Loretta Sanchez

Ms. SANCHEZ

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to yield half of my time to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) so that he may be permitted to yield time as he sees fit.

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to begin by saying that I have been now twice as a Congresswoman to Vietnam. I represent the largest Vietnamese segment of population outside of Vietnam in Orange County, California. Today's issue of the Jackson-Vanik is really an issue about emigration and our ability to make sure that reunification of families is happening here in the U.S., those who want to leave Vietnam and have been approved by the United States and their ability to get the right papers out of the Vietnamese government in order to make it here and come and join their families. As the person who represents the largest group of Vietnamese people here in America, certainly our office gets to deal with all the problems of emigration between these two countries, the United States and Vietnam. That is really what this Jackson-Vanik waiver is about, whether the country of Vietnam is working in a positive manner to help us get that family reunification done. I would like to say that from our experience, and I will get into it in a little while, they have not. In fact, they are obstructing our ability to reunify our families here in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), another one of my California colleagues who has been working very much with the Vietnamese community.

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) mentioned that we would be taking a recorded vote on this; and part of that, he mentioned, is because of the emotions that many of the Members in this House feel over the Vietnam war and situation. I am one of those whom the Vietnam war, in many ways, bypassed, having been a very young child during that time; but I do know that my emotions are very strong on this because I do represent a group of people who are trying to reunify their families. Probably, nobody else has as many cases open, over 1,000; and probably nobody in this Chamber has two Vietnamese-speaking people who deal only with the reunification of families in our home district office. Many of my colleagues do not get to see what I get to see or see the cases that come before us, the cases like my colleague from Michigan mentioned that there has been positive change with respect to emigration from Vietnam to the United States. I will tell my colleagues that 5 years ago when I started as a Congresswoman, one had to get an exit visa from the Vietnamese government before the United States would clear you for entrance into the United States. That has changed. Now, you get cleared by the United States, and then you go to the Vietnamese government and you ask for an exit visa, an ability to leave their country. When you go to that point, if you are in Vietnam, it usually costs you a $2,000 or $3,000 bribe in order to get that exit visa. The annual wage for the annual household income in Vietnam today is about $300 a year, which means that if one is being asked for a $2,000 or $3,000 bribe in order to get an exit visa in order to come to the United States after you have been approved by the United States, there is just not a way that math works out, which means we have lots of open cases and people who are not able to come over, even though we in the United States said, yes, they are eligible under the laws passed to come and be reunited with their families in the United States. This is why this issue is so important, because this is giving financial instruments to people who want to do business in Vietnam because Vietnam's government has opened up and has helped us on the emigration issues, but they have not done that. They have made it, in some cases, more difficult. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. A comment to the good doctor. This is not a trade vote. The bilateral trade agreement I know is going through the Committee on Ways and Means, and we can discuss the issues of trade and whether working with the people of Vietnam will allow for more open issues with respect to human rights and other things that I think we should be concerned about as a Nation. But this really is about does Vietnam allow its people to emigrate to the United States, does it work with us on issuing visas. And if it does a good job with that, we, in return, allow them, allow our business people to have these government programs that allow for financing and doing business in that country. That is the real issue. Again, I believe that the government of Vietnam has not been forthright in its policies of emigration. Currently, religious persecution, human rights violations, economic restrictions, we know that they all still exist in Vietnam. And one does not have to go to Vietnam to see it. We hear it, we read it in reports that come back, reports from the United States Department of State as well as witnesses that we have had here, dialogue with our colleagues here. And the dialogue on Vietnam reveals the government still pursues a policy of repressing free expression and religious choice. Those that oppose the government's mandates continue to be the target of mental and economic terrorism, and the administrative detainment of political and religious leaders who disagree with that Communist party platform still occurs. The U.S. State Department's 2000 Country Report on Vietnam states that the government's human rights record in Vietnam remains poor. It says that there are serious problems regarding religious freedom and the advancement of human rights. In April of this year, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, a body that was created by this Congress in 1998 to monitor religious freedom in other countries, recommended that we withhold our support for most International Monetary Fund and World Bank loans to that government of Vietnam until it agrees to make substantial improvements in the protection of religious freedom. Our own body that we created has told us in a report just this past April that we should not be doing these types of financing mechanisms for that government until it cleans up its act. Contrary to the Vietnamese government's pretense that it has no political or religious prisoners, many Vietnamese continue to languish in prisons because of their beliefs. The detention of these religious leaders, whether or not they tell us where they are or whether they put them under house arrest and do not let them leave their homes, is persecution. Police arbitrarily arrest and detain citizens for reasons including the peaceful expression of political and religious views and sometimes even beat them when they are arrested. The judiciary is not independent. The government denies citizens the right to fair trials. The government continues to grossly violate human rights by incarcerating prisoners of conscience. Pro-democracy activists, scholars, and poets are still in prison for crimes such as using freedom and democracy to ``injure the national unity.'' Vietnam continues to deny freedom of religion. Mr. Speaker, this past year, I traveled to Vietnam; and I had the opportunity to meet with four of the six leading dissidents in Vietnam for human rights and for advocation of collective bargaining in the workplace, Professor Nguyen Thanh Giang, who used to be a member of the Communist party and then was kicked out because he did not support what this government is doing with respect to religious freedom and basic human rights; Mr. Pham Que Duong; and Mr. Hoang Minh Chinh. I met with all of them, and we discussed this whole issue of trade. The issue is that human rights violations continue, and there has been no movement. Our reports say time after time that there is no movement on human rights. Even our own Ambassador, Pete Peterson, when he was out in my district in front of the Vietnamese community, when he was pressed for details about what positive things had happened in human rights, could not come up with one answer, at least not when he was in front of people who understand and have their families back there. I also visited with the Most Venerable Thich Quang Do, someone I nominated to win the Nobel Peace Prize. There are 28 of my colleagues in this House who also signed that letter asking for that. Right now he is under arrest. It is not the first time in his life; it probably will not be the last time in his life. But it simply happens over and over and it does not change. If an individual is with the Buddhists, and they do not like that, then they have problems. If someone is with the Catholic faith, and they do not like what that individual is doing, if they are going out to help flood victims, they are put under house arrest. Right now, they have Father Ly under persecution simply because he went to try to help flood victims in the Delta area. Nevertheless, Vietnam continues over and over to insist it has no political or religious prisoners. I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution. It is time we became aware of what is really happening in Vietnam.

Ms. SANCHEZ

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to voice my strong support for a real Patients' Bill of Rights, H.R. 2563, which is sponsored by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry). In working to craft patient protection, we must ask ourselves, are we really helping the patient? One of the biggest concerns raised by the proponents of the competing bill is that the liability limit on punitive damages is too high in the Ganske-Dingell-Norwood-Berry bill. But I ask the Members, can anyone put a price tag on someone's life? If an HMO is found guilty of negligence, they should be held accountable for their actions; and HMOs exist to help patients, not to harm them. Opponents of the legislation argue that employers will be hurt by the liability provisions in this bill. This is misleading. Employers who do not directly participate in making medical decisions are protected from liability. Employers are also protected by language in the bill which allows them to name a designated decisionmaker to make decisions on their behalf. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 2563, the Ganske-Dingell- Norwood-Berry bill.

Mr. SANCHEZ

Mr. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1954 which extends the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act until 2006. I have previously co-sponsored similar legislation and remain an advocate of trade sanctions on Iran and Libya. I look forward to the President's report in 18 months on the effectiveness of these actions. I am also extremely interested in examining the impact of this law on humanitarian interests and on national security, foreign policy, and the economic interests of the United States. Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to affirm my strong support of H.R. 1954 to extend the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act for an additional 5 years and look forward to its favorable consideration by this body.

Ms. SANCHEZ

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 225 on June 12, 2001. I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' Stated against:

Ms. SANCHEZ

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Joint Resolution No. 36, the flag protection constitutional amendment. The flag stands for all of us in this wonderful country, and the honor we bestow upon it as our symbol is as great as the contributions each of us should hope to make for our Nation. If the Stars and Stripes could talk, I am sure that they would say, ``I am what you make of me. It is up to you to keep me raised high and flying. I am your belief in yourself, your dream of what a people may become. I am all that you hope to be and have the courage to try for. ``I am song and fear, struggle and panic, and ennobling hope. I am the day's work of the weakest man, and the largest dream of the most daring. I am the battle of yesterday and the mistake of tomorrow. I am the clutch of an idea and the reasoned purpose of resolution. ``I am no more than what you believe me to be, and I am all that you believe I can be. I am what you make of me, nothing more.'' Mr. Speaker, I consistently vote for this amendment because I believe that all Americans should be allowed to vote on whether to protect our flag.

Ms. SANCHEZ

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 188 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Ms. SANCHEZ

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 187 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Ms. SANCHEZ

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 186 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Ms. SANCHEZ

Ms. SANCHEZ. That is fine. I know you have a couple of more over here to talk about their feelings and what people in their districts are feeling with respect to the Patients' Bill of Rights. We really need to do something about righting this situation. People should have choices. They should be comfortable that they have choices, and they should feel that they have been dealt a fair hand in dealing with the insurance coverage that they have. I thank the gentleman for doing this Special Order.

Ms. SANCHEZ. And in particular with respect to diseases, it is really troublesome when we see that the Hispanic population in particular in the United States is having such a problem. They are one of the largest, fastest-growing segments of the population with respect to HIV. Not enough testing gets done there. They have the highest, probably three or four times out of the general population, ability or propensity to get diabetes. We not only see that they need to see doctors but why it becomes so important to see the doctor of your choice. In some cases, there can be language barriers, not getting exactly the right communication going between doctor and patient. Think about how we feel. Once we find a doctor that we are comfortable with, it is almost like we do not want our insurance ever to change because we want to be able to have always the same doctor. You feel comfortable going to that doctor. Imagine how somebody feels who may not completely and totally understand the English language as well as a natural-born citizen here. I think of my own parents. My mother has a master's degree in Spanish and English. She is a teacher. Yet she always feels more comfortable hearing, especially difficult things, complicated things, complex things, in her native language of Spanish than she does in English. Think about if you have ever been to the doctor, and they come out to tell you something, most of the time these doctors do not even know how to tell you in layman's terms what the heck is wrong with you and they are talking English. Imagine if you have the barrier of a language, it becomes even more important for people to have choice of doctor, to have portability if they go to a different job, of taking that insurance. And also a lot has been said about, oh, my God, this Patients' Bill of Rights is just about lawyers who make lots of money being able to sue HMOs. That is not the case. First of all, if you are working class or lower income, even if you are middle class, actually, and you have a problem and you go to do these types of suits, you go to do a type of suit like this, it is a very long and expensive process. And so these contingent fees, if this goes nowhere, those lawyers, they lose all the expense money and all their time and effort. They do not get paid one dime on that. I think those who saw ``Erin Brockovich,'' for example, understood that comment, that these people really only take a case if they think that there is something there most of the time. And so for someone, especially in the Hispanic population, a majority of the people who are Hispanics, we fall in that category. We do not have a lawyer on retainer. How do we know what to do?

Ms. SANCHEZ. I thank my colleague from Texas very much. This is such an important issue. I want to take the opportunity to thank him as a Hispanic sitting on the Hispanic Caucus, which is the nonpartisan official working group of this House of Representatives that talks to the issues that in particular affect Hispanics. Of course the gentleman and I both know that health and health care is one of the largest problem areas for our population for a lot of reasons, lack of knowledge in particular. And so when we look at something like a Patients' Bill of Rights, when we look at the effect that policy can have on giving right information, giving all the information, explaining better the information to a potential patient becomes very important for Hispanics in particular. Or just the convenience factor. Most of us, we run around and we think it would be difficult to schedule different appointments with different doctors. For someone in the working class, it is very difficult to take time off from work in order to go and see their doctor, and so to make multiple visits becomes a very difficult thing. I just want to take the opportunity to thank the gentleman for the type of work he has been doing, heading up the health care task force within the Hispanic Caucus.

Ms. SANCHEZ

Ms. SANCHEZ. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SANCHEZ. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).

Ms. SANCHEZ. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), our distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Ms. SANCHEZ. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 154, and I urge my colleagues to support this important measure. Madam Speaker, H. Con. Resolution 154 commends the continued commitment of the Army National Guard combat units deployed in support of Army operation in Bosnia. It recognizes the important role of all National Guard and Reserve personnel, and it expresses appreciation to the employers of the Guard and the Reserves. Since the first units of the National Guard were mobilized for deployment to Bosnia in December of 1995, our National Guardsmen and women and Reservists have played a vital and significant role in Bosnia. Their determined efforts have helped to stabilize the area and deter hostilities to facilitate long-term peace in that area. Recognizing their valuable contributions, the Army began to mobilize and deploy the headquarters of the Army National Guard combat divisions and enhanced combat brigades in Bosnia. As increasing numbers of our National Guard and Reserves are being called to duty for peacekeeping operations, humanitarian missions, and combat, we also need to recognize the effect that this has on their families and to recognize the valiant effort by these families when personnel go abroad. Like those on active duty, Guard and Reserve personnel would not be able to focus on their mission without the support and the strength of their families. Madam Speaker, it really takes quite a lot out of families when someone gets uprooted and leaves their job for a while and goes across to work in Bosnia. So we really commend the families for their contributions and their sacrifices in this effort. However, the Guard and the Reserve must also depend on the support of their employers. Can we imagine what it is like to have somebody who is very vital to one's business interests all of a sudden leave for 6 or 8 or 10 months? Without the support of employers across the country, Guard and Reservists would not be able to continue this important mission for the United States. Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize and thank those employers for their essential support of the National Guard and our Reservists. It is the contributions of the service member, of the family, and the employers that play a role in our success in Bosnia and other regions. This successful combination allows us to have the best citizen soldiers in the world. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SANCHEZ

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), my fellow caucus member from Texas. Mr. Speaker, AIDS is something that tends to be pretty foreign to people until it touches someone in your family. In my particular case, in 1990 I had a cousin, a very close cousin, who died of AIDS. This was a cousin that I used to visit every Sunday. In a Hispanic family we tend to be very, very close; and your cousins tend to be the friends that you have. The family is so large, you never have to go outside of the family to find playmates and people that you hang out with. This particular cousin used to do my hair at his own company, at his own salon. He was a successful businessman, not too far away from where I lived; and at one point he got sick. As AIDS progressed with him, I and many of the members of my family got to understand what it was like then to live under those conditions, and then for a society that really did not understand what HIV and what AIDS was about. You would think that in a Hispanic culture, we are a little afraid of things like this, we do not like to talk about these things, but one of the great things that I think my cousin had was an ability to come together and to help with the situation. I had a cousin who was an outstanding member, who was a great family person but, at the same time, was a business owner. I saw him lose his business because he could not work; and because he could not work, he lost the business. I saw him lose his home. I saw him go, and we would take him to the hospital sometimes with some affliction, and I saw doctors who were afraid to treat him or would turn him down to treat him. I saw the red tape and what it took to get him into a hospital, to get him back on his feet. I saw a society that did not understand what was happening and refused to put the money and refused to treat somebody who had AIDS. I thought, you know, in that last year of his life, here is someone who is dying, and the thing that they should have most intact is a dignity about life. I saw a world that did not understand and did not want to treat him with dignity. That was in 1990. Now, I am glad to report that just this past month, we in Orange County cut the ribbon on Emanual House, a living house for 21 people who will come and live in an environment that will be a positive environment for those who have HIV or have AIDS. It is a great collaborative effort by homebuilders and by mercy housing and by one of the priesthoods there, Catholic priesthood in Orange County, to build this home in a neighborhood, in a family neighborhood in Santa Ana who worked with us and who welcome these new residents who will come to this beautiful, beautiful home called Emanual House. I have seen a change in the funding levels. I have seen a change in the breakthroughs that we have had for medicine for AIDS. I have seen even a change over the years in the walk for AIDS that happened this past Sunday in Orange County, where we had over 15,000 people participate to walk on Sunday morning, and where we raised almost $1 million in Orange County, California, for research and for help on AIDS, to help these people who lose their jobs, who lose their homes, many who still lose their families. It is a very positive thing. Probably the most negative thing that I have seen in the last few years with respect to HIV and AIDS is that the infection is growing highest and at an alarming rate in the Hispanic community across the Nation. In particular, women who believe they are in a monogamous relationship, i.e., they are married and they believe that they are okay, are the ones that we are seeing most often the rate going up in the rate of HIV, the HIV disease. So we have more to do. We need to get information out, and many of the people who work on HIV and AIDS in Orange County are working on campaigns to get the information out to our minority communities. I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, for taking this hour. I think this is a very important milestone, but there is so much more to do still. I thank the gentleman.

Ms. SANCHEZ

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman telling me that this tax cut that we are going to see voted on by the end of this week would really take away our ability to fund or put into the budget, really fund programs in the coming year, as we do our work, the programs that his slick booklet talked about? These booklets of energy, of fuel cell, these research and development programs for cleaner technologies? We know that his original budget coming here to us cut significantly, had a very paltry sum, and that when his administration, President Bush's administration said, cutting back on consumption is not really the way to do this, and people were upset that he did not look at conservation and new technologies; that he turned around and talked about these, but the reality is, his budget and the numbers that are reflected by that budget and what we have here is documents and working documents tells a different story.

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from California for taking this hour to discuss and to dispel some of the myths that people around the country have heard about Californians and about what we are facing there. I hope that many of them will take the time to read the real information and to understand that where California goes, so does the rest of the Nation. I want to thank my colleague for the time given.

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, being from California or going to New York or these research institutions where they are doing the research, these people are so optimistic, the researchers. They are looking at fuel cells and alternative fuels and different ways, rather than to use fossil fuel for the future. I mean, when we think of our country and this whole new technology and new economy that we are going through. I think if, in 1960, President Kennedy could say, we need to get a man to the moon and we could develop that technology that did that by July of 1969. I am very familiar with that, of course, because it came out of the area that we represent, that certainly, with all of the new technology, with the research, if we just put money into that and let these people go at it, that in 5 or 6 years, we would completely change the type of energy that we use to run our cars and run our businesses and our homes.

Ms. SANCHEZ. But it is not in the budget.

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, again, I would caution the rest of the country that if this can happen to California, which is one of the largest economies around, imagine that it could happen to someone else's State also. We really need to step back. This, I think, is an emergency in California, in particular, in the next 4 or 5 months during the hot summer of California. But this is a bill about stepping back and taking a look and learning from this so that we can, in an overall plan for the United States, make an energy policy that works for each State and for all business people and homeowners across the Nation.

Ms. SANCHEZ. One of the things that we have really asked for is sort of a time-out, a time to set some prices where we can take a look at were supplies really artificially taken off the markets in order to increase the price that we have had to pay in California. What is the real demand that we are facing now and the demand that we will face in the near future, and what suppliers do we really have, and will that be enough and what will be a time line? Really a time-out to make a plan of what happened, what is currently happening and what we must do for the future. One of the things that we have asked for is maybe about a year's worth of some caps so that we can take the time to really understand the problem, rather than to try to legislate off the cuff, without enough information, which might make us have the situation worsen for California and for others. We are not asking for price caps for the next 10 years. We are just asking for some time in which we can understand the situation and with some bright minds sit down and think of the solution for this problem.