding of breast cancer. I am confident that with perseverance and proper funding, we will find ways to conquer breast cancer. This legislation is a step in the right direction.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, in my hometown of San Antonio, TX, tomorrow, a close friend and colleague in the Texas Legislature will be honored for 25 years of extraordinary public service to our community and State. Texas State Senator Frank Madla started life on a family ranch in the small town of Helotes, TX. His career stands as a testament to his values: helping others, dedication to family, and hard work. I am proud to know him, his wife, Helen Cruz Madla, and his children Frank III and Marci Morgan. First elected to the Texas House of Representatives in 1972, Frank Madla has distinguished himself as an advocate for improving our education system, protecting the public health, preserving our environmental resources, helping others with the ravages of alcoholism and drug abuse, and relieving the challenges of mental retardation. After 20 years of service in the Texas House, he moved to the Texas Senate in 1993. His accomplishments include authoring legislation to increase health care access in rural areas and for indigent women and children, facilitate the delivery of services to persons with disabilities, create a gifted and talented program for Texas schools, find solutions to avert a water crisis in central Texas, and strengthen the child abuse reporting system. These are but examples of his many endeavors to increase public safety, streamline the delivery of essential services, and bring health care to those without it. Unlike the Federal legislature, service in the Texas Legislature requires outside employment. Senator Madla prepared himself well by securing a strong education. He graduated from my alma mater of St. Mary's University in San Antonio with a bachelor and masters of arts degrees in government. From Our Lady of the Lake University, another of my alma mater's, he received certification in public school administration. Senator Madla is a teacher. His first job out of college was teaching history and civics at Escobar Junior High School. Senator Madla, since the beginning of his legislative career, has shared his academic and practical knowledge as an instructor in government and political science at Incarnate Word College and St. Mary's University. Beyond the classroom, he has been a teacher to his friends and colleagues, instructing us in the positive values he embodies. I am not the only one who thinks highly of Senators Madla. His list of honors is too long for me to recount here. But the variety of groups that has recognized his accomplishments speaks volumes. Organizations representing education, the medical community, law enforcement, and public employees have honored Senator Madla with Legislator of the Year and other outstanding accolades. As someone who served with him, I can state with confidence that these awards are well deserved and hard earned. Senator Madla has dedicated his life to public service, to helping those who cannot always help themselves, to create opportunities for diverse communities. A quarter century of service is in itself a worthy accomplishment, but when done with such dedication and commitment, it is an outstanding achievement.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to language in the committee report accompanying the VA-HUD appropriation bill that would effectively stop the Veterans Health Care Administration from implementing the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation System or VERA. VERA is a budgeting change that would allow VA health care dollars to follow the veteran, wherever the veteran moves within the country. Veterans, like the general population, move, and our limited health care dollars should move with them. Under the old system, VA hospitals in areas of the country to which veterans are migrating must treat more patients with the same level of funding. Veterans in my congressional district are served by the South Texas Veterans Health Care Network. The network serves one of the highest percentages of service-connected veterans, the highest number of low- income nonservice connected veterans, the largest women veterans population, and a very large group of winter Texans. The old formula of funding health care facilities at historical levels plus medical inflation does not account for all of these veterans. The old system makes no provision for Winter Texans who seek care at local facilities. These facilities must do the work without appropriate funding, straining the resources available to all veterans. VERA makes sure that the dollars are available to provide veterans in South Texas and other portions of the country the health care services they need and deserve. All veterans must be treated equally regardless where they live in the country. It is imperative that the VA be allowed to implement the VERA. We must shift the health care dollars to the facilities that are serving these priority veterans. We must allow the health care dollars to follow the veteran.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. We have before us an amendment, and basically one of the things that it does is it allows to preserve the existing law. There are some discussions that are out there regarding the privatization in place, but let me set my colleagues straight. The bids are out in San Antonio. We have both the private and the public sector participating, and I ask my colleagues, why are they afraid of that? We have the bids that are out there and it does not call for privatization in place; it just asks to see what the best bid is. Why are my colleagues so afraid of doing that? So what we have before us is an attempt to get the language and clean up the language. There is some discussion by some of the Members regarding the integrity of the BRAC process. The chairman, when he first started, read out what the process said, and I am going to read it to my colleagues again. It said, consolidate the workloads to other DOD depots or to private sector commercial activities as determined by the Defense Department. We have both options of doing the private sector or the depot, whichever is the most cost effective. It is pretty straightforward and pretty democratic. But now we come through the legislative process and since we have the bids that are out there, we want to say no, we do not want to play that game, we want to get the contract without having to go out for the bids. Well, I say to my colleagues, we have an opportunity to vote for the Everett amendment and we have the opportunity to withhold the integrity of the BRAC process by voting ``no'' on the Everett amendment. I also want to share with my colleagues that in the process, the discussions about Kelly and about San Antonio and Sacramento, they have been closed, and in some cases in San Antonio some of the projects have been realigned. That is going to happen. That is going to occur. Out of the five depots, there are only three left. San Antonio is closed and Sacramento is closed. What we have before us is an opportunity to make sure that the integrity of BRAC is taking place by voting for the Everett amendment; No. 2, by assuring that we have the most cost-effective method of making sure that we put that into effect. Secretary Cohen has talked about the importance of readiness, as some of the Members have mentioned here, and he has talked about the fact that some of the existing laws like this one is detrimental for the process of readiness and to assure that our troops have the resources. So it becomes really important that my colleagues vote, and I would ask my colleagues to vote in favor of the amendment.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the constitutional amendment allowing for legislation to protect the desecration of our flag. Throughout history, Americans have fought and died for this Old Glory, and we owe it to their memory to protect this symbol at home. It will indeed be a challenge to at once protect the symbol and also protect that for which it stands. Whether flying over the local high school or the post office, beckoning foreigners at a U.S. Embassy or consulate, covering a crate of aid to victims of strife abroad, or drapping a casket of a servicemember killed in action, the Stars and Strips has and always will instill a sense of pride and security the world over. We have inherited this legacy, from the days Betsy Ross put together the patches of cloth, and we should treasure it, preserving it for the future, a future of much more diversity, patches of different- colored cloth. So in voting for House Joint Resolution 54, I understand the feelings of free speech being restricted. I urge this body to take tremendous caution in drafting any future laws which will specify liability and penalties. In defending the symbol of the fort, we must not give away the fortress, the Bill of Rights. We must not today give up any power to vigorously defend and fully guard the liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights in enforcing and adjudicating flag desecration laws. We have a duty to those who have come and gone before us, and to those that preserve our country as a symbol of freedom the world over. Although desecration of Old Glory is itself an expression of speech, I can, in good conscience, draw this thin red, white, and blue line.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues put this function together just for me; right? Let me first of all introduce my wife and my daughter. I want to ask them to stand up. Carolina, my wife, is a teacher, and we are real proud she got Teacher of the Year in San Antonio last year. My daughter, Xochil. And my daughter, Xochil, is a 14-year-old. I also want to recognize some of the other members that have been real supportive, and I ask them to stand up for me today. Let me just briefly thank my colleagues. There is no doubt that I am here with mixed emotions. I had the pleasure of being in high school when Congressman Tejeda was there, in the same high school in Harlandale. I had the pleasure of being in classes with him when we were in Saint Mary's University. I also had the pleasure of being in the Texas House when he was in the Texas Senate. And I have had the pleasure of working on a variety of projects with him. And we all mourn the loss of Congressman Tejeda. Today, I am also humbled in having been elected to this body. I know that my colleagues probably felt the same way I feel now, coming in, kind of in awe. It has not hit me yet. But I do want to thank all my fellow colleagues for allowing me to come in today and allowing my family to come in. I do want to just indicate a few things. As I ran for office, one of the key things, one of the basic principles I have always had, when I ran for the school board 12 years ago, and I spent 12 years on the school board when I ran for the legislature, was that education is key. I know President Kennedy once commented, in this same body 35 years ago, on the importance of human development, the importance of recognizing the individual, and in being able to do whatever we can to enhance the quality of that individual. I have always worked from that perspective. I want to continue to work on that principle, that as far as I am concerned, as we move on to the next century, what is going to be the strength of this country is going to be its people, and we need to invest in ourselves and in our people. With that, come the investment in human development and investment in education and investment in training. I want to take this opportunity to say it was a big honor for me growing up in San Antonio and having as my Congressman the gentleman from Texas, Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez. And for him to have given the introduction, I just want to thank him very much. I have always admired his hard work and his dedication. So I say to my colleagues, I will be here representing the 28th Congressional District of the State of Texas, and I am looking forward to working with my colleagues. I will try to hit it running as quickly as I can. Muchas gracias.