Xavier Becerra

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. In a letter dated July 24, 2000, the National Council of Senior Citizens described this bill that we are debating today as an irresponsible political gesture to upper-income persons which will have severe consequences for the Social Security System and the solvency of the Medicare part A trust fund. Today, my colleagues, 12 million Medicare benefits lack prescription drug coverage. Twelve million seniors who, on a daily basis, have to decide, ``Do I buy my prescription drugs or do I buy my food? Do I pay my rent or do I pay for my medicine?'' Twelve million. And today we are talking about a bill that will take $117 billion out of a system which right now cannot even provide prescription drug coverage to 12 million of those senior citizens. Mr. Speaker, we are here today debating a bill that does absolutely nothing for four out of five of those seniors when we talk about tax cuts. Let me say that again because it gets lost in the shuffle of all these words. This is a tax cut bill that will cost $117 billion over the next 10 years; $117 billion that will go to people out in America in a tax cut, who are seniors, but only to one out of every five of those seniors. Four of those five seniors will get nothing because this bill benefits only 20 percent of the most affluent of our seniors who are retired. On top of that, we do nothing in the future about prescription drug coverage. We do not talk about doing something on education for our kids, we cannot talk about retiring the debt this Nation has, but what we are talking about is pulling out one of these things we see so often. My colleagues probably know about this. When we go to the store to buy some things and our kids say, ``Oh, can you get me that, daddy? Can you get me that?'' My daughters say that to me all the time. They think I have all sorts of money. So what a lot of people do is say, well, I will charge it. Put it on my card. I will charge it again. And before we know it, we have put so much on this card, that somebody has to pay for it. And if it cannot be us, it will be the future. Let us not do this to the future or to our seniors. Let us not get caught up in politics.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on June 10 and 11, 2000, I was detained with business in my District, and therefore unable to cast my votes on rollcall numbers 373 through 385. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voed ``aye'' on rollcall votes 375, 377, 379, 380, 381, 382, and 385; and ``nay'' on rollcall votes 373, 374, 376, 378, 383, and 384.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. We passed a bill that would cost us, once fully phased in, $50 billion a year to provide relief to 2 percent of taxpayers when we cut the estate tax. The 2 percent of the taxpayers happen to represent the 2 percent wealthiest taxpayers in America, and 98 percent of all American families would not participate in any of that tax cut. That will cost about $50 billion once it is fully phased in. This bill, which purports to provide relief for married couples, would cost about $30 billion per year as well once it is fully phased in. When we start adding it up, we start to realize that if we do do all of these things, we will not have money to do some other things. Like what? Well, we are fighting on this floor these days to try to figure out a way to provide seniors with a way to pay for not an estate tax, when we have a massive estate and we are trying to avoid taxes on it, but trying to help them pay for basic coverage for drugs that they need, prescription drugs that they need, just to continue a healthy lifestyle as seniors. We cannot get there. We have not done that yet. Yet, we will not have the money to pay for the cost of helping seniors afford prescription drugs so they do not have to make the decision between their prescription drugs or their rent or their prescription drugs or their food because we are going to spend it on giving a tax cut in the estate tax repeal bill that will benefit only the 2 percent richest families in America. We are now talking about doing a marriage tax penalty relief that will benefit in many cases families that are not even being penalized. About half of the benefits of this bill go to families that are not even being penalized, so-called penalized, under the marriage penalty because they are families where there are two income earners, and one of the income earners happens to be very high earning and the other very low earning, but because this is a bill that gives an across-the- board cut to anyone who is married, even those who are benefiting from the Tax Code, and that includes that working family where there is one very high-earning spouse and the other a low-earning spouse, we are still going to give them a benefit, when in fact what we are trying to do is make sure there is no so-called penalty for any couple that decides to get married as compared to two people who stay single to live together. How unfortunate that what we are planning to do is to provide tax cuts and not help seniors, unfortunate that we are looking to do tax cuts that benefit mostly wealthy folks and not help seniors, trying to do this and not protect young people who are trying to go on to school and perhaps make it on to college; do these tax cuts that help mostly wealthy individuals, and not help shore up our Armed Forces, where we have Armed Forces personnel, some of our men and women in uniform, who are on food stamp programs because we cannot give them enough money. Why do we not start to do the right things first, get rid of those things that we need to do first, work on passing legislation that deals with the important parts of getting our seniors their benefits, getting our men and women in the Armed Forces the monies they need in their salaries, and then we go on to do the tax cuts that will benefit all people, not just the wealthy?

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I truly thank the gentleman for yielding the 1 minute to me. Mr. Speaker, what American seniors want is a real plan, a plan that is defined, a plan that is dependable and guaranteed with regard to the benefit for prescription drugs, and a plan that fits within Medicare. Does H.R. 4680 provide any of those things? No, it does not. H.R. 4680 puts $40 billion in the hands of the insurance industry and HMOs and says, you now go out and offer in the private sector an insurance policy that right now they are not willing to do, because they do not like to offer insurance plans for prescription drugs to seniors because it costs too much. So by giving them $40 billion, we are giving them a bone saying, okay, you get $40 billion to offset some of those costs. Come on, this is your incentive. Go offer plans in the private sector for folks to buy. This puts nothing in the hands of seniors except a charade. It is giving them a coupon and saying, go out and see if you can find something now for that coupon. Medicare guarantees a right to a doctor, it guarantees a right to a hospital. It should guarantee a right to prescription drugs. Vote against this bill.

Mr. BECERRA

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

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, let me first begin by applauding the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Filner), for his efforts. I know he has done this over many years, trying to fight for the justice of many of the veterans for World War II who fought under the flag of the United States, in fact fought at the insistence of this country. Simply put, what the gentleman is trying to do is trying to restore benefits to which these individuals as veterans were entitled to but were stripped of by affirmative action by this Congress back in the late 1940s. But for the action of this Congress, some 50-odd years ago, these individuals would be receiving these benefits that the gentleman from California are now trying to restore. So I would like to add my voice to the many in this Congress who are supportive of the gentleman's efforts, and, unfortunately, at this time is unable to proceed with this particular amendment. I would hope that my colleagues would recognize the efforts of the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Filner), and at some point soon recognize that we must do something for the ladies and gentlemen who fought in the 1940s to defend this country and are now at the point of passing on. It is time for us to recognize their effort and recognize that this Congress some 54 years ago or so denied them the rights that they had under this Constitution. So I applaud the gentleman for what he does.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on June 15, 2000 and in the early hours of June 16, 2000, I was traveling to my District, and therefore unable to cast my votes on rollcall numbers 280 through 291. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 281, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, and 290; and ``nay'' on rollcall votes 280, 282, 288, 289, and 291.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding; and I hope that my colleagues will vote against this measure. We hear talk about the American dream and how we want to give every American this American dream. Absolutely, we want to give every American this American dream. Every American. When America learns that what we are talking about is not giving ever American the American dream through this bill, but only 2 percent of Americans the American dream, because only 2 percent will ever receive a tax cut in this bill, because only 2 percent of estates ever pay any estate tax. Forget about 98 percent of America, and it is not any 98 percent of America, it is the 98 percent that falls below the 2 percent richest Americans, who will receive nothing. Only the 2 percent most influential and richest will get this break. This is about as irresponsible as we can get. We are facing a time recently where we had $300 billion deficits. We are paying more than $200 billion a year in interest payments on the national debt. We finally have a surplus; we finally have a chance to be fiscally responsible. We finally have a chance to talk about perhaps getting prescription drug coverage for our seniors under Medicare. We finally have a chance to talk about shoring up Social Security. We finally have a chance to talk about giving our kids a chance to break away from the digital divide and have a computer in their classroom. We could pay for a computer for every child in America, rich or poor, with the money we are about to give in tax cuts to 2 percent of America at the top of the ladder. We could provide prescription drug coverage with the money we are going to spend on this, because the $50 billion a year it will cost us is more than what we are budgeting than the Republican Congress is budgeting for prescription drug coverage and Medicare in its budget for the next 5 years. Think of it. The budget that we passed out of this House says $40 billion should be allocated for prescription drug coverage for seniors, millions and millions of seniors. Yet over 1 year, it will take $50 billion out of the Treasury to make up the tax cut that only 2 percent of the wealthiest Americans will receive. That is not responsible. That is not what we should do. Let the American dream live for everyone, not just for 2 percent of Americans.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on May 25, 2000, I was unavoidably detained during rollcall votes: No. 229, on Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 511, Providing for the Consideration of H.R. 3916, to Amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to Repeal the Excise Tax on Telephone and Other Communication Services; No. 230 on Agreeing to the Resolution, H. Res. 511; and No. 231 on Agreeing to the Resolution, H. Con. Res. 331, Commending Israel's Redeployment from Southern Lebanon. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 229, and ``aye'' on rollcall votes 230 and 231.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to join my colleagues in the Congressional Asian Pacific Caucus to commemorate May as Asian Pacific American Heritage Month. The Asian Pacific American experience displays a journey characterized by triumphs and struggles. Like many groups of people who came to America from other shores, Asian Pacific Americans embraced the values of this nation and worked to build a better life in this country while contributing to a stronger America. Indeed, these citizens have enriched our society in virtually every field and facet. Today, I am pleased to recognize such notable Asian Pacific Americans as nuclear physicist Samuel Chao Chung Ting whose work earned him the Nobel Prize. Architects like I.M. Pei and Minoru Yamasaki have made enormous contributions to their profession. I extend my appreciation to athletes like Sammy Lee, Kristi Yamaguchi, Michelle Kwan, and Michael Chang who have represented the United States with inspiration and excellence. Our nation has been enriched by Asian Pacific Americans like these who have done so much to earn the applause of their fellow Americans. As we celebrate the achievements of Asian Pacific Americans, we must also remember the obstacles they endured. Asian immigration into the United States began in the mid 1800's. These immigrants came to work in hopes of a better life. Unfortunately, America did not always extend the torch of liberty to these immigrants. In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act prohibiting immigration from China. Further, in 1917, Congress acted to prohibit immigrants from an area called the Asiatic Barred Zone which included most of Asia and a majority of the islands in the Pacific Ocean. These actions displayed the resistance that America showed towards Asian Americans at that time. One of the most staggering reminders of the discrimination that these Americans faced is the unconscionable internment of more than 100,000 Japanese Americans during World War 11. Branded as disloyal to the very flag they saluted, these Americans of Japanese descent endured tremendous hardship during one of our nation's most trying times. History would eventually vindicate these loyal Americans as not even a single documented case of sabotage or espionage was committed by an American of Japanese ancestry during that time. Indeed, the Japanese American soldiers of the 44nd combat regiment, the most decorated group of soldiers in American history, proved their devotion for this country as they fought for our nation even as their own family members stood locked behind barbed wires. Truly, Asian Pacific Americans of every stripe have proven their love for their country. I am privileged to represent Los Angeles, home to the largest Asian Pacific American population in the United States. This is a thriving community of people who exemplify American values and a love for our nation. That is why it is so appropriate that we celebrate the profound contributions of Asian Pacific Americans to this country. Accordingly, I stand with my colleagues in observing May as Asian Pacific American Heritage month and salute this rich and diverse community.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 331, and wish to commend the Government of Israel for its courageous decision to unilaterally withdraw its troops from Southern Lebanon. As Israel demonstrates its willingness to take risks for peace in the Middle East, the international community must rise to its obligation to ensure that Southern Lebanon never again becomes a staging ground for attacks against Israel. We must stand by Israel during these difficult times, recognize Israel's right to self defense found in Chapter 7, Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, and work toward peace for the citizens of Israel and all the Middle East.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of PNTR. I would like to begin by thanking the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui); and, of course, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) for their leadership in this particular measure. I would also like to thank the Committee on Rules for putting forward the Levin-Bereuter parallel language that will ensure that we have mechanisms to monitor China and to try to get us closer to freer and fairer trade. I do not disagree with those who say that human rights is a problem, that worker conditions are a problem, environmental conditions are a problem in China. They are. One cannot pick up a newspaper without reading about the persecution of the Falun Gong. Worker rights, they still do not exist in China, and certainly we know that China has not been the best in enforcing the agreements it has signed. The question is not so much that China has not done the best it could. The question is, how do we get it to perform better? Is it better to try to engage it and bring it along so it can join the community of nations? Or is it better to shove it off to the corner, put on a dunce cap and say they cannot come out of the corner until they act better? Isolation has been proven over the centuries to not work. Engagement, while it may work slowly, works. I would rather tell China, join us and do it the right way than tell them sit in that corner until we think they are doing the right thing. It is time for us to understand that we cannot close our eyes to China. China has problems. It will have problems for a long time; but it is up to us, as the leader in this world, to bring China, as we have done with other countries, forward so it can act among the community of nations the way we would like to see it act. I have the very basic concerns that many of my colleagues who are going to vote no have as well, but I cannot close my eyes to the fact that China is big, it is here, and it is not going away. Let us learn from our experiences. Let us move forward, and let us use the power of the greatest democracy in the world to show the rest of the world that China, too, can join us as neighbor and partner and be part of that community of nations that will make us proud to trade with them freely and fairly.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, due to a commitment in my district on Monday, May 15, 2000, I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall Nos. 180-182. The votes I missed include rollcall vote 180 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Res. 491, naming a room in the House of Representatives wing of the Capitol in honor of G.V. ``Sonny'' Montgomery; rollcall vote 181 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended H.R. 4251, Congressional Oversight of Nuclear Transfers to North Korea Act; and rollcall 182 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Con. Res. 309, Expressing the Sense of the Congress with Regard to in-School Personal Safety Education Programs for Children. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 180, 181, and 182.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, H.R. 434, and its conference report. First let me begin by acknowledging the men who made this bill possible. Certainly this is a bill that was born of sheer determination on the part of a number of individuals. Principally those that I know of, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), who did not allow this bill to ever see anything but light; and certainly the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane); the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer); and, of course, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), who I know worked tremendously on this bill as well. I would like to applaud their effort, because for many moments many did not believe this bill would ever get to the President's desk. Certainly here we see that sheer will can get you there. H.R. 434 left the House in a troubled state. There were legitimate concerns raised over the rights of workers, the misuse of African nations as mere stopping points in the transshipment of textiles from other countries trying to dump their products in America. But I am very pleased to say that H.R. 434 has come to this floor prepared for signature by the President of the of the United States. The transshipment language is the best we have seen to date, the textile provisions are improved from what came out of committee, and the labor provisions certainly face us in the direction we need to be heading with all of our trade agreements. Our partners in Africa and the Caribbean deserve to know we are serious about our partnerships with them and that we are serious about building relationships that are meaningful and that they will work in the future. They are ready in Africa and the Caribbean, they are willing, and now they are simply waiting. Mr. Speaker, I will support this legislation because it recognizes that it is time for us to treat the African nations and the Caribbean the way we would treat some of our partners we have negotiated with for many years, and let them know we are with them in partnership, to have them advance and become solid, meaningful trading partners with America. It is time for this bill to become law. I am pleased to be able to support this legislation.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, today I support H.R. 4163, the ``Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2000.'' Last month when the House Ways and Means Committee considered this bill, I raised concerns about the apparent lack of oversight of State taxing authorities that use Federal tax return information. This bill recognizes breaches of taxpayer confidentiality at the State level and contains a provision to require that States conduct on- site reviews of all contractors receiving Federal tax return information. However, this bill does not address instances in which state agencies may have inappropriately disclosed Federal tax information. In a recent study on taxpayer confidentiality, the Joint Committee on Taxation found that ``[A]lmost all of the surveyed State taxing authorities reported some discrepancy of one type or another [in their efforts to safeguard tax return information].'' I have personally heard stories from taxpayers about how my state's taxing authority, the California Franchise Tax Board (FTB), has misused and inappropriately disclosed Federal tax information. Some examples include making IRS tax returns public without the consent of the taxpayer and using the threat of disclosure as a tool to try to force taxpayers into concessions. I have even been told that the State's training materials encourage misuse of penalties and other types of inappropriate behavior. In my current position on the House Ways and Means Committee, I plan to do my utmost to ensure that States like my State of California are fully accountable for the privacy of its citizens. I hope to work with other Members of Congress to improve H.R. 4163 by requiring more safeguards and oversight of State taxing authorities' use of Federal tax information.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, for 5 years we have heard the majority talk about changing the Tax Code and giving us something that is better. No one disagrees with that. All of us are here ready and prepared to discuss that. But now, for the last 5 years that we have been discussing it, nothing has been done. We have a bill on the floor that would say in about 4 years, let us get rid of the Tax Code we have, and who knows what we will replace it with? Now, if we are brought up here to be responsible, here to Washington, D.C., then let us give the American people some sense of where we will go. If we cannot do that, then the frustration the American people have expressed with our Tax Code will just grow and grow and grow. Yes, they are all fed up with this current Tax Code. Rather than become more simple, it has become more complex over these last 5 years. What is to make it less complex over the next 4 years as we get ready to scrap it? All we are going to get ready to do is create chaos. If you are an American and you are thinking of buying a home right now, what do you do? Do you buy right now, or wait 4 years from now? Because if we go with one of the ideas out there that we have a national sales tax replace our code where you would not have any more mortgage interest deductions and not be able to deduct the property taxes you pay on that home, should someone buy now, or wait 4 years? Because if you waited 4 years and there is a national sales tax, if you buy a $200,000 home and the sales tax is 30 percent, then you are paying 30 percent tax on that $200,000 purchase. Do you buy now or buy later? What if you are someone who is planning for a funeral for an elderly parent? Do you buy your plot now for your parent, or later? Because if you have a national sales tax, you will pay 30 percent on the purchase of that plot or for that coffin. Or what if you are elderly on a fixed income? What do you do about prescription drug coverage? Do you plan now to buy a whole bunch of drugs now, or wait until that sales tax kicks in at 30 percent? And the Joint Committee on Taxation, our Joint Committee on Taxation, which is to advise us on taxes, tells us that would probably be higher, about 50 to 60 percent. Do you buy drugs now, or wait? This is sheer chaos. The only thing certain about this particular act is the date it would be enacted. But there is no certainty as to what we do with Americans and the taxes. What does the market do? How do we invest? Are we going to be able to have our monies invested in Roth IRAs, or will those be eliminated, so no longer can we put money in the investment accounts and say in the future we will not pay interest on them? What do we do? What is an investor to tell any American that is trying to save money? We have to give the American people some sense of what is going on. We have had 5 years of discussions, and we have not come up with anything. So, yes, let us reform the code. Let us make it simpler. Let us make it so everyone believes it is fair. But let us give the American people some sense of where we are going. Let us not do anything that makes it less certain. The only thing certain about this bill is it makes it clear what date this is. This is an election year.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the minute. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1776, and I applaud the gentleman from New York (Chairman Lazio) and the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), and all the members of the committee for the work they have done to increase homeownership for American working families. I am especially heartened to see that the manager's amendment expands the eligibility for the Teacher Next Door program to include law enforcement officers and fire fighters and other safety personnel; that program which has been renamed the Community Partners Next Door program, which offers HUD-foreclosed homes to these individuals at a 50 percent discount, will go a long way not only in increasing homeownership, but also in helping these communities have professionals and role models available and living in their communities. I would like to work with the gentleman from New York (Chairman Lazio) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) and the members of the committee in trying to, perhaps, expand the program a bit more to increase the pool of homes that would be made available. Only 4,000 of the 45,000 HUD-foreclosed homes would be available at this point under the program. I think there is work that we can do to try to expand the pool of homes beyond the 4,000 so that more than of the 4 million or so people who qualify could be available. I look forward to working with the committee. And I request a yes vote.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, due to a commitment in my district on Tuesday, March 21, 2000, I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall numbers 56 and 57. The votes I missed include rollcall vote 56 on Suspending the Rules and Agreeing to H. Con. Res. 288, Recognizing the importance of families and children in the United States and expressing support for the goals and ideas of National Family Day; and rollcall vote 57 on Suspending the Rules and Agreeing to H. Res. 182, Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the National Park Service should take full advantage of support services offered by the Department of Defense. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 56 and 57.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I support the Democratic substitute because I want to provide honest marriage penalty relief for the more than 44 million families in my congressional district. But I also want to protect the Social Security and Medicare benefits that are enjoyed by more than 42,000 of my constituents, as well; and I also want to reduce the more than $8.4 billion that my constituents must bear of the more than $3.6 trillion in debt that the Federal Government right now holds. Mr. Speaker, the reason we have problems is because this plan, under H.R. 6, does nothing on Social Security. It does not strengthen it. Where is the plan to strengthen Medicare? Where is the plan to reduce that $3.6 trillion Federal debt? There is no plan because this Congress yet has to come up with a budget. We have done nothing to come up with a budget. We are treating this particular issue on marriage tax penalty like a child in a candy store. Give the child a dollar, that child is going to come back with $5 worth of candy to purchase. If we tell the child about a budget, the child will say, what budget? Congress cannot handle the budget for all of America's families like a child in a candy store. In my city of Los Angeles, where more than four out of every five people in the city make less than $70,000, few of them will benefit, because 70 percent of the benefits in this particular bill before us, H.R. 6, goes to those who make more than $70,000. That is not fair. By 2010, when this fully takes effect, 47 percent of American families with two children will receive nothing or less than the tax relief that this bill proposes to give to America's families. That is not tax relief for America's families. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty for married couples. Let us all agree to that. But let us do it right, let us do it fairly, and let us do it responsibly within the framework of a responsible budget. Let us get our act together. Let us do it the way American families do it, figure out how much money we have and then figure out how much money we can spend and invest. But, before that, do not put the cookies and candy in front of the children because they take it; and at the end of the day, we will not have the money to pay for it.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Los Angeles County University of Southern California Medical Center (LAC+USC) for its outstanding commitment to community service, as recognized by the Baxter Allegiance and the American Hospital Association. Only one institution each year is awarded the prestigious Foster G. McGraw prize for innovative health-care programs and expedited access to care. LAC+USC earned that recognition this year, an especially impressive achievement given that just a few years ago this hospital was on the brink of closure. The LAC+USC Healthcare Network has successfully indentified the unique needs of its surrounding population and found creative solutions to address those needs. For example, learning that childhood asthma represented the number one cause of school absenteeism in the Los Angeles Unified School District, LAC+USC's Healthcare Network formed a partnership with the school district and the Allergy and Asthma Foundation of America to establish a Mobile Asthma Clinic. The Mobile Asthma Clinic has since reduced absenteeism by more than 20 percent for children seen by the clinic, nearly 65 percent of the children served has gained control of their asthma, and related emergency room use has declined by 18 percent. This program is just one of many innovative approaches the LAC+USC Healthcare Network has implemented to deliver top-notch health care to hard-to-serve population, others include: the Violence Intervention program, the Day Care Center, the Trauma Outreach Program and the Safe Kids program. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the Los Angeles County University of Southern California Medical Center for the extraordinary and commitment it has demonstrated in bridging the health care gap for Los Angelenos.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, it is somewhat eerie that just two days after the Alaska Airlines disaster, where an MD-80 jetliner crashed and killed some 88 passengers, we are now talking about absolving companies that manufacture defective products of their liability for those products. California, January, 1995, Reginald Gonzalez, 47 years of age, was operating a printing press designed and manufactured in 1973, 22 years earlier, by Heidelberg, Incorporated, when his hand became caught in the rollers, resulting in the traumatic amputation of his arm at the shoulder. Testimony during the trial revealed that the company that manufactured the product had added safeguards to the printing press model in 1974 after it had been manufactured initially, and again in 1980, yet never took steps to notify the prior owners of the machine's dangerous defect. It was also learned in 1995 that at least eight other pressmen had their arms amputated or crushed while operating those pre-1974 presses. A jury found in favor of Mr. Gonzalez in the amount of $4 million for the loss of his ability to work. North Dakota, 1983, Todd Hefta was crushed to death while working for the city of Williston. Hefta was standing behind a 12-ton earth packer machine when another worker started the packer in gear. The packer, which was manufactured in 1963, 20 years earlier, by Ingraham Company, suddenly lunged backward at a rapid rate of speed, crushing Mr. Hefta. In both of those cases, if this bill were law, none of those individuals would get any compensation whatsoever. They would be having to rely, if they happened to have survived, on workers compensation. In the case of Mr. Hefta, who passed away, he is out of luck. If we pass this legislation today and if it were signed by the President today, any product manufactured prior to February 2, 1982, would now be absolved of any type of liability. That means any earth- moving machine, any assembly line machine that happens to cause damage to the workplace and certainly injury or death to the worker would be allowed to go forward without any type of liability. We cannot do that. Let us not pass this legislation. Vote against H.R. 2005.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, due to a commitment in my district on Monday, January 31, 2000, I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall Nos. 2-3. The votes I missed include rollcall vote No. 2 on Suspending the Rules and agreeing to H. Con. Res. 244, Authorizing the Use of the Rotunda for Holocaust Memorial; and rollcall vote No. 3 on Suspending the Rules and Agreeing to Senate Amendments to H.R. 2130, the Hillory J. Farias and Samantha Reid Date-Rape Prevention Drug Act of 1999. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes Nos. 2 and 3.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with profound sadness in my heart to pay tribute to Mr. Joe Serna, Jr. Joe Serna, Jr. lived a life which exemplified what is best in the American dream. Joe grew up the son of immigrant farm laborers. Throughout his youth, he worked tirelessly on behalf of migrant farm workers under the guidance of his role model, Cesar Chavez. The experience gave Joe great strength of character and led him to dedicate his life to the service of others. As a professor of government and ethics at California State University at Sacramento, Joe continued to be a champion and advocate of migrant worker rights while also reaching out to the young minds in his classrooms. Joe was elected to the Sacramento City Council on November 3, 1981 and served there until his election as mayor of Sacramento on November 3, 1992. In rising to mayor of Sacramento, Joe became the first Latino mayor of a major California city. Joe was known by all as a man of the highest ethic and integrity. He was a master coalition builder, always working for the common good. Joe leaves behind a powerful legacy as a revitalizer of his city, and as a crusader for educational reform. My personal memory of him will be as a friend and role model. He was a man who could have held some of the highest government posts in the Capitol of the United States, Washington, DC. I say this from close, personal knowledge. Instead, Joe chose to serve the people of another great Capitol--Sacramento, my hometown, and the place to which he devoted his life and energy. Joe Serna, Jr. will be greatly missed in both Sacramento and throughout the State which he so valiantly sought to improve and see prosper.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, today we are on the verge of passing a budget bill that breaks our commitment to effect real change in the areas of Social Security, Medicare reform, prescription drug coverage for seniors, managed care reform, gun control, minimum wage, campaign finance reform, and immigrants rights. Our constituents deserve better than a bill that fails to deliver meaningful solutions to these problems. After a full year in the 106th Republican-controlled Congress, this body has only enacted one significant piece of legislation (the ``Financial Modernization Act of 1999''). This breach of duty leaves me no choice but to vote no on H.R. 3194. We find ourselves six weeks into the 1999-2000 fiscal year without a complete budget and facing an omnibus bill that haphazardly lumps together five of the thirteen necessary appropriations measures needed to keep the government from shutting down. So it should come as no surprise that, six weeks late and with less than 24 hours to read H.R. 3194, we are locked into a final, single vote--yes or no--on a crucial funding bill littered with special interest, deceptive, and other egregious yet-to-be discovered provisions. Despite Republican promises to protect Social Security, this bill raids the Social Security Trust Fund by at least $17 billion. Equally offensive is the decision to exclude Congress members' paychecks from the ``across the board'' spending cut indiscriminately imposed on all discretionary spending. This same irresponsibility manifests itself on the international front, as a woman's right to choose is threatened by an imprudent return to Reagan-era limits on indispensable aid to respected international family planning organizations. Things did not have to come to this point. H.R. 3194 could have brought a constructive close to what has otherwise been an unproductive and lost year. Bipartisan cooperation resulted in progress on a number of fronts, including: funding for 100,000 teachers in the classroom, another 50,000 cops on the beat, and additional funding for health- related research. We agreed to promote economic growth by extending the research and experimentation tax credit, and we extended needed relief to Medicare providers. Congress did the right thing by increasing pay for military personnel, meeting our financial obligations in the Middle East under the Wye River Accord, and keeping the bill clean of harmful changes to our environmental laws. With the end of Congress' session for 1999 in sight, perhaps the best I can say is that we could have built on these successes had the majority in Congress not decided to handle its work like a crash course in legislating. I look forward to next year, when we will be given another opportunity to complete our unfinished business for the American people.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, today I withdraw my cosponsorship of H.R. 2528. I was an original cosponsor of H.R. 2528, the Immigration Reorganization and Improvement Act of 1999, because I support any effort to jump-start--or better put, restart--the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Chairman Harold Rogers, Chairman Lamar Smith and Representative Silvestre Reyes have worked diligently to fashion a restructuring bill and are doing what they believed best moves us toward that end. I had concerns about the bill when I first signed on. But I felt it was important to support efforts to restructure the INS. I had hoped H.R. 2528 would move in a direction addressing my concerns. However, at this stage I find that the current status of the bill falls short of meeting the elements necessary to make it a meaningful reform that will place the INS on solid footing to effectively address its obligations. History has shown that the INS does not receive the resources necessary to carry out its duties in the area of services and adjudication. This is why the backlog of pending naturalization applications grew to approximately 2.0 million and currently stands at approximately 1.4 million. Far too many of those backlogged applicants waited or have been waiting over 2 years for their cases to be adjudicated. The backlog and delay in other adjudication areas-- adjustments of status and the green card replacement program, for instance--are as bad if not worse than for naturalization. As such, my primary concern pertains to the financing mechanisms within the INS for the services and adjudication functions of the agency. Current law and its implementation fail to meet this challenge. And H.R. 2528 falls far short as well. So long as we continue to require fees collected from immigrants for a particular service to pay for non-fee activities, we will always run into budgetary problems and services will suffer. H.R. 2528 authorizes no funds whatsoever for backlog reduction or asylum and refugee processing. This additional strain on already stretched resources, with no additional funding, will only exacerbate the backlogs as well as undermine the United States' ability to meet the protection needs of refugees and asylum seekers. I am also seriously concerned that H.R. 2528 does not go the necessary mile to ensure that these newly independent agencies of the Department of Justice's immigration until function properly under the oversight and direction of a principal executive. While autonomy for the enforcement and service agencies will allow them to perfect and specialize in their areas of responsibility, too much distance between them could foil the ability of the Department of Justice to direct, coordinate and integrate the overlap in enforcement and service functions. The latest version of H.R. 2528 improves upon the original bill by adding an Assistant Attorney General as that principal in charge. However, it maintains three separate legal and policy offices which will lead to multiple interpretations of immigration, refugee and asylum law. This structure will bear three bureaucracies instead of one and cultivate confusion among the three arms of the agency. I am committed to continuing to work with the authors of H.R. 2528 along with the Immigration Subcommittee members and the Clinton administration to strengthen the structure of the INS so that it can finally, rightfully handle all duties under its charge. The people of America who must turn to the INS for services--and who happen to pay the taxes and fees to fund this and all other government operations-- deserve no less.