Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of true champions. I am proud to report that on Saturday. December 6th, 2003, the Sunnyside High School football team of Tucson, Arizona once again brought home the Class 4A State Title.

For the second time in three years, the Blue Devils showcased to the state of Arizona their unmatched talent, heart, and dedication. In a 21-13 victory over Glendale Cactus, Sunnyside overcame a roster depleted by injury and what the papers called ``undersized'' players. Mr. Speaker, it's true that the Blue Devils have linemen whose physical stature is smaller than the average. But, as was proved in this past weekend's state championship game, physical size doesn't matter when you have the drive and the hunger for victory that these players do. Under bright stadium lights, under tremendous pressure and expectation, and with a defensive line outweighed by an average of 70 pounds, the Sunnyside Blue Devils came home victorious.

I commend these students and their coaching staff. Their fine efforts have made my hometown, and moreover, my alma mater proud. I wish them the best as they enjoy their victory and begin to look toward next year's winning season.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of legislation to improve the health of racial and ethnic minorities in our Nation, the Healthcare Equality and Accountability Act of 2003.

This act will offer Congress the opportunity to begin to close the health care divide and disparity that exists between Americans, a divide that cannot be ignored nor should it be tolerated. The irrefutable facts will be presented today for all of us to see. This disparity is real and this divide exists.

To ignore these facts is tantamount to perpetuating the dual system of health care in our country, separate and unequal, a dual system that too often denies to communities of color, Latinos, Native Americans, African Americans, and Asian Pacific Islanders, the health care access and quality that most Americans enjoy. This pattern of exclusion of people from quality health care is morally wrong and is a significant deterrent to the overall progress of our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation to address racial and ethnic health disparities in this country would do the following: it would set the elimination of racial and ethnic health disparities as a goal. The elimination of racial and health disparities can and should be a goal for all Americans. The health of all our communities is enhanced when we work to close the health care divide.

It would expand the health care safety net. The lack of health insurance and access to health services result in significant decline of the health status within racial and ethnic minorities communities in this country. The availability, quality, and affordability of health care coverage options and to provide meaningful access to health services must be expanded in cooperation with health care providers and employers in order to successfully address the divide of racial and ethnic health communities and their delivery of health services.

The other point that is, I think, very important for us to consider is that ensuring health care access is in compliance with the civil rights law. Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and its subsequent amendments provide crucial rights to individuals with limited English proficiency to access federally conducted and supported programs and activities. Limited English proficiency persons should not be inhibited from accessing vital health care services paid by them and their families in their tax dollars.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in endorsing this important bill. An action by Congress long overdue, if we have the will and resources to pursue international adventures--then we should have the same resolve here at home.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of the Filner motion to instruct.

The issue of proper regulation of oil and gas companies with regard to clean water is a very real and serious concern for the people of Southern Arizona that I represent.

On July 30 of this year, as an example, an 8-inch high pressure gasoline pipeline operated by Kinder Morgan, Incorporated on the west side of Tucson, Arizona, ruptured. Ten thousand gallons of gasoline were sprayed 50 feet in the air dousing five homes under construction, which later had to be demolished. Hazardous fumes were created 250 yards away from occupied homes.

In the aftermath, there were reports of ground water contamination resulting from the rupture and possibly from the reconstruction efforts. Initial reports varied, some indicating serious contamination. More recent reports seem to show contamination may have been ongoing for some time and only came to light due to the investigation of the rupture.

Safety inspection reports dating back to 1995, and as far back as 1988, indicated potential problems for a rupture, but yet this information was never made available to the public or to their elected officials.

To address this problem, I have asked the EPA to conduct an independent assessment of the degree of contamination and the risks for residents. If the Filner motion is not passed, this type of oversight and enforcement would be seriously compromised. The people in my district have a terrible wealth of experience with ground water contamination. A plume of TCE created the most serious of many Superfund sites in my district. This pollution has created a legacy of illness and death across the south and west sides of Tucson. I am told it continues to grow every day.

The gas and oil industries facilities covered by this exemption tend to be

located in lower-income, minority and poor neighborhoods. Companies, of course, seek to limit their legal liabilities by placing these facilities near populations without the money to litigate or the strong political representation. Then the companies come back to us and ask for more legal protection, as they have in this amendment, and for our complicity in this injustice.

The bill before us would expand an exemption that should never have been passed in the first place. It is absurd that we would be debating whether to increase pollution by giving legal immunity to corporate polluters. How can a Member of Congress seriously argue that we should allow more pollution in our ground water, rivers and streams?

The issue is clear: Do we want to maintain our standards of clean water or do we want to expand existing loopholes that allow even greater environmental injustices to occur with our complicity?

I urge my colleagues to protect human health, protect our children, and our precious and increasingly fragile natural legacy by voting yes on the Filner motion to instruct.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, October 24, 2003.

Hon. Marianne Horinko,

Acting Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

Wayne Nastri,

Regional Administrator, Hawthorne Street, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 9, San Francisco, CA.

Dear Ms. Horinko and Mr. Nastri: I am writing regarding the

recent gasoline pipeline rupture in Tucson, Arizona. This

disaster is of extremely grave concern to me and to the

constituents I represent in Arizona.

On July 30, the pipeline, owned and operated by Kinder

Morgan, Inc., ruptured, spraying 10,000 gallons of gasoline

onto homes in Tucson. This event subjected my constituents to

serious environmental, health and safety risks. Thankfully,

no one was injured in the rupture. Now that the immediate

danger of the rupture has passed, however, residents are

enduring the impacts of the pipeline's reconstruction and

potential realignment.

Neither the public nor elected officials knew the extent of

the safety risks associated with the pipeline. Our

preliminary information indicates that the pipeline may have

failed safety inspections from 1995 on; however, this

information was not made public, nor made available to

elected officials or emergency personnel. This information is

very disturbing in light of the extreme risks involved with

the transportation of highly flammable materials.

In the aftermath of the rupture, there have been reports of

groundwater contamination as a result of the pipeline rupture

and/or reconstruction efforts. Reports on the issue have

varied: some indicating a dangerous contamination, and some

not. In light of this discrepancy, and a great deal of

anxiety on the part of residents of Tucson, I request that

you immediately commence an independent assessment of the

situation in order to ensure that the citizens of Tucson and

southern Arizona are safe from any unnecessary risks of the

rupture itself and impending reconstruction.

It is absolutely crucial that citizens of Southern Arizona

know the full extent of the danger and risks associated with

this rupture and reconstruction efforts. It is the EPA's

responsibility to ensure that our citizens are protected from

environmental contamination. Please inform my staff member,

Rachel Kondor, at (202) 225-2435, as to the steps you plan to

take with regard to this issue.

Sincerely,

Raul M. Grijalva,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deep, deep disappointment in the Republican proposal to dismantle Head Start.

Head Start has been an historic, powerful tool in ending poverty in this country, and we heard about passion earlier today, but when we profess our passion, it should not be about empty rhetoric. It should be about real compassion, real care and real resources for children.

I am very proud of my Democratic colleagues' persistent attempts to improve this disastrous bill. Yet of the 25 Democratic amendments submitted to the Committee on Rules only two were made in order. Receiving a rewritten bill in the middle of the night last night, many of us have not had sufficient time to review the changes. From what I can see, though, this is essentially the same bill, causing lasting damage to a widely successful program like Head Start.

The bill offers no accountability. The bill repeals long-standing civil rights protections on employment discrimination; and my colleagues have addressed many of the other issues that are wrong with this bill.

I want to concentrate on one aspect. The most troubling part of this forum from my perspective is the weak attempt by the Republicans to provide a funding increase for migrant and seasonal Head Start. Before these changes, the bill would have provided between $8.5 and $17 million additional funds to migrant and seasonal Head Start.

This new bill creates a provision that guarantees $17 million to this program. While this looks like an improvement, it actually only guarantees one-quarter of 1 percent of the total appropriation for eligible children of migrant and seasonal farm-working families. This modification would only extend services to 2,200 of the 130,000 eligible children that are currently neglected. This is a so-called improvement? It is a slap in the face to these children and their families.

Mr. Speaker, these children deserve equal resources. They deserve our attention and they deserve to be treated equitably in this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member from the committee for yielding me this time, and I want to thank the chairman as well.

I rise again before my colleagues today to express my opposition to the Republican plan to destroy Head Start and in support of the substitute.

Head Start, a successful Federal program for nearly 40 years, has never been a partisan issue. This year, though, my Republican colleagues have hijacked the issue and it now risks becoming the victim of a social political agenda, nothing to do with education. Head Start has become part of the plan to eliminate social programs from Federal responsibility. This cynical ``not my problem, let 'em eat cake'' agenda ignores our shared responsibility for poor children in this country. Yes, a shared responsibility to these children, a shared responsibility to fight poverty, and a shared responsibility to provide equal opportunity to all children regardless of their parents income.

Mr. Chairman, it is simply irresponsible to neglect these children when we can do so much to help them. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2210 and ``yes'' on the substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), who is also chair of the Education Task Force for the Congressional Hispanic Conference.

(Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), a great advocate for education and a former member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

(Ms. SOLIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to provide a ray of hope to thousands upon thousands of the poorest of the poor, the children of migrant and farm worker families.

The child in this picture is eligible for migrant and seasonal Head Start services, yet he wanders in a field in North Carolina with his parents while they work all day. He is exposed to pesticides, hazardous equipment, extreme heat, and other health dangers. The sad part of this situation is that he is not alone. Over 130,000 children are in the exact same situation in the richest country in the world. These children are neglected because Congress has chosen not to provide the funds to give them services.

If you have not seen these children, you have seen their families' hard work. Every day you see their hard work on your dinner table, in your restaurants, and in your grocery stores. With just 19 percent of migrant children being served, this program is so drastically underfunded that providing new money is the only clear and real solution.

Republicans are rearranging the money in Head Start, claiming that they are providing relief to these children. This is simply untrue. Strategies that steal from Peter to pay Paul are unfair. Only 2,200 of the 130,000 neglected children will be served with this new funding scheme, and it ignores the Native American children all together.

There are deadly weapons in this Nation: ignorance, intolerance, injustice, neglect, and denial of opportunity. These children are the victims. These are weapons we can find and we can destroy, and this is your opportunity.

Let us extend to these children the American Dream. Let these children who are the sons and daughters of farm workers feel that they too have a stake in this country. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to use their consciences and support the motion to recommit and vote ``no'' on final passage.

It is time we start speaking for children that have no voice in this House. The children of farm workers deserve our support and our care.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote for the Udall amendment and also to thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) for this very thoughtful amendment that continues the protection of our national forests.

The national forests are owned by all the citizens of the United States. Our forests provide places for families to camp, hike, fish, and mountain bike. They are increasingly under demand for recreation as our cities grow and open space is at a premium. Forests provide not only recreational opportunities but also clean water for cities and habitat for wildlife.

Because Americans enjoy forests so much for all their values, they also want to participate in the planning for their management. They want to have a voice in determining that forests are available for recreation, that habitat is provided for wildlife, and that everyone is accommodated. For decades citizens have participated in forest planning, and forests are better for it.

But the Bush administration would prefer the citizens stay out of the process, making it easier for big timber companies to log and mining companies to drill. This is wrong. The Bush administration's regulations are giving away environmental protection and public participation in the name of helping the timber industry and others to get what they want first, but they do not own the forests. The American people own the forests.

The administration's regulations are a bad deal for the environment, a bad deal for citizens; and I would urge people to vote ``yes'' on the gentleman from New Mexico's (Mr. Udall) amendment to suspend full funding for the new Bush administration's regulations on forest management.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Taylor amendment and in strong support of the gentleman from Colorado's (Mr. Udall) amendment on the issue of revised statute 2477.

Arizona's spectacular public lands are renowned throughout the country, if not the world. They contain many of our Nation's most beautiful landscapes, and every year Arizona's deserts, canyons, and mountains are enjoyed by millions of residents and visitors from around the globe.

But Arizona's natural areas are fragile. They are extremely vulnerable to the impacts of off-road vehicles, sprawl, timber cutting, mining, overgrazing, and other activities. My home State ranks third in the Nation for imperiled wildlife, with 63 species listed as endangered or threatened.

The amendment I urge the Members to support today would prevent the public and private lands in Arizona from being terribly harmed. This amendment would stop the Secretary of the Interior from implementing her ``Disclaimer of Interest.''

The Members may have heard of one of the places which will be severely damaged by the Secretary's disclaimer, Grand Canyon National Park. It is a treasure not only to Arizona but to the citizens of the entire United States. The map I have brought today with me represents only one area that would be permanently harmed by the Secretary's disclaimer.

In 1997, the Park Service warned Congress that the park and its surrounding wilderness were under serious threat. The map shows hundreds of potential rights of way that might be claimed across the north rim of the Grand Canyon, an area that the Park Service is currently protecting.

We in the West have been living with the consequences of RS 2477 for over 100 years. I strongly support the Udall amendment, which would prevent any funds from being spent by the Interior to process 2477 claims until Congress determines what approaches we should take with regard to these claims.

I urge my colleagues to vote for the Udall amendment and in opposition of the Taylor amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my time out of order.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the comments that my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), just finished. Today I would like to deal with one specific aspect of H.R. 2210 dealing with Head Start and that specific aspect has to do with an effort that this House must undertake to provide true relief to the impoverished children of migrant and seasonal farm working families.

Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs successfully provide the infants and children of migrants and seasonal workers in this country with educational and health related services. These services and these support services provided by Migrant and Seasonal Head Start keep children out of the fields where they are exposed to pesticides, hazardous equipment, extreme heat and other related health dangers.

Unfortunately, a severe funding shortfall leaves more than 80 percent of these eligible children without these vital services and protection.

According to the study published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Migrant and Seasonal

Head Start programs serve just 19 percent of eligible migrant and seasonal children. By comparison, the regional Head Start programs serve approximately 60 percent of their eligible population. This shortfall leaves 130,000 children of migrant and seasonal workers and their families out of any opportunity in a Head Start program. Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs serve both infants and toddlers. Early Head Start funds are only available to full-year programs and thus leave the migrant and seasonal programs to provide full-day services to both infants and toddlers without the benefit of extra program funds or technical assistance funds.

Migrant and Seasonal Head Start is already spreading its funds thin in order to sustain these programs and serve these very needy kids.

Migrant and seasonal programs are funded out of a 13 percent set- aside in the Head Start annual appropriations along with Indian Head Start, children with disabilities, training and technical assistance, program review, and research and demonstrations. Over the last 8 years, Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs have consistently received 4 percent or less of the Head Start annual appropriations.

The Republican Head Start bill now includes an amendment that claims to assist migrant and seasonal children. This addition, however, would take money away from popular training and technical assistance programs and provide only a marginal increase in funds to these needy children, less than a 1 percent increase in funding to address the needs of over 130,000 children that are neglected by this bill. Moreover, this formula provides no guaranteed funding to eligible migrant and seasonal children. It is a year-to-year gimmick, and what we need and these children need is a real and reliable increase in resources and a revenue source for these services.

Based on current program funding, it would cost almost an additional $750 million to achieve near parity between Migrant and Seasonal Head Start and regional Head Start. Completely closing this funding gap between Migrant and Seasonal Head Start and regional Head Start may be unrealistic in the near future, but the recommendations are designed to move the programs toward parity by making a modest increase in funding for Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs and Indian Head Start programs.

Today, before the Committee on Rules, I proposed an amendment that would help solve this problem in a substantial way. My proposal would increase funds sufficient to provide services to an additional 10,000 children of migrant and seasonal working families. The proposal would also stabilize funding for Migrant and Seasonal Head Start with the floor of 5 percent of the total appropriation. This amendment was drafted in such a way that it would have no negative effect on any other Head Start program. It would not take resources from any other community or any other program in Head Start.

Though migrant and seasonal families are seemingly an invisible population, a population that puts food on our tables, a population that many times does not have the political attention or the voice in this House, they deserve equal access to the social services we provide other children suffering from poverty.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to listen to their consciences and join in my attempts to provide this relief to a neglected population in this country, a population of children that is left behind, continues to be left behind; and we have a historic opportunity to include them with the rest of the children of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 660.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Miller-DeFazio substitute, H.R. 1261. I do so because I think we need a positive vision, and that positive vision is the Miller-DeFazio substitute.

Protecting homes and keeping people safe must be the top priority of wildfire policy. Forest Service researchers believe making homes firewise and creating defensible space near communities is the best way to achieve this goal, one that could be realized within a short period of time.

Advocating for fuel reduction treatments to be focused on community protection zones does not mean the rest of the forest is left to burn. Restoration treatments focused on prescribed burning and small diameter thinning must proceed in the forest dependent on frequent fires, such as the Ponderosa Pine. More than 50 southwest conservation organizations have been calling for precisely this type of action since 1996. With continuing droughts and tight budgets, focusing on the community is the most effective, common-sense approach.

The Miller-DeFazio substitute is the definitive middle ground and is the only option that addresses hazardous fuels reduction and community protections.

H.R. 1261, the Miller-DeFazio substitute, protects old-growth forests, promotes thinning from below, guarantees due process, protects the NEPA review process, and, in complete contrast to H.R. 1904, actually provides guaranteed funding directly to communities, States, and tribal governments for protection of their people, their homes, and their businesses.

This is an effective solution before us today, and I ask, no, indeed I implore, that we vote for the solution in the Miller-DeFazio substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time.

I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1000 and in support of the Pension Fairness Act. As has been stated before, the collapse of WorldCom, Enron, Global Crossing, and other corporate abuses we have seen in the news has highlighted the need for critical pension reform to eliminate abuses and to protect workers. The Pension Fairness Act, the Democratic substitute, deals with meaningful reform and protections from abuse against workers. I would like to take the 1 minute to compare the Democratic substitute and H.R. 1000.

The Democratic substitute gives workers the right to independent, unbiased investment advice. H.R. 1000 does not. In fact, it creates the opposite effect.

The Democratic substitute provides workers with a voice in running defined contribution plans. H.R. 1000 leaves decision-making in the hands of corporate executives.

The Democratic substitute gives workers notice when executives are selling company stocks. H.R. 1000 does not.

The Democratic substitute protects older workers when a company converts from traditional pension plans to a cash balance plan. H.R. 1000 does not.

The Democratic substitute requires that executive pensions be subject to the same pension rules as rank-and-file workers. H.R. 1000 offers no such fairness.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1000 is unfair and destined for abuse and conflict and offers no protections or security to workers. The Pension Fairness Act, the Democratic substitute, is fair, just, and destined for real reform and protection and security for the workers. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Democratic substitute and a ``no'' vote on H.R. 1000.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise today to add my comments to the chorus of dismay and opposition to the proposed cuts in veteran programs and benefits that we are currently hearing about in this country proposed by the President and approved by the Republican majority of this House.

Many families in my district have sons and daughters, husbands and wives, family members, that are in the military and in this current conflict that this country finds itself in. Presently I have the responsibility to communicate to some of these families about the death, the serious life-threatening injuries and the missing-in-action status of some of their family members. I relate to them my personal respect, gratitude and sorrow at their anguish and at their sacrifice.

Yet, while I am doing that, I find it unconscionable that while our men and women are fighting overseas, following the orders of their Commander-in-Chief, we at home are reducing the health care benefits that our veterans have earned while risking and giving their lives in the service of this country, in the protection of our freedoms and in the extension of the liberties that we all enjoy.

How can we possibly justify the budget as passed by this House that contains almost $29 billion in cuts in veterans' programs over a 10 year period, primarily in veterans benefits and health care. What are we going to tell the men and women presently in uniform and their families; that their service is honorable, needed, and respected, but not worth the cost of full benefits for them and their future?

Mr. Speaker, today I would urge all of my colleagues to restore and enhance the benefits and programs that have been earned by our veterans and cut by the President and this Congress. To do otherwise would be an appalling betrayal of America's commitments to our veterans.

At a time of war, let us not be hypocritical. Let us respect and enhance the benefits of our veterans, so as they sacrifice for us, as they follow the orders of their Commander-in-Chief, they will earn not only our respect, but entitlement to benefits and protection of programs that will extend and support their quality of life.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for the opportunity to come and speak today. It is my honor to rise today in this House to acknowledge the birth date of Cesar Chavez. Yesterday would have been his 76th birthday. Cesar Chavez, cofounder, along with Dolores Huerta, of the United Farm Workers' Union, led a historic struggle to give voice to the voiceless and empower the poor and powerless, inspiring a people beyond the limits and barriers that had been artificially placed before them.

Cesar Chavez was born and died in the district that I represent, in Yuma and San Luis, Arizona. It is vital that all Americans acknowledge the profound contributions that Cesar Chavez has made to our country. These contributions were not in the form of money, false praise, or the trappings of power. He reinforced the values of this Nation, values such as commitment and of purpose and strength of cause.

Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to quote directly from Cesar Chavez: ``In this world, it is possible to achieve great material wealth, to live an opulent life. But a life built upon those things alone leaves a shallow legacy. In the end, we will be judged by other standards.''

Another value that Cesar imparted and reinforced for our country is the value of struggle and perseverance. Again let me quote Cesar Chavez: ``When we are really honest to ourselves, we must admit that our lives are all that really belong to us, so it is how we use our lives that determines what kind of men we are. It is my deepest belief that only by giving life do we find life, that the truest act of courage, the strongest act of manliness is to sacrifice ourselves for others in a totally nonviolent struggle for justice. To be a man or woman is to suffer for

others. God help us be men and women.''

But the legacy of Cesar Chavez is a legacy of change that he brought to this country, and we are all obligated in our own way to continue and finish a change that sought equality for all people and the opportunity to live without the yokes of poverty, racism and the domination of others. It is time that this great Nation formally declares support for Cesar Chavez through a holiday, a holiday that celebrates nonviolence, the rights of all workers and the strong spirit of all people to overcome. I am proud that in my community where I formerly served as a county supervisor we have a paid holiday for the employees, we have a livable wage for employees as an acknowledgment to the struggles and as an acknowledgment to the goals of Cesar Chavez. In this country, we face tough times, war, peace, our Nation's obligation to the poor and underrepresented in this country. These are issues that this Congress struggles with on a daily basis.

But let me speak for a second on one issue that intertwines what we are facing today in Iraq and what we are facing today on the question of immigration in this country. Even in this Chamber, we hear the shrill anti-immigrant babblings that Cesar Chavez fought so hard against his entire life. I want to pause and read a letter to the editor that appeared in our local newspaper, the Arizona Daily Star, today. The letter starts ``Truly Ironic.''

It is in reference to a March 26 article entitled ``Immigrant Marine Pledged His Life as a Matter of Honor.'' The gentleman who wrote this letter goes on to say: ``I found this story truly interesting. Lance Corporal Jose Gutierrez from Guatemala was an illegal immigrant, or criminal as the haters and vigilantes would call him, who instead of dying in the Arizona desert was able to find a foster family, go to school in America, then die in the Iraqi desert protecting these haters' and vigilantes' right to keep on hating the so-called illegals.'' Mr. Dennis Jones from Kearny, Arizona, wrote that letter. I think it fits well to the times, and it fits well to the dilemmas that this Congress must face and resolve.

By recognizing Cesar Chavez, we recognize ourselves. We extend to ourselves all the traditions and the realities of the faces in this country. Chavez once said, ``It is possible to become discouraged about the injustice we see everywhere, but God did not promise us that this world would be humane and just. He gives us the gift of life and allows us to choose the way we will use our limited time on earth. It is an awesome opportunity.''

In this time when we anguish about the future and confront the present struggles, it is indeed a fitting time to pause and recommit ourselves to the legacy and the challenge that Cesar Chavez has given us, a legacy of hope, compassion and fairness, and a challenge before this Congress to act to help the people of this country, to act to stabilize our world, to act to assure that opportunity and fairness still is and will continue to be one of the cornerstone traditions of this country.

It has indeed been a pleasure for me to make these comments about someone who influenced my life, and I will be very frank. His motivation, his spirit, his tenacity to lead people that were never represented is a legacy and a tradition that should be part of the history of this country. It is indeed my pleasure.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 43, I was in committee mtg. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''