Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee regarding the Inter- American Foundation.

Mr. Chairman, I deeply appreciate the consideration the gentleman from Arizona has given to the Inter-American Foundation and his support of increased funding for IAF in the past. I know he understands the importance of this vital program in Latin America and the Caribbean.

For more than 3 decades, the Inter-American Foundation has provided grants to community organizations to implement their own creative ideas for development and poverty reduction. For example, a year ago I had the opportunity to visit a project in Esteli, Nicaragua, and I visited entrepreneurial women at the time who were receiving grants from the Inter-American Foundation to provide technical support and micro-credit assistance to help them launch a small business on their own and become self-sustainable. I am concerned though, Mr. Chairman, about a decrease in funding in the Inter-American Foundation in the bill before us.

As the gentleman knows, 40 of my colleagues join me in respectfully requesting a minimum level of funding of $20 million for the Inter- American Foundation fiscal year 2004. We were encouraged by the gentleman's subcommittee's leadership in increasing the program from $13.1 million in fiscal year 2002 to $16.1 million in 2003. However, this year's bill reflects the President's budget request of only $15.2 million for the Inter-American Foundation in fiscal year 2004, a decrease from last year's level.

Unfortunately, I believe the President's budget request was low because it was prepared prior to the fiscal year 2003 foreign operations bill was passed. Therefore, the President perhaps did not use the actual $16.1 million fiscal year 2003 funding level as a base.

Mr. Chairman, given the wide support of the Inter-American Foundation, would the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the chairman of the subcommittee, be willing to work for increased funding, at a minimum, providing the same level it received in fiscal year 2003 for the program as the bill moves forward towards conference?

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to thank the gentleman for his leadership and support on this vital program, and I look forward to working with him on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, subject to rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 1308, the Child Tax Credit Bill. The form of the motion is as follows:

Mr. Speaker, I move that the managers on the part of the

House in the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two

Houses on the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R.

1308 be instructed as follows:

1. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in

the conference report the provision of the Senate amendment

(not included in the House amendment) that provides immediate

payments to taxpayers receiving an additional credit by

reason of the bill in the same manner as other taxpayers were

entitled to immediate payments under the Jobs and Growth Tax

Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.

2. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in

the conference report the provision of the Senate amendment

(not included in the House amendment) that provides families

of military personnel serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other

combat zones a child credit based on the earnings of the

individuals serving in the combat zone.

3. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in

the conference report all of the other provisions of the

Senate amendment and shall not report back a conference

report that includes additional tax benefits not offset by

other provisions.

4. To the maximum extent possible within the scope of

conference, the House conferees shall be instructed to

include in the conference report other tax benefits for

military personnel and the families of the astronauts who

died in the Columbia disaster.

5. The House conferees shall, as soon as practicable after

the adoption of this motion, meet in open session with the

Senate conferees and the House conferees shall file a

conference report consistent with the preceeding provisions

of this instruction, not later than the second legislative

day after adoption of this motion.

Mr. Speaker, this morning I would like to rise to urge my colleagues to listen a bit about this discussion that I am going to enter into regarding the U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore free trade agreements. And as one of my colleagues said, it is about jobs, J-O-B-

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to urge my colleagues to oppose the U.S.-negotiated free trade agreements between our country, Chile. And Singapore. Both of these agreements in my opinion represent a substantial backwards step from existing trade policies in terms of labor and environmental protections and set, to me, a dangerous precedent for future free trade agreements, especially as we look to the future and what we are going to be doing with Central American countries.

Do not get me wrong. I am not opposed to trade. But I would like to see fair and equitable trade. Trade between countries can yield enormous benefits for businesses and economies and working families of all countries if it is done fairly. Two years ago, I voted on this floor to support the Jordan Free Trade Agreement, an agreement passed unanimously by this Congress. That agreement included fundamental labor and environmental standards that made it an exceptional model for future trade policy.

Unfortunately, the U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore free trade agreements negotiated by this administration fail to include many of the provisions that were included in the Jordan agreement that could have been used as a model. In fact, the agreements' enforcement standards are, in many respects, weaker than those in NAFTA, an agreement that has resulted, as Members know, in the loss of thousands of jobs and a larger trade deficit. Rather than backtrack on trade policy, we should be building upon trade policy established in the Jordan Free Trade Agreement.

The Jordan Free Trade Agreement required that Jordan not only meet internationally recognized labor standards on child labor and the right to unionize but to enforce them as well. The agreements with Chile and Singapore fail to do this, allowing even the most rampant violations of core labor standards to go undisputed. The one commitment that can be enforced under the agreements, the commitment to abide by the country's own domestic labor laws, is merely subject to limited fines, a lot of good that is going to do, a much weaker penalty than the trade sanctions available for commercial disputes.

The agreements are also troubling because they create an entirely new visa category which would allow employers to bring thousands of temporary workers into the U.S. at the expense of American jobs. The result would be a vast influx of foreign professionals from many low- wage nations competing with American citizens for higher paying jobs. They would fill virtually any service sector job in industries such as finance, engineering, medicine, and law. Though the administration made improvements upon its original draft implementing legislation of these new visa programs, the implementing legislation for the new visa programs still falls short of existing H1-B programs. It omits important safeguards for ensuring that employers do not abuse temporary workers to undermine the domestic labor market.

Whether you support free trade or not, we can all agree that we should not be allowing for the entry of thousands of temporary workers at the expense of jobs that can be filled by American workers, especially in a time of unemployment when we are at a 9-year high. In my own district, I repeatedly let people know that our unemployment rate is above 7 to 10 percent in some of the cities that I represent.

I also urge my colleagues to oppose these agreements because they will not promote a cleaner and healthier global environment. While the Chile and Singapore free trade agreements include environmental provisions, so they say, the language used in many cases is ambiguous and provides little assurance that the environmental promises of the agreements will be fulfilled. The agreements fail, in my opinion, to include a process that would allow citizens of the countries involved to even file complaints about possible environmental violations. Such a process, as you know, is even included in the NAFTA agreements.

Further, I am concerned that the ambiguous definition of environmental laws in the Chile free trade agreement leaves open the strong possibility that natural resources representing over 40 percent of Chile's exports will not be covered by the agreement's environmental rules. At a time when the Bush administration is negotiating trade agreements with countries in regions with abysmal labor and environmental records, we should not be approving trade agreements that fail to ensure protections for workers.

The administration has clearly stated that the Chile and Singapore free trade agreements will serve as a model for the Central American Free Trade Agreement known as CAFTA.

The weak workers' rights provisions in the Chile and Singapore agreements will be disastrous if applied to future trade agreements with countries and regions where abuse of workers' rights has been egregious. A vote for them would send a signal that the weak labor and environmental standards in them are not acceptable. Strong labor provisions must be included if workers are to become real partners in economic progress and help develop the expanded middle class.

This year brings the 10th anniversary of the NAFTA agreement. The result: Our combined trade deficit with Mexico and Canada has grown from $9 billion to $87 billion, and more than half

of the million U.S. workers have lost their jobs.

I urge my colleagues to vote down these two agreements.

Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 397 on the motion to table H. Res. 324, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Madam Speaker, today I rise to address an issue very important to millions and millions of people in our country. President Bush has ignored our economy, and I point out to Members to look at what is happening in the 32nd Congressional District of California. Rates of unemployment have gone up dramatically. The national rate is about 6.4, and in one of my cities it is up to almost 11 percent.

What I think we ought to be doing in the House is starting to focus in on trying to replenish jobs and bringing back American values that our families so sorely need. We have many people serving as reservists in the military. Their families are suffering. We need to give them a child tax credit break, and we need to increase the minimum wage.

Madam Speaker, these are hard-working people. They have been suffering for over 2 years, and I know they are telling me in a strong way across the country that we need to focus on our economy. The rich have gotten their tax breaks, but what about the working poor? And what about the working-class families that we all represent in our districts? I would ask my colleagues to think seriously before we go on recess to provide an economic incentive package to help working families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a great community leader and President of the Indian American Friendship Council, Dr. Krishna Reddy, for his commitment to the advancement of the U.S.-India relationship and the Indian-American community.

Dr. Reddy has a remarkable record of advocating on behalf of the Indian-American community. As Founder and President of the Indian American Friendship Council, Dr. Reddy has demonstrated his tremendous dedication to improving U.S.-India relations. His expertise and service have undoubtedly led to increased dialogue and solidarity between these two democracies.

Dr. Reddy's commitment to engaging the Indian-American community in the political process and ensuring that Indian-Americans have a voice in our government is also commendable. His organized efforts have helped educate Congress about issues important to India and the Indian- American community and fostered relationships between Members of Congress and Indian-Americans nationwide.

It is a great honor to pay tribute to Dr. Krishna Reddy and the Indian American Friendship Council.

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Smith amendment and strongly support international family planning programs, the United Nations Population Fund, and the Crowley-Lee amendment. The UNFPA fund helps promote family services and maternal child health care.

Last year, I had an opportunity to visit Nicaragua. As some of you know, I am half Nicaraguan. I got to see the work that was happening out there to help improve the lives of women and their children. And in Nicaragua, UNFPA fund is working to train midwives, midwifes working in maternity houses that offer free shelter, medical counselling and assistance to high-risk pregnant women.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Smith Amendment. I strongly support international family planning programs, the United Nations Population Fund, and Crowley Lee Amendment.

UNFPA helps promote family services and maternal and child health care.

It successfully operates in 34 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean and works to increase the number of skilled birth attendants and reduced high rates of maternal and infant mortality.

In Nicaragua, UNFPA is working to train midwives working in maternity houses that offer free shelter, medical counseling and assistance to high-risk pregnant women, I had a chance to visit and hear about these successes.

As a result, these UNFPA funded maternity homes have helped to reduce maternal mortality in Nicaragua, but many are facing severe funding shortages and may be forced to shut down.

The United States should be helping UNFPA address the continuing unmet need for reproductive and maternal health services in Latin America and around the world!

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

If passed, it would require the State Department to heavily regulate foreign government's issuance of identification documents.

If the State Department determines that a foreign government is not in compliance with the issued regulations, a foreign government could have to suspend issuance of the identification documents and stop issuing visas to individuals from that country altogether.

The amendment would violate the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and U.S. citizens living abroad.

If the U.S. does not acknowledge valid foreign IDs, others have no obligation to recognize U.S. IDs.

It's clear to me that this amendment is an attack on the Mexican consular ID and the millions of Mexicans living in the U.S. and elsewhere who use it daily as a form of identification.

The matricula plays a vital role in our homeland security efforts by enabling the reliable identification of millions of Mexicans living and working in the United States.

800 police departments, various local governments, and at least 80 banks have accepted the matricula because it increases public safety, national security, and our economic competitiveness.

Law enforcement understands that the matricula helps identify people, including suspects, witnesses, and those who come forward to report crimes and suspicious activities.

The matricula is a safe, secure form of identification.

It has a number of extremely sophisticated security features, including a digitized photo, in-person consular interviews and review of supporting documentation, as well as standards for supporting documentation that are more demanding than those used for U.S.- government issued IDs.

Acceptance of the Mexican consular ID has a proven track record of increasing public safety.

Failure to recognize it would preclude millions of Mexicans living and working in the U.S. to identify themselves and assist in our homeland security efforts.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the Hostettler-Gallegly amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague from Connecticut for bringing this motion to instruct conferees.

I speak as a new Member of the House of Representatives. I know that all of us take the oath of office to represent and do our due diligence of representing our districts. Yet the Republican tax plans to me are devastating to people working in my district. Every city in my district in California, every city has lost jobs since President Bush took office. Believe it or not, the number of unemployed has increased more than 30 percent in 2 years in most of my cities; and in one city alone, the city of South El Monte, the unemployment rate is 10.8 percent. It started out 2 years ago at about 9. Now it is at 10.8. And the Republicans call cutting taxes for rich trickle-down economics?

The only thing trickling down to my community is a headache and budget cuts. The $450 billion deficit that has accumulated since the President took office is trickling down to States and communities like mine, and it all adds up to a lot of bad news for working class people. Local taxes have increased, job losses, cuts to school budgets, cuts in health and first responder services and an inability to deal with our environmental issues and problems like the quality of air and water.

The burden of these cuts are hitting hard working-class families like those in my district, and it is shameful that the main beneficiaries of the Republican tax cuts are the millionaire friends of the folks on that aisle. Republicans found $90 billion to give to 200,000 millionaire families. They got $93,500 in tax breaks. Yet 47 percent of Californians, that is almost half, will get a total cut of less than $100; and 28 percent in California will get absolutely nothing. Nada.

Tax breaks for millionaires will not make it in my district because I do not even have a millionaire that lives in my district. They all make below $200,000 a year.

To add insult to injury, the last-minute changes made by the Republicans will also prevent families in the area of $10,500 to $26,625 who have 11.9 million children from receiving child tax credits.

Democrats did offer an economic stimulus plan with an immediate increase in the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief for all, and the expansion of the 10 percent tax bracket. Democrats tried to put money in the pockets of people who earn it; and, as usual, we were stifled.

We demand to see this restored tax credit for our families, and I would urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a great community leader and President of the Indian American Friendship Council, Dr. Krishna Reddy, for his commitment to the advancement of the U.S-India relationship and the Indian-American community.

Dr. Reddy has a remarkable record of advocating on behalf of the Indian-American community. As Founder and President of the Indian American Friendship Council, Dr. Reddy has demonstrated his tremendous dedication to improving U.S-India relations. His expertise and service has undoubtedly led to increased dialogue and solidarity between these two democracies.

Dr. Reddy's commitment to engaging the Indian-American community in the political process and ensuring that Indian-Americans have a voice in our government is also commendable. His organized efforts have helped educate Congress about issues important to India and the Indian- American community and fostered relationships between Members of Congress and Indian-Americans nationwide.

It is a great honor to pay tribute to Dr. Krishna Reddy and the Indian American Friendship Council.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to honor a dear friend from my district, George Garcia, who died early this morning at the age of 51. He was a resident of El Sereno community of East Los Angeles in my district. He was born on May 6, 1952, in Los Angeles and grew up in the community of Chino, California.

At the age of 18, George Garcia answered our Nation's call to duty and voluntarily enlisted in the United States Army. He was signed to the 82nd Airborne Division, where he served with great honor during the Vietnam War. In Vietnam, George served as a ``tunnel rat.'' I asked my colleagues what is a tunnel rat. Apparently these young men in that era courageously dug tunnels behind enemy lines in the Vietnam War.

Upon returning from Vietnam, George married his high school sweetheart, Roberta Melendez. Together, they raised three beautiful children who mourn his loss today, as well as myself and other people from our community. One of his children, George, Jr., is carrying on his father's commitment to defending our Nation as a member of the United States Navy.

Upon returning from Vietnam, George Garcia dedicated his life and career to helping fellow veterans. For the past 25 years, he worked as an employee of the Employment Development Department in California finding jobs for unemployed veterans.

He founded the San Gabriel Valley East Los Angeles Veterans Employment Committee. He also fought vigorously to address the special needs of Latino veterans, including immigration, substance abuse and education training. George also formed coalitions among multi-ethnic groups and gave numerous hours to grassroots organizing to ensure a voice for his fellow veterans.

Most recently, George dedicated his time and expertise to military families who were waiting to hear about their loved ones who are currently serving in Iraq. He spent many, many years helping us each year provide gifts to poor children during Christmastime in the communities of East Los Angeles. Throughout his life, George Garcia gave unselfishly to his fellow veterans and their families. The imprint of his efforts can be felt throughout the Los Angeles community, and we all grieve for him today.

His commitment to serving his fellow veterans earned him in 2002 the honor of being named the State of California's Veteran of the Year by the Department for Veterans Outreach Programs in the State of California.

Whenever there was an event or a project to help veterans, George was there. I met him years ago as a State Senator in California. Every time I would ask him, what can we do to help the veterans, what can we do to help the homeless veterans, he was there giving his ideas, sharing with his heart and his compassion, tirelessly as a volunteer, no pay, but out of the love of his heart.

I want to ask all my colleagues here to join me in honoring a true American hero. To him and his family, his son and to all those people and all those veterans, homeless veterans who met and touched him, he touched their hearts and he touches our hearts every day. We will remember you, George. We love you. God bless you.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Obey/Miller amendment.

It baffles me that at a time when our economy is reeling that the Bush Administration would want to weaken the protections of workers fortunate enough to still be employed. Over 9 million Americans are currently unemployed. Unemployment in my district, in East Los Angeles and the San Gabriel Valley, is almost 10% in some areas. Why then would we want to cut pay for those workers that have jobs?

Under President Bush's proposal, millions of workers who now enjoy overtime protection would no longer qualify for overtime pay. The changes would impact police, firefighters, nurses, retail managers, and many others. It would impact many of my constituents, who have contacted me because they don't want a pay cut.

Make no mistake about it. The proposed changes to our overtime regulations will mean a huge pay cut for these workers. It will mean longer hours with less pay.

I urge my colleagues to oppose paycuts for American workers and support the Obey-Miller amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank our ranking member and also the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform. We just came back from celebrating July 4, and on that occasion I had the opportunity of attending one of the local parades in one of my cities, Rosemead, California. I met four soldiers that had just returned from Iraq, about the same age as Francisco Martinez Flores, and their stories were also heartening and compelling. They came back to their families, and I had a chance to meet them.

Lance Corporal Francisco Martinez Flores, a young man of 21 years of age, did not come back. And people ask me, Congresswoman, why is it that you want to name a post office after this young man? He was not an elected official. He was very young in life and was just barely starting out in his own career and finding his way. One of the things I have to tell the Members is that what when I read the tragic story of his death, one of the first soldiers to die among those in California, I was very moved, very moved to see his family and the community of Duarte that I now represent in the 32nd Congressional District come together. I attended his funeral where there were 1,200 people from outside of that city who came to gather to pay witness to this young man who had served and given his life.

As was stated earlier by my colleagues, this young man was not originally from the United States. At 3 years of age, he came to this country with his parents from Guadalajara, Mexico, but he attended our local high school in Duarte, participated in many activities, extracurricular, football team and the jazz band. He even wanted to be a member of our government, serving as a police officer. He will never get to realize that dream, and I saw that this was an opportunity for us to pay tribute to someone like him, like many other soldiers who are now serving and some that have not returned that we should pay tribute to, for they made and they make the ultimate sacrifice without a doubt and without question. In fact, his mother was quoted, and I recall at the church the mass that I attended at that funeral, her name is Martha Martinez, and she said of him, ``He loved the United States so much. He was from Mexico, but he was fighting for America and its ideals.'' Everyone was touched and moved by that statement.

Lance Corporal Martinez Flores was not just a brave and self- sacrificing marine, but he was a loving son, a brother and a friend to many who live in the 32nd Congressional District. He was the eldest of four siblings that emigrated to the country, and as I said, he served a short time there at high school in various extracurricular activities.

And on that day January 23, 2003, he was sent abroad to fight in Operation Iraqi Freedom, probably not knowing that he would never come home. He

was just 2 weeks shy from gaining his United States citizenship. Lance Corporal Martinez Flores was killed in the line of duty near Nasiriyah, Iraq, on March 25, 2003, and after his death, Lance Corporal Martinez's family proudly accepted a certificate of naturalization granting to Francisco posthumous U.S. citizenship on April 6, 2003. He was one of thousands of lawful permanent residents who have volunteered their service to protect the United States by joining the U.S. military.

Lance Corporal Martinez Flores was a courageous and dedicated marine who grew up in our local community of Duarte, and I am privileged that we will be naming a Federal building after him in his hometown.

Local residents in the city there have also shown their support to honor him. They have come together to put together their own funds to develop a scholarship in his name. And all 52 Members on a bipartisan effort from California support this initiative. The mayor and the city council of the city of Duarte are also bipartisan and support this piece of legislation. These efforts now will lead to the post office at 1210 Highland Avenue in Duarte, California, to be named Francisco A. Martinez Flores.

I want to thank all of them for their support for the bill, all those that had the ability to be a part of this to help us move this along in an expeditious manner, and I want to especially thank the family members and those people that represent that community that came together to fully unify themselves behind this young man. It is devastating for us to know that someone has to lose their life under such turbulent time and hardship to have a community come together like that. This was one of those moments in our history. The bill is a tribute to all those who have died to our country, and it is a tribute to all the families who have lost a loved one. The bill symbolizes the gratitude and admiration we have for our Nation's soldiers who risk their life to uphold their way of life and the American ideals of liberty, justice, and equality. And I urge all my colleagues to join me in recognizing this American hero, Lance Corporal Francisco A. Martinez Flores, who fought and died for our country, by supporting this bill today, H.R. 2396.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an individual who has dedicated over twenty-five years of her life to public education, Mary Ellen DeSantos, on the occasion of her retirement.

DeSantos' remarkable contributions as an educator with the Los Angeles County Office of Education are well known. Her leadership has proven invaluable in implementing innovative approaches to improve the quality of education for language minority students in the Los Angeles County area utilizing the Title I and Title VII program.

DeSantos has taken on many roles in the private and public education sector in Arizona and California. Over the course of twenty-five years she has been a primary and secondary education teacher, director of state categorical programs, bilingual coordinator, and a vocational teacher trainer.

Mary Ellen DeSantos' hard work has enriched the lives of over eight thousand students. Her numerous contributions will not be forgotten.