Xavier Becerra

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2528, the Immigration Reorganization and Reform Act of 1999.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, due to a commitment in my district on Monday, October 25, 1999, I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall numbers 533-536. The votes I missed include rollcall vote 533 on approving the Journal; rollcall vote 534 on the motion to suspend the rules and pass, as amended H.R. 754, Made in America Information Act; rollcall vote 535 on the motion to suspend the rules and pass, as amended H.R. 2303, History of the House Awareness and Preservation Act; and rollcall vote 536 on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to House Concurrent Resolution 194, recognizing the contributions of 4-H Clubs and their members to voluntary community service. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 533, 534, 535, and 536.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time, and I also thank him for his efforts over the past several years to try to move us to the point where we now have legislation that we can move to the President for signature. As I said, I rise in support of H.R. 1180, the Work Incentives Improvement Act, more because we are finally going to be able to remove a barrier that laws have imposed on people who have had the desire for quite some time to do simply what most of us take for granted; that is, to work. But simply because of the disability, many of these individuals have not been able to go forward with those desires to work. Simply because public policy has not caught up to their desire, they have found that they are either discouraged from taking a job or they are discouraged from keeping a job. We must remove those barriers and make it possible for those who many of us would sometimes look at them and say, well, there is no way that they can work. We should applaud their efforts. Many of these folks, and I know all of us knows someone who has some form of disability, are out there in the work force doing tremendous work out there. We applaud those efforts. But to think that, because laws that Congress passed some time ago made it very difficult for these individuals to continue to work full time or for a full year oftentimes decided it was better not to even start. So this is a good step forward. I would also underscore the admonition by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) regarding the pay fors. We have to make sure that, in the process of doing good, we do not do harm to some other program where we must seek money to pay for this program. But, certainly, at the end of the day, I would hope that we realize that someone who has shown the desire to work and has shown the ability to work is given that opportunity. All we have to do is make sure that someone who says I want that opportunity has that chance to, not only work, but also keep Medicaid if that is essential for the person to continue to just exist, to live, not just let alone work. We could talk about a lot of examples, but I can mention one real quickly, and that is my father. He has got a bum knee. He has had an operation on his knee. His tendons have been shot in both hands for several years where he has had to have them split open, the tendons split so that he could have movement in his fingers. Of course, he has had cataract surgery for his eyes. Yet he still works at the age of 70; day in, day out. He does not stop. I suspect there are millions of Americans who would do the same. Let us pass this bill.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, today we see the injustice that the majority party is doing with regard to America's right to be able to go to a hospital and get decent health care. But yesterday was a further injustice, this time in the other body, the Senate, where the Senate, in the first time for some 20 years, decided to reject the nomination of the President of the United States of a court nomination. The gentleman in this case was a gentleman named Ronny White, a sitting Supreme Court justice in the State of Missouri. He also happened to be African American, the first African American in that State to sit on the Supreme Court in that State. He was rejected despite the fact that in committee in the Senate he passed with Republican support. Yet, when his vote came to the Senate floor, the Senators rejected him on the Republican side, including those who had voted for him in committee. Outrageous because this is the first time in some 20 years that we have seen this happen, but outrageous because it is the first time in my memory that someone has been rejected for reasons other than his qualifications. We have seen this happen now yesterday. I am afraid it may happen again when we have other judges of minority background who may face the same consequences by this Republican Senate. It is outrageous and we need to stop that. Hopefully the outrage will stop by the year 2000.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, over 44 million Americans do not have health insurance, yet this bill that we have before us by the majority wants to spend $48 billion to cover 160,000 of those 44 million Americans who do not have health insurance. It is also a bill that leaves the uninsured out in the cold, not just because it does not cover enough of them, it is because most of these tax breaks go for those who pay income taxes in large portions. So who is left out? Most of those 44 million Americans who are working poor, and, therefore, do not pay the substantial number of income taxes to get all of those tax breaks. Who will benefit? The 160,000 people who benefit are those who are higher income individuals who can shop around and buy insurance already. It is an abusive way to try to spend money. It is an abusive way to try to give coverage. There are better ways to do it. Perhaps the worst thing about this bill is it is fiscally irresponsible. $48 billion, not paid for, and, worse than that, somehow the math does not add up. The majority here is talking about doing an $800 billion tax cut. It is already overspending its appropriations bills for next year's budget by about $30 billion, and now we are going to pile on top of that $48 billion. Explain to the American people where you get the money. You can only spend a dollar one time. You are trying to tell the American people you have a shell game going on and you can spend it lots of times. Let us not pass this bill. Let us get real reform, and tomorrow let us get to the real work at hand, and that is to provide the American people with the rights that they demand. When they go to a hospital, they want to know that they have the best information, the best doctors, to get the best care, and if they do not get it, they deserve to go after whoever was responsible for not giving it to them. Let us do the right thing. Let us get beyond this, defeat this, and get to getting to the Patients' Bill of Rights.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on September 30, 1999, I was unavoidably detained during three rollcall votes: number 460, H. Res. 312 on Agreeing to the Resolution Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2910, National Transportation Safety Board Authorization; number 461 on Approving the Journal; and number 462 on Passage of H.R. 2910, the National Transportation Safety Board Authorization. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 460, 461, and 462.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that we should be doing something and doing it quickly for our farmers in America, because they are in distress. At times of economic prosperity, we go to some of our agriculture regions in this country, and we find that farmers are having to close down their shop, and there are fewer and fewer farmers independently farming in this country, and that has to stop. But this bill, unfortunately, is very troubling for someone like me who comes from California, where right now, with a State prospering so much, and you find unemployment rates have plummeted in a State that for the longest time was suffering higher unemployment rates than the rest of the Nation, right now, while we are doing well in California, if you walk into the agricultural regions of California, you will find unemployment rates above 10 percent, up to 15 to 20 percent in some of our rural areas where there are farm workers desperate to work. Yet in this particular conference report we have a particular provision that was added with regard to guest worker programs where we get to import workers to do work here in America. This provision would allow us to go out and seek people from other countries to do the work that Americans can do today by simply saying that for 3 to 4, maybe up to 8 days, we searched for someone to do the job out there in the fields. That is unfortunate, because those unemployment rates for farm workers still exist. They are very high. Yet right now this bill would say rather than give those American workers a chance to work in those fields, to earn a decent living, even if sometimes it may be a low wage, no, instead we are going to allow some of these mega-corporations to go out and say we tried for 3 days to find an American worker to work that crop, but we could not find anyone, so now let us go abroad and hire the cheap labor to come in here and do the work for us. How can we do that right now, when not just farmers, but farm workers are hurting, to say we are going to cut the throats of agriculture? This is not the way to do it. This is a good bill with many good features to it, but why we had to go about doing it this way I do not know. It makes it very difficult for someone who, by the way, has not a piece of farmland in his congressional district, to get up here and say this; but I think we may have to oppose this bill.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on September 14, 1999, I was unavoidably detained during a rollcall vote: No. 409, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended, H.R. 1883, the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 1999. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, it is with utmost pleasure and privilege that I rise today to recognize a wonderful American, Mr. Manuel ``Manny'' Rafael Geronimo Mota, for his spirited work with youth, his humanitarian service, and his outstanding accomplishments as a major league baseball player and coach. Through his compassion for others and his infectious enthusiasm for life, Manny has served as a model citizen for all Americans. Born in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic on February 13, 1938, Manny Mota grew up loving the game of baseball. Soon, Manny realized that he had a gift for the grand old game. At the tender age of 19, Manny demonstrated a keen eye at the plate when he joined the minor leagues. Within a few years, Manny ascended to the major leagues and soon established himself as a premier hitter. Manny joined the Los Angeles Dodgers in 1969 and contributed to Dodger success from 1969-1982. As a player for the Dodgers, Manny established the all-time major league record for pinch-hits with 150. Manny batted .304 over his entire 20-year major league career with Montreal, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. Manny Mota was selected to the 1973 National League All-Star team and led the league with a .351 batting average at the All-Star Break. When you add his tenure as a coach for the Los Angeles Dodgers, Manny has served the Dodgers for 30 years. Just as important as Manny Mota's contributions on the field are his contributions off the field. Over a quarter of a century ago, Manny Mota established the Manny Mota International Foundation with the intention of giving youth opportunities to reach their full potential and pursue a quality education. Manny has used baseball as his medium to instruct and motivate Los Angeles youth. The Manny Mota International Foundation awards five $1,000 scholarships to Los Angeles area students each year. Manny Mota's generosity extends beyond the borders of the United States. Manny has worked hard to raise money to build a medical clinic, baseball field, and school in the Dominican Republic. Manny Mota was at the forefront of relief efforts when natural disasters devastated the Dominican Republic, Central America, and other regions of Latin America. Repeatedly, Manny demonstrates that he does not forget his roots, as he swiftly extends aid to those who are disadvantaged. Manny has also served as a loving caretaker of a successfully family. He resides with his wife Margarita in Glendale and is the proud father of eight children: Cecilia, Jose, Andres, Domingo, Manuel, Maria, Rafael, and Antonio. His wife and children remain active in foundation activities and embrace the same commitment to public service that has inspired Manny to share his gifts with others. Just as Manny so often delivered ``in the pinch'' at the plate, so has he delivered ``in the pinch'' in life. Mr. Speaker, family and friends of Manny Mota gathered at the California Plaza Watercourt in Downtown Los Angeles, California on Saturday, August 28, 1999 to celebrate the 30th anniversary of his association with the Los Angeles Dodgers, it is with great pride that I ask my colleagues to join me today in saluting this exceptional man.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. Speaker. Let us make it clear, violence cannot be tolerated in this country. We must prosecute vigorously anyone who commits violence, including terrorism. We must punish them vigorously as well. But in this case, we are talking about crimes where the people convicted were not convicted of terrorism. They are not terrorists. They were, in fact, not even convicted of crimes of violence. They have served more time in jail than anyone in this country probably sitting in jail today has served for crimes of similar character, nonviolent crimes. So what is the issue here? It is guilt by association. Those who vote for this resolution at the end really should be convicted of guilt by association, because what they are doing is they are saying, because they are using the label terrorism for people who are not convicted terrorists, they are trying to make all of us here believe that, if we vote no, we are soft on terrorism. Timothy McVeigh was convicted. Terry Nichols was convicted. Should we now say that every one of the individuals that they associated with even if they should happen to have racist views should now serve time equal to the time of Timothy McVeigh and Nichols? Of course not. We do not convict people here by guilt from association. But that is what this does. Today 13 children will die, most of those as a result of someone who has a firearm. Today there are 42 million Americans who do not have insurance and have to run through the risks of life and work without any type of protection in case they get injured or hurt. This resolution is politically motivated. It will make for a very tough vote for Members. But at the end of the day, let us keep in sight what is really before us. These folks are being granted clemency, not because they are terrorists, but because they have served more time than other individuals in this country will have for the same type of crime. This vote today has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with sending out a message playing on people's fears about violence and terrorism and hopefully being able to use this next year in a political campaign commercial to say someone was soft on crime. Shame on us for doing that. Shame on us for doing guilt by association. It is time for us to do something like giving people insurance, giving people protection from gun violence. Let us get to work and get through with this.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Not a lot more that can be said other than perhaps to follow up on some of the comments, but what concerns me is that while it is absolutely correct, as has been pointed out by my colleague from California (Mr. Miller) that this is not an emergency, we get ourselves into a very perilous trap if we are not careful. Let us admit the census is not an emergency. For the last 230 some odd years we have not been conducting the census because it is an emergency. It is a constitutional requirement, and we must do it, and under the Constitution we are not told that we can do something halfway, part way, or by counting some but not all. We are supposed to try to do the best job we can with the resources we have and the technology to count everyone. The Census Bureau has told us it will cost a tremendous amount of money to count all of those people. Part of the reason it will cost so much is because we are doing both as best a job we can to actually count people, and we are using also the best techniques, the best systems available, the scientific methods available to us, to do the count. Hopefully then we will not have the 8 million or so people missed as we have had in the past. We will not have so many children in this country who do not count at all because they have been missed in our previous censuses; we will not have all the folks who happen to be a little more transient than others missed because they happen to have not been home or not had a home when the census was conducted, and we will not have this situation as in my State of California where about a billion dollars did not come back to the residents of that State because so many people were not counted in the 1990 census. But let us admit this is not an emergency. The census should not be designated as an emergency. This is creative accounting, what we see in this bill when we call the census an emergency. But to not fund the census adequately, fully, as necessary, as the Census Bureau has indicated, would lead us down that beaten path of any inaccurate census count which will cost us in money because there are many areas in this country that will lose out on funds that they deserve because the population is there to return the funds that those people paid through income taxes. We will lose out in political representation because by not counting all our people we will not designate for them their representatives in this same body that they are entitled to under the Constitution, and we will shame ourselves in the Constitution by not doing what we are supposed to as indicated by our Founding Fathers. So while this is not an emergency under the census to fund it, we will cause an emergency if we pass this amendment and not fund the census appropriately because we will cause ourselves a situation where we will find ourselves facing all sorts of lawsuits; we will find ourselves facing a situation where States will come crying because they deserve dollars that they did not get over the next 10 years; and we will find ourselves in the situation where again children, poor people, people who are migratory will say again they did not count because this Congress will not have included them in the census. That is not something we should do. We need to fund the census fully. Go ahead and call it whatever, we need to get the money there. We should not call it an emergency. It is a game. It is a deception to call this an emergency, but at the end of the day let us not shirk our responsibility. Let us fund the census.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct. I hope we will vote for this motion to be responsible and to be prudent. We have to remember, we are not at a crap table in Washington, D.C. This is not Vegas. And I have seen the trick made with the $3. I hope that all Americans understand that the $3 we keep hearing about, these $3 which represent $3 trillion, when we talk $2 trillion being saved for Social Security, we are not saving it for Social Security; we are just telling all the people who contributed this money, the Social Security contributors, the taxpayers who give out of their payroll taxes that money, that we are going to reserve it. Because that is what it was supposed to go for. It was never meant to be spent for tax cuts or something else. So when my colleagues talk about the three, take the two off the table. Because no one would want us to play with that money. When we take out of people's paycheck every month Social Security taxes, we do not tell them it is for tax cuts or anything else. We tell them it is for their retirement. So we are left with $1 trillion, this $1 bill. Most of that, under this Republican bill, would go to tax cuts, some $800 billion dollars. Now, if we take that $800 billion tax cut, two-thirds of all that money, two-thirds of this $1 trillion is going to go to 10 percent of all of America. The 10 percent wealthiest tax filers get two-thirds of this dollar. That means the remaining one-third is left 90 percent of America. That is what we get with this tax bill. But forget about all that because all this is just projections. We do not know what kind of surplus we will have. The projection is we will have a large surplus. But this is all like playing craps on a crap table. They are shooting and hoping and praying that they win. But what happens if they do not? Let me put it to my colleagues this way: the average tax cut for someone who earns about $50,000, a couple who earns about $50,000 under the Republican tax bill is about $200 per year. And that is when we have got some of these provisions fully phased in. Because, by the way, in the year 2000 no one is going to get $200 in tax relief if they earned about $50,000. They have got to wait until all these provisions are phased in. But say they are all phased in. They get about $200 in tax cuts. They are not going to have it. Because all they have to do is save that money, use it for debt relief; and if they have a $20,000 debt, interest rates go down by one percent, they will save $200. Do not vote for the tax bill. Vote for this motion to instruct.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, it is with the utmost pleasure and privilege that I rise today to recognize a wonderful American, Mr. Jesse Lim, for his inspiration as a dedicated father and grandfather, hard-working businessman, and a model citizen of our great nation. The third son in a family with seven children, he was born and raised in Toisan, China in 1921. He was fortunate to attend school in China. Jesse came to the United States in 1938, unable to speak a word of English. After being detained at Angel Island he joined his father and brother in Tucson, Arizona. Through hard work and determination and with the help of a wonderful teacher, Miss Marshall, Jesse was able to master the English language. He met Mary Parker Lee in Tucson. They fell in love but delayed marriage because he was drafted into the United States Army during World War II. He rose to the rank of Sergeant. After the war, Jesse and Mary wed in 1946. They has three daughters: Jessica, Jennifer, and Janet. Jesse and Mary so valued education that they made sure their children studied hard. They all did well in school, and all three attended Universities: Occidental College, the University of Arizona, and the University of California at Los Angeles. Jesse and Mary had to work hard to provide for their family. Though Jesse was an educated man, he was also of Chinese heritage. Like so many in this country, he faced discrimination. There were few avenues a smart, handsome man could pursue, but with his beautiful and business- savvy wife, they built up a number of small businesses, most of them ``mon and pop'' grocery stores. Their first store was in Tucson, and they had several others after the family moved to Los Angeles, California. As food is very important to Chinese families, Jesse and Mary made sure their family would never go hungry. By owning grocery stores, there would always be plenty to eat. To make ends meet, the Lim family at times live in the store. As the daughters grew older, they also worked in the store--cashiering, stocking shelves, and slicing bologna and cheese . . . learning the value of hard work. But Jesse and Mary didn't just work all the time--although it was usually 364 days a year (the store was closed on Christmas). They made sure the family had some fun too. Every Sunday, they would go to Westlake Park, later re-named MacArthur Park or the Merry-Go-Round. They would eat homemade tuna sandwiches made with mayonnaise and sweet pickle relish. But they could never go to Griffith Park because the family car couldn't get up the hill. They would also get together with relatives where the adults would play mah johng while the kids would watch TV. When the kids got old enough to drive, they would go bowling or do other recreational activities. Jesse and Mary kept on working. In additional to grocery stores, they once owned a motel in Pasadena, California. They also owned a small restaurant/coffee shop in both Beverly Hills and the City of Orange. Jesse and Mary were very loving parents. Jesse taught the kids how to swim and how to drive. But he couldn't teach Mary either one. She had to take private driving lessons before she could chauffeur the kids around. Jesse and Mary were devoted grandparents as well. They were ``Gung- Gung and Poh-Poh'' to William, Ralph, Jesse, and Erin. Jesse and Mary were also very conscious of helping the community. They loved the Lim Family Association. They made sure their kids, and later the grandkids, would go to the annual Chinese New Year banquet in Los Angeles, Chinatown and become part of the Association activities. Jesse led the campaign to raise funds which resulted in the Lim Family Association buying its own building in Los Angeles. Jesse served as the President of the Association while Mary served as English Secretary. Jesse is admired by his friends and family, especially his fellow Lims. Jesse likes to talk, and he is fluent in Toisanese, Cantonese, and English. He is also a very funny guy. He has always been in high demand to serve as emcee on various occasions--birthdays, weddings, baby parties. At most Chinese banquets, everyone talks, and no one listens to the emcee, but Jesse could command the room. When Jesse talked, people listened. You could hear a pin drop. With a quick wit and a vibrant personality, he became known as the Chinese ``Bob Hope.'' Unfortunately, his daughters couldn't always understand the intricacy of his jokes in Chinese, but the audiences always roared with laughter. As Jesse and Mary grew older, they became active in senior citizens organizations, both in California and later in Tucson. Jesse, always the handyman, would buy things at the thrift store, fix them up, and give them to the senior centers. One of the things Jesse is most well known for is his sense of duty and responsibility. When he married Mary, he became the man of the family, because Mary's brother Jimmy had died in service to our country during WW II. He became the father to Mary's sisters May, Ruth, Margaret, and Elsie. After his brother Roy passed away, and his sister Sophie's husband passed away, he became the patriarch of the family. He is ``Uncle Jesse'' to many, both blood relative or not. After 49 years of marriage, Jesse had to say farewell to his beloved Mary on May 21, 1995. But with the support of his family and friends, he has survived. On Saturday, July 31, 1999, there will be a dinner in Tucson, Arizona to pay tribute to Jesse and to celebrate his life. A large delegation from the Lim Family Association in Los Angeles will be among the crowd of 150. It is with great pride that I ask my colleagues to join me today in saluting this exceptional human being.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, today, I was unavoidably detained during a rollcall vote: No. 343, on agreeing to the conference report for H.R. 2465, the Military Construction Appropriations Act, FY 2000. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 57 which would cut off normal trade relations with China. We have heard a number of bad things that have been occurring in China and certainly all of us would concur that they are bad and they must change. But there are, I think, a number of issues that have to be raised before we deal with the issue of normal trade relations and decide what we should do with a country as large and as important as China. I respect the point of view of my colleagues who have expressed support for this resolution, especially the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) who have been so adamant on this issue and so in many ways responsible in what they have done. We must change that trade imbalance that we have with China. That is not tolerable. The human rights conditions in China must improve. We all know that. And the piracy of American ingenuity, our intellectual products, whether it is our films, our music, we must protect all of those things from piracy that we see going on in China. But you cannot negotiate and you cannot settle anything if you are not willing to sit down at the table with folks. You have to engage. There is no way we can ever deal with the piracy issues, the human rights issues, the issues of the trade imbalance, if we are not willing to sit down with the Chinese and say, ``This is where we need to go together.'' It would be foolish for us to just all of a sudden break. Are the Europeans, any European country breaking relations with China on economic matters? Are the Asians, any Asian country breaking economic relations with China? Are the Latin Americans, any Latin American country breaking relations with China because of the issues that we have raised here that are of concern to all of us? Not a one. Not one country that is part of the WTO has said, ``We're going to treat China the way this resolution would have the U.S. treat China.'' How would we want to unilaterally try to do this and hope to accomplish anything, whether on human rights, on trade, on piracy, if we are not willing to sit down and talk to either friend, foe or otherwise? We must be there at the table to try to get from them something. Otherwise, they are going to treat us the way we would treat any other enemy, like someone they do not need to deal with. What about all the jobs in places like Los Angeles? We must protect those as well. At the end of the day it is better for us to engage and treat these folks like people we would sit down with rather than as economic pariah. I urge Members to vote against this resolution.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on July 22, 1999, I was unavoidably detained during a rollcall vote; number 334, on passage of H.R. 2561, the Department of Defense Appropriations for F.Y. 2000. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, first things first. First things first. Social Security, Medicare, the first chance in a long time to consider prescription drug coverage in Medicare, reducing the debt so our children in the future will not be paying $250 billion yearly just on interest on the size of the debt. Talk to any family in America. They will will explain that. They know it. They have a mortgage. They know how much they pay in interest every year to own that home. Why are we telling our children we are going to let them continue to pay for more than $250 billion per year not to retire the debt, the principal, but just to pay the interest on what we owe as a Federal Government? First things first. And then we can focus on providing middle-class America, working-class Americans, with a tax cut. And they deserve it, and they will get it. But first things first. What we are talking about today is nothing but numbers, guesses. I could flip a coin right now and ask my colleagues if it is heads or tails and they would have just as much luck knowing what it would be as what we would know about the future about the Federal budget. It is all projections. Six years ago, when I came into Congress, the outgoing President George Bush and his administration left us with projections saying that we would have $300 billion deficits for as far as the eye could see into the future. Now we are projecting a trillion-dollar surplus over the next 10 years. Let me bring it down even closer. A year ago, we were told we would have an $80 billion deficit. Five months ago we were told it would be a $7 billion deficit. Today we are being told it is going to be a $14 billion surplus. How can numbers change so rapidly? It is because they are all projections. It is flipping a coin. In fact, it is more like going to Vegas. I could go to a crap table and probably do better with the odds there than with knowing what will happen in 10 years with the Federal Government. We are playing with people's money, and we should be prepared to give it back. But people will also want to be able to retire knowing that Social Security will be there for them, not just us but our kids. People want to know that for the first time we have a chance to tell the elderly it will not be a choice between food and medicine because we can get them predescription drug coverage that will do so. And we want to be able to tell our kids, I have three small children, I am going to be able to retire some of this Federal debt so they do not have to pay that interest and they can use it to go to college. Let us be serious. Do not pass this bill. We can do a tax cut but not like this.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding to me. Listening to the debate, a couple of words, operative words come to mind more than anything else. In supporting the Martinez substitute, what we are doing is providing accountability. We are providing local governments with a message that we intend to fulfill our commitments, and we provide the message that we will guarantee our words with actions. To support H.R. 1995 would be to send the opposite message, that, one, we send the message that we want our local school districts to be able to reduce their class sizes, but, two, we are going to take the money, pull the rug right from under their feet when they are about to start doing that, and say to them go on, go about and do this all by yourself. It is unfortunate that we cannot, for whatever reasons, decide in this Congress to have the accountability we always say we want our local school boards to have with the parents that send their kids to school. But here we are telling the local governments that we have already sent them down $1.2 billion last year to start reducing class sizes. Some 30,000 teachers have been hired. Yet, now, all of a sudden, we are going to pull the rug right from under their feet as they start these initiatives. Now they have to find the funding from some other source. What a way to try to organize themselves, to try to conduct their governments at the local level, to have the Federal Government say to them one day, we are going to do this for you on a bipartisan basis last year, and now for us to say go on it alone. Worse than that, we do not even target monies if we pass H.R. 1995. We need the Martinez substitute because we need to make sure that we are letting schools know that we want to help them where they need it most. If we take away that ability to target the monies, who knows what this money will be spent on. We want accountability at the local level. We should have accountability at the Federal level as well. Let us stick to the Martinez substitute. Let us not pass H.R. 1995. Let us give schools what we would expect them to get from the parents, what the parents would expect to get from them. That is accountability. Let us do the same here in the Federal Government in Washington, D.C. Let us give them the accountability and guaranties they can do the work they can do.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) for their work on this measure. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 434. The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act offers us an opportunity to move forward our relationship with Africa. Right now, the African market is small, but it is destined to grow. We can lay the groundwork today for a stronger relationship in the future which will mean a stronger partnership in the future, especially when it comes to the issue of trade, when Africa becomes a vibrant and strong player in that market. Mr. Chairman, this is not a perfect bill. I would prefer to see stronger provisions on the environment and on labor. But it needs to move forward. Partnership and progress are important elements in the U.S.-Africa relationship. 435 voting Members cannot in this House individually dictate the path and pace we will take to build that partnership and progress, especially as it relates to trade with Africa. But collectively we can send a message that we understand that in the future Africa will be an important trading partner with this country and move this measure forward and hope that in the future, when we have established that we are partners and friends with the African countries, that we deserve their trade and we deserve their business. I urge support for H.R. 434.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McGovern- Campbell-Hoeffel-Holt amendment which would provide the funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund stateside matching grants program. If I may begin first by thanking the chairman and the ranking member for the attention they have given to a number of Members who have concerns for some of the projects that are State and local in orientation, I know it has been a difficult task, and everyone has pointed that out, that the money is just not there to certainly fund all these programs. So I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for the effort they have made. By the way, I want to thank the staff, as well. For the most part, in every discussion we have had, the staff has been very willing to discuss options and try to help those of us who are interested in trying to provide some of those projects which are park-related to our constituents back home. For someone like me who has nothing but an urban setting in his district, I am completely urban, I have nothing but L.A. city territory, I have a concrete forest that I represent, it is difficult sometimes to accommodate the needs, especially the green needs, of my constituents. Let me give a quick example. While we are spending in this appropriations bill for the Department of Interior approximately $1.7 billion for the National Park Service, $1.2 billion for the Bureau of Land Management, and $840 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service, no money is being allocated at this stage for stateside matching grant programs under the Land and Water Conservation Fund. For someone like me, that means the following. About 3 years ago I attended a middle school in my district. I asked what I thought was a pretty natural question. We were talking about the environment. I asked some of the kids in this class of about 30 kids, when was the last time they were at the beach. Los Angeles is right next to the beach. I was surprised when no one raised their hand. I asked, well, how many have been to the beach? And we are talking about kids who are in their teens. About three of the 30 kids raised their hand. I am talking about kids who live no more than 20 miles from the beach. Most of these kids had never been to the beach in Los Angeles. The closest State park to me is about 45 miles away. The closest national park is more than 60 miles away. Most of these kids have never been to either one of those, and they have not even been to something as close to them as the beach in Los Angeles. It is difficult for some of our communities sometimes, especially in our very urban settings, the inner cities, to have opportunities to let kids understand what it is to see wildlife, to see nature in progress. For many of us, it is important to be able to help. There is a project in Los Angeles right now which could use funding from the Stateside matching grant program under the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In fact, it is a program, a project that right now has a public and private partnership underway where right now the city of Los Angeles, the State of California, and the business community, along with community groups, have come in and provided 85 percent of the money they need to get a local park going so people can use it. There is a park in a hilly area of Los Angeles which few people know about and use. If we can get this funding at the Federal level to help just a little bit more, we will be able to help thousands of inner city children who do not have access right now. I know it is tough and I know the chairman and the ranking member have tried, but this is an amendment that will provide a meager amount, $30 million of the billions that we will be spending, on something that is so valuable, especially for kids who sometimes do not have access to any of this. It is a worthy amendment. It came close to passing last year. I hope we have success this time around, because ultimately what we are talking about here is not some big national park or some big local park, we are talking about the smaller projects that reach really close to home where kids could ultimately use these facilities. If we do not do it, again, we are going to deny these children not just the opportunity to play and recreate, but the chance to get a better sense of what it means to know the greater part of the country and nature as well, because too often, in the inner cities especially, many of these kids grow up not knowing anything but concrete buildings.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay a heartfelt tribute to Linda Mitchell, a dear friend and tireless fighter for justice and equality. Linda died Tuesday, June 22, 1999 at her home in Pasadena, California. She was 52. Linda Mitchell was born and raised in the State of Ohio. The third of five children, she received her Bachelor of Science Degree in Home Economics from Ohio State University. After completing her education, she moved to California, first living in San Diego and then in Los Angeles. Linda was an individual with deep compassion and conviction. She used every bit of her energy and time to fight for the rights of all people, regardless of race, creed, or economic circumstances. She was respected and admired for her work on behalf of those less fortunate, in particular immigrants to the United States of America. She always employed her expertise in public relations and communications to champion the causes of others. Linda chose her avenues of involvement carefully, working for many of the nation's most worthy organizations, including the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, United Way of Greater Los Angeles, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Dolores Mission Women's Cooperative, and the International Institute. In her quest for justice, she served as a Board Member for the American Civil Liberties Union. Understanding the importance of the press in this country, she was a member of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. Though small in size, Linda Mitchell was big of heart. When she walked into a room, you might not see her right away, but you could feel her presence because she exuded warmth and love for her fellow human being. She helped set up parenting classes for refugees from the former Soviet Union and a support center for Alzheimer's disease victims and their families. With health a constant challenge, Linda never let physical limitations prevent her from doing anything. She traveled beyond her hemisphere to Europe and to China. She wanted to learn as much as possible about the world so she could change it. I have never met a person more grounded on the value of human dignity nor more dedicated to promoting its survival. Linda always had a way of extracting that extra effort from me to maximize my service to the public. She has been a partner in work, a counsel in policy and a model in ethics. Linda is remembered by friends and colleagues for her selflessness, generosity, and integrity--a woman who was dedicated to the pursuit of justice and equality. She is also remembered for her love of children, her wonderful cats, and her scrumptious desserts. A Memorial Service will be held on Thursday, July 1, 1999 at 3:00 p.m. at the Throop Unitarian Universalist Church in Pasadena, California. There will also be a Memorial Service in Marion, Ohio where Linda will be buried on July 10, 1999. Linda is survived by her father and mother, Ted and Elaine Mitchell; two sisters Judy LaMusga and Karen Mitchell; one brother Alan Mitchell; two nieces Cindy and Katie Mitchell; and two nephews Rob and Michael Mitchell. Her brother Bob Mitchell is deceased. Mr. Speaker, Linda Mitchell left us too soon, with so much to do and so much to teach. She epitomized all that is good about America. I feel deeply privileged to have known her. I will forever remember her fondly. It is with great pride, yet profound sorrow, that I ask my colleagues to join me today in saluting this exceptional human being.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. It is time for all America to come together collectively and say that we do wish to get rid of the violence, the obscenity, that we see constantly on our television, hear on radio, read in print, but I hope that we would turn away from the proposals that would have us create a new Federal cultural police that would be empowered to determine what is violent and what is sexual in the material that we will see, hear or read. With all due respect to the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary whom I respect dearly, this is not the way to go. I have three young children, and it is my responsibility, along with my wife's to make sure that they grow up understanding what is right and what is wrong and knowing when it is right to read, to listen, to watch and hopefully teach them enough that they will make the right decisions as they grow older. But for us to say that the national government can do it better than I can is to completely abandon our values and our responsibilities. I would hope that we would learn that the message we try to send to America is one of collectively getting together and resolving this issue of violence that we see pervasively invading our communities, but let us not do it by putting the heavy hand of government on top of that. Vote against this amendment.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, due to a commitment in my district on Monday, June 7, 1999, I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall numbers 167-169. The votes I missed include rollcall vote 167 on approving the Journal; rollcall vote 168 to suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment on H.R. 435, the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act; and rollcall vote 169 on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1915, to provide grants to the States to improve the reporting of unidentified and missing persons. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 167, 168, and 169.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I find some difficulty in this debate in that evidently this House is planning to adjourn after this vote takes place and leave for the Memorial Day weekend and recess. It seems odd that we would be leaving, having heard that in the Senate chamber, after a great deal of debate and quite a bit of strenuous deliberation, the Senate passed legislation that would deal with crime issues. Whether we agree with every aspect of it or not is not the point. The fact remains that there is a bill on the Senate side sitting, waiting for House action, that would deal with the issue of crime and youth violence, and there it sits. Here on the House side, we bring up legislation that talks about a so-called lockbox, legislation that did not go through committee, because the people that are debating and sitting on the Committee on Ways and Means, including the Members that are here right now, the committee that has jurisdiction, and asked for a chance to have this bill debated to get the substance out, to really discuss what could be done on Social Security, and, in fact, if we could improve it, to add amendments to it, but rather than go through the normal legislative process where we would have a hearing in committee to discuss and debate the merits of the proposal, we are going straight to the floor of the House, never having gone through the committees of jurisdiction. We could do that with this bill. And, as we have heard, the bill really does not do anything, because current law already requires that we do these things. But yet legislation that would deal with crime and youth violence and try to address the concerns of many Americans when it comes to the safety of their children in schools, sits right now awaiting action on the part of the House, and yet we are getting ready to adjourn without having taken any action on that crime legislation. Yet we are willing to pull something straight out from earth without ever having given it a chance to be debated and heard and the merits be discussed in committee the way we would normally do so on something as important as crime. Why is it that on crime we have to let it sit and go through the whole committee process and wait who knows how many months before it can come to the House when the Senate has already passed it, when on Social Security, when we are not doing anything that is not already in existing law, we have to rush it through? I do not understand, but let us continue with the debate. On the merits of this legislation, one, as we have heard, we could do nothing with this bill and the law would require we do what this bill claims it does, and that is to reserve Social Security surpluses for Social Security. Secondly, if we truly intend to send a message to the American people that we want to act on Social Security, then we would do as others have said as well. We would really lock up the surpluses, because everyone knows that if we lock up just what is considered a surplus in the Social Security fund, that that will not be enough to resolve the issues of long-term solvency for 75 years. But this bill does not do it, nor are we being given a chance to amend the legislation to allow it to do that, so we really can send a meaningful message to the American people that we really want to do something on Social Security. If this is all we are going to do on Social Security for the year or for the term, we are in real trouble, because at the end of the day we can tell the American people we did nothing more than already existed in current law. We could have been absent for the entire two-year session as Members of Congress, and Social Security would be in as good a shape as if this bill passed and quite honestly as bad a shape as it could be if we do not do anything over the next two years. So here we are in a situation where we are being told this is a way to remedy part of the Social Security problem. In a way, it is a feel- good proposal that maybe makes people believe that we are going to now begin to lock monies up. So in that sense, okay, let us vote for this thing. But the reality is, if we are going to deal with the long-term solvency issues of Social Security, we have to deal with what the President said. The difficult question is to get us the last 20 or so years of 75 years worth of solvency. This does not do any of that. This does not even come close to doing what the President said would be the easy part of saving the Social Security surpluses, because at the end of the day the President committed that we save part of our surpluses for Medicare. This does not help in that regard. We really need to get to work. If we are going to do something, let us make it meaningful, and certainly if we are going to rush it through, then let us deal with the crime bill as well, because that is just as important as this because this does not really get us anywhere. I urge the Members to consider doing something meaningful before we move on.