Xavier Becerra

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I, like I believe every single colleague who has taken to the floor, wish to first begin by saying that I stand here today to support our troops fighting terrorism, not just abroad but certainly here at home, to support all our men and women in law enforcement civilly who are doing the same, to support our medical personnel, our community activists who are doing their utmost to work with our law enforcement and military leaders to make America safer. We are committed, all of us, to once again make America safe and free from harm. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, my friends in the majority are using the battle against terrorism to pass what I believe is a dangerous and cynical provision that allows the Federal Government to break its own spending limit and raid hundreds of billions of dollars from the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Mr. Chairman, America can be strong militarily without becoming weak economically. But our friends in the majority are hoping they can escape today's debate without leveling with the American public. The Nation is back into deficit in its budgets and now my friends in the majority plan to use Social Security and Medicare trust fund dollars to pay for other programs unrelated to national defense and to counterterrorism. Mr. Chairman, I would not be surprised if many people, including Members on this floor or people in the American public who happen to be watching this debate, if they are confused, because as I sat through hours and I sit through hours of this debate, oftentimes you hear conflicting statements by colleagues. But, Mr. Chairman, there is one rule that I believe stands the test of time, and that is that sunshine is the strongest of all disinfectants, particularly when it comes to ensuring that the political and policymaking process is untainted. The Republican leadership, with this bill today and with the White House, which has endorsed this legislation, are borrowing a page from Enron and using gimmicks and stealth to hide the true nature of their plans for America's future. They are attempting to keep the American people in the dark about our Nation's budget challenges and the growing national debt. This resort to stealth and secrecy, to me, is tremendously chilling. It is chilling. With this bill, the administration is seeking to raise the debt limit with no strings attached. They have disclosed nothing about their plans to repair our damaged fiscal situation. Today the American people have told the Federal Government, you are allowed to borrow $5.95 trillion of taxpayer money, and today under this legislation, the administration and my colleagues in the majority are saying we want to raise that amount that we want to borrow. We want to pull this card out, the Federal credit card, and borrow even more. We have already been told by Secretary of the Treasury O'Neill that he wants to borrow at least another $750 billion more to increase that national debt, a national debt which will have to be paid for exclusively, every single cent of that $750 billion or more in increased debt, from Social Security or Medicare trust fund dollars. I will say that one more time: Every single penny that would be used to increase the size of the debt and the deficit for this year would come directly out of only two pots, Social Security and Medicare trust fund dollars. Not only are we jeopardizing our seniors, not only are we jeopardizing those who need prescription drug coverage under Medicare, but we are jeopardizing all of our children. I do not intend to use the government's credit card and mortgage my children's future, but that is what we are being asked to do today. But it is being done under the cloak of national defense and antiterrorism. Every single one of us, I believe, who has taken to this floor has said let us have a clean vote on the issue of antiterrorism and national defense, as this supplemental appropriations for the most part does, and rid it of the pork, and you have got a virtually unanimous vote in this House. But there is an insistence on also stealthily including through secrecy this allowance to increase the size of the national debt. Now, this does not seem new. Just yesterday this House voted to allow secrecy to continue. It cannot happen. We have subpoenas on the Senate side saying, Mr. President, allow us to see what Enron had to do with the administration at its task force meetings on energy. Let us stop the secrecy. Let us have a clean vote and not mortgage our children's future.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, the further point where the gentleman from Indiana misstates what is current law and what I said, we base it because the Supreme Court has said, not on what the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) believes is reasonable or what I believe is reasonable. It is an objective standard, not a subjective standard. This bill changes the Supreme Court's law that says you base reasonableness on an objective standard, and it says based reasonableness on what that officer believed was reasonable. And that is not fair because that subjective judgment could cause people's rights to be violated.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, this is a bill which, compared to previous versions, certainly has done much better for our country and does much better for our Customs officers, our men and women in the Customs Service. This bill does not try to mistreat our employees, the men and women who place themselves in harm's way every day to defend this country against terrorism, who try to interdict the drugs that many would have come into our country, and it treats them the way they should be treated, with respect, when it comes to their employment status, their salary, their working conditions. Those previous versions of the bill which would have harmed our Customs men and women are not in this bill, and that is good. We also give Customs the tools it needs to be able to fight terrorism, to fight narcotics that would come into this country, and that is good as well. But for some reason this bill continues to include 2 provisions which under our Constitution would harm Americans, and that is bad. There is no reason why we should tell an American citizen that he or she is suspect simply because they happen to reside in this country and wish to send a piece of mail abroad. There is no reason why we should treat American citizens in their regular activities of sending correspondence abroad the way we treat foreign correspondence and packages that would come into our country. I can understand and most of us would understand why it is we would have concern in a package coming from some other country into our country, and perhaps, perhaps, containing a bomb, anthrax, who knows what else it might have. For that reason we provide that package with less of the type of constitutional protection that we provide all of us in America when it comes to our privacy. But when Americans are shipping something abroad, is there any reason why we are telling them we are going to open up their mail that goes abroad, open up packages, unless we have some suspicion there is reason to go in that? Right now we can open up a package that is going abroad, but we just have to prove there is a reason why we are going to go into the privacy of each and every American citizen to do so. This bill changes the privacy right we have had since the founding of this Nation. That is wrong. The other provision here that I believe if most Americans knew about it would be offensive to them is that which would allow profiling. Most of our Customs officers do not do this, but we have seen on occasion how someone is picked out of the crowd, and our numbers, our studies by Customs itself, have shown that the people that most often get picked, unfortunately, are African American women, succumbing to things like strip searches. Now our government on occasion has been subjected to lawsuits because of the violations of the Constitutional rights of these individuals. Why are we going to make that easier and why are we going to tell Customs officers we do not have enough faith in them and that we are going to go ahead and let them have an exception to the law? Why would we want to tell people in this country that we are going to lower the standard of protection for people when it comes to their civil rights, simply so that we can protect the bad apples? Everybody has a bad apple. We have bad apples in this whole institution. But that is no reason to say that every single officer in Customs is bound to violate an American citizen's rights by subjecting them to an unconstitutional search and seizure. I do not think our Customs officers have requested this. I never heard that in committee, that they requested this. There is no reason to go to the point of providing immunity to Customs officers who violate the Constitution. They already have a qualified immunity to those types of protections. Why are we going beyond what they have even asked for? In committee, when we asked the general counsel for Customs, please explain why you are asking this particular immunity exception to be applied, we could not get a good answer from the general counsel of the Customs Service. This is a good bill. Why tarnish it with something that is unnecessary? Of course, most people are going to vote for this because most people will look at the fact that we are providing additional resources to Customs and doing the right thing for most of our officers. This does not belong there. That is why you should vote for the substitute. A vote for the substitute gets rid of the bad and makes this a completely supportable bill.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California, my friend, for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, the substitute is very simple, because for the most part, as I believe most of us have said earlier, this bill is actually a very good bill. It just has two provisions which are heinous, which go against our Constitution. If most Americans would have an opportunity to examine this, they would say that this does not belong here. The first provision grants an exception to our privacy rights to allow Customs, without ever having to go after a search warrant, without ever having to show probable cause, to open up American citizens' mail. This is a provision which they could not substantiate. They could not explain why it was so essential. I think everyone understands why there is that exception for incoming foreign mail into this country. No one would argue that. But when it comes to Americans and the mail we send abroad, why is it so essential that Mrs. Jones' mail to her mother, who happens to live in the Netherlands, has to be opened without having to go through some scrutiny, legal scrutiny, to determine if it is fair or not for Mrs. Jones' mail to be opened without her consent? We can do it if we just go through the regular course of getting a warrant, showing probable cause to open up Mrs. Jones' mail. But why all of a sudden do we want to be able to have exceptions? Remember, just 6 months ago, we passed some laws that gave law enforcement much greater authority as a result of trying to deal with terrorism. But to just undo the mechanisms that we have in place to ensure that we are adequately protected from abusive officials does not seem to be right. The second provision, which again would mostly target African American women, and that is not conjecture, that is a fact. The General Accounting Office in 2000 found that not only are African American women stopped and searched more often, but it is 9 times more often than their counterparts, Anglo or white women counterparts, 9 times more often. Guess what? It also happens to be the case that those African American women are half as likely to contain contraband as white women, American women. So while the group that is most targeted is least likely to possess contraband, they are the ones who are most targeted. How does that make sense? When one has had their rights violated, rights under the Constitution, why should we not be able to go out there and seek justice, seek redress? This substitute says you cannot go after monetary damage, but it also does not say forget about the constitutional rights, you also cannot go after that rogue official who went after you. Most of our officials within Customs are excellent officers. Several have died in the line of duty. I know the person who stopped the suspected terrorist from coming down to Los Angeles and bombing, or rigging bombs at the Los Angeles International Airport, my airport, was a Customs officer in the State of Washington. They do tremendous work. Why do we have to paint all of them with the broad brush and believe that they are all going to be bad apples or rogue officers and do these bad things? When there is one that does it, why deny us the chance to seek a constitutionally protected right? Mr. Chairman, I would ask the chairman if he would engage with me in a brief colloquy. I have a concern that has also been raised as to whether or not this provision, section 141 in the law, is actually retroactive, which would mean that previous bad acts by officials would also be exempted from action if this legislation were to become law. I guess if we had to pass this, at least let us make it forward- looking, so officers are now on alert. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the chairman if he would be willing to entertain a brief colloquy. I am concerned that this legislation, as I believe Customs is trying to profess, would be retroactive. But as I read section 141, there is nothing in the provision that says that this will apply to previous conduct of Customs officials. I would hope the chairman would clarify whether or not this law is indeed retroactive.

Mr. BECERRA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. BECERRA. It is not retroactive. I thank the chairman for that answer, and I reclaim my time. Mr. Chairman, we need to do everything we can to give our law enforcement men and women the tools they need. This bill does a lot to go that route of giving them the resources, the tools they need. One of the tools they do not need is the ability to violate the Constitution. One of the tools they do not need is the ability to violate our privacy rights. I don't believe any officer from Customs would stand here and say that is what I want. I can understand if they are saying we want to have any frivolous lawsuit against our conduct while engaging in the scope of our authority, that that should not be appropriate; that those lawsuits while they were acting in the scope of their authority should not be appropriate. Those frivolous lawsuits, absolutely. In fact, this substitute has language which, as I said before, would not permit monetary damages against a law enforcement official acting within his scope of authority. So I would hope that the Members of this body will recognize that this substitute is reasonable, it is sensibly based, and it tries to go after the problem that Customs tried to identify, which completely missed in providing some exceptions to constitutional law which have no place in this good legislation. I would hope that my colleagues, as they come down, would recognize that. We want to do everything we can to elevate our good officers, but there is no reason to protect the bad apples. I would hope that Members would vote for the substitute.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Just to respond to my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), the activities that the gentleman described of customs officials trying to apprehend individuals who were suspects or there was probable cause to believe they were suspects, whether it was contraband or terrorist activities, all that is protected under current law because those officials would have been acting under the color of law and would have had under an objective standard the right to do that because it would have been perceived to be reasonable. What this legislation does, it removes the objective person's standard of what is reasonable under the Constitution, and says what is subjectively reasonable. So that if the officer said, well, I believed I was reasonable in going after that African American woman and strip searching her because I thought she might be carrying contraband, we under this legislation could not challenge that. Because so long as he believed he was acting in good faith, however that good faith is defined, because this bill does not define it, you could not go after that person. This legislation would deny us any recourse, that African American woman, that individual who is innocent, recourse. What the substitute says, and I will yield with the time that I have, the substitute says, okay, let us protect the officers so they do not find themselves in court, but do not make the government free of liability for violations of the Constitution. Make the government clean up its act even if you do not cause individuals in the customs service to face lawsuits individually.

Mr. BECERRA. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, May 20, 2002 I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall Nos. 171, 172, and 173. The votes I missed include rollcall vote 171 on Suspending the Rules and Agreeing to H. Con. Res. 314; rollcall vote 172 on Suspending the Rules and Agreeing to H. Con. Res. 165; and rollcall vote 173 on Suspending the Rules and Agreeing to H. Con. Res. 309. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 171, 172, and 173.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. It seems that too often the 435 Members of this body forget about the real world. We, fortunately, are paid well. We are cared for by our government, and we all try to do the same for our constituents; but somehow this particular bill that is before us forgets about that, because somehow it talks about helping a woman who for the most part is short on education or short on training and expects her to go out to work and earn a wage that will compensate her so she can feed her family because she has got kids, because otherwise she would not be on welfare, and let her survive the daily grind of living well at $16,000, let me tell my colleagues, which is probably what most of these women will be making, $16,000, $20,000, who are going to be putting about a third of that money into day care and a third of that into housing and the rest in food. They do not have money for health care, they do not have money for any expectancies of life, and what is going to happen is these women will be right back in welfare because this Republican welfare bill does nothing to deal with reality. My colleagues need to have flexibility. If we had 50 votes here from the Governors of our Nation, they would vote against this bill. My colleagues need to pay for unfunded mandates, and they need to deal with the realities that children must be cared for. No mother is going to let her kid go out there and not be cared for. This bill should not pass. Vote for the substitute.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I hope everyone votes against the rule, votes against the previous question and, certainly, we should oppose martial law, because it is not deserved. We are being asked to vote in the blind because we never had a chance to read this bill. We are having our voices silenced because we have not been offered an opportunity to present amendments in the people's House to debate what is very important to the American people, and we are being told that we should cast a vote in the dark of night when most Americans will be asleep because we have something to hide in this Chamber. What is it that this majority has to hide with regard to this so- called welfare reform bill that is before us? Well, first of all, we have a bill before us that provides inflexible and unfunded mandates: Inflexible because the States will not have much choice on how to manage their welfare rolls and to use what they have learned through best practices to try to decrease their rolls; and unfunded because those requirements do not give the States the flexibility to use the monies where they believe best. Two quick examples. This welfare reform bill does child care on the cheap. We should understand that one out of every seven American children who qualifies for day care gets it, the other six do not. It tells American children that you must do with what you have, because the States will be provided a pittance over the next 5 years to try to accommodate that growing number of kids that we know is out there that needs child care, especially for welfare mothers who are being told that they will have a full workweek of 40 hours. How do we do that? Well, in California, with close to 300,000 kids right now not in day care but on waiting lists, we would need over $1 billion to implement this Republican welfare bill, just on child care. Do we know how much money this welfare bill gives to child care over the next 5 years? One billion dollars. So every single dime that is provided in this bill for child care could be used by one State, the State of California. Mr. Speaker, we need a lot more. We cannot do child care on the cheap the way this bill does. Inflexible and unfunded mandates. Right now we are trying to undo an injustice that was done 6 years ago in 1996 to legal immigrants; lawful, permanent residents who reside in this country by law, pay taxes, do everything they are supposed to do under the law, some 20,000 to 40,000 right now serving in the Armed Forces as legal immigrants, and we are in this bill not going to do a thing to correct an injustice done in 1996. At least give the States the flexibility to do what 23 of them already do, and that is to provide services under TANF to legal immigrants. But the States will not be allowed to do this under the majority's bill, because it is inflexible and does not permit that to happen. Twenty-three States on their own have already said, let us do this. Mr. Speaker, in 1996, we told many people in this country who are trying to fight for the American dream, who are fighting for this country, many of whom have gone to Afghanistan; we are talking about people who have won the Medal of Honor in our Armed Services, today who are fighting in our uniform, American uniform, that they do not count. Secretary Thompson of the Health and Human Services Department under the Bush administration has said, we should give States the flexibility to offer legal immigrants that support. The Governors of the States are saying, we should give that flexibility because 23 of our States already do this, and yet this bill does not even give the States that flexibility. I should say one final thing on that point. This flexibility to allow States to provide legal immigrants with services would cost not a single cent, not a single cent, yet we cannot get that in. Mr. Speaker, this bill should not go through this House. This rule should not pass, because it is done in the way that we would not be proud as American people.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of improving Social Security benefits for women, all women in this country. That is one of the reasons why I support the legislation today of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw). But we should be clear, this modest improvement in Social Security benefits for women should be considered nothing more than a downpayment of what we must do to help women who for years have worked very hard in and out of the home, in and out of the office, in and out of all of the workplaces of America, the chance to receive their fair share of retirement security. Mr. Speaker, four out of every 10 women who are retired today rely on Social Security for 90 percent of all of their income. And 75 percent of all women rely on Social Security for half of all of their income. Clearly Social Security is extremely important for women, more so than it is for men. While we have done a tremendous job of decreasing poverty among our elderly, over the last 30 years or so we have seen a decrease of some 29 percent of poverty within the senior ranks in our country to something around 8.5 percent today of our seniors in poverty. When we look at widows, we find that their poverty rates are twice as much for the average senior in this country. We must do more. Mr. Speaker, that is why I stand proudly to support the legislation of the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), H.R. 4671, which would give women, widows, widowers their fair share within Social Security retirement benefits. What the Matsui bill does, which the Shaw bill does not do, it covers in a meaningful way Americans who deserve to have a meaningful opportunity to retire in comfort and security; 5 million people would be affected by the Matsui bill. We have about 120,000 women who would be helped by the Shaw bill. We should do it, but we have millions more who are out there waiting to receive their due. It is time for us to do this. We cannot do retirement security on the cheap. We cannot continue to say that we will place Social Security first among all our priorities and not do it the right way. We cannot continue to say that we believe men and women should be able to retire in safety and security without doing it the right way. It is time for us to do this. We should pass this legislation. It is not enough. We should have had hearings on the Matsui legislation because, quite honestly, the American people deserve to know that we will protect our men and women in their retirement.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, it is with utmost pleasure and privilege that I rise today to recognize two wonderful Americans, Mr. Jose and Mrs. Antonieta Vargas, on the joyous and momentous occasion of their fiftieth wedding anniversary. On May 3, 1952, Jose and Antonieta Vargas joined in holy matrimony and commenced their marvelous journey together, a journey which we celebrate and reflect upon today. Jose Vargas was born on December 19, 1918, in El Paso, Texas, during the Mexican Revolution. His mother, Atilana Castillo de Vargas, had traveled to El Paso to escape the violence of the Revolution while his father, Guadalupe Vargas, stayed in Chihuahua, Mexico. Atilana returned to her home in Chihuahua with her children after the violence had ended. Jose completed six years of primary education before going to work in the mines of Chihuahua and on the railroad; he also became an accomplished carpenter. He is the second of six children; his elder sister, Natividad, and younger brother, Jesus, have passed away. His siblings Maximo, Lazaro, and Guadalupe live in Chihuahua and Los Angeles, California. Antonieta Valverde was born in the mining town of Santa Eulalia in the Mexican state of Chihuahua on December 27, 1927, and was raised in Ciudad Chihuahua. She is the eldest of six children, including Leobardo, Alicia, Concepcion, Damaso and Berta. She completed college before going to work at the Coca Cola bottling facility in Chihuahua. Jose and Antonieta met in their neighborhood, Santa Nino de Antocha, while riding the bus to their jobs. After a year-long courtship, they married and moved to El Paso, Texas, There, the first five of their children were born: Jose and Fernando in 1952, Jorge in 1954, Maria Antonieta in 1958, and Arturo in 1962. Fernando died shortly after birth. In 1962, while working on a construction site, Jose was injured, falling from the second story of a building being razed. The family survived through the kindness and charity of neighbors and family. In 1964, Jose left for Los Angeles to find employment, and upon doing so, moved the family to the South Central and then the Pico-Union areas of the city. His brother Jesus and sister Guadalupe had already relocated there. In 1968, their youngest son, Rogelio, was born at East Los Angeles Doctor's Hospital. Jose found employment as an unskilled laborer, and worked for many years at the Aerol Company in the community of Glassel Park. He worked as a driver and assembly line manufacturer. During this time, Antonieta dedicated herself to raising her children and maintaining the household of seven in a one-bedroom apartment. Though they endured years of financial hardship and personal sacrifice, their children today marvel at the realization that although they were poor, they never once wanted for food or shelter. They rejoiced in the abundance of love that these two devoted people brought to their home. In 1974, after eldest sons Jose and Jorge had left for college, Jose and Antonleta became part of a group of parents called Padres Unidos who were dissatisfied with the quality of education and facilities offered at Magnolia Elementary School, which their children had attended or were attending. They protested, boycotted, and risked arrest demanding adequate facilities and a quality education for their children. Soon afterward, Antonieta began her second career as a Title III Education Aide with the Los Angeles Unified School District. She worked for the school district from 1976 to 1996. Jose Vargas retired in 1988. Today, Jose and Antonieta take joy in the success of their children and grandchildren. Their eldest son, Jose, graduated from California State University at Northridge and the Physician Assistant Program at the Martin Luther King, Jr./Charles R. Drew Medical Center. He is married to Juanita Perez and they have two children, Joel, age 17, and Justene, age 14. Jose is a Physician Assistant with a private medical doctor and his wife, Juanita, is a public school teacher in Los Angeles. Son Jorge is a graduate of Pepperdine University and Southwest University College of Law. He has worked as an attorney with the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board, the Monterey County District Attorney, and presently with the California State Compensation Board. He lives in Salinas, California with his wife, Diane Pena, and two sons, Nicholas, age 15, and Benjamin, age 11. Daughter Maria Antonieta graduated from the University of California at Los Angeles, UCLA, where she was a leader in an overnight camping program for disadvantaged urban youth. She has been a senior manager in the private sector her entire career. An avid sports enthusiast, she lives in Long Beach, California. Son Arturo graduated from Stanford University with bachelor's and master's degrees. He currently is the Executive Director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, NALEO, and resides in Los Angeles. Youngest son Rogelio is a graduate of California State University at Northridge and a member of the Los Angeles City Fire Department. He is married to Kristin Fredrickson and has three children: Olivia, age 17 months, and three-month old fraternal twins, Daniela and Julia. Today, Jose and Antonieta enjoy their retirement years in the Los Angeles community of Highland Park. Mr. Speaker, as they embark upon the next fifty years of marriage, it gives me great pleasure to join family and friends who honor Jose and Antonieta Vargas with a commemorative mass and celebration on May 11, 2002. Jose and Antonieta exemplify what love, determination and honest, hard work bestow upon a marriage, a family, and the fortunate generations to follow. I ask my colleagues to join me in paying deserved tribute to two humble but immensely accomplished Americans.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by first acknowledging the work of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode) for his efforts to recognize the true national security interests that we have and the domestic security interests that I believe the gentleman is trying to raise through this amendment. But, Mr. Chairman, the President did not request this amendment. The Department of Defense did not request this amendment. The Department of Justice, which houses the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, did not request this amendment. The Department of the Treasury, which houses our Customs Service, did not request this amendment. The governors and the States that control our National Guard did not request this amendment. So why are we doing this amendment? This is the House of Representatives. This is not the war room or the White House situation room. We should let those who know best how to deploy our military services, our men and women in uniform, to make those decisions. We are not day to day the best judges of how to deploy our troops, but that is what this amendment goes to. Let us remember something here. If we have civilian law enforcement work and oversight and deployment that must take place, we have civilian law enforcement to do that work, our Border Patrol, our Customs agents, our National Guard. They should be doing that work along the border. Right now the President has the authority if there is an emergency to deploy our troops. But why clutter the law with something that does nothing to make it clear how we best use our troops. In fact, this undermines our security. It undermines our readiness because it takes troops from their units where they are best deployed by the minds of the generals in our services and places them, based on the minds of people who sit here today, along our borders. That is not the way to conduct military operations. I am not in the military, but I can tell Members something, I know I do not know as well as our generals where to put our troops. I will put my faith and confidence in our generals. Members should do the same. This amendment, while perhaps well-intentioned, does nothing except cost us more money and undermine our readiness, and for that reason it should not be approved. I respect the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode), I think he is well-intentioned, but I do not believe that this goes where we wish to go. If Members do not believe that, just look at our past history. The one time when we recently deployed our troops along the border, what was the reminder, what was the relic of that brief deployment, the death of a U.S. citizen, an 18-year-old by the name of Ezequiel Hernandez, who was herding his sheep and was killed by our own Army personnel by mistake. Let us not make the mistake again.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise along with my colleague from Illinois and salute our workers in the Customs Service who have worked so valiantly, and have tired in many cases, but continue to stand strong in support of security for Americans here and abroad. I rise in support of H. Res. 385, which honors the heroic acts of our men and women assigned to the United States Customs Service in New York City, and the operations that have been there for quite some time, not only during the attack on September 11, but immediately following the attacks, and they continue to this day with their service. This resolution recognizes the critical importance Customs employees play as our front line of security. Too often we forget that before that problem, that terror enters our country, it is the people of the Customs Service who are there to make sure it does not come in. We must continue to provide the New York Customs employees with the resources they need to continue full and effective operations in protecting Americans. I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) of the Committee on Appropriations for their leadership in bringing this resolution to the House floor for approval. The Customs Service was struck directly by the attacks of September 11. The Customs building, which was located at 6 World Trade Center, and which served as a headquarters for much of the Customs Service's northeast operations, was struck dramatically. It was completely destroyed. All of the offices were affected. Debris from the Twin Towers completely destroyed the offices of the Customs Service. Fortunately, or miraculously, all 800 of the Customs Service employees escaped unharmed, 760 employees who worked there permanently, and 40 who were there for meetings. Not one died. Within an hour of the terrorist attacks, the Customs Service placed all of its personnel and facilities on a Level 1 Alert, which of course means enhanced security and questioning of those who are entering the U.S. is put on even greater status, and it also calls for increased inspections of travelers and goods at every port of entry. Because of the continuing terrorist threat, as of today, the Customs Service remains at Level 1 Alert status. What does that mean? Well, it could mean 12- to 16-hour days. It means virtually all nonemergency leave has been canceled. It means overtime for inspectors tripled, and in some cases, many Customs employees have been temporarily transferred outside of their area to places and assignments such as at our northern border, far away from their families. Many of our Customs employees are still displaced. Within hours of the attack, Customs New York employees set up temporary operation centers at nearby JFK Airport. They are still there. There are many of our Customs employees in New Jersey at Port Elizabeth. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to provide the support for Customs Service to reestablish its full presence in New York City. If the brave men and women of the Customs Service refused to cower from the challenges which they faced on September 11, we should be willing to help them return to Manhattan where they will again rise to the challenge. Madam Speaker, our Customs Service personnel, day in and day out, have fought against violence, against terrorism, not just on September 11, but I can recall in December of 1999, it was a Customs inspector who apprehended Ahmed Ressam, a suspected terrorist who was captured at Port Angeles, Washington, and apparently had planned to bomb a terminal at Los Angeles International Airport in my city of Los Angeles in late 1999. On October 30, 2001, we lost a Customs inspector in the line of duty in Louisiana. A U.S. Customs inspector, Thomas Murray, a 31-year veteran, entered a freighter, but never came out. Apparently, he succumbed to toxin fumes in the hold of the vessel. I offer condolences to his wife and children, his parents and his brothers, and I thank him for giving his life in the service of his country. That is the life of a Customs Service officer. That is what we stand today honoring. We continue to do so because they will not stop. Madam Speaker, it is great that we are here today recognizing the work of the Customs Service personnel. I am pleased that both the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) have taken the time to recognize them today. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I hope this body will recognize that Chairman Istook and Ranking Member Hoyer were instrumental in ensuring that the Customs Service received the $36 million which it needed for up-front reconstruction to enable it to reestablish operations in New York and begin to replace badly needed equipment in a very short period of time. We owe a great deal of gratitude to both of those gentlemen and all the members of the Committee on Appropriations who made that possible. Further, the congressional support that was offered quickly to the Customs Service provided for overtime funding for inspectors and agents and was critical in helping them to complete their assignment to battle against terrorism, to patrol our airspace, and to safeguard our coastal waters. This prompt response gave Customs the tools it needed to secure our borders quickly in the face of immediate threat. To the men and women in Customs, we say, you have earned our respect and you deserve this tribute. I look very much forward to the vote in passing this resolution. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, this morning I was unavoidably detained, and therefore unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall No. 99, on Approving the Journal. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 99.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Let me make sure we have this straight. The bill that we have before us is to correct something that our friends on the Republican side did a year ago when we passed the tax bill that cost about $1.3 trillion, but when we cost it out a lot more than that because they did not want to show the American people how much it really would cost. Now we are seeing. In the decade from 2012 forward for those 10 years, it is about another $4 trillion. What does that translate to, because $4 trillion is something none of us will ever see. Come 2010, my colleagues can expect that the top 1 percent of Americans, the richest Americans, will get about an average of $53,000 in a tax cut; and 60 percent of Americans will average about $347 in 2010 from that tax cut. What does that mean? Well, somehow we have to pay for it. How do we pay for it? We take every single cent out of the Medicare trust fund. We take every single cent out of the Social Security trust fund, and all that surplus money, and we spend it to pay for this tax cut. How do we do that? We did it back in the 80s. We did it with this. It made very good use of this card. It was one of those we cannot pay now, but we will pay later. And who pays? I have got three daughters. They will be paying this credit card. Who else pays? If someone has some kids, that is who will be paying. Why are we doing this? We should be the stewards of the people's money. We are in the people's House, and it is our responsibility to be responsible stewards of the people's money which they put into Social Security, which they put into Medicare. And what are we doing? At a time when we know we are already in deficit, we are going to go further into it. This is not the thing to do. Do what any American house would do, and that is, be responsible with their money, plan for the future for their kids and retirement. Let us not pass this bill.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I hope that the debate is not as confusing to folks who are watching this as to those of us who are sitting here and listening. I want to first commend the gentleman from Virginia for his effort to try to deal with this issue. I do not believe he goes far enough, but I do want to recognize that my friend and colleague from Virginia has made some efforts; and he has always, I know, in committee made efforts to try to be reasonable, and quite honestly I believe is someone who has his heart in the right place. So I want to make sure I mention that. The issue for many of us is that the proposal that I believe the gentleman from Virginia is bringing up that conferees from the Republican side of the aisle brought to the conference for discussion while it did do a good job when it came to children, it did not do a good job for the parents of those children; and as a result, many of the conferees on the Democratic side had to oppose the proposal by the gentleman. If the gentleman would be willing to put forth his proposal with regard to his children and the disabled and with refugees and then we work out the disagreement with regard to adults, I think we could go somewhere because I think all of us want to take care of kids. None of us want to see a child go to school malnourished, because we know from our own experience, forget about the research. From our own experience as parents, what happens if a child goes to school hungry? So we can get somewhere, and I believe there is a fix here; but I would hope that we would not undermine the ability to help families who are working. We are not talking about families on welfare, families who are working to make sure they sustain their families at the basic level. We are not talking about giving these folks a chance to go buy the lollipops and the Popsicle and all the extra stuff. We are talking about basic food stuffs. Remember that the people we are talking about are for the most part working American families that have not yet become citizens, but have been here for quite some time; and the study shows most of them work longer hours than do most native-born Americans. Unfortunately, because they work in jobs for the most part that pay $7.50 an hour or less, about 42 percent of those work in those kind of jobs, they have a hard time. They are working. They do not get benefits. They have no health care. They are the people that are mowing our lawns, caring for our seniors, for our grandparents. They are the people who are caring for our kids; and because those are professions, those are occupations which we have not yet in this country come to recognize as valuable, believe it or not, caring for our kids, the people who care for our kids we pay them less than $7.50 an hour, they suffer especially during recessions. All we are saying, let us not do it to folks who are trying to do it the right way, not by applying for welfare: working, working long hours, working two jobs. Let us help them make sure that their kids are fed decently. Let us make sure we do not make them have to miss a rent payment to feed their kids, and we could do that without causing others to suffer. I believe this is something we can work out. We should support this motion to recommit by the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, due to business in my District on Tuesday, April 9, 2002, I was unable to cast my floor vote on roll call numbers 80, 81, and 82. The votes I missed include roll call vote 80, on Approving the Journal; roll call vote 81, on Motion to Suspend the Rules and agree to H. Res. 377, Recognizing the Ellis Island Medal of Honor and commending the National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations; and roll call vote 82 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended, H.R. 3958, the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge Settlement Act. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on roll call votes 80, 81, and 82.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I wish the gentleman from Oklahoma had been here 3 hours ago when we were asking for a chance to speak, to present a budget, to not be gagged, to have a chance under the rules of the House of Representatives, the people's House, to debate. But under the Republican rule, which manages and controls all the time, we do not have an opportunity to present any plan because my colleagues will not give us a chance to present any plan. So what we have to deal with is what you give us. I remember 2 years ago we had a President who said, and this was during harder times, he said we are going to save Social Security first. It seems now we have a President and colleagues on the other side who say because we have hard economic times, and because we have to pass a budget, we have to take from Social Security first; take these tax cuts, that will go mostly to the well-to-do and large corporations, like Enron; take from Social Security first to fund programs like Star Wars, and you are going to take from education. Mr. President, please explain to me why you will not fund drug-free school programs. Mr. President, please explain to me why you will not fund dropout prevention programs in our schools. Mr. President, please explain why you and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will not fund school construction monies so we can build more schools in our overcrowded systems. Mr. President, please explain to me why we gutted the monies for classroom size reduction so our kids would not have to be 30 in a classroom to learn. Take from Social Security first? I intend to try to save Social Security first. And if I had a chance to present a budget, I would show you how we could save Social Security first. But you do not. Instead, we have a security blanket that is thrown around this budget. Everything is security. Well, by your raiding Social Security and Medicare by about $1 trillion, we could fund eight wars on terrorism. Instead, we are giving money to the well-to-do and corporations like Enron. Vote against this budget because it does not deserve our vote and the American people do not want it. Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. My colleagues, there is a legitimate difference of opinion on what constitutes sound economic stimulus for this economy. We all support emergency help for the unemployed Americans, over a million that have exhausted their benefits. There is even widespread support for the tax extenders, such as the work opportunity tax credits. And there is even majority support in the body for the accelerated depreciation of company assets. But there is not bipartisan, bicameral support to pass massive tax cuts that benefit large corporations like Enron and the well-to-do in America, especially when those tax cuts are paid for by workers' contributions to Social Security. These tax cuts raid the Social Security Trust Fund and deepen the deficit by $72 billion this year alone. So let us pass what we all say we agree on: help and relief for the unemployed American. And then let us come back and do the other good, reasonable work on economic stimulus. But do not hold Americans hostage while we bicker. We toyed with Americans back in September when we passed this airline bailout bill of billions of dollars for corporations, and we were told it would help American workers. It did not. My colleagues toyed last night, the Republican leadership in this House, with campaign finance reform; but we were successful in getting it through. Even Enron toyed with its workers by making them lose all their money in their pension funds and displacing them and now having them unemployed. It is time to stop toying with the American worker. It is time for us to do some work. There are adults who are unemployed; let us act like adults and get some work done. Unanimously the Senate said let us at least do unemployment relief for American workers. We can do the same thing. Let us be big enough to know there are differences of opinion. Let us come together and do what is right for the American worker and then come back and do what else is right for the American economy. But do not hold the American workers hostage. I hope my colleagues will not vote for this because they think it is going to help. It is a sham and it will not work. Let us help American workers today.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, ``Hundreds of thousands of immigrants take the oath of citizenship every year. Each has come not only to take, but to give. They come asking for a chance to work hard, support their families, and rise in the world. And together they make our Nation more, not less, American.'' Those are not my words. Those are the words of George W. Bush, the President of the United States. He said that while he was flanked by two individuals who happened to have been former lawful permanent residents, his Secretary of Labor, Elaine Chao, and his Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Mel Martinez, who are now U.S. citizens. You seek to deprive people like Secretary Martinez and Secretary Chao, and my mother, the opportunity to participate in this process. Today we can argue on the floor of this House about the freedoms of this country, while people stand in Afghanistan to secure our freedom and stand at our airports to secure our freedom. Let us stand with them as they stand with us.