Xavier Becerra

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on May 24, 1999, I was unavoidably detained during two roll call votes: number 145, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 1251, Designating the Noal Cushing Bateman Post Office Building; and number 146, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 100, to Establish Designations for U.S. Postal Service Buildings in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on roll call votes 145 and 146.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding me this time. There is good news, obviously, and some bad news in regard to H.R. 1833. The good news, as we have heard, is that this bill contains authorizations for funds which are desperately needed for drug interdiction, to combat child pornography, and to help the Customs Department automate its very antiquated computer system. By the way, with regard to that computer system, which is about 15 years old, it has browned out on several occasions. That means it has come close to actually blacking out completely. The 6-hour lapse of that brown-out caused the Customs caseload to increase not 6 hours, but by 2 weeks. Businesses across the country were thrown off their schedule for months. We are desperately in need of updating our computer system at the Customs Department because of the constantly growing load of import and export product coming into this country and leaving this country. Mr. Speaker, there is also bad news with H.R. 1833, and that is that it contains a provision that has nothing to do with Customs running its shop well, nothing to do with treating its employees well; and has no place in this bill, and should not come up through this suspension process for a vote. Unfortunately, this is a heavy-handed approach to try to get something done that was not approved by either the employees of the Customs Department or the Customs Department itself. Management and labor do not agree with this provision, yet it is in here. That is a heavy-handed approach to try to impose upon both the agency and its employees something that they do not believe in. It is unfortunate that we have to micromanage at this stage a bill that, for the most part, does great good for the Customs Department. That agency is in need of our support. Its workload is growing constantly with regard to trying to interdict drugs. We know the issue of child pornography and trying to stop it from coming into this country. Why we would clutter a good bill with a bad provision makes no sense. But because of the procedural mess we find ourselves in, unfortunately, we have very little choice. Do we oppose a bill that for the most part is very good, to make a point, or do we vote for a bill, understanding that we are providing for legislation the possibility of enacting a law that would change the rules of the game for employees who have no say as to their work hours? It is unfortunate that we are there; it is unfortunate that employees at Customs find themselves in this situation, not because management at Customs wants to do this, but because Congress, in its wisdom to micromanage, has decided to include a provision which they do not want. If we extract this, this bill would fly without any no votes, I would suspect. But with this, unfortunately, there are a number of people who have to pause. Pause because while we want to do good, we do not want to do bad at the same time. Unfortunately for Customs employees, it looks like they are going to have to swallow some bad to politically take the good. That is unfortunate, and it should never happen.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on May 13, 1999, I was unavoidably detained during a rollcall vote: number 129, on the Sanders of Vermont amendment, as amended, to H.R. 1555, Intelligence Authorization. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) for yielding me this time and also for making that trip as well to Central America to view some of the destruction that had gone on. The people of Kosovo and the people of Central America have one important element in common, their lives have been uprooted and disrupted due to forces outside of their control. Because of this, their destinies in many ways are no longer in their own hands. For these reasons, we have had to step into Kosovo to help people that are no longer able to defend themselves. In March, 2 months ago, when we voted to help the victims of one of the worst natural disasters in the recorded history of this hemisphere, we made a similar commitment in Central America, one we are duty bound to fulfill now. There is no reason why we should treat the victims of a man-made disaster any different than we would treat those who are victims of a natural disaster. The supplemental funding for Kosovo that the House passed last week included $566 million in humanitarian aid for refugees from Kosovo. Yet, the Congress is still saying that it needs offsets to provide the assistance to the Central American countries that have more than a million refugees waiting for that humanitarian assistance that the President said would be forthcoming at the end of last year and that this Congress in March said it would send as well. In Kosovo, we see some 700,000 refugees, people who have been displaced, uprooted from their homes. Hurricane Mitch, when it hit Central America at the end of October, cost the lives of at least 9,000 people. There are still some 9,000 to 10,000 Central Americans who are missing and at this point now, after 6 months, are presumed dead. Over 1 million people, about 1.3 million people were displaced. Some 1 million still remain homeless in Central America. Clearly, the situations in both Kosovo and Central America are humanitarian emergencies. Both should be funded in the same way, without cuts in critical and domestic foreign international programs that this government funds. We need to keep in mind the magnitude of destruction caused by Hurricane Mitch. What would we all think if we were to hear that the entire States of Texas and New Jersey had just been left homeless; that the entire populations of those two States or that the entire population of Orlando, Florida, or Dayton, Ohio was either dead or missing and now presumed dead? In the United States that would be considered a disaster of catastrophic proportions. This is the equivalent of what happened in Central America given the relative size of those countries this past year. The cost in Central America is not just human. It is estimated that 40 percent of the infrastructure and 60 percent of the roads were destroyed by the hurricane. Some think it will take 25 to 50 years for Central America to recover, to get back to where it was. And as it was, it was already one of the poorest regions in the world. NATO is involved in a crisis in Kosovo because we understand the fate of Europe is intertwined with the fate of the Balkans. We in this hemisphere need to understand that our fate is intertwined with that of our neighbors in the Americas as well. I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion sponsored by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, due to a commitment in my district on Wednesday, May 5, 1999, I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall numbers 108 through 115. The votes I missed include rollcall vote 108 on Approving the Journal; rollcall vote 109 on Ordering the Previous Question; rollcall vote 110 on the Hyde amendment to H.R. 833, the Bankruptcy Reform Act; rollcall vote 111 on the Moran amendment to H.R. 833; rollcall vote 112 on the Conyers amendment to H.R. 833; rollcall vote 113 on the Watt amendment to H.R. 833; rollcall vote 114 on the Nadler substitute amendment to H.R. 833; and rollcall vote 115 on passage of H.R. 833. Had I been present for the preceding votes, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall votes 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, and 114. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall votes 109 and 115.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask Members of this House to oppose this rule and oppose H.R. 472. To me it boils down to a very simple question, do all Americans count. If we believe they count, then listen to some of the statistics from our last Census in 1990. More than 4 million people in this country were not counted. In my State of California, almost 1 million people did not get included in the 1990 Census. In terms of dollars, that cost my State somewhere close to $2.3 billion over these last 10 years. My city of Los Angeles, the second largest undercount of any State in the Nation to have occurred was in Los Angeles. Some 140,000 people in my city of Los Angeles did not get counted. That cost the city of Los Angeles and its residents about $120 million over the last 10 years: $120 million of police officers, teachers, firefighters that were not put on the ground because we had an inaccurate Census for the entire Nation. Mr. Speaker, the director of the Census Bureau, Mr. Ken Prewitt, has said that H.R. 472 will have ``consequences for an orderly, timely, and accurate Census in 2000 that are just short of disastrous.'' He is saying that because we are tinkering with it in ways we do not need to. If we are all concerned about having every American count, then let them be counted using the best, most modern, and expert methods available. If we believe all Americans count, then vote against the rule and vote against H.R. 472, because we do not need to go through the mistakes of 1990. We have the technical abilities, we have the modern technology to get the most accurate count possible. That would require that we oppose H.R. 472. I urge all Members to vote against this rule and against H.R. 472.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on February 25, 1999, I was unavoidably detained during a rollcall vote: number 27, on Approving the Journal. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I was traveling on official business with President Clinton on his trip to Central America last week and therefore was unable to cast votes on March 10 and 11, 1999. The votes I missed on those days include rollcall vote 34 on Approving the Journal; rollcall vote 35 on passage of H.R. 540, the Nursing Home Resident Protection Amendments; rollcall vote 36 on Ordering the Previous Question; rollcall vote 37 on the Holt Amendment to H.R. 800, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act; rollcall vote 38 on the Ehlers Amendment to H.R. 800; rollcall vote 39 on the George Miller amendment to H.R. 800; rollcall vote 40 on the Scott amendment to H.R. 800; rollcall vote 41 on passage of H.R. 800; rollcall vote 42 on passage of H.R. 808, the Short Term-Extension of Farm Bankruptcy Law; rollcall vote 43 on passage of H. Res. 32, a resolution Expressing Support for Open Elections in Indonesia; rollcall vote 44 on H. Con. Res. 28, a resolution Criticizing China for its Human Rights Abuses; rollcall vote 45 on Ordering the Previous Question; rollcall vote 46 on Agreeing to the Resolution; rollcall vote 47 to Sustain the Rule of the Chair; rollcall vote 48 on the Fowler Amendment to H. Con. Res. 42, a resolution on Peacekeeping Operations in Kosovo; and rollcall vote 49 on passage of H. Con. Res. 42. Had I been present for the preceding votes, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall votes 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, and 49. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall votes 36, 41, 45, 46, 47, and 48.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with profound sadness in my heart to pay tribute to Mr. Robert L. Ozuna, a dear friend who passed away this past Saturday, March 6, 1999 at Queen of the Valley Hospital in West Covina, California. After 69 fulfilling years of life, Robert Ozuna joins Rosemary Ozuna, his beloved wife of 35 years who lamentably left us just months ago on November 27, 1998. He is survived by his mother, Amelia Ozuna; his sons, Steven Ozuna and Jeff Dominelli; his daughters, Nancy DeSilva and Lisa Jarrett; his sisters, Lillian Gomez and Vera Venegas; and his brother Tony Ozuna. Bob was also the proud grandfather of 8 children. Bob was the oldest of four children born on December 29, 1929 in Miami, Arizona. Ten years later, after his father's early death, the family moved to Los Angeles where he grew up with his mother and three siblings. Like my father, as the oldest child, Bob assumed the responsibility of finding steady work at an early age to assist his mother in meeting the family's financial burdens. In 1966, with the help of a second mortgage on his residence and a few electrician's hand tools, Bob founded his company, New Bedford Panoramex Corporation (NBP) in Upland, California. Combining hard work with entrepreneurial instincts, he built NBP into the thriving electronics manufacturing business it is today. Bob Ozuna emerged as one of the Latino community's leading entrepreneurs in Southern California. He gained his business experience on the job while attending night school at Rio Hondo Community College. In 1987, the U.S. Department of Transportation recognized Bob's hard work and dedication with its Minority Business Enterprise Award. The Department saw fit to honor him again with this prestigious tribute in 1991. The Air Traffic Control Association awarded Bob the Chairman's Citation of Merit Award in 1994. As industrious as Bob was in business, he was equally involved in sharing his prosperity with many groups in the community. He was an active member of the California Chamber of Commerce. Bob founded the Casa De Rosa Annual Golf Tournament to raise funds for the Rancho de Los Ninos Orphanage in Baja Mar, Mexico. He was a founding director of the East Los Angeles Sheriff's Youth Athletic Association, which has promoted educational, athletic and drug awareness programs for more than 60,000 young Americans in the Los Angeles Metropolitan area. Those of us who are fortunate to call Bob Ozuna friend remember him as a man who had a passion for life. He worked to succeed, but he succeeded in living--enjoying to their fallest the fruits of family and his tremendous labor. At New Bedford Panaramex Corporation, he is remembered for his generosity and genuine concern for his employees and their families. Mr. Speaker, Robert Ozuna epitomized the American dream--if you work hard and play by the rules, you can achieve whatever you aspire to. Robert Ozuna realized that dream. And, as Steve his son knows, Bob did so much to help others come a little closer to reaching the stars as well. Mr. Speaker, it is with heartfelt emotion that I ask my colleagues to join me today in saluting, one last time, a cherished friend and outstanding American, Mr. Robert L. Ozuna. Bob, you will be missed.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the 5 minutes. I do not believe I will need the full amount of time. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by first congratulating the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), and also of course the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), along with both the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the two ranking members, of course, of the full committee and the subcommittee, for H.R. 325. I, too, rise in support of this bill and urge all of my colleagues to vote for it. I am in support of this bill most specifically for a particular reason, something that a number of us have been concerned about for a number of years, and that is trying to find the best ways to tackle the problems of AIDS and HIV that we have in this country. There is a provision, or there are several provisions in this bill, which will temporarily suspend duties and lower tariffs from drug compounds manufactured abroad and imported into the United States that are essential to the treatment of HIV and AIDS and, as well, cancer. In order for these compounds to have made it onto this bill, it had to be shown to an interagency panel that their importation, the importation of these drugs, with these reduced tariffs, or suspended duties, would not adversely affect American companies that also produce some of these same types of chemicals and compounds. Particularly in the early stages of development, it is vitally important that certain drug compounds are not thwarted by duties which would drive up the overall costs of development and distribution, without providing any industry protective benefit. It is important to remember, we are talking about these early stages of development. It is important that we allow some of these companies to produce, test some of these drugs, which ultimately may have beneficial effects as we now find with regard to HIV and AIDS and also with cancer. The temporary suspension of these duties on these products will allow for the most cost-effective production of these drugs by keeping testing and development costs low. Remember, it is very expensive to come up with some of these drugs, we often do not know if they will work, and it is difficult to persuade someone to invest time and money in a project like this. If we can help by reducing the tariffs at least temporarily, what we do is provide an incentive to make it possible for some of these drugs to ultimately make it not just past research but into the hands of those who need them most. In the end, who benefits? It is not just those who are ill with AIDS, or those who are infected with the HIV virus, or those who may actually have cancer. It is all of us. We all get the benefits of lower costs for medical treatment for someone who might otherwise become infected by the HIV virus, we all benefit if we are able to prevent cancer from occurring. H.R. 326 includes several compounds that are effective in the treatment of AIDS and HIV, of cancer, and we are not even certain that they may not be helpful in other areas as well. So, to allow us to be able to bring these drugs in and to not adversely affect American companies is a benefit for all. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 326. We should do everything in our power to assist in the development of new drugs to combat the twin enemies of HIV/AIDS and of cancer and to get those drugs into hands of those who need them the most.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, it is with the utmost pleasure and privilege that I rise today to recognize a wonderful American, Mr. Frank Aguirre, for his inspiration as a dedicated father, a hard- working professional, and a model citizen of our great nation. Frank Aguirre is a fitting example of someone living ``the American dream.'' Born and raised in Sonora, Mexico, Frank came to the United States in 1949 on a student visa. His interest was Engineering, and he attended Los Angeles Trade-Technical College. Later, at East Los Angeles College and California State University, Los Angeles, his major changed to Accounting. Recognizing the value of hard work and the opportunities it opens in the United States, Frank became a naturalized citizen in 1956. While at East Los Angeles College, he met Rosie Padilla, and they wed in March 1957. They have four children: Victor, Cindy, Becky and Haydee and six grandsons: Alex, Ryan, Austin, Victor, Kellen and Brett. After attending East Los Angeles College, Frank started as a stock boy in a wall paper hanging company. He worked hard, and his industry was noticed. Frank soon earned a promotion to the accounting department. Anxious to provide for his new family, Frank went on to work as an accountant at Global Van and Storage and opened an income tax business at home. His dreams were big, and he worked diligently to offer his growing family more than he had ever had growing up. He accepted positions at Pacific Van and Storage, again at Global Van Lines and finally plunged into the moving business himself. Owning his own business had been his goal, but his Sun Moving & Storage company struggled through adversity for a year and a half before closing its doors. Several years later, he was joined by two partners and formed Merit United Moving and Storage. This business brought Frank prosperity, not to mention, high blood pressure. Perhaps what is most notable about Frank is his love for his family. He worked hard, yet he always had time for his children. They have fond memories of impromptu Saturday mountain day trips, miniature golf games, road trips to Mexico and lots of family get-togethers. Frank is the most fortunate of men--he is deeply loved and respected by his family and peers. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, February 6, 1999, family and friends--and I am privileged to count myself among them--will gather at a special dinner to pay tribute and celebrate Frank Aguirre's accomplishments as a father, businessman, and model American citizen. 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, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, that is what we have been reduced to. We are reduced to 1 minute on perhaps the most important vote we will ever cast. Mr. Speaker, more than the President, we are on trial today. As we debate whether to impeach the President, our actions will be judged by the American people, not only today but for generations to come. The standard for impeachment is high: treason, bribery, high crimes, and high misdemeanors. These articles of impeachment degrade what our forefathers meant by high crimes and high misdemeanors. While the President's actions were reprehensible, they were wrong, and certainly they deserve punishment, they do not rise to the level of offenses which meet the historical judicial standard of impeachment. If we approve these articles of impeachment today, we will demean the institution of Congress. We will have turned the most serious proceeding that Congress can undertake into a vicious example of obsessive politics. These articles do not represent justice, they do not represent the judgment of the majority of American people, and they certainly are not the best way for us to act as a jury. We demean the actions of a jury, the instructions that any jury must follow, and certainly as a jury, we will be judged into the future.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, we are very close to the end of this session, and perhaps it is fitting that we have an opportunity to try to assess what has gone on this year. It happens that as the individual who has been given the privilege to serve this Congress as the chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, a caucus which is composed of all those Members of Congress of Hispanic heritage, that this year we have an opportunity to talk a little bit about how Hispanic Americans have fared in this Congress and through this White House in legislation and in proposals administered by the executive branch of government. And to help us in that we are fortunate. About 8 years ago many of the national Hispanic organizations came together and formed an umbrella organization, the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda. Back in 1991, when they formed, they decided to have a policy to try to come together and see if with all the voices of these national organizations, they could try to project a voice for Americans of Hispanic descent. This organization is nonpartisan and it is, as I said, a coalition of all the major national Hispanic organizations. It includes communities from all the different streams of Hispanic America. It includes those individuals of Mexican American ancestry, Puerto Rican ancestry, Cuban Americans and all those who are from the Caribbean, Central and South American areas. Let me give you a list of some of the organizations, national organizations that are part of the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda. We have the Hispanic National Bar Association. We have the Hispanic Association of Corporate Responsibility. We have the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Cuban American National Council, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the National Hispanic Corporate Council. We have the Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the American GI Forum, Alianza Dominicana, the National Puerto Rican Coalition, MANA, a National Latina Organization, the National Hispanic Council on Aging, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, the National Council of La Raza, and the U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce, to name some of the many organizations that are part of the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda. Overall they represent millions of Americans and try as best possible to come together in one voice. Let me show you a little bit of what they came up with. This is their scorecard that they just recently issued. It is called the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda congressional scorecard, 105th Congress. What the various organizations do within the NHLA is to take a number of very important votes that this Congress took this year and in 1997, during the 105th Congress, and assess where we stood as a Congress with respect to issues important to Americans of Hispanic descent. They took many votes, about 24 of the most important votes that were taken here in the House and about 11 of the most important votes taken in the Senate, and they came up with a scorecard. And I went ahead and summarized some of that so we would at least have a sense of where we are this year at the end of the year. Let me, if I may then, refer to this chart. If you break it down, you will see that votes taken by the House and the Senate, there were more votes taken in the House than in the Senate and, therefore, more votes that the NHLA was able to use to try to rate the Members of Congress, grade the Members of Congress. But what we find is overall scores of the various votes taken in the House of Representatives, for example, of the 24 votes that were scored, 19 percent of the time the Republicans in the House of Representatives supported Hispanic American issues and concerns. Democrats supported, on those same 24 votes, supported Hispanic American concerns 85 percent of the time. In the Senate, the support by Members of the Senate who were Republican was 20 percent, 20 percent of the time Republican Senators voted in support of measures that the NHLA identified as extremely important for Hispanics throughout this country. In the Senate, Democrats voted 89 percent of the time in support of issues that were important to Hispanic Americans. I further broke this down to give a better sense, since it would be difficult to list the votes of the 435 Members of Congress along with the 100 Members of the Senate the way the NHLA did, but if we took the leadership, and I decided to take the leadership votes out. We find that in the Senate, the Republican leadership under Mr. Lott, Trent Lott, Mr. Lott's score, of the 11 votes, was zero percent, unfortunately, which means that on no occasion did he support Hispanic American issues. Ninety-one percent for Senator Daschle. On the House side it was zero for Speaker Gingrich, and it was 7 percent for the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt). That will give us a sense and hopefully we can go from there to see how Congress supports issues important to Hispanic Americans.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on October 5, 1998, I was on official business during rollcall votes Nos. 480, 481, and 482. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``no'' on No. 480, ``yes'' on 481, and ``yes'' on 482.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. The President's conduct in this matter was deeply disappointing to Americans. All of us have traveled down that path. There is no question of that. This House will proceed with an inquiry. That road we have also begun to travel. There is no question of that. But how we travel down that road is still subject to intense questioning. The majority would take us down this road that would offer no end in sight, that omits the rules of the road for its conduct, in essence open- ended, without conclusion. After more than 4 years, $50 million in taxpayer funds, we should give the American people a clear, defined and transparent process. It is not if we will proceed, it is how we will proceed. Today is the 8th of October. We are now 8 days into the new fiscal year without a budget. Tomorrow, the 9th of October, at midnight, we will have to shut down this government unless this Congress passes a budget. And yet for the American people we offer nothing, no clear, defined, transparent process. They deserve more. Let us go to our destination and get there with Godspeed. We have work to do for seniors, for children and for working Americans. We must do it in a transparent, balanced and fair way.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman for yielding and for being here at this late hour managing this bill along with the chairman and my other colleagues who have taken the time to speak on this matter. Let me also thank my colleague and friend, the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Bilbray), for raising this issue. But, unfortunately, I must disagree with the way he has done this. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) said, this is only a sense of Congress. This bill will not have any practical legal affect on our laws and how we conduct our affairs, at least not immediately. It is, in essence, a message bill. Unfortunately, the message it sends is not that this is just a sense of Congress that there is a problem between our two countries of Mexico and the U.S. along our borders, but it sends a different message. The message that will be received, not here, but in Mexico will be one of threats. While the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) raises a very important point that we must take care of our environmental matters between two sovereign nations, in this case, our country and the country of Mexico, I do not believe that anyone south of the border reading this sense of Congress would believe that this is a cooperative, collaborative approach to resolving the problems that are disturbing the folks in San Diego. Let us make it clear, the folks in San Diego have every right to be concerned. The folks in Tijuana, Mexico have every right to be concerned. But what we should not do is say that we will unilaterally take action if we do not believe the Mexican government and the Tijuana government have done enough to resolve this problem. That is what we are faced with in this sense of Congress, which will have no immediate legal effect. It is a message bill. But the message it sends is that we are doing this today. The message we may get back from the Mexican government and the Tijuana government is, tomorrow we will do something similar. Let me give my colleagues an example. For many decades, the Mexican public, the Mexican government has complained that the U.S. Government allows its people, its State governments, and local governments to extract too much water from the Colorado River, the best of the Colorado River; and also that our people, our governments, our industry is depositing too much into the Colorado River, which is not good. So that by the time the Colorado River crosses the southern border and gets into Mexico, what they have left of a very rich vibrant river is not much. They say you, U.S., you should be doing more about this. They have been saying this for decades. Would we want to see a resolution from the Mexican government that says they unilaterally are sending us a sense of their Mexican Congress that the U.S. has not done enough, and because it has not done enough, then the Mexican government can unilaterally start reviewing all its treaties, all its agreements with our country that it has signed? I do not believe we would take kindly to that, because we would say we are trying. I do not believe anybody thinks that the U.S. Government and its people are trying to give Mexico polluted, unusable, nonpotable water. But the Mexican government and the Mexican people probably would say, well, you may not believe it to be the case, but what we see is much different. Let me give my colleagues another example. Recently this Congress voted, this year this Congress voted, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) mentioned, voted to site a hazardous waste deposit site along the Texas Mexico border, the Sierra Blanca site in Texas. The Mexican government protested to the U.S. Government and to the State governments of the States involved that would be depositing this hazardous waste along the border that this was unjust, it was unfair, that much of the hazardous waste would migrate at the end into Mexican territory and affect the lives of Mexican people. They also pointed out, as we here pointed out, that this hazardous site is on top of an existing earthquake fault. And if ruptures as a result of any earth quake would occur, that could expose many people, Mexican and U.S. individuals, to the effects of this hazardous waste. All of that is to say this, we all have examples of how our governments, our peoples perhaps are not working in the fashion that the other people and the other government would like to see. What we should be doing is what we have done, and in the case of this particular environmental problem in and around Tijuana, the two governments have done, and they have worked cooperatively. Mexico and the U.S. have been working cooperatively for a number of years on the South International Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is about to start up its operation. In addition, the U.S. and Mexican governments are working through the International Boundary and Water Commission to clean sewer lines and also to construct a back-up system to the current coastal sewage conveyance and treatment system. They are doing things. But we can certainly argue that we have not seen enough done. But is this the way we treat a partner, someone we say we cooperate with? I think that is the problem. If we are going to use threats, if we are going to use our muscle, then we should realize that we should be prepared to face the consequences of someone responding in kind. I do not believe that is what we should do with a solid trading partner. I do believe we send messages, but send messages as a partner would send a message that we want to work with them and we want to improve the conditions. We want to do it together. Because there are people on both sides of the border who will be affected. I believe the intent of the gentleman from San Diego is eminently good, well-intended, but I do not believe, unfortunately, this sense of Congress gets us there. I would urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by first thanking the gentlewoman from California, my colleague from California for yielding to me and also for scheduling this time for us to have an opportunity to say a few good words about a close friend and someone who we respect dearly. Congressman Esteban Torres is perhaps for me best described as the person who helped me learn the ropes here in Washington, D.C. This is my third term. I can recall the first time I had a chance to really come to Washington, D.C., it was because Congressman Torres was willing to take me around. He guided me through when I was first here, not yet quite a Member. He took me around and let me sit in the gallery. He explained to me what was going on, explained the process, pointed out colleagues, made it clear what the process was in preparation for the actual opportunity to serve. Now I have been here, this is my sixth year, and I have had an opportunity to see what it means to be a Member of Congress. I am going to miss the gentleman from California greatly. I see him as a mentor, but more than that, I see him as a very close friend. I use him as an example of the American dream so often. Too often we forget that great things sometimes come in small packages. Sometimes they come in quiet packages. In this case, they come in the package of a man who, at first blush, in his youth, probably was like many of our youth, not seen as someone who could achieve so many different things, yet this man is possessed with so many different talents. He could have probably been a very wealthy artist selling paintings and making a lucrative living out of his artistic abilities. If my colleagues have ever had a chance to watch the Congressman as he sits here and watches the debate unfold, he is able to capture the essence of our colleagues in just a matter of moments on any piece of paper it might be. He easily could have become an artist and had fame and fortune that way, but he chose to serve and serve in so many different capacities. But I look back at what he has done, and I remember that this is a gentleman who, like many Americans, probably was not singled out as the one who would lead in America. Yet, among those who do not get singled out, he showed us what it does to continue to fight, what it means to continue to fight, and what it does to us when we do fight. You get a place like this, a place that most people would ever believe that we would ever have a chance to step foot on. So here we are today. Congressman Torres has decided to move on. He is still in good health, good standing. I think that is a tribute to his remarkable success as well that, on a high note, he decides to leave, when many, whether it is from sports or in other careers, decide to leave when they are already on the decline. This is a gentleman who certainly has many good years in front of him and certainly all his colleagues believe could have many more years here in Congress; everyone would desire that he to do it that way. But he has chosen to leave. For that, I think he deserves a great deal of respect because he has left the legacy. Let me return to what I said before. This is not someone who we were expecting to be here; someone who dropped out of school. Esteban, I say that with the utmost of respect, because I know you, and I have seen so many kids who have dropped out of school, in many cases perhaps within our own families. So see where you have gotten. I enjoy so much being able to point to you and say folks never believe that some of us would have a chance to get where we are. I am where I am because folks like you open doors. I am hoping that I can open doors for young children that I get to visit in the schools, in my district, and throughout this country. That is perhaps the most beautiful thing about being able to come up here and speak about you. You are going to walk out of here proud, tall, and still live a fruitful life for many, many years. You will be able to recount your tales. You are not going to leave here in a state where no one will be able to share the wisdom and the creative stories that have made your future. I am very pleased that I could come down here and speak for a few minutes. If I could just close on a couple of final notes because I know folks have said so many things about your distinguished career in UNESCO as Ambassador, when you served so ably as representative with the labor movement, with the United Auto Workers. If I can just mention one thing that I think is perhaps most beloved to you and cherished in making your life successful, and that is of course Arcy, your wife. I know from having had an opportunity with Carolina, my wife, to share some time with you and Arcy that what makes you tick is easily spelled by just spelling Arcy's name. I know what she means to you. I hope that a number of us have the opportunity, if we have a chance to serve the way you have, not just to emulate your political career, but also your family. I would like to be able to say to Arcy, although she is not sitting next to you, as often she is, I know the role she has played from helping you succeed. I know the love and the goodwill that you share as partners in life. I think perhaps, along with all the other attributes that makes you such a special person, special Member of Congress, is the fact that you have always shown Arcy how much you care about her. I think, these days, that is so very important because this is a very difficult life. Some folks do not understand it, but you have held up the highest standards, not just as a public official but certainly as a man, as a husband, as a father. Whether or not you have ever had this career, the best role model I can ever have is someone like you when it comes to family. So to a good friend, a mentor, and someone I hope to maintain close relationships with, I want to say to you, we will miss you. We look forward to many good years, your wisdom, your creativity. I look forward to continuing a friendship with you and Arcy that began many years ago and was very fruitful for me and has taken me a long way.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I, too, will pull out those same 10 $1 bills. I, too, will tell the Members that if I have $10 because I work for the government, and I got them because someone is working every day contributing to the social security trust fund for his or her retirement, I am not going to tell them, well, I am only taking one of your $10 you just gave me for your social security investment in retirement, and I am going to use this to give out tax cuts, mostly to folks who are better off and do not need to worry about your retirement the way you maybe do. So you keep your 9 and I get to spend your one. That is what we are talking about. And, by God, please do not tell me that they are willing to tell an American farmer that they are going to punish them because this Congress, some here, are willing to say that we want to help them in time of need because of the drought and because of floods and because of all that done through an act of God. But my colleagues on the other side are saying to them, no, we cannot let this Congress help them out in their time of need. But, by the way, we do have money, that $10 that they just gave in their contributions out of their paycheck every month, to take one of those $10 and give a tax cut 6 weeks before the election. We can do that. Punish the farmers for an act of God. Do not do that. And please do not punish seniors for the political acts of men in this House. Now, when those folks out there in the country that are earning this money that they are putting into the Social Security trust fund go to the supermarket, they do not expect to receive 90 percent of the groceries they just paid for. When we buy a home, we do not expect to own nine-tenths of that home. When we pay for our child's education, we do not expect them to receive 90 percent of a college degree. Mr. Speaker, when Americans deposit money in a bank, they certainly do not expect that bank to give them only 90 percent back of their original deposit, or 90 percent of the interest that their money has earned. They expect 100 percent. The fact is, the budget surplus is not a surplus, other than Social Security funds contributed every day by people who work and give of that money out of their paycheck. American workers are doing what Republicans here are unwilling to do in this House. They are saving and investing for their retirement. In fact, what Republicans are proposing through this tax cut is to take those savings and investments because, again, the surplus we are talking about is created by all the trust fund dollars that American workers are contributing. The fact that we are not using every dollar out of the trust fund for Social Security and paying out for today's retirees does not mean that we should tell those folks who are working and contributing that right now we have a surplus, because they are paying a little bit more than we have to pay out today, because those workers know that tomorrow when the baby boomers retire we are going to go in the opposite case and we have to save now to take care of that problem later. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, please do not take even one dollar out of the $10 that American workers are earning every day and depositing into the Social Security trust fund to pay for tax cuts right after an election.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on September 17, 1998, I was unavoidably detained during rollcall vote No. 446, on agreeing to the resolution to provide for consideration of H.R. 4569, a bill to appropriate funds for foreign operations in FY 99. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted ``no'' on the resolution.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I would agree with everyone who has said that we need free trade. I would agree with everyone who says that we need to give the President fast track authority to negotiate free trade agreements. But we need free trade that offers fair treatment for America's workers and offers protection of our environment. And we need a bill to vote on for fast track authority that is not encumbered by politics. Everyone here, as has been said before, knows that this bill is not going to pass. If you believe it will, then you should stand up here and say that you are willing to put your month's paycheck behind that. Yet we are five days away from the end of this fiscal year. On day six, we would have to shut the doors of government down because we do not yet have a budget in place to allow us to operate the government for the next fiscal year beginning October 1. Were it not for a short-term, stopgap, emergency continuing resolution that passed this House that allows us to operate until October 9, we would be preparing to close all of the doors of government down, from our parks to our Defense Department to our Department of Justice, in five days. Today we are taking time to discuss fast track authority when we know it will fail, when we are five days away from closing down the end of the fiscal year and only one of the 13 appropriations bills that we need to have a full budget for the next fiscal year has been sent to the President for his signature. Why are we doing this? We know what is going to happen. October 9 will come and we still will not have those 12 other appropriation bills passed. We are not doing our work. We know this will not pass. It is clear six weeks away from an election, a point is to be made. That point could have been made without jeopardizing the future of free trade for this country, of good fast track authority for the President. It is unfortunate that politics again has taken over this House and has doomed what should otherwise be a good opportunity to have free trade authority and fast track authority for this President.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on September 23, 1998, I was unavoidably detained during two rollcall votes; No. 455, on agreeing to H. Res. 505 offered by Representative Faleomavaega and No. 456, on agreeing to H. Con. Res. 315 offered by Representative Lantos. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``yes'' on number 455 and ``yes'' on number 456.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink) for yielding me a bit of his time. I just wanted to come down and say that as much as I would love to be able to support the underlying bill, having a large number of firms that are in desperate need of workers to fill high-tech, high-paying jobs, it is difficult to stand here and not be able to support the bill unless we have the Watt amendment, which is the committee's bill. It is such a frustrating thing to stand here knowing that this committee passed a bill out for House consideration, a full vote of the House, and we cannot get Members who supported it in committee to now support what they voted out of committee. That would be something a number of us would be willing to support. Unfortunately, now we have to try to get it into the bill that is being debated here through an amendment. The problem I see with the underlying bill without the Watt amendment accepted is that we restrict the application of this visa category to only a small percentage of all the employers who are going to be out there seeking these employees from foreign countries, which means that we are going to have a vast number of companies that will be able to skirt the law, bring in foreign workers, and deny American workers the opportunity to get good-paying jobs. That is not fair, that is not reasonable, and I think most people here know that I am one who is generally pro-immigration that is fair and reasonable. Mr. Speaker, if we did more to make sure that the workforce of the future that we grow by ourselves in our country could meet the needs of these firms, that would be great. But I understand the need temporarily for these firms immediately. I wish I could support this; I cannot without the Watt amendment. I hope everyone here will vote for the Watt amendment, which is in fact the committee's bill. Then we could get good support out of this House and hopefully get it to the President's desk. But without the Watt amendment, I would hope everyone would vote against this bill.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I speak in support of the Reyes amendment and against the Traficant amendment, and I would start by reading something. ``El Paso, August 11. The federal government will pay $1.9 million to the family of a teenager who was killed by a Marine patrolling the U.S.- Mexico border,'' according to the family's attorney. ``The controversy over the May 27, 1997, shooting led to the suspension of military patrols along the Rio Grande. Esequiel Hernandez, Jr., 18'' years of age ``was killed while herding goats near Redford, Texas, 200 miles southeast of El Paso, by Marines who said the youth fired on them.'' ``After a long battle over what happened, the Hernandez family has signed a settlement agreement with the Justice Department and the Navy.'' ``The settlement is `one more piece of evidence that there was total wrongdoing in this case by various arms of the government,' said the Reverend Melvin LaFollette, a Redford activist. `Innocent parties don't pass out millions gratuitously.' ''. We did that last year because this Congress told the armed forces to send troops to the border. One of the first things that happened was an American citizen lost his life, an 18-year-old American citizen. The Traficant amendment says not only shall we go back to that failed policy but we will require that the Department of Defense do it, not in its discretion do it but require that we do it. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) says that if we pass the Reyes amendment and not his amendment we are going to throw out the Army, we are going to defund the FBI and that the Reyes amendment would put a limitation on our Nation's ability to fight drugs. Let me read what the Reyes amendment says and see if any of that can be found. Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the deployment of the members of the armed forces in contravention of United States law for the purpose of this section. The only thing the Reyes amendment says is, let us continue to follow the law that says that we will not have various forces, military and quasi-military forces, doing the job that is not assigned to them. That is the only thing the Reyes amendment says. Now, what does the Traficant amendment say? It says the Secretary of Defense shall, shall assist, in keeping illegal drugs out of the United States by assigning the armed forces to assist the INS and the Customs Service; shall. I want to make a note. ``Shall'' is written in by hand. Stricken right below it in type, the original form of the amendment was ``should,'' ``should assist,'' which is what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) has been saying; discretion. The Traficant amendment originally did provide the Department of Defense, the President of the United States and Congress with discretion to proceed. Someone struck that, I suspect it had to be the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), it is his amendment, and now it is ``shall.'' So contrary to what the author of the amendment, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) is saying, this provides no discretion to the President, no discretion to the Secretary of Defense, no discretion to the Secretaries of the Army, Navy or Marines. They must do this. That is what ``shall'' means. It is not ``may'' or ``should.'' We can stand here and talk all about this, but the only person who really has a right to tell us what really is best for the border is the gentleman who spoke earlier, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), who spent more than 20 years of his life doing exactly that, patrolling the border. Many of us could continue to talk and we will. I shudder to think what the men and women who actually are on the border, carrying the guns, doing the surveillance, having to stop drugs, having to stop people from coming into this country illegally, are saying as they listen to this debate; we must not be very good officers, they must be thinking, that they believe that now we must send down the troops to help them do their job. Not give them more resources to hire more INS officers and Customs officers to do the job, but, no, send the armed forces, which is trained not to surveil, not to guard, not to interdict but to kill. What a statement we are sending to the men and women who day after day put their lives on the line trying to do what we say we need to have the Army do. If one really believes we need to put more on the border, and we do, then give the INS Border Patrol, give the Customs agency more resources to hire people who are trained to do exactly that. Do not try to have our men and women who are trained to do something different in the armed forces all of a sudden go into a foreign atmosphere and now try to do the work, because when you do, what happens? Folks like Esequiel Hernandez are killed. And what else? The taxpayers are told, give me $2 million because we have to pay off this family for having killed people like Esequiel Hernandez. Are we destined to travel down that same path? Are we destined to repeat history? I urge my colleagues to vote for the Reyes amendment and against the Traficant amendment.