Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, let me indicate that since the 9-11 attacks the VA has been forced to address issues and has never received any funding to undertake that. My amendment would allow the VA to be able to get additional resources that they need in order to take care of some of that cost and be able to respond to the time of war, also in part to the National Disaster Medical System.

The VA is responsible for several roles within the Federal response plan. The VA is currently diverting its scarce funds from the VA patient care mission to fulfill this mission.

I know that the other side would indicate that $122 million has been allocated, but it is coming from existing patient service. In fact, the VA has recently come out with a report, and on that report it basically indicates, and I have the figures here, that there is a real need for right now, just in terms of getting ready to prepare and what it costs, $248 million dollars, and that report was put together by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs Principi. So I would ask that as we look at providing the supplemental that we not only look at our veterans but the fact that the VA is also responsible to taking care of the healthcare of our military personnel.

There are also already some real costs involved with the war, and that cost has been estimated at a very conservative figure of $70 million since 9-11. So part of the $90 million is $70 million that I am asking that we take and be able to provide to the VA that has a system of hospitals and clinics throughout this country in order to prepare.

The other thing that I want to add is that in responding to the war, they have lost a number of nurses, a number of personnel, and they have had to be able to reach out and contract out for additional staff. So that cost has not been there. It is basically using existing resources to get prepared for the war. So this $90 million will go a long way in helping.

The other $20 million that is part of that $90 million allows an opportunity to identify four centers throughout the country; and those four centers will be ready to respond in case of a major disaster.

I also want to indicate that the VA has many areas of expertise in such diverse topics as biomedical research, as post-traumatic stress disorders, as war-related illnesses, environmental hazards and others.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Chairman, let me indicate that the VA is hurting right now. Our veterans are reaching that age where they need our help and assistance. The resources are needed and would appeal to both sides of the aisle to take into consideration this issue. I am not going to ask for a vote, but I want them to seriously consider what we are doing with our veterans. I know I have had a chance to dialogue with you on this issue. We really need those preparative centers now. We need about $20 million to start them and get those contracts going throughout this country, and I ask the Committee on Appropriations to seriously consider that issue.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield since I am not asking for a vote?

Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman is sincere about indicating $122 million, but I also understand that $122 million comes from existing programs that were taken away from services to veterans. I would hope that we just kind of take that into consideration.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Let me just indicate that my understanding is that that $122 million is not new dollars. It is existing dollars coming from existing services for veterans. In addition to that, and once again I appeal to both sides, the demographics on veterans is growing. Our World War II, Korean veterans are reaching that age where they need us now. They were there for us. We need to be there for them now. So we need to be able to provide those resources; and in all honesty, it does not make any sense for us to look at providing resources for health care for Iraq, which is needed and I do not disagree, but the fact is we also need it for our veterans and for those soldiers that are coming back because one of the objectives also is to serve the individuals in active military. In addition to that letter that the gentleman received for $5 million, I am hoping that that is in there because if that is not in there, then he is going to hear from me once again.

Mr. Speaker, let me take this time to also rise and say that we really need to look at that government pension offset.

The government pension offset unfairly reduces the retirement benefits of public employees who have dedicated their lives to serving their communities and our children. Many of those impacted expected to receive the Social Security benefit that their spouse earned, and we are talking about the majority, almost 90 percent are women that are widowed. So if we look at what we are doing, it is extremely discriminatory towards those women in this category. Often they remain unaware of the offset until they reach retirement age.

Educators are shocked to learn that their decision to enter the education profession, often at considerable financial sacrifice, has caused them to lose benefits they have counted on. The resulting loss of income forces some into poverty and despair. Section 418 of the Social Security Protection Act would close the so-called loophole that allows educators in my home State of Texas to avoid the unjust and harsh impact of the government pension offset by transferring it to the school districts covering Social Security just before they retire.

I would like to add that I am not alone in this. Mr. Speaker, 176 other Members of this House from both sides of the aisle have cosponsored legislation to eliminate this provision. If Members agree that this provision is unfair, I would strongly urge them to vote in favor of this amendment when it comes forward and to vote against this bill.

Once again, I asked the chairman on the Republican side to bring this forward and try to deal with this, because it is extremely important. I know we have argued about offshore and allowing companies to go offshore and have that loophole for the major companies. But when it is a loophole that applies to women and widows, we need to look at that and see if we can come back, and I would just ask the chairman and appeal to him to bring forward that bill and have an up-or-down vote on the entire bill and allow it to go and impact throughout the counties for these teachers and those individuals and those widows that fall under that category.

Offered By: Mr. Rodriguez

Amendment No. 10: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I want to take time tonight as chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to pay tribute to an inspiring and beloved man, Cesar Estrada Chavez. Cesar Chavez, 76 years ago this Monday, marked the beginning of his life dedicated to improving the quality of life for all Americans. We honor and pay respect to a man who brought awareness of the labor injustices to the national light and helped pave the path to educating people about the importance of the plight of the working individuals in the fields of this country. He cleared the way for progress and opportunity. Tonight, we have here members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus; and I want to make tribute to one of our members, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), and ask him to say a few words in behalf of Cesar Chavez.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).

Let me take this opportunity to thank the gentleman for his words and I want to thank him for his leadership. I know that, as a freshman, he has already made some great impacts here at the Congress, and it is great to see two Hispanics from the great State of Arizona representing that State.

As we talk about Cesar Chavez, he was a person who grew up in the fruit and vegetable fields and knew what it meant to work them from dawn to dusk. He knew the injustices that faced labor workers on a daily basis and he knew that something had to be done; and from those fields Cesar rose to head of the United Farm Workers of America, instilling the UFW, the principles of nonviolence practiced by Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King.

When the UFW began strikes in the 1960s to protest the treatment of farm workers, the strikers took a pledge of nonviolence, determined not to detract from the message of improving labor conditions; and I want to tell the Members this was a critical time in my life and in my wife's life, Carolina, because this was a time that we had an individual in our community who talked about nonviolence, one of the first. I had been involved in the civil rights movement during that time, and I was involved in Mexican-American youth organizations during that time, working to get single-member districts and getting Hispanics registered to vote.

My wife also, while in college, worked with Cesar Chavez in those efforts. So both of our lives met both as she struggled to help Cesar Chavez, and I worked with voter education and voter registration. And for those of us who have lived through this time period, we heard of the great odds Chavez faced as he led the successful 5-year strike, boycott. Through this boycott, Chavez was able to forge a national support coalition of unions, church groups, students, minorities, consumers. And everyone came together; everyone understood the struggle of the worker. By the end of the boycott, everyone knew the chant that unified all workers, Si se puede, yes, it can be done. It was a chant of encouragement, of pride and dignity.

Chavez continued to speak out in other areas and helped communities to mobilize by assisting them with voter registration efforts and voter registration drives and insisting that the minority communities had just as much a right to have equitable access to educational opportunities as anyone else.

Cesar Chavez's legacy continues to live on today. His influences can be seen in the legislation that comes to our floor, legislation that aims to provide for our children's education, legislation that aims to help improve our children's health care in our communities, legislation that helps and comes forward in the area of civil rights and liberties and respect for human beings.

We must also continue the fight to ensure that in today's world, the rights of workers are still protected, whether it is the workers in the fields, in the kitchens, or in our factories. The blue collar workers are invaluable to America and to the American economy. It is important that these Americans be treated with the respect and dignity that they deserve, and that all rights afforded to those working in air- conditioned offices be provided to those that work in the sun-heated fields and the like.

America has seen few leaders like Cesar Chavez. He is among a rare group who have left a lasting imprint in American history. We can only hope to fulfill this vision as we walk through the halls of Congress, to create a better tomorrow for the Hispanic community and all Americans.

I want to take this particular time and opportunity to also indicate that as Cesar Chavez struggled and worked, we could see the strength in the man's face as we saw his eyes. He was a man of nonviolence, a person who, as we met this humble individual, gave us strength; and I recall distinctly having the opportunity at various times to meet with him and, various times, to be able to share with him and take some pictures with him as well as helping those boycotts that he had as the struggle continued.

He was a unique individual that had a very strong sense of perseverance that was there and that just his presence, as humble as he was, gave us that strength. So that is why, when we look throughout America, if we look at any Hispanic community whether we are in Arizona or California or Texas, anywhere throughout the Southwest and beyond, we see the street names of Cesar Chavez. We see the building names. Especially, I know in my district in south Texas we have a school named after Cesar Chavez. We see the highways that are named after Cesar Chavez, one of the Hispanics who we can say, here is an individual that has really represented us well, an individual that has not only represented the Hispanic community, but the American community, with the strength of nonviolence and the strength to move forward.

As we celebrate his birthday on March 31 throughout this country, and I know like in San Antonio we have

had marches and we had banquets that allow for the opportunity to continue the struggle, continue the education, that we still have people that are out there. We still have individuals that are working the fields. We still have individuals that need our respect and need the services and need to be treated in a dignified way; and it is important for us not to lose track of the fact that these individuals are the ones that either pick the strawberries or pick the fruits and the foods that we eat, and that we need to treat them in a dignified way. And he brought that to us and he brought that education.

And I know that people like President Kennedy had a great deal of respect and would come to him, and he was able to have those contacts during the time when few Hispanics were able to reach those levels.

Cesar Chavez will never be forgotten, mainly because of what he did and what he represents. So I wanted to take this opportunity tonight to talk about this man and talk a little bit about the things that he talked about, because as we talk about those things now, Cesar Chavez began this road of change, but it is up to those of us who come here after him to continue that struggle, to continue that work, and to continue that vision for a better tomorrow, that commitment to the community, that commitment to making sure that we make things better. And it is important as individuals and it is important as a community that we continue those efforts.

I want to ask every American, because I know Cesar Chavez would operate from the same perspective, that each one of us has a responsibility and an obligation. Just like he started without a formal education, he educated himself, and I know that he would want all Americans, both Hispanic and non-Hispanic, to continue that struggle of continuing to further their education, whether it be formal or informal, that effort of trying to better themselves and making sure that whether they are out there as janitors that they continue to move forward to become whatever they can in terms of either, if nothing else, head janitor of that school and then move forward in advancing themselves.

I know that Cesar Chavez valued education, and he stressed the importance of education, and he worked to try to get the migrant workers to get access to education. And as we talk about education, I know that right now we have those struggles that are going on in education. We know that our present budget, when it comes to Leave No Child Behind, is actually $9 billion behind; and I know that he would be talking about the importance of investing in our kids, the importance of investing in our country, and that education is key to fulfilling that American dream. And to him I know that that American dream would be just to fulfill their lives in a way that would allow them to move forward, whether it would be getting a better education, getting better protection, moving forward in obtaining a home, whatever it was.

He lived in humble ways even up to his death, but I know that as he talked about the importance of education, that we must continue. I know, as Latinos and Hispanics throughout this country, that he would argue about the fact that we still have a long way to go.

We still have too many youngsters that are dropping out of school. I know among the Mexican American community in the State of Texas, some districts have up to 50 percent of our kids that drop out. That is too many. Each one of us has a responsibility, starting with those parents, of making sure that their kids stay in school, starting also with the school system, making sure that they also do everything they can to keep those kids in school, starting with those communities that have an obligation and responsibility to also work with the school system and the teachers to help the teachers out in assuring that those kids remain in school.

Because our Nation is a powerful nation. It is a superpower, and the only reason it is a superpower is because we also have a super economy, and that is directly tied into our education. So it becomes really important. And I know that Cesar Chavez would say that education is key, whether it be a formal education or an education where one begins to educate oneself informally about what needs to happen and what needs to occur. That is important.

I know that Cesar Chavez would also feel very strongly when it comes to the issue of health care, and I know that in the area of health care, Cesar worked very hard to try to get access to health care for our young people; and I know as we look at that issue of health care and we look at the issue of the CHIP program that we have right now, the CHIP program is a program that responds to those kids that are out there, to those constituents and those Americans that are out there that are working, making $20,000, $30,000, maybe more, but find themselves without insurance. A lot of them are working for small companies. A lot of them are working individually and find themselves unable to get the coverage that they need. So that CHIP program that provides that health care is one that is extremely important, one that is critical. So at this point in time we need to be supportive of those kinds of programs.

In addition, I know that the administration is looking at taking the CHIP program, the Medicaid program, which is a program that helps our indigents, those that are the most vulnerable of this country, those that do not have access to resources, those that cannot afford to pay for their access to health care.

That Medicaid program is key. Both the Medicaid and the CHIP program are vital programs in this country, and I know the administration is looking at taking both the Medicaid and the CHIP, in addition to that, taking the disproportional share of moneys that go to our hospitals. Those are moneys that go directly to our hospitals, especially those hospitals that provide the indigent care, where they do not get compensated for the type of care that they provide. So these three programs, the proposal is to lump them up and send them to the State.

I know that it goes also with a cap, but it is important for us, and those programs have worked well independently, and we ask that we work hard to keep them independent. In fact, we need additional resources for Medicaid. We need initial resources for the CHIP program, and our hospitals are having difficulty, our trauma centers, in the type of care that they provide throughout this country.

This is the time for us, instead of looking at a tax cut, to move forward and provide access to care, and those three programs are the most vulnerable of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I know Chavez was always supportive of access to health care. In this country that has the best health care in the world, it makes no sense that that access to that health care is not affordable and not accessible to a lot of Americans. So as we celebrate and pay tribute to Cesar Chavez, it is important that we continue that struggle. And I ask all Americans out there and say that we need to zero in and continue those efforts as it deals with education and as it deals with health care.

In the area of education, one of the best programs that we have ever had that has reached out to the young people has been the program on Head Start. Head Start has been a program that was originally designed to meet a need, because States were not going out and reaching out to those young people, pre-schoolers. We knew that if the States were not doing that, that as a Federal Government we had a responsibility and an obligation to do that. So we started the Head Start program.

The studies that we have for the Head Start program reveal that it is a great program. It has great statistics, although it needs more resources. Right now it is only covering about 40 percent of the young people that are qualified for it. So we still have a large number of young people that could qualify for that. So Head Start is a great program. Of the early childhood programs, we only cover 2 percent of early childhood under Head Start. So it is a minimal program that could be expanded. It is under the Department of Health for a good reason, because it also reaches out to those families; it reaches out to the parents of those kids. The data shows that a Head Start baby, a Head Start youngster does a lot better in school and is able to go

through, and the data shows and the statistics indicate that that youngster and those kids under Head Start can do a lot better.

So Cesar Chavez would be extremely supportive of those kinds of programs. As we once again take this time to pay tribute to the legacy of Cesar Chavez, we look at the struggles that he had in meeting the needs of those farm workers, in meeting the needs of those people that work out in the field. And those kids and those Head Start programs that are out there, meeting their needs is important, and it is one of the areas that we need to continue.

This administration is choosing to basically do away with Head Start. Right now it is locally controlled. It is a program that has been doing well and we will say, why mess with it? Well, I think they see the resources there, they are choosing to send out those monies to the State and do away with it. We are hoping that that does not happen. So I ask Americans, if we have a good thing and we have a good program, it is doing well, why mess with it? So as we look at programs such as Head Start, we know that we can improve on those programs and we need resources. So this is the time to look at investing in Americans, investing in the educational opportunities of individuals.

When I was elected, and I have been in public office now for 29 years, I see my responsibility is the responsibility of making things happen, of being able to fulfill and solve the problems that confront us both in our back yards, in our States, in our communities, and in our country as a whole. As we look at those problems, one of the things that we know is that we have to continue to enhance our educational capability as a Nation. It is important. A lot of people will talk about the fact that we have too much immigration coming, but we forget that immigration has also been healthy. And if we do cut immigration, then we better educate our people, because we have also been a brain drain on the rest of the world.

When we look at the figures from 9-11, Mr. Speaker, we had, on the average, we produced 12,000 to 13,000 doctors and bring in 5,000 doctors from abroad. Here we have five people that are qualified to go to our medical schools, and yet we tell two of them, two of those young people, I am sorry, we do not have room for you, we can only accept three to our medical schools; and yet we bring in on the average about 5,000 from abroad. And that is just in the medical field. In engineering and all of the others, it is the same. So if we decide to stop immigration, then we better start educating our own, we better start getting our own engineers, we better start building our medical schools to produce more doctors. I have not seen the will in the House. We have to create that vision of investing in ourselves. We have to be able to make sure that as we move forward we have the qualified people to be able to be our professors, to be able to be our doctors, and to be able to be our engineers in this country.

As we look in terms of our future, we know that in our universities, the expense of higher education, and we have to make sure that we provide that education that is needed.

So I would challenge all Americans out there, in the form of Cesar Chavez, to continue that struggle, to making sure that people can fulfill their American dream, whether they want to become an attorney, whether they want to get the job training to be able to get a better job, whatever it is, we have to make those programs available, we have to make those opportunities available. Sure, they have to be able to come up to the plate and be able to get the work done in order to make it happen. But it is important for us to make sure that we provide those opportunities and not to cut those opportunities. Because we have great people out there. We have youngsters that can be attorneys, but they need that help and that assistance at an early age. They need those programs such as Head Start that can be the basis for making something happen. They need those programs, those after-school programs that are required in order for them to be able to excel and be able to move forward.

I wanted to take this opportunity, as we pay tribute to Cesar Chavez, not only to talk about his work, but the work that also needs to take place now, the work that each one of us has an obligation, each one of us has a responsibility as Americans to make sure that our elected officials are held accountable, to make sure that our communities do the right thing, that our school boards do the right thing when it comes to education. As we move forward, each one of us has a responsibility to participate in the democratic process and to vote.

One of the things that concerns me is that as Americans we take our freedoms very lightly. It is not something that should be taken lightly. Just as we have a right right now, that right might not be there tomorrow. Freedom comes through struggle, and it is an endless process. It does not stop now; it continues. It is one that we have to be vigilant and be able to move forward, especially as we find ourselves now in war with terrorism, because a war with terrorism is also a war of ideologies. So we have to make sure that we move forward in a positive way and that we do not forget the reason why we have been a powerful country and that is that we have been a country of opportunities, we have been a country of immigrants, we have been a country that allows a person to fulfill their greatest potential individually.

So as we take this time, once again, to pay tribute to a great man, Cesar Chavez, who was there for the most needy of this country, those that work out in the fields, those that pick our foods, those individuals that have the least power as we foresee, here is a person who gave a great deal and gave his life to that struggle, a person who saw a problem and worked at it and was persistent about it. So I want to encourage each one of us to look at his life and see in what ways we can participate in our community and in what ways we can come forward and help.

One of the big things about Cesar Chavez is that he never spoke negatively against anyone. He always was an extremely polite individual, was always positive. One of the things that I noticed about him was that he always took personal responsibility for what he did. That personal responsibility is one thing of saying, we all have an obligation to making sure that everyone and every American has an opportunity for an education. We might say, well, they do, but in some cases the reality is that we still do not have that access for everyone. We still do not have that opportunity for where every American is able to go into the universities of this country. That is why we have programs such as the affirmative action or programs such as that that allows an opportunity for minorities to enter universities throughout this country.

Today, the Supreme Court began to hear the cases on affirmative action; and I know that as we look at those cases, as they look at those cases, it is going to be important, the results of what comes about. I know that President Bush basically, by deciding to go against the affirmative action and fighting those opportunities, is basically closing the doors on minority access to higher education. While saying that he supports diversity, his lawyers are working to outlaw affirmative action at the University of Michigan.

The President says that considering race and ethnic background is unfair. Let us look at a system that most of Americans in history silently penalized minority applicants and led the alarming disparity that we have now. Today, less than 10 percent of college-age Hispanics go to higher education. Only 16 percent of Hispanics between the age of 25 to 29 have a bachelor's degree. We have a serious education gap in this country, and we should not tolerate this disparity. We cannot accept excuses. We cannot justify smoke and mirrors. Affirmative action or taking affirmative steps to try to correct this situation in universities' admissions will not solve all the problems, but it is an important tool that is available to schools seeking that diversity, and we should not throw out a system until we have a fix.

The attempt now is to try to throw out a system without providing alternatives. Achieving racial diversity, at least until the vestiges of past racial discrimination are erased, is a legitimate and compelling goal. We know and everyone out there knows that we still do not have the appropriate numbers throughout our universities. In fact, things are getting worse. In

Texas, since the Hopwood case, and I will talk to my colleagues briefly about that, but President Bush said that we should not be satisfied with our current numbers of minorities on American college campuses. He is right. But other than nice words, what does he offer? Allowing a set percentage of top high school graduates is better than nothing, but it is not certainly better than affirmative action. Percentage programs will not even begin to work unless we have States with large, highly segregated minority populations. And even then, it is still second best.

Hispanics will increase by 18 million in the next 25 years. We must ensure that the increase adds up to success, with an educated workforce and a growing economy that provides better lives for all our children and all our populations.

When we look at the issue of affirmative action, the purpose of affirmative action, and it was established during the Nixon years, was an attempt to basically come up with steps that allowed an opportunity to seek out qualified African Americans, qualified Hispanics, and, yes, qualified women. And because of the fact that we knew that there was disparities, and just like coaches went out and got qualified football players, that same effort could be done to get people to go into law school, those same efforts could be done to get people into medical school, and into other professions. So affirmative action, all it means is that we are going to make a sincere effort to taking steps to bringing up the numbers and to make sure that we have that variety of individuals that will be able to be representative of our Nation and have the African American and the Hispanic numbers that are key.

I know that since I have worked, when it came to the issues of injustice, when it came to the issues of equality, those are the issues that I know he fought for extremely strongly. He felt that everyone needed to be given an opportunity, that everyone had a responsibility to work on making sure that everyone was treated appropriately.

If we look at taking affirmative steps to get representation, I want to share a little bit about what the administration is talking about, a 10 percent bill. The only reason I mention that is because the administration mentioned that as an alternative to affirmative action.

I am here to tell the Members that I am the author of the 10 percent bill, although it was 15 percent when I was in the Texas House, before I came to the Congress. The reason why we came up then with 15 and 20 percent, and it became 10 percent, was because we knew we needed an alternative. They just wiped out under Hopwood the affirmative action efforts in the State of Texas. We needed to come up with something that would help out in assuring that Hispanics and minorities had an opportunity to further their education in Texas.

During a conference that I had, we came up with what we called the 20 percent piece of legislation. I filed it during that time I ran for Congress, and then turned over the piece of legislation to a State representative who just passed away. We were able to pass it under the 10 percent rule.

Let me give a little background what it does. It basically says if you graduate in the top 10 percent of your class, that the State of Texas has to bring you in and allow you to start school.

It is also based on the premise that it is also discriminatory. I will tell the Members right out, that is why we passed it, because if we have segregated schools with a concentration of Hispanic Americans, then we have an opportunity to get the top 10 percent to be able to go to those schools.

We were successful in doing that, and the program has been somewhat successful; but it is not as good as affirmative action. The data can show that. But it is a program that works in segregated areas. It is not a program that is going to be successful throughout this country; but it is also, once again, based on the negativism of segregation, and the fact that we have segregated schools in Texas, where there are a large concentration, 80 or 90 percent Hispanics in some of our schools.

The 10 percent has not been that good for African Americans in Texas. In fact, the numbers are a little lower. Yet, despite the gains, it also shows that, and I want to share that one of the other things that the 10 percent rule shows, and this is important to note, that the youngsters who do graduate at the top 10 percent, some of them come up with scores that are much lower, and they show about 1000 or 1100 on the SAT. They were able to get in, and are 200 to 300 points below some of the others, and do just as well as the other students.

If nothing else, the 10 percent has disapproved the test scores that show that even up to 300 points, that those youngsters can outperform those other youngsters that do better in those major tests when it comes to performing in those universities. If nothing else, this particular bill has helped to do away with that.

If Members really want to come up with a good affirmative action effort, we would do away with those test scores and do what we have always said: use a combination of things to really look at the youngster's performance. You look at the youngster's grades, you look at the youngster's tests, you look at his standing in the schools, and look, if you can, at the background of the individual. Because no one can really judge the motivation and the drive that someone has to be able to move forward. That will never show up on an instrument, on an exam or a test. It becomes important that we use multiple criteria for admission.

We have always argued that we should not use one test or another, that it should be multiple criteria that should be utilized for admissions, and that every effort ought to be made.

I have worked since I was in the seventh grade all through high school, and there is no way that we can compare someone who, in all honesty, did not work and had an opportunity to do their homework. Yet I can tell the Members, I sit here, and when I went to college I was able to eat their lunch when I started there. I mean that. Because other people have to do a variety of other things as they move forward, whether because of economics or whatever.

The reality is that we do have youngsters out there that do extremely well; yet they might be youngsters that have dropped out of school for one reason or another. If we look at the dropout rates, we see a lot of youngsters that drop out. It is not, a lot of times, for academic reasons. I can tell the Members that because I have also been responsible for some of the assessments on dropout rates, the reasons why youngsters drop out, especially Mexican Americans. We know that they do well.

My predecessor, Mr. Tejeda, had dropped out of school. Yet he later got a bachelor's and a master's and a law degree, and became the U.S. Congressman for this same district, and was in the military. Now, under these conditions, if he had dropped out now, he could not be even eligible to get into the military because the military does not accept individuals unless they have a high school diploma. They only accept GEDs up to 1 percent in the Air Force and 10 percent in the Army, so those are issues that need to be dealt with.

Education is key. We need to continue to emphasize the Federal role in education, the fact that we have a responsibility to make sure that our constituency throughout this country is well educated.

There is a direct correlation between education and our economy; and I would attest to the Members, there is a direct correlation between our economy and the fact that we are a superpower. If we want to continue to be a superpower, we have to continue to invest in our kids. We need to continue to invest in our people, in getting them opportunities to be able to advance themselves and be able to fulfill their American dream, whether it be getting a better job or being able to buy a home.

I think as we look at those issues, and as we pay tribute to Cesar Chavez, I know that he would be continuing the struggle for the workers in this country. That struggle is a continuation of making sure that everyone is treated in an equitable manner, that everyone will have opportunities to be able to advance themselves, either educationally or in terms of job training that might be offered. That becomes real important.

Let me take this opportunity also to indicate that Cesar Chavez was a humble individual who, as he worked in the fields, was able to organize, was able to educate not only the farm workers but our entire community. I would ask Americans to look at Cesar Chavez and the work that he did, because it is an inspiring work. It is an inspiring thing that we need to continue to come to and educate ourselves about.

Also, Members should ask ourselves in terms of our role as individuals, in terms of our role in the community, our role in the Nation as we continue our struggle on the war on terrorism and the war on Iraq, we need to make sure that we do not lose sight of the fact that we also have a struggle in this country. That is to make sure we turn the economy around. Part of that is a continuous effort in those areas of both education and health.

In the area of health, as I have indicated earlier, health is one of the areas where we continue to make inroads. Yet, it does not make any sense if our constituencies do not have access.

Right now, our seniors are having a great deal of difficulty being able to get access to prescription drug coverage. I have had seniors come to me and talk about the fact that we had a struggle in that area in that they have to sometimes not buy the food that they need in order to buy their prescriptions. That should not be happening in this country.

We argue about on the border we have a lot of problems, and we argue about people coming from abroad and from across the border to access the health care; but a lot of Americans also go across to get access to health care. A recent study revealed that half or 50 percent of those surveyed actually went into Mexico to get access to health care, buying prescriptions and getting medical treatment and dental treatment, because they could not afford it in this country.

So we need to make sure not only that we try to make it affordable but also accessible. That is important. So those specific issues of both education and health were two primary issues beyond the issues of worker rights that Cesar Chavez worked on.

Worker rights need to continue to be on the forefront. We need to understand, and it is unfortunate, yes, that we have to have a minimum wage; but we have a minimum wage because we also understand and recognize that there are still some people in this country that if they could get away with it, that they would pay fifty cents for someone to cut their yard instead of paying them appropriately in order to help them out, and being able to do the work that it entails.

Also, in closing, let me take this opportunity. I know we had some Democrats that were out here. One of the things they talked about was our veterans. I want to take this opportunity to shift, as we pay tribute to Cesar Chavez, to talk a little bit about our veterans.

Tonight we had an opportunity to hear some of our Members talk about the needs of our veterans. I sit on the Committee on Armed Services, and I also sit on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. We must honor our veterans. We honor them by ensuring that they have access to quality benefits and services once they come home. That is so important and so key.

With our troops in the field, and sadly, with many Americans already experiencing war's devastating effects, it is shameful that the House passed a budget resolution on the same day, Mr. Speaker, on the same day that our soldiers began Operation Iraqi Freedom, cutting $15 billion from the veterans disability compensation programs and $9.7 billion from the veterans health care.

It is clear that this proposal will have a devastating effect on the veterans, the VA health care and the benefit programs, and would serve as a further insult to the millions of veterans already facing reductions in health care, in compensation, in pensions, and in education benefits.

The administration's budget was already inadequate to meet the health care needs of our veterans. Now the Republicans have gone further and cut $844 million above the President's request for veterans health care next year. The proposal, approximately $1.3 billion above 2003 appropriations, will not even begin to cover the inflationary impact and anticipated salary increases for VA health care workers.

That budget relies on unrealistic management efficiencies, increasing copayments. It also relies on new annual enrollment of veterans using the VA health care system when they are going to be taxed, and other efficiencies such as eliminating 5,000 VA nursing home beds. At the same time, we are asking our veterans to fight in Iraq and to continue the struggle in Afghanistan, to continue the difficulties that we encounter in Colombia, and we are eliminating 5,000 veteran nursing home beds.

The budget resolution also calls for cutting $15 billion over 10 years, $463 million in 2004 alone. The VA mandatory spending under the disguise of eliminating fraud, waste and abuse, is cut. Mr. Speaker, when we look at this disguise of fraud, waste and abuse, 90 percent of the spending for VA entitlement is paid out of monthly payments to disabled veterans. I do not consider payments to our disabled veterans and pensions for the poorest disabled veterans in the GI bill, benefits for soldiers returning from Afghanistan, to be fraud, waste, or abuse.

I recently joined my colleagues on the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs and I have a great deal of respect for our leader, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), a Republican, in a bipartisan recommendation to the Committee on the Budget which would have added $3 billion. And I want to personally thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for those efforts. But next year alone for veterans discretionary programs including Medicare and research construction and programs that fund the administration cost benefits such as compensation pensions and education programs, that is important. That is drastically needed.

I urge all of my colleagues to do the right thing and honor our commitment to our veterans. These cuts are shameful and unacceptable. We must do everything we can in a bipartisan way to make sure that our veterans get those services that they are entitled to.

Let me also just say that people argue, well, the budget is growing. It is growing because of the fact that our veterans are reaching, especially the World War II veterans, are reaching that age where they need us now. They are getting old. They are getting ill. They need our help. And, yes, our roles are increasing. But we have got to assume as those that fought World War II and fought in Korea and Vietnam begin to reach those levels, we have got to be there for them. This is not the time to cut. After that, the numbers are going to get smaller, but we have got to be there for them. And for us to argue, well, we are going to increase it and we have been increasing it and we ought to be comfortable that that is not sufficient, we are actually cutting priority 7 veterans. We are cutting priority 8 veterans. And we have got to be sure that we do the right thing when it comes to our veterans.

So I want to take this time to thank the veterans who have taken the time to come out here. I want to appeal to the Republicans when it goes to conference to do the right thing when this comes to our veterans. We have asked them to go to Afghanistan. We have asked them to go to the Gulf War. We have asked them to go to Vietnam and Korea; and now as they reach their twilight years, they need our help. And what are we saying? Our priority is a tax cut. That is not right. That is not right.

Every single war, we have the data, has shown that we have had a tax increase to pay for the war. But now we got on a tax cut. And I can understand those conservatives that feel that sometimes in order to stimulate the economy that you would need a tax cut. But after looking at that tax cut, Mr. Speaker, I saw that it was $674 billion initially. Thank God it has been cut now. I do not know where it is going to wind up, but it was $674 billion. Of that, if you would argue from a conservative perspective that it is going to go to business, the majority of it, and that would help stimulate the economy, you would also have to take into consideration the fact that 80 percent of new jobs are created in small businesses, not major corporations. So of that $674 billion, less than $18 billion actually goes to small businesses.

So even from a conservative perspective, it does not make any sense. It really dos not if you are trying to stimulate the economy. And that is if you believe in that way, which I personally do not, and I think we could really help stimulate the economy and solve problems. I really feel that I have been elected here to solve problems, and we are not doing that here.

One of the problems that we are encountering is that the States have difficulties with their budgets. For homeland defense, we could be providing resources to them. The VA, for example, just since 9-11 it has cost them close to 50, $55 million just from going to code orange every time with more security and other things that they have to do. So it is costing them money and so we have to help our States, and we could help them by addressing the issue of health care and providing resources to health care. Not only would it help the States, but it also would solve a problem in a very critical area, which is the area of health care that would allow an opportunity for consumers to have access to health care.

It would allow an opportunity for the industry, the hospitals and the doctors who are having a rough time, in trauma centers who are thinking of closing down, it would have that opportunity for them to be able to get access to those resources and do the job they are required to do and do the job that is needed, so we would solve a problem and provide that access to those individual consumers out there that need access to health care. But we would also help in solving the issue and the problem that the States are having with the budgets, which is one of the issues of health care.

So instead of that $675 billion in the form of a tax cut, we can utilize that in a much better way in the area of health care, in the area of education, in the area of meeting the needs of our veterans.

So tonight I take pride in coming up and talking about a variety of issues, but our most important issue once again to pay tribute to the visionary Cesar Chavez who helped to inspire a great number of Americans in this country in a nonviolent way.

I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity in allowing me to be here tonight, and I want to take this opportunity to say thank you very much and good night.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 36 minutes p.m.) the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, April 2, 2003, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Kingston resolution. I want to recognize the brave men and women of our Armed Forces who are valiantly serving our country in the war in Iraq.

Over the weekend, seven of our soldiers were taken prisoner by the Iraqi government. One of the POWs is within my district and lives in Elgin; and I want to take this opportunity to indicate to my colleagues that I wanted to express my support to his family, to his mother and the rest of his family.

I know that his mother, my constituent, has indicated and had asked me to send a message to her son. The family has indicated that the whole community is supporting and praying for his safe return. She is asking him to be strong and to not lose faith in the Lord. The family has faith that you will return home safely.

I hope and I expect that the POWs and our troops that are being held in Iraq will be treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve under international law. Iraq and the United States are both parties to the Geneva Convention, and they are required to treat POWs both in a humane way and to protect them against any violence, any intimidation and to avoid insults and public ridicule. The actions of the Iraqi government that we have seen so far of displaying our captured soldiers on television is unacceptable.

I support our troops who are in Iraq, and I want them to know that the country is fully behind them, and we pray for their safe return. In these times of conflict is when I want the families of the soldiers to know that they have our prayers and assurance that we will do everything we can.

My sympathies go out to the families of our soldiers who have lost their lives, have been wounded, are prisoners of war, or are missing in action. I hope that this war ends soon and successfully and all our soldiers will return home safely.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I want to take this opportunity to thank the gentlewoman for taking this time. I have the pleasure of sitting on the Committee on Veterans Affairs, and let me just indicate that we really must honor our veterans' service. We honor them by ensuring that we honor the promise that we make to them to provide them with the access to quality benefits and services once they come home.

Let me also add at this point in time, our veterans are reaching that point in time where they need our help. They are reaching the age where they need this assistance. They were there for us; we need to be there for them now. With our troops in the field and, sadly, with many Americans already experiencing war's devastating effects, it is shameful that the House would pass a budget resolution on the same day that our soldiers began Operation Iraqi Freedom cutting $15 billion, yes, cutting $15 billion, from the veterans disability compensation programs and $9.7 billion from veterans health care.

The budget resolution also, as it calls for that cut, indicates that it is under the disguise of trying to do away with ``fraud, waste and abuse.'' Let me tell you that 90 percent of the budget on spending for the VA entitlement is paid out in monthly payments to disabled veterans and their survivors. I do not consider payments to our war-disabled veterans pensions, pensions for the poorest disabled veterans and the GI benefits for soldiers returning from Afghanistan to be fraud, waste and abuse.

I recently joined, and I want to thank my colleague on the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman

Smith), in a very bipartisan recommendation to the Committee on the Budget, which would have added $3 billion next year alone for veterans discretionary programs, including medical care and research, construction and programs that fund the administration costs of other important benefits such as compensation, pension and education programs. I want to thank the gentleman for the efforts he has made in working with us in that area.

But I urge all my colleagues to do the right thing and to honor our commitment to our veterans. These cuts are irresponsible; they are shameful and unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity once again to thank the gentlewoman for taking this time tonight. It is important that we continue to talk about this issue. We cannot allow this issue to go away, because, as we stand here tonight and as we go back and talk to our veterans, I never hear one Member talk and say they are not going to be responsive. Yet Members say it is important what we do, not necessarily what we say, because what we do, and the budget says it all, that is going to be very important.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for allowing me to be here tonight with her.

Mr. Speaker, this week, the State of Texas lost one of its great voices, a leader with passion and energy working to improve the lives of the people she represented. We mourn the death of Texas Representative Irma Rangel who served nobly in the Texas Legislature for more than 25 years. She was a trailblazer as the first Hispanic woman to be elected to the Texas House of Representatives and the first woman to serve as chair of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus. We will miss her strength, courage, vision, and her straight talk.

A close friend, an advocate for poor families and women in South Texas, Representative Rangel consistently fought to improve the quality and accessability of education for her constituents. Her advocacy helped create the

school of pharmacy at Texas A&M University-Kingsville, the first professional school in South Texas. She also was a driving force in securing passage of the 10 percent plan, which makes the top 10 percent of students in every high school eligible for admission to any state college or university, in the wake of the devastating Hopwood decision.

Representative Rangel grew up in Kingsville, Texas. Her father picked cotton and learned to read and write on his own and later owned several businesses. In 1952, she received a degree in business administration from Texas A&I University (now Texas A&M University-Kingsville). She was a teacher for 14 years in schools in Robstown and Alice, Texas, in Venezuela and in Menlo Park, California. She earned a law degree from St. Mary University School of Law in San Antonio, Texas in 1969; she later served as a law clerk for U.S. District Judge Adrian A. Spears and as an assistant district attorney in Nueces County before opening her own law practice.

During her lifetime, Representative Rangel received many professional honors. She was inducted into the Texas Women's Hall of Fame in 1994. Other awards include the Legislator of the Year award from the Mexican American Bar Association of Texas; Women's Political Caucus' Texas Mexican-American Woman of the Year in 1979; Unsung Heroines Award in 1991 from the Women's Advocacy Project; Latina Lawyer of the Year from the Hispanic National Bar Association; and Texas Woman of the Century from the Women's Chamber of Commerce of Texas.

Her commitment to the people and families of South Texas, especially in improving access to higher education, has left a lasting legacy. Irma Rangel will be remembered as a woman who, through her lifetime of work and service, demonstrated her commitment to community. We will all miss her.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk briefly about the President's budget for 2004. One of the specific areas is the area of Head Start.

The President's budget introduced this new Head Start initiative and wages a war on the poor. The Head Start has been working great, despite the fact that we only have funds to represent and only give to about 40 percent of Americans that are out there that are in need. Yet he is choosing to take these resources and decided to put it on the block grant, when right now, on the local control basis, it has been working in a way, and all the studies indicate that the Head Start has been doing a great job.

The administration claims that his proposal will sharpen the focus on school readiness, improve teacher training and mandate a system to assess the success of Head Start programs in preparing children for school. The reality is it is already doing that. Why mess with it? It is a great program.

The intent is to send the money to the States. The reason we started the Head Start program is because the States have been negligent in providing early childhood education. The States have not been responsive in putting in the resources, and I will give my colleagues an example.

Texas, to this day, only funds half-day kindergartens. The rest of the local school districts have to come up with the local property tax in order to provide full-day kindergartens. So when we look at Head Start that has early childhood preparation, this is where the resources need to be. They need to stay there. They have been doing a great job. Let us not mess with it.

In order to address what the administration suggests is uncoordinated efforts, he wants to give this to the Department of Health and Human Services, or take it away from that Department and give it to the Department of Education. The reason it has been with the Department of Health and Human Services is because Head Start is not only an educational program, but it has been there to reach out to the families of these youngsters and also work with them when it comes to the issue of health and providing that early education that is needed to help those parents also address those needs.

When we send that money to the Department of Education, I can already see they are going to be earmarking it to the existing programs that they have and not addressing the specific programs that this program was intended to do.

Under the President's plan, the transition would begin in 2004, and the Department of Education would assume full responsibilities for Head Start, and instead of having the local community do it, we would have 50 State agencies throughout this country with each State having the bureaucracy, and, of course, they would need 16 to 20 percent off the top in order to make that happen. Then they would be looking at providing those resources.

So we must ensure that Head Start continues to provide our children with comprehensive services and that it is strong for parental involvement and parental participation.

One of the key things that this program has resulted in is the studies show that those kids that show up at Head Start do a great deal better than the average youngster in the same category that is not under Head Start, and not only that, but they also found that they are less likely to drop out.

One of the realities is that youngsters who drop out, one of the characteristics is that they fail twice before they reach junior high, and one of the realities is that Head Start has helped them not to fall into that category of failing twice, and being able to get that, as the name implies, a head start in education.

One of the things that we do need to do is provide additional moneys for Head Start, because right now we are only providing 40 percent of those that are eligible to participate for this program, and there is a need for us to provide additional resources.

Besides trying to dismantle the Head Start program, the President also announced in his 2004 budget an increase of only $148 million for Head Start. At the same time that he has identified education as one of his priorities, this is not sufficient money to be able to make this happen. Not only would this tiny increase not cover inflation and reach those kids that are needed in Head Start, but it would also have to turn away over 1,200 children from the existing programs.

Questions must be asked as to the rationale for the initiative and for the transfer. Our concern is that we are transferring a program that has been working well under the Department of Health to another Department that has chosen not to address this problem, and who has chosen not to deal with early childhood education.

The President's 2004 budget proposal also includes legislative proposals to introduce an option available to all States to participate in alternative financing systems and in terms of grants, and so this initiative in terms of these grants are basically to take away from the existing program.

So I want to encourage the Members to really look closely at Head Start because it is a program that has been working. It is program that has been there for us, and we need to keep that up.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the uninsured in America.

The number of uninsured in this Nation is alarming. Too many people continue to go without insurance coverage. The numbers right now range close to 41 million Americans who are uninsured. The majority of these individuals are hard-working Americans that make $20,000 to $30,000 and find themselves unable to pay for their prescriptions.

Tomorrow we will be filing a piece of legislation, the Hispanic Health Improvement Act. Hispanics are among the largest disproportionate number of uninsured, close to 31 percent. One out of three Hispanics are uninsured, yet 80 percent of those that are uninsured are working Americans, working hard but unable to provide it.

The bill will provide an expansion not only to Medicaid, but also to SCHIP. It also will provide an increase in resources for those areas that disproportionately hit Hispanics such as diabetes, cancer, asthma, HIV/AIDS, and others. It also will provide an opportunity to provide access and affordability in the areas that are confronted. In addition to that, it also will strengthen the Nation's health care by allowing more opportunities for doctors and nurses to be included.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to talk a little bit about health care, and I want to personally first of all thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) for her leadership in the area of health.

On behalf of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) is the chairwoman of the Task Force on Health. She has brought to it a great deal of energy. Now she sits on the Committee on Energy and Commerce also, so we have high expectations for the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) and we want to thank her for what she has done, not only for her constituents back in California, but throughout the Nation, and her efforts in the area of health care. Under her leadership and passion the Health Care Task Force will be at the forefront of issues ranging from chronic diseases to the issues that we are here to discuss tonight, which is the uninsured.

The 2000 census revealed what many of us already knew back home, and that is that the Hispanic community has grown by leaps and bounds over the past decade. Hispanics are now the fastest growing community in the United States and make up close to 13 percent of the U.S. population. So I want to take this opportunity to say that of that part of the population, we have one of the largest numbers of uninsured.

Serving the uninsured must be a top priority for our Nation. Currently we have data to show that 33.2 percent, and it has been growing now with the individuals that have lost their jobs, of Hispanic individuals are uninsured, compared to the non-Hispanic whites who are uninsured at about 10 percent.

Let me tell you, these are people that are hard working individuals, that are out there working and making $20,000, $30,000, yet find themselves, if they are working for a small company, they are not going to have access to insurance. Unless they are working for a government, State, local or Federal, unless they are working for a major corporation, they will not have access to insurance.

So it is important for us to look at providing access to that insurance that their children and they need. While 19 percent of all Hispanics depend on Medicare and 35 percent of all Hispanic children depend on what we call the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which is CHIP, for their health care, still many of our needy families are not receiving the services that they deserve.

Despite the rhetoric of the administration, we leave millions of children

behind by President Bush calling for a $2.1 billion cut in this critical program for children, which is the only health care that a lot of these children receive. These are families that are working, trying to make ends meet. They are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, and they find themselves just making too much money, $20,000, $30,000, that they do not have access to health care, which is unfortunate.

It is unfortunate for too many working Americans that continue to lack this access to health insurance. Hispanics especially fall into this category. Over 33 percent of the Hispanics are uninsured, as I indicated earlier.

When it comes to health care, despite the promises, the Bush budget leaves our community behind. The Bush budget gives no money to these vital Federal health care programs for Hispanic communities. The Bush budget insufficiently funds the Community Health Centers, which have been out there making a difference, that millions of uninsured low and moderate income individuals rely on for their health care needs. The Community Health Centers have been there in responding to our communities' needs, and we need to make sure they continue to get the resources needed.

The Bush budget also cuts funding to the Office of Minority Health that focuses on health concerns which disproportionately affect minority communities.

The Bush budget also cuts into the future of Hispanic communities by eliminating funding for health career opportunities that aim to increase the number of minority health care providers.

We need to ensure linguistically and culturally appropriate health care by providing minorities an opportunity to go into the health care profession. At the present time we understand and recognize that we have a large number of individuals that could qualify and could enter the profession. A lot of times a little assistance in these programs that allow that opportunity to get into nursing, that allow them to get into some of the other health professions, as well as the medical profession, is important. So every effort needs to be made to continue.

I want to also talk a little bit about diabetes and HIV/AIDS. In diabetes among the Hispanic community, the risk for diabetes is twice that of the non-Hispanic whites. Nearly 11 percent of Hispanics have been diagnosed with diabetes as compared to 7 percent of non-Hispanics.

In the area of AIDS, funding for HIV/AIDS must also address the change in infectious rates. Hispanics have a rate of new infections four times that of non-Hispanics, despite the fact we have made some gains in the area of AIDS. Despite the fact that the number that are getting it and that are suffering serious illnesses are decreasing, the number for Hispanics is growing disproportionately.

So we ask as we look at those issues, such as diabetes that hit Hispanics disproportionately and such as AIDS that now affect those poor communities throughout this country, as well as African Americans, it is time to focus attention to the needs of these populations. I would ask the Bush administration to seriously reconsider their budget when it comes to health.

The Bush administration also has continued to deny legal permanent residents, and I will say that once again legal permanent residents' access to vital programs such as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, and the States' Children's Health Insurance Program, such as CHIP. These are individuals that are here legally, these are individuals that have not broken the law, yet we have denied them the right to have access.

One of the proposals that we have serious concerns with this administration on is the proposal that he has taken in hand, and that is that the Medicaid proposal has been one that addresses the needs of the most needy in this country, those that are indigent.

He has taken the Medicaid, and then he has taken the CHIP program, which is the program that addresses the children of the working families of this country, and has taken that program.

Thirdly, he has also gone after the disproportional share, the money that goes to hospitals that provide the indigent care, that provide for those in need.

So those three programs impact the most needy of this country, yet those are the three programs that this administration has chosen to bundle up into one block grant, and his proposal is to send it to the States, with the understanding that as the future goes on there is going to be a cap on it, and in those States where we have disproportional numbers, such as Texas and other States, that we will continue to have a difficulty in that area.

I want to continue to go ahead and address a couple of issues, but I wanted to take this opportunity to thank our task force chairman from the Hispanic Caucus, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), on her efforts, and I want to continue to join her here and thank her very much for what she has been doing.

First of all, I want to thank the gentlewoman for allowing us to be here tonight, and I want to thank her for her leadership in the area of health. Also, as I was looking at the data that she had before us and the research and all of the studies, one of the things that was glaring was the fact that things are not getting any better; they are getting worse. As they get worse, we come up here and we get elected to respond to the problems that we are confronted with, we get elected to hopefully come up with some solutions to those problems. But it is unfortunate that some people are up here not to solve problems, but to see how they can leverage their political power in the process of not responding to the needs of our constituency in this country.

So one of the things that is important, as the gentlewoman indicated, is, and the research shows, that of the ones that are uninsured, 87 percent, especially the Hispanics, 87 percent of them are hard-working Americans. These are people that are not out there not working and being lazy; these are people that are making $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 a year. Yet, if they work for a small company, they do not have access to insurance. Once again, unless they are working for the Federal Government or the State government or some form of government, they do not have access to insurance, or a major corporation.

And so these are hard working Americans that are trying to make ends meet. They make some money and because of that they do not qualify for the Medicaid for the indigent. And now we are trying to take away the only thing that they might qualify for, which is to ensure their children an access to health care. So in this country we would hope that as we move forward, we make every effort to make it affordable and accessible. What good is it that we have the best health care in the whole world, the best research, if it is not accessible and it is not affordable? It does not make any sense. So hopefully we will continue to work on that.

I just wanted to also add that, additionally, we have only 43 percent that have employer based coverage compared to 73 percent for Anglos, which means that most Hispanics are working for even smaller companies and so they do not have any access.

I wanted to share with the Congresswoman, I represent Starr County on the Mexican border. I have 11 counties. Starr County is a beautiful county, yet it has the distinction of being one of the poorest in the 2000 Census. It is the poorest in the entire Nation. In Starr County we have close to 40 percent of those between the ages of 19 to 64 are without health insurance, 40 percent of the population. And the lack of insurance means restricted access to preventative care which can lead to costly emergency room visits, poor quality of life and even shortened lifespan. While we have a patchwork of Federal and State types of programs, we continue to have difficulty. And I know that there is a talk about the private sector coming in. Well, I represent rural America, too. I have 11 counties. I have a lot of what we call the ``brush country'' in Texas in San Saba, in Frio, La Salle, in Atascosa, Duval, Jim Wells also, those counties out there as well as Starr and now parts of Hidalgo, those counties are rural counties, a lot of them are rural counties and the ones that are rural counties have difficulty getting the private sector to come in. So despite the fact that we have had the private sector move into Medicare, they have not had the experience.

I will share with you what happened to one of my counties that I used to represent that I do not now, in Wilson County, where the private sector was not making the profits that they wanted to see. They cannot get rid of the individuals if they are not making the profits, but what they can do is decide not to service the entire county. So they decided to get rid of most of the rural counties.

So in rural America we are having a rough time. And if you work in rural America and live in rural America, most likely you are working for a

small company. You are working for a small employer who does not have access to health insurance. That is why it is important for us to provide that alternative. That is why it is important for us to provide that access to health care that is so critical.

I wanted to also share with the gentlewoman that it is unfortunate that there are no easy answers, but the reality is that we can come up with if the will was there, we could make something happen. But it is unfortunate that we have not come to grips with it and we are not close to answering the problems. But the election is coming up in 2 years, and people have talked about meeting the prescription drugs. I saw the ads lots of time calling to thank Congressman so-and-so for their legislation that they had passed. Well, I want to ask where are they now on that piece of legislation? Nowhere.

And the same thing with the proposal on prescription drug coverage that this administration has put forward. It is embarrassing. It is a sham. The Bush administration in terms of their proposal on drug prescription, I am sick and tired of these types of responses when people are sincere. When they come to me when I go to churches they tell me, Mr. Rodriguez, I cannot afford to buy the prescription. I cannot afford it. I buy my husband's. I cannot buy mine. We go without food because we are on fixed incomes.

We have got to do something about this. Once again, it does not make any sense for us to have all the remedies in the world when our own constituency who are working hard and trying to make ends meet do not have access to this.

I wanted to take this opportunity if it is okay to talk a little bit about the Hispanic Health Improvement Act that the gentlewoman is a co- author of that piece of legislation. I would like to use a little time on that.

This week we will be introducing the Hispanic Health Improvement Act with Senator Bingaman and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) and members of the Hispanic Congressional Caucus. This will be landmark legislation and it is based on the previous Hispanic Health Act. I reintroduced it in the 106th Congress with existing legislation with Senator Bingaman, who has been a champion for us. And I want to personally thank him for his efforts in the area of health care because he has been there.

In addition, we have taken some of the Federal regulations from the Hispanic Health Leadership Summit, as the gentlewoman will recall. We convened last August. The Hispanic Caucus convened in a group and incorporated many of the suggestions of the group. And we invited two Members from each side of the Congress, both Republican and Democrat, we invited them to San Antonio to come and talk about the needs of Hispanic health. We had a good representation from both Republicans and Democrats come forward and participate in our conference. And the legislation offers a variety of different strategies for expanding health care coverage, improving access, and that is important.

If you have the decisions that respond to the problems that we are encountering but you do not provide the access, it does not do any good. And also we talk about affordability. It has got to be affordable, otherwise forget it. I do not care how good the response is. If the person does not have any money, it is not accessible. It is not affordable. They will not be able to live unless they get that accomplished.

And then we also reduced and addressed the health disparities. We know that in certain communities such as the Hispanic communities and the African-American community that we have disparities such as diabetes, AIDS and varieties of others. So while we consider each provision in our bill, we look to improve it. And I am just going to highlight just a few things from the piece of legislation.

In order to address the lack of health care coverage, the legislation provides $33 billion between fiscal year 2003 and 2010 for the expansion of the successful State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, and to cover the uninsured, low-income pregnant women and parents. So we are looking at those working parents and women that are expecting. In addition, it provides States the option to enroll legal immigrants. Once again, we are not talking about undocumented illegals. We are talking about legal residents, legal immigrants, pregnant women and children, access to both Medicare and SCHIP.

In addition, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus considers the expansion of Medicaid and CHIP eligible to be critical legislative priorities for improving health, Hispanic health. The bill also seeks to address Hispanic health disparities and requires an annual report to Congress on Federal programs or responding to improving health status of Hispanic individuals with respect to both diabetes, cancer, as the gentlewoman has mentioned, asthma, HIV infection, AIDS, substance abuse and mental health. And the legislation provides $100 million for targeted diabetes prevention as well as education, school-based programs, and screening activities in the Hispanic communities. Similarly, the bill provides for targeted funds for programs that were aimed at preventing suicide.

One of the things that we have noticed recently, and when I have first heard about the issue of suicide among young Hispanic young ladies, I was not aware of the seriousness of the situation and how bad it was, and so the issue of mental health in responding to the needs of young Latinos who are committing suicide. We really need to be conscious of that. This country has really not come forward when it comes to the mentally ill, whether Hispanic or non-Hispanic. The mentally ill really are not addressed and especially our young, the youths, when it comes to mental illness, we need to see what we can do for them much sooner for them and see how to address these needs. We are hoping to begin to address the issue of mental illness.

And I want to lastly indicate that we seek in the bill to reduce health care disparities also by addressing the lack of providers who can provide culturally competent and linguistically appropriate care. That is so important. When you look at especially therapists that provide access to psychiatrists to Hispanics who when the doctor is unable to speak the language of the client, you know that the type of care is not going to be up to where it should be. When in describing the type of medication that is needed, having an understanding of the client in terms of culture is also extremely important; and we can cite some examples later on. But the bill also provides for increased funding for HRSA, health professions and the diversity programs.

As you know, the President's budget for 2003 budget proposal eliminates virtually all funding for these types of programs. So you tell me that we are needing people in the area of health care in every forum, we need minority representation in those areas, and yet these programs that are so needed by our community are the same programs that this administration is choosing to cut.

In addition to the promoting of diversity, these programs support the training of health professionals in the fields experiencing shortages, such as pharmacy, dentistry and allied health. They promote access to health care services in the medically underserved communities.

I want to also mention that the Hispanic Caucus considers increased funding for those programs a high priority. As the Hispanic community continues to grow, the implementation of these provisions will take on even greater importance, so the consequences of inaction will be felt for many years. So we encourage both the Democrats and the Republicans and the administration to reconsider their budget when it comes to health because their budget is one that basically says we do not care. We are not here to respond to the problems that are confronted by their little proposal. The President's proposal is a sham and I know that people, even Republicans that look at it, ought to be ashamed of that and they are embarrassed because it really does not address the issues that confront our communities and address the issues of our constituency when they come and say, how can I have access to buy the prescription that I need for my husband or my wife? And the answer is that unless we come together on that and unless we address that need, the bill that is before us does not answer the problem, and the solution that is there is only a political solution that really does not address the problem that is out there.

But the constituency back home will have an opportunity because the election will be coming up in 2 years. And I am hoping that as we go forward that we will make some inroads. And we have an opportunity because I know that both Democrats and Republicans are looking to get votes from the Hispanics. Well, you have a good opportunity. You start addressing the problems that confront our community, and I think our community will be willing to respond, I think, if that is the case. But if you give us lip service such as we are getting from this administration, then the results will be that you are not going to get our support and it is not going to happen because you are not there sincerely trying to address our problems.

I know this is the gentlewoman's time. I want to thank the gentlewoman very much for taking the time to be out here tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman once again and touch a little bit on a couple of things that she mentioned.

On the mentally ill, there is no doubt that is one of the areas that we have not made the inroads that we should have. In this country, in a way, we have been negligent, not being responsive to our youth when it comes to the mentally ill. We have not provided the resources that are needed. We forgot all about Columbine and how that occurred, the fact that we really need to go and see what is happening. Youngsters, a lot of them were suffering from depression. We need to make sure we pay a little more attention to what is occurring in those areas and spend some time and look at the number of suicides of young people that is occurring.

So I am hoping that we begin to address some of these issues, and I am hoping that the will will be there to make something happen.

The gentlewoman also mentioned, I know, the issue of rural America. Rural America right now, and I represent 11 counties that I indicated already that are having a rough time getting access, and one of the reasons why we decided to privatize part of Medicare is because the whole argument was to try to reduce the costs. In fact, the other side argued that Medicare is a government-run program and this and that, that they could do it better. We have tried that experiment, and as my colleague well knows, that experiment has failed. In fact, right now, if a person is under Medicare+, they are costing the Federal Government more money than a straight Medicare, despite the fact they might be paying $300 additional money.

So it is a gimmick to try to destroy the program. We know and people understood that if they provide access to our seniors, they are the ones that they are less likely to make a profit on because they are ill. The data that shows that a person on the average spends over $1,000 on prescription drug coverage when they are seniors. There is no insurance company that is going to be able to make the profits they would like to see from our most vulnerable in this country and our seniors, and we

should not be doing that. We need to see how we can make it affordable.

What angers me, and I know what angers Americans, is that that same pharmaceutical company that sells those products that contributes to the politicians up here and contributes big bucks and puts those ads to thank those Congressmen for nothing basically because they did not accomplish a darn thing except the elections were coming up, those are the same companies that choose to sell those medicines in Canada and elsewhere for half the price, for one-third of the price.

The sincereness of their efforts, it is a crime what they are committing, and it is sad that we have got to this point that those same products can be bought in Mexico and Canada for much less, and it is the same company, and it is unfortunate that the ones that are having to pay because they claim that they are doing that for research purposes, and yet who are they sticking it to? Our most vulnerable, our seniors, who buy a large percentage of the prescriptions.

So I am hoping that we can come up with a realistic plan, and the people in this country, they are not stupid. They are going to see right through the President's proposal on prescription drugs. It helps a few at the expense of everyone else, because most people, at least the constituency of the Hispanic community, the only thing they have is Social Security. They do not have any other pension, and if they do, it is a small one. They do not have additional money to dish out $300 or more for additional coverage, and even though they get additional coverage, the private sector is not interested because if they do get sick they do not make a profit.

We have all understood that, and that is why we need to come up to the plate. This is no way to treat our seniors after they have given of themselves. This is a time for us to reach out to them and provide whatever assistance that we can and to be able to make it also in a way that is accessible and affordable.

So I wanted to once again thank my colleague for what she has done, and I want to also share that in health care somehow we have not come to grips because we do have a lot of Congressmen out here that basically feel that the Federal Government should have no role in health care, and apparently they feel that way and they feel that it should be just privatized. But we understand that people get ill and cost insurance companies, and we know that the insurance companies, as soon as a person gets a serious illness, will dump them if they have the opportunity, despite the laws that we have tried to pass.

That was happening in the 1960s, when we established Medicare and Medicaid, and that is happening now, so the companies are there, and for good reason, they are there to make a profit and provide access to health care but they are there to make a profit. So a person does not have any problems while they are young and healthy, but as soon as they get ill and they need them, that is when they start having the difficulties. Anyone who has gotten ill understands that and recognizes that.

So their main priority is to be there to make a profit and secondary is everything else, and that is why the Federal Government has a role and a responsibility. The health of this country depends on the quality of life for our constituency.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition today to the provision of section 418 within H.R. 743, which would have closed a so- called ``loophole'' relating to the government pension offset. Since this provision was

not removed from the measure, I am forced to oppose this entirely.

The government pension offset unfairly reduces the retirement benefits of public employees, our teachers who have dedicated their lives to serving their communities and our children. Many of those impacted expect to receive the Social Security benefits their spouses earned and often remain unaware of the offsets until they reach retirement age. Educators are shocked to learn that their decision to enter the education profession, often at a considerable financial sacrifice, has caused them to also lose the benefits that they had counted on. The resulting loss of income forces some into poverty and desperation.

I ask that we vote ``no'' on H.R. 743.

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons why we decided to come over this afternoon is again to talk a little bit about the Miguel Estrada case that is before the Senate. One of the concerns that we had was in terms of the fact that he had been nonresponsive in terms of the questions.

Let me first of all start by thanking the Senate for doing the right thing and, that is, deciding not to support the nomination of Miguel Estrada. We take, at least as elected officials, a very important role in making sure that when we are asked to support a letter----

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, I will make every attempt not to do that. Thank you.

One of the things that as elected officials, we take pride in doing, letters of support to constituents, letters of support for individuals to certain positions, and we want to make sure that, as elected officials, when we do a letter of support, that we know the nominee, that we know who that person is. We ask for documentation in some cases. I do not write letters for anyone unless I know the person personally, because I know full well as an elected official, one of the first things I was told, Mr. Speaker, and I know you probably have experienced this is you do not want to write a letter for someone that later on commits a crime. There is nothing worse than doing that. We want to make sure we do the right thing. In so doing, also, the Senate has a responsibility, and, that is, to look at the candidates that come before them and to be able to ask the questions of them, and to be able to look and then make a decision based on that.

Here we have a nominee that has failed to respond to questions. Maybe people would say, why not give him a chance? As elected officials, we get elected to 2 years. You might say, well, I'm going to vote for Mr. Rodriguez this time, I'm not sure, but I'm going to give him a chance. With the nominees for the Federal court, we do not have a second chance. They are there for life. I would ask you that if you are going to be hiring someone in your office, if you are going to be hiring someone in a firm, if you are going to be hiring someone and he is going to be staying with you for life, you want to make sure that you feel comfortable about making that decision. And so I want to thank the Senators that have stood there strongly and asked those questions that are important. My thanks to all those who are sharing----

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I can make reference to the Senate as long as I do not tell them what they need to do; is that correct, Mr. Speaker?

I will try to refer to the Constitution. The Constitution says that the Senate has an obligation to stand for the Constitution and to make sure and consent. That would be appropriate, Mr. Speaker, I would presume, since it is in behalf of the Constitution. Thank you.

I want to also take this opportunity to thank all those that have shared their message and stress the importance of making sure that this debate takes place.

Throughout this debate, Members from both sides of the aisle have continued to accuse those of us who have opposed Miguel Estrada of setting a double standard. They have even gone as far as saying that we are anti-Hispanic for doing so. I have heard some of these proponents of Miguel Estrada profess their great support of the Hispanic community. While we welcome them to join our fight on the issues that matter to our community, we think that it is important to clarify the record.

I would ask them, where was that support in terms of the Hispanic community when it came to bilingual education? Where were these votes in behalf of bilingual education? Do they think that they are supporting the Hispanic community by voting for the Bush budget that eliminates funding for school programs critical to our children's academic success? Or when they threaten the school lunch program as we are seeing now? And how can they say they are supporting Hispanics when they oppose the earned income tax credit program that is so critical for our working families?

And how can they also say that they are supporting Hispanics when they failed to extend unemployment insurance benefits at the time when Hispanic unemployment is one of the largest in the Nation? And how can they touch, in terms of our Hispanic community, when they voted to not even allow legal permanent residents the opportunity for basic human services but still feel that it is okay to send them to war?

Some of these Members have also gone to the floor and spoken in Spanish. I want to commend them for that effort. But we will not be fooled by some nice sound bytes in Spanish or pretty photographs. Your voting record will be the determining factor of determining whether the community, the Hispanic community, is going to be supportive or not. I know as the elections come around, the presidential, as well as the Senate, and the House elections, people are going to be reaching out to the Hispanic community. There is a great opportunity there to get some votes, but that record is going to be determined based on the records in responding to the needs of that community.

We continue, and will continue to oppose Miguel Estrada because we know nothing about Mr. Estrada. He is a mute nominee. The Senate opponents to Estrada are acting fairly because they are doing their job as they move forward as far as I understand. They faced the White House strategy of nominating and hiding. They deserve answers. I think in response to those questions, we feel that Miguel Estrada deserves better treatment, in all honesty, in terms of being advised by the administration, I presume, not to answer those questions.

I ask you once again, would you hire someone who would not be responsive to those questions? I think the burden of proof is on Miguel Estrada.

Miguel Estrada has to show that he should be the person nominated, especially when he is nominated for life. So when we interviewed Mr. Estrada, we asked him basic questions that other nominees have answered. He had no response. There were no answers. He was asked about judges that he admired. He was asked about people that he looked up to. There were no responses. In some cases we asked him about the Lau v. Nichols decision, and when the 20 members of the Hispanic Caucus met with him he chose not to respond and/or he was either naive about the Lau v. Nichols decision, which is a very important decision on bilingual education.

For critical questions, Mr. Estrada provided no answers; and yet these are the same questions that the supporters of Mr. Estrada in the Senate have asked the other non-Hispanic nominees during the judiciary hearings. If there is a double standard, it is seeking questions from one nominee but defending the mute nonresponses of another, and I guess some of the Members have also forgotten what transpired with Richard Paez, who languished on for 4 years in the Senate, and Enrique Moreno who also was waiting for nomination. Where were the Hispanic fighting individuals out there on behalf of Enrique Moreno? Where were they for Jorge Rangel? Where were they for Christina Arguello? Where were they for Sonia Sotomayer?

Where were they for these Hispanic members who had been nominated to the courts? All appointees had their nominations stalled for extraordinary amounts of time, and I think I speak for all Americans when we say that it is time to go back to business. We need to focus on our needs of our families. We need to work to get our legislation and address their needs. We need to work towards a comprehensive and realistic prescription drug plan that addresses our needs. We need to keep looking in terms of how are we going to build the economy and the importance of creating jobs and raising our country to where we once were just a few years ago. We have been entrusted to look out for this country, and yet we have failed to move in that direction.

So we will continue to be in opposition to the Estrada nomination. We are going to continue to move forward and at least from the caucus's perspective continue to be in opposition to the nomination.

I also want to take this opportunity to indicate that when we met with the nominee, it is not every day that the caucus is unanimous about their decisions. We have 20 members of the Hispanic Caucus; and we took it very seriously because, after all, here we have a Hispanic member before us, and so for us to go against him, it is a hard decision. It was not something that we took lightly. It was important for us to make sure that we gave him every opportunity that we could.

So what we did was we had formed a committee, a task force, of which the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) were part of as well as the rest of the delegation. In that we looked at various criteria, and I want to take this opportunity to review that criteria that we looked at and the evaluation that we utilized.

One of those areas that we looked at in terms of evaluating Mr. Estrada's performance was in the commitment to equal justice for Latinos. As we looked at that commitment in terms of equal justice for Latinos, we asked questions that revolved around the issue of past history to see if he had some sense of history of our Hispanic struggle in this country for justice. We inquired about certain cases. What we gathered is no record, and the response in that category was no record. There was no way. There was no information. So the only thing we could gather from Mr. Estrada is that at least in this country he has had no commitment to our Hispanic community in this country. He has had no contact with our community in this country. He has been involved with no organization of Hispanics in this country, and he either failed to respond to us or has not had any contact whatsoever. So on the issue of commitment to equal justice for Latinos, we had to indicate no record, and we have it listed as indicating no record.

On the commitment to protecting Latinos' interests in the courts, we asked him in terms of the importance of the role of a judge if he was being looked at as the administration has portrayed as a Latino candidate to one of the highest courts, second to the Supreme Court. We wanted to make sure that we would have a person that would have an understanding of what it means to be Latino in this country; and as I recall, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) talked about the importance of judges having a clear understanding. And he mentioned a particular case of a particular court where the judge kept insisting

that the client, in this case a Hispanic, look at the judge. And finally the attorney at that point told him it is due respect to a person of authority that sometimes Hispanics would not necessarily look one straight in the eyes because it means defiance instead of respect versus what the judge was looking at; and yet in that category of commitment to protecting Latinos' interests in the courts, we found Miguel Estrada failing in that category.

On the third category that we had in terms of support for Congress's right to pass civil rights laws, there is no record and no response. We asked him in terms of the history some of the cases that have been important for the Hispanic community in this effort, for example, the Plyler case out of Rhode Island where it gave the Hispanic immigrants the opportunity to go to public schools. We asked him about, as I mentioned earlier, the Lau v. Nichols decision regarding bilingual education, and in those he either had no knowledge of those cases and/ or he chose not to respond. So we had to indicate no record on behalf of Mr. Estrada.

On the forth category where it talked about support for individuals' access to the courts, there we talked about in past history in terms of his support, what has he done to try to help people to come forward and move forward, Latinos, if he had provided any kind of assistance in that area, any kind of internships or any kind of effort. It was very unclear in terms of any of his comments.

On the fifth category, the support for Latino organizations or causes through pro bono legal expertise, we asked him if he ever provided any kind of help or assistance or if he ever volunteered in any way to help clients. The response was no. So we had to give him a failing grade in that category. When we asked him support for Latino organizations or causes through volunteerism and we went a little bit beyond the other one in terms of pro bono, any kind of volunteerism, still no form of volunteer efforts. We had to give him a failing grade. When we asked him for support for Latino law students or young legal professionals through mentoring or any internship programs and we went a little more in-depth in that area, again we found that Mr. Miguel Estrada failed in that category.

And, finally, on the commitment to increase Latino access to clerkships once on the bench, there was no response and very little history in the past, and he failed. We went a little bit beyond that also in some discussions on specifics about other writings that he might have done; and when it comes to Miguel Estrada, we know very little about this candidate. Here is a person that we are scheduled to nominate to the second highest court of this Nation, and yet he has never been a judge, a municipal judge, never been a district judge, never been any form of a judge; and yet we have him before us.

So we question the rationale and the approach. I am sure that when he went before the administration that he responded to the questions that the administration posed before him; and if nothing else, we would ask Miguel Estrada that he would respond maybe to those same questions the administration had posed to him, but that has not happened. There is no opinion on any Supreme Court case that we could gather from him.

There is a list of questions that we have gotten that he has failed to respond to; and it is a series of questions both in committee and the Senate and from us, and when he was asked, Do you have any opinion on the Rowe v. Wade decision and do you believe that Rowe was correctly decided?, no response whatsoever at all to that specific question. When he was asked specifically on questions that most Members are asked, and that is regarding, for example, a very simple question that is usually brought up to Members is the basic question of Which three cases do you think have been very important cases in this country or that you are supportive of and which three cases do you disagree with?, he has failed to respond.

I am not an attorney, but I know I would have picked up a couple of them, if nothing else, those cases that discriminate against African Americans, the Plessy v. Ferguson case, and all those cases that discriminated; and I would presume that it would have been easy for him to be able to pick some of these cases, at least outline and say that they were unjust, even if it was at that time, and that they needed to be corrected; but he chose not to respond.

So the only thing I can gather is that here is a nominee who I think has been misguided by the administration maybe not to say anything and assume that because he was Hispanic and that if anyone went against him or decided to go against him, they were going to label him anti- Hispanic. As the Hispanic Caucus in this country, we have an obligation and a responsibility, and one of those responsibilities is to make sure that we have good nominees; and whether he is Hispanic or not Hispanic, I think it is important that they need to respond to the questions that are before them.

So it becomes really important that we look at these nominees in a very careful way, and I have to admit it was not an easy decision, but it was a unanimous decision on behalf of the 20 congressional Members that are Hispanic, the Hispanic Congressional Caucus; and all of us felt that he did not deserve the nomination, and he does not deserve to be a Federal judge unless he chooses to answer the questions that are before him like everyone else. Because he is Hispanic, that does not make him qualified; and because he is Hispanic, that does not give him any special treatment. We expect him to answer the questions like anyone else.

So we also want to take this opportunity to thank LULAC of California, the State LULAC that has gone in favor of not accepting the nomination. We want to personally also take this opportunity to ask and thank MALDEF, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, that has come forward on this issue and has taken a pretty good stand on that.

And with me tonight also is a Congresswoman out of California; and before I ask her to say a few words, I want to also indicate that I am really pleased that today we had Linda Chavez-Thompson with the AFL-CIO and a lot of the unions that are also concerned with the nomination of Miguel Estrada come forward in a press conference against the nomination of Miguel Estrada.

I wanted to thank those groups that were before us, and I also want to thank some of the past presidents of LULAC that have gone against the nomination of Miguel Estrada, in addition to various other Members of the legal profession.

We have the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) here, and I want to ask her to join me in dialoguing a little bit and personally thank her for the efforts she has taken in this area. And I want to ask her, because I know we as a caucus took it very seriously, and we know after we decided to go after and not to accept the nomination of Miguel Estrada, it was not an easy decision for us as Latinos in this country, because we are there to push and get as many Latinos as we can into the courts, but we want to make sure that they are also responsive, because they are appointed for life, and that they are also qualified as we move forward, and not having the responses, not having the comments and not answering the questions is not meeting that particular objective.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman, and want to take this opportunity to also indicate that as a caucus we have stuck strong, all 20 of us, and, once again, it does not happen that often, but we did and we continue to be in opposition to the nomination of Miguel Estrada.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the gentleman for being here tonight and taking the time to talk to our constituents throughout this country about a critical issue, and that is prescription drug coverage. I still have a lot of my seniors that are still battling to pay, and we have been playing games. We have been playing games back and forth. So I am really angry at the proposal that has come before us, and I want to take this little time to talk a little bit about what the administration has proposed.

Mr. Speaker, today I came over to rise today to express my great concerns over the administration's answer to the prescription drug coverage and to their plan, one that he promises our Nation and he promised it during the presidential campaign, and he talked about addressing the problem of prescription drug coverage. However, I believe our seniors deserve better. They deserve more than the recent proposal that we have received from the administration. Today the President spoke before the American Medical Association and unveiled the major points of his plan. The President would create a prescription drug benefit for seniors who opt to leave the traditional Medicare program and enroll in private plans to get coverage. First, that presupposes that they have additional money to be able to pay about $300 a month for that additional coverage. B, when we look at Hispanics, almost 48 percent, close to 50 percent, the only thing they have is Social Security, and they have no other form of income. So it becomes a little difficult.

Secondly, we have HMOs in my area, and I represent a lot of rural area. So PacifiCare, a lot of those companies have chosen not to provide access to care in the rural areas. So I have my rural constituency that have no options there and they are not going to be able to be served on this, and the reason they have had difficulties is because the profits have not been there for the private sector, and we understand that in this area one of the other difficulties is that also, in order for the senior to be able to qualify, they have to leave Medicare, which means that they would lose their ability to choose their own doctor. They also would not be guaranteed access to needed prescriptions.

The seniors would also even lose the access to their local pharmacies. So we have got to consider those things that are very important in those rural communities in terms of their pharmacies, in terms of seeing their own doctors. In addition, on top of that, it would be a complicated plan with enrollees having to dish more out of their own pockets and huge gaps in coverage.

So when we have seniors on fixed income, to expect them to pay more for

Medicare, where even the private companies are choosing to shy away because they cannot make the profits from our seniors because it is understood that when they become a senior, a lot of them get sick, and yet when they are healthy, they will take care of them, but as soon as they get sick, they will find a way to get rid of them. So this plan just does not work.

The President's plan also calls for $400 million for the next 10 years, and we know this falls short of what is needed to adequately address the problem, and the Congressional Budget Office, and the President knows this, projects that the total drug spending by the Medicare population will grow from $95 billion, not million, but $95 billion, in 2003 to $284 billion by 2013. When we boil this down, it means that seniors and disabled beneficiaries will be paying a lot more over time to cover the prescription drug cost.

Mr. Speaker, I have joined as original cosponsor of a House Democratic bill, which we call the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit and Discount Act. This bill provides guaranteed relief for Medicare beneficiaries struggling to cover their expenses. In 1999, for example, 38 percent of seniors and Medicare beneficiaries with disabilities had no drug coverage. According to the recent studies also, the average annual out-of-pocket drug spending was $996 in 2003.

And remember, this is, on the average, almost $1,000 on the average per senior. So that means that there are beneficiaries living on fixed incomes who pay more than that figure right now. There are some that pay up to $4,000 to $5,000, and this is of the sickest and most vulnerable population in this country. The House Democratic bill established a part D prescription drug benefit under the Medicare program. It is a guaranteed benefit with a reasonable premium and cost- sharing plan. The plan gives the Secretary the authority to use the collective powers of the 40 million Medicare beneficiaries to negotiate fair drug prices.

And I would like to make one last point. Our States are right now in the middle of a budget crisis and are looking to the Federal Government for relief. The Medicare prescription drug benefit will provide vital help to these States. Not only will it help them to take care of that dilemma, but it also addresses a problem that we are encountering. Here we are, we are elected to come up here to address problems. We have a problem before us and what are we doing? We are playing games.

So we have the opportunity to address this problem by putting sufficient resources behind it and, secondly, helping the States take care of the most critical problem that they are encountering with their own budgets, and we could help them with that, and at the same time, help our seniors that are the most vulnerable. And we know that the private sector has difficulty making a profit on them because the reality is, as I had just indicated, for the average senior it is close to $1,000 per year in terms of prescription drug coverage.

So there is no way that the private sector and the insurance companies understand that. That is why they are shying away from the President's proposal because they know it is a sham. They know it is a little game that is being played. They know they are not serious about really addressing the problem that exists out there. And I have spoken to many of my State legislators from back home, and I know that they do not want to cut vital programs, but they will be making difficult decisions in the months to come.

One of the proposals that we have in Texas is considering the elimination of the CHIP program, and this has been brought up in Texas because of the fact that they do not have sufficient resources. That is the worst thing that could happen.

So I ask my colleagues, and I want to thank the gentleman again for coming before us, here we have a unique opportunity to revitalize the economy again and answer that problem in terms of putting some resources into the economy and addressing the problem of our seniors and helping the States to help with their budgets and their costs of which the highest cost that each of those States have usually is in the area of health.

So we have an opportunity to address this issue, and I was really extremely disappointed with the President and his proposal. It is a proposal that does not address the needs out there, and he had talked about it during the campaign when he was running for President about meeting that need. That was 2 years ago. He is going to be coming up again 2 more years from now, and this problem is still before us. We have a unique opportunity to address that now and to work on a bipartisan effort to try to respond to that, and I am hoping that we can make that happen. And once again, I thank the gentleman very much for being out here tonight and talking about this important issue.

It is a sham.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, one of the things that I think that we forget is that one of the reasons why we have Medicare, and as I recall one of the stories about President LBJ, that I remember him having a lot of difficulties with the medical association and with the insurance companies over establishment of Medicare. I remember there is a little story where he brought in the insurance people, and the story goes that as he is talking to them, he says, ``You know well that you take care of them when they are young and they are healthy, and as soon as they get old, that they are costing you.'' And we see the statistics here that most seniors on the average spend $996 per year for prescriptions.

He told them, ``You know you cannot make a profit on them, and we know that, and that is why you have been dumping them. You are dropping them off your plans.'' He said, ``I will do you a favor. Let the Federal Government come forward with a plan that will respond to the needs of our seniors, because you are not meeting their needs.'' Finally they let go and allowed that to happen.

The industry right now also understands that they cannot make a profit on our seniors, because they know that our seniors are the most vulnerable in this country in terms of the ones that more likely will get ill and sick. Yes, there are seniors there that are healthy, and they will continue to make a profit on them. But as soon as they get sick, they are not going to make a profit.

That is why in my counties, and I can tell you about some of my HMOs that were not making profits in certain of my counties, they chose not to drop certain individuals; but they dropped the whole county. They are going to do the same here and choose not to participate.

That is why I think if LBJ were here, he would have established Medicare with prescription drug coverage back then, if we had been using prescription drugs for access to health care the way we do now. So it is important for us that if we really want to provide access to our seniors, then we need to look at affordable prescription drug coverage, but also access to prescription drug coverage.

The other issue I know we have not talked about is our pharmaceutical companies and the obligation they have to provide affordable drugs, which we have had a difficult fight over. But the reality is now that the proposal that the administration has come forward with is again little games that are being played at the expense of our seniors, and I am sick and tired of that. I am tired, because our seniors are sincere when they come to us. They are sincere. They have tears in their eyes when the housewife says, I sometimes go without eating or without my prescriptions because I am buying them for my husband.

We ought to be ashamed of ourselves in this country if we do not work in terms of coming up with a plan that allows for appropriate, accessible prescription drug coverage for our seniors. This is not right. I am hoping we can go across the aisle and get Republicans and Democrats to come forward with a plan that responds to these needs.

When the President comes up again for reelection in 2 years for the Presidency, I want to ask him, and hopefully he will be able to take credit for coming up with a plan that responds to our seniors. At this point with what he has got, it is nothing; and it is not going to work when he comes up for reelection. I am hoping we can come up with a plan.

Once again, I want to thank the gentleman for being here tonight. I wanted to come up here and say my 2 cents worth, because I know when I get home, my seniors are concerned; and every time I go to church, they talk to me about those concerns, and I want to keep fighting until the day we can make it happen and be able to have access to good prescription drug coverage for our seniors in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, first of all, for coming out here tonight and talking a little bit about some of those issues that concern us. I know that as the gentleman talks about health, one of the things that really bothers me is now, the President's proposal, as it deals with the issue of health, one of the things that he has done is that he has begun to look at Medicaid, which is the monies that go to the most indigent of this country, and he has also looked at what we call the disproportionate share. That is the money that goes to those hospitals out there that

are providing that indigent care that have no reimbursement except what we provide them. So these are two areas of serious concern because it deals with the most indigent, the most needy in our country.

In addition, he has also looked at what we call the CHIP program. The CHIP program for Americans out there is the program that addresses the needs of those youngsters, of those parents that are hard-working, they are working, they are making $20,000, $30,000, $40,000; but they do not qualify for Medicaid because they are not poor enough and they are hard-working. When they go to the hospitals, they do not get reimbursed on the disproportionate share. So here we have three programs: the Medicaid for the most indigent, the disproportionate share for those hospitals to help them out, for providing that care, and the CHIP program that addresses the needs of those youngsters of those parents.

He is proposing to lump them all up. Here is a program that is a direct attack on the most needy of this country, the ones that are hurting the most in health care; and instead of responding and providing the needed resources that are needed out there, he is looking at providing a block grant and, at the same time, providing those resources to the States. But as the gentleman well knows, those States are in need right now. Those States are hurting when it comes to health care. These are programs that have worked and have somewhat been responsive to some of those needs. What is he doing? He is attacking the most needy of our population. So that really concerns me. It really bothers me. I wanted to share that, because I know the gentleman has talked about health care and the importance of health care, and I know the gentleman has also been touching on the budget.

What also bothers me is that as he looks at the budget, he is also doing the same thing when it comes to the most needy of our children. Under the Department of Health, we have a program that is called Head Start, one of the most beautiful programs that we have had for a long time. It has been very good. Statistics indicate, it has been shown that it has been the program that has responded and has been real good for those kids that are out there and has been meeting the needs of our youngsters. Yet we know it only represents 40 percent of the kids that qualify for Head Start that we are funding at the present time, and it only has 2 percent of the early childhood, those kids that are 2 and 3 years old.

Yet the President is choosing to destroy this program because his proposal is to block grant those monies and give it to the States, when right now those programs are being run locally, they are locally controlled, and he is going to create, by moving that money from the Department of Health to the Department of Education, it is a very serious move because right now the Department of Health also with Head Start, they work with our parents, they work with our kids; and they provide not only cognitive skills and educational skills, but also reach out to them in terms of services and needs. So what he is choosing to do is he sees these dollars out there, and he is choosing to put them in a block grant and throw them at the States.

Well, I can attest to my colleagues, if they come to Texas where I am from, Texas has had a history of not funding full-day kindergarten. We only fund half; the rest of the day is funded only by the taxpayer through local school districts. So if that occurs, I can attest that we will have a real problem, and they are going to destroy a program that has been there providing for those needs. By doing this, they are going to use that money to supplant because of the fact that they do not have the resources to provide the existing services that they have throughout this country. So I am real disappointed, after what has happened in his efforts that when it comes to education, he has not been there.

I also want to share, and I do not mean to take too much of the gentleman's time, but I want to share a couple of other things, because there is a pattern here. He decided to attack Head Start and try to put it into a block grant; he has attacked the most needy of this country with Medicaid, CHIP, and disproportionate share in terms of health; and he is also now attacking our veterans. These are the individuals that have fought for this country. At a time that we have declared war, he is asking Priority 7 and Priority 8 veterans, those veterans that are making just about $30,000 or so, for them to begin to pay more than what they already do for the services. And at the same time, not only is he attacking the resources for our veterans, but he is also attacking their kids. Not the kids of the veterans, but kids of the servicemen who now we are asking, or who are out there in Afghanistan, we are asking them to go to the Middle East, we are asking them to go to the Philippines, we are asking them to be in Colombia.

So those are the same soldiers of those kids that now we are saying we do not plan to help fund their education through the assistance. So those are the types of proposals that we have before us. At the same time, he brings to us a tax cut when we do not have sufficient resources.

If we do have a war, if we do have one, who is going to pay for that war? At some point in time every war, and I asked for a CRS study from the Congressional Research Office, I have found that for every single war we have had, with very few exceptions, we have always had a tax to pay for that war. In this case, we do not. It is being paid out of the deficit, which means we are asking our soldiers to go out and fight, and then we are asking them and their kids in the future to pay for it because of the debt.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that as we move forward we will have an opportunity to talk about these issues and concerns that confront us.

I want to touch base just a minute on education, because here we have a bill that is basically the President's bill. It is the Leave No Child Behind Act. Well, for 2003 we are already going to leave some children behind, because he has cut $7 billion from that. As the proposal comes out for 2004, it is a $9 billion cut.

So when we talk about a promise, and then we come back on that promise of leave no child behind and we cut $9 billion from the 2004 proposal, and this is at the same time that our States are having a rough time, I have difficulty comprehending what the rationale is. I have difficulty understanding, when he has verbalized his concerns for education, but at the same time he does not display that through the form of a good budget.

The budget basically determines everything. If he cuts taxes and we do not have the resources, I do not care what we say about anything else, it is not going to be there. So it becomes really important that we are forthright about that.

Now we hear that he is willing to come up with about $50 billion on foreign aid to try to pull off this war, not to mention that the war might cost us from $100 billion to $200 billion additional. These are issues that we really need to go and talk about before the American people.

I want to thank the gentleman for coming up tonight and allowing us an opportunity to talk a little about the budget and the issues that concern us. I know that the gentleman has been a constant worker, especially in the area of health care. I want to personally thank the gentleman, and I know we have another colleague that might want to say a few words.