Xavier Becerra

Mr. BECERRA

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

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, it is time that we finally have Congress addressing this issue involving the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo because, for more than 150 years, we have allowed an injustice to continue in this country. This country, while it has made mistakes, has always been strong enough to come up and stand up and say when it has been wrong; and that is one of the things that makes me very proud to be able to serve in this legislative body for this country. It is time to address the injustice caused by the theft that occurred years ago of property held by thousands of people in the Southwest that was taken from them as a result of our government's representations to these people. Good faith representations to these people, through a treaty that these people would have rights and they would be treated in ways that accorded to law. And those folks depended on that contract, that treaty that was signed with the U.S. Government, and they did so in good faith. But I look at H.R. 2538, and I ask myself, is this the right vehicle to try to redress those injustices? And I look within H.R. 2538 for something that tells me there are teeth in this bill that will allow us to actually redress the wrongs committed against many people and their offspring, and I see no teeth. What I do find is a procedural nightmare. I find a system that allows a commission to be created. And by the way, we often know what happens with commissions. We can talk about all the commissions we have now that have nothing but vacancies and are doing no work. And we have a commission, if it should happen to get impaneled, that has no teeth to do anything. It could recommend to Congress that certain people be compensated, that redress be provided, but there is nothing in the bill that would require Congress to do anything with that commission report. So what does that do? It leaves those who were affected and left without redress in a position of hope, and it leaves those, many of whom today are innocent purchasers and holders of property in these affected areas, with now clouded title over that property. Because, see, that property that they purchased, and I am talking about those who are innocent purchasers, those who purchased that property not knowing that there was any problem with how it was acquired by a predecessor owner, now will say I have a deed to this land but there is a commission that says I really do not have a right to it. So what the heck do I get to do with this land? Can I sell it? Who will want to purchase property that may be taken away by a commission? But yet those who seek the redress, who had the property through their forefathers taken from them, have no way to get redress, anything back, whether it is the land or some compensation because Congress is not required to do anything in this bill. So we leave not only those who for generations faced an injustice in limbo, but we leave also innocent purchasers of property in these areas without redress. There is no requirement for Congress to act on any claim, and that is perhaps the most egregious portion of this bill. And by the way, I think the gentleman from Utah sort of made that point for me earlier in his remarks because he made it clear we do not have to worry about taking land from private landholders because we do not have anything in this bill that would require that that happen. So it proves the point that this bill does not have the teeth we need to truly provide the redress we need. I am here to fight for that redress. I think people who had things stolen from them deserve to have compensation if our Federal Government signed a document saying I promise I will treat you according to the law and we did not fulfill that. But that is not what this bill says. Moreover, I do not believe that the Federal taxpayer should have to carry the burden for what local elected officials and State elected officials did in years gone by. Those injustices by State and local officials should be redressed by States and local governments. And if they are not willing to, then let us have a bill that says they must. Let us not make the Federal taxpayer in New York, in Alabama, in Maine, in Wisconsin pay for the misdeeds of local elected officials in New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado or anywhere else. Another point. This bill deals only with New Mexico. What about the folks in California, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Oklahoma? They also need redress. They are not there. There are many ways to handle this. Senator Bingaman in the Senate has a bill. But this, I do not believe, is a real meaningful effort to do this, and I would ask my colleagues to vote against it.

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

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the effort of the gentleman, because I think there is a need, as I said before, to redress this issue for the people that were denied their rights and property, had those property rights stolen. But answer the question regarding the person who finds that a commission under this bill determines that property claimed by that individual is in fact property that fell under the land grants and, therefore, should revert back to the heirs of those owners of the land grant. What do we do if Congress takes no action on that claim, and what does that mean for the current holder of that property? I do not want to affect the rights of current owners who innocently purchased at the same time I am trying to redress an injustice. I think we have to fight to redress that injustice, but let us not also embroil people who are innocent in this fight for justice, because then we do nothing more than cause a harm while we are trying to correct one.

Mr. BECERRA. If the gentleman will further yield on that point, my understanding is that they will be compensated by taking Federal land, which may be a way to resolve this, but my concern would then be what Federal land?

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I am trying to make sure I have read this bill correctly, and I am reading now on page 11 under section 7, which deals with the report that is to be submitted to the Congress and to the President. It reads, ``As soon as practicable, after reaching its last decision under section 4, the commission shall submit to the President and the Congress a report containing each decision, including the recommendation of the commission regarding whether certain community land grants should be reconstituted so that the Congress may act upon the recommendations.'' My concern again is this is all ``may'', ``might''. It is not a ``shall''. We know in this body if we want to do something we have to say ``you shall do it''. That commands. ``You must do it''. ``May'' says you decide what you want to do. There are a lot of things in law that say ``may'' that we never work on. So to lead people to believe in New Mexico or any other State that this bill will give them redress is, I think, raising hopes to a higher expectation. And it is unfortunate because they will find themselves falling flat on the ground, and it will all be done while we are clouding the opportunity of those innocent purchasers of property to know whether or not they really can hold on to their land or even sell it in the future. I think that is the worst mistake, to embroil innocent folks in a fight that involves the government, which did wrong, with the successors of those who were wrong. That we need to change. And I wish this were a bill that really did have the teeth, because I would love to be able to support something so we could finally close this ugly chapter in American history where we caused pain and we stole from people at the expense of our reputation as a government.

Mr. BECERRA. If the gentleman will further yield, I appreciate that point, because he is right, the folks trying to make these claims are people who, in many cases, have not had access to our courts of justice nor our elected representatives. But my understanding is that it does not resolve the problem of now it appears that we are taking from Peter to give to Paul, and the last thing I want to do is start creating a difficulty with another American. We are all Americans, and I want these Americans to be redressed, but I do not want to do it at the expense of an innocent American. The gentleman may say that the land that would be taken is Federal land, but I would like to know which Federal land? Is it land that is currently used by Americans?

Mr. BECERRA

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

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, let me try to clarify a couple of points. Some of the speakers on the other side of the aisle have said that this bill will not void current consent agreements, compliance agreements we have with about 288 different school districts, voluntarily agreed to. You may want to say they were coerced, but they still took a vote and voluntarily agreed to do this. Section 7404 reads Any compliance agreement entered into between a state, locality or local education agency and the Department of Education is void. ``Is void.'' It does void our compliance agreements that try to help these districts make sure that we are educating all of our children properly. It is a cookie cutter, one-size-fits-all, because it tells those local districts how they must do things. It is an effort to undermine the ability of children to learn English because it does not take the best practices that we have seen from all the research and say this is the way that you can do it, but you do it how you see fit. In San Francisco and San Jose they just finished taking, along with every other school district in the State of California, a standardized test to find out where California's kids are. The kids in San Jose and San Francisco who were graduates of bilingual education programs in those districts, guess what, scored higher than native English speaking children; higher. When Governor Pete Wilson, who is an adamant opponent of bilingual education, when his spokesman was asked how do you react to this, the reaction by Mr. Shawn Walsh was, ``It is remarkable.'' While the Governor was never totally against different types of programs to help kids transition, it was too late by then, because by then he had been behind and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to help pass Proposition 227. All we are saying here is if we are real serious about trying to reform whatever it is, in this case bilingual education, let us do it in a meaningful way. Let us not do it in a rush way, that does not give everyone an opportunity to really provide input. Let us do it the way we would reauthorize any legislation.

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

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, this is a perfect example of why this legislation is premature. We are trying to craft legislation on the floor of the House. That is why we have committee processes and that is why we take deliberative time and witnesses' testimony to know where we go with this legislation. We are not there yet. That has been the complaint of a number of us. Not that we do not want to see changes, but let us do them right. We are about to enact law. We do not have time to say we just passed the law, can we just tweak it a little bit more? You cannot do that. That is not the way a deliberative body works. Secondly, this amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) actually tries to impose upon the local school districts, usurp local control by telling a local school district, which went to court and found that the court agreed with it, that it must continue its current programs. This amendment would say to that local school district: ``You cannot do that. We high and mighty up here in Washington, D.C. have decided you cannot do that.'' That is not in the current bill, but the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) wants to put it in the bill to take that local guidance, that local opportunity to decide what to do, away from that local school district after a court has agreed with it. That does not to me seem like local control. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would take a look at what the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) is trying to do. He is trying to say that because a court found that a school district should be entitled to continue its program to try to educate its kids, he wants to enact an amendment that would stop that school district that has been found by a court to be correct in its administration of its educational programs. Mr. Chairman, if Members want to talk about usurping local control, this amendment is it because it is telling one or two local school districts, of the several thousand that the chairman and the committee noted that we have in this country, that because they have a court order, they should not go forward. That is how egregious we have gotten in these amendments and that is why this bill is such a denial of local opportunities to make decisions for the education of our kids. Somehow the Members of this House of Representatives know better than all the elected school officials on the school boards of our Nation; all the principals of our schools and all the administrators. And by the way, that is probably why the National PTA, the School Administrators Association, the school board associations nationally, all of those organizations oppose this legislation, because it truly does strip away local control and it tells them: This is the way to do. If they do not like the shape of this cookie, too bad, because that is the way all of the cookies will be shaped. We should reject this amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs), certainly accept the second degree amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez). But still we are talking about trying to improve a monster. A monster is still a monster. No matter how much you comb its hair, it is still a monster. Mr. Chairman, I would hope we would oppose this legislation at the end of the day. I urge my colleagues to pass the Martinez second degree amendment, defeat the Riggs amendment, and ultimately defeat the bill.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, let me see if I can try to capture what the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) was trying to do. It seems to me that the gentleman from California is encountering resistance on our part to accept his offer on the amendment to accept language that limits the provisions of the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) to court order, because if we limit the application of this amendment to a Federal court order, in essence, we are saying all Federal laws and all Federal constitutional laws would not be grounds to allow these school districts to maintain their programs. Ultimately, we cannot deny someone a constitutional right. But my colleagues are trying to almost explicitly exclude other Federal protections, like our civil rights laws, 1964 Civil Rights Act. By not including that, my colleagues have implicitly excluded them from consideration. That is the reason the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) and those of us here would be resistant to that amendment that my colleague has to the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) because it would overly limit the application of the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez). So I would hope that we would not want to try to exclude a local school district, that school board members, its principals, its teachers from saying we believe that the constitutional rights of the children in our schools or of the parents or of the educational body in San Francisco, in this case, is being violated by current State law, and we would like to test that in Federal court. They apparently tested it, and they have a Federal court order. They are allowed to continue teaching. I would like to, I think, end with this: The school district we are talking about, which is in jeopardy of losing more than $1 million under the Riggs amendment is also the school I cited about an hour ago as having had very remarkable results when its children took the standardized testing and reporting exam offered by the State of California, the State's standardized test. Third graders from a San Francisco school district who had graduated from a bilingual education program scored 40 percentage points higher than their native English speaking counterparts on math. On language, bilingual fourth graders, or fourth graders who had graduated from bilingual programs, I should say, scored 25 percentage points higher than native English speakers. A program which is showing success, and I suspect that you can point to some programs which are not doing so well, some of these kids, but a program that is demonstrating ample success for kids that are limited English proficient to, not only score well, but score better than their native English speaking peers is now placed in jeopardy by the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) because the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) would prohibit that school district from continuing to operate a program which has shown such dramatic success, so much success that Governor Wilson's spokesperson even said it is remarkable. That alone would be enough reason to oppose this amendment. But because it also would limit the application of other Federal laws, I think there is good reason to say we should go with the secondary amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) and, ultimately, as I said before, put this to bed, put this to rest, and let us move on to those things that we need to do this year and move next year to try to, all in a bipartisan fashion, work on bilingual education.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate at this late date in the year when we have not yet had one of the 13 appropriations bills that must be passed in order for this government to function go through the process and when we still have not been able to deal with all of the significant national legislation that is before us, to find ourselves debating a bill that never got an appropriate amount of time to be heard, were never given an opportunity to bring on those who are experts in the area of bilingual education to testify, and never, never gave the minority in the House of Representatives the opportunity to participate in the drafting of this legislation. This is a bill which affects Title 7 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 4 months is going to go through a total reauthorization, a revamping. Why, when that is 4 months from now, are we plucking out only one of the titles in that most important of bills that deals with education at the Federal level? We could only guess why. But to do it at a time when we are only 8 weeks away from an election, to do it at a time when there was an election in California in June that dealt with, in part, this issue of bilingual education leads a lot of us to be suspicious. Mr. Speaker, why not have a full and fair opportunity to really air the issue of bilingual education? If my Republican colleagues really believe that we can make some changes that are meaningful, then let us discuss them. There is no reason why we cannot make changes, but let us do them in a way that will not impact negatively the 3.2 million children in America that are limited-English proficient and are yearning to learn English. Mr. Speaker, as the poll we cited a moment ago showed, 88 percent of immigrant persons are who not yet proficient in English would love to learn it. Of course they would. Who would not want to be able to go to the playground and play with his or her peers? That is not the point. The point is to make those resources available to teach these kids. This bill does none of that. Mr. Speaker, this bill does none of that. If we were truly trying to address the issues of educating our kids, and in this case the millions of our children who are yearning to learn English, we would not do this in a rushed way and we would not do it in a way that takes away the control that local districts have right now in how they educate their kids. Certainly, if there was a sincere effort to do this, we certainly would not undo the 288 different consent decrees that we have across the Nation where school districts have come together with the Office of Civil Rights and the Department of Education and said, ``You are right. There is evidence that we were not properly educating children who are not English proficient. And you are right, we should do something and we agree voluntarily to do something.'' Mr. Speaker, they entered into consent decrees, written and now enforceable, that say that these districts will do certain things. Now, for this legislation to say all of those consent decrees voluntarily entered into by all of those school districts are null and void is shameful. Because what is to say that those of us here in Washington, D.C., know better than the folks that are in those 288 school districts, or any of the school districts in our Nation that have decided how best to educate their kids? It is unfortunate that my Republican colleagues have decided to completely take away that local control from those school districts to make those important decisions. There is every opportunity for us to have meaningful debates on bilingual education, the merits, demerits, the same as we should have debates on public education, private education. But to say that because we have one single hearing in this body here in Washington, D.C., where only one of the witnesses, except for the two Members of Congress, one Member of Congress opposed to bilingual education, one Member supporting bilingual education, but all the other so-called expert witnesses, 11 witnesses, only one could speak on behalf of bilingual education, that is not meaningful. That is why procedurally we should defeat this rule.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on July 30, 1998, I was unavoidably detained during roll call vote number 355, the vote on passage of H.R. 4328, providing funds for transportation and other related agencies for fiscal year 1999. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, it is becoming very clear that there is a real fright in this House among some Members if we go out and truly count all of the American people, something we have never been able to do. The 1990 Census, as we know, undercounted about 4 or 5 percent of Americans, and that is as close as we have ever come in trying to head count people. But there is a real concern on this side of the aisle in going after those groups that are traditionally undercounted, so much so that this House is preparing to pass legislation that would provide half-year funding for a whole host of agencies, not the least of which is the Department of Justice, the Department of Commerce. Mr. Chairman, no American would go out and shop for half a house. No American would go out there and buy half a car. No American would plan for half an education for his or her children. No American would buy half a loaf of bread. What we want is something that we can plan for in the future, and we do not have it in this bill. That is why the Mollohan amendment says: Let us fund the Department of Commerce, the Department of Justice and certainly the Bureau of Census all the way through, and if the courts should say that we are wrong in going with statistical sampling, and I cannot yield to the gentleman although I would love to yield if he yielded me time to do so.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, in 1991 then Congressman Newt Gingrich, now Speaker Newt Gingrich, said: ``Use statistical sampling to adjust the count from 1990 because my State of Georgia is not going to have everyone counted.'' 1998, the Republicans under the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) are trying to stop what he asked for in 1991. Why? Because there is such fright out there. Now who are we going to trust? The National Academy of Sciences and the scientists, the experts, who do counting? Who? President Bush? Then President Bush, said: ``Please tell us how best to do this.'' He said: ``Let us use statistical sampling.'' Or folks who said, ``We want you to use statistical sampling,'' when it benefited them but now are concerned about it? I will tell my colleagues this: Who should the American people trust? I would trust those who are devoted and have devoted a career to science, not to people who are devoted to a career of politics. That is what we have today. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the American people could see through the charade and understand that there are some political risks that some folks are very concerned about, and, as a result, they are willing to play with the lives of American people who have never had a chance to participate in this process.

Mr. BECERRA. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. BECERRA. And the chairman was very artful in the way he describes this.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, that is not the way I see it. But I see what this majority has done is funded.

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

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, passage of House Joint Resolution 120 would not be a message, it would be a hammer. It would be a hammer because it sends the clear message to the people of Vietnam that we are not serious about trying to be constructive and open up our trade and open up our relations with this country. If we believe that, by imposing these stricter standards of economic engagement with Vietnam, we are going to send a message and have some success; and if we are going to look at examples like South Africa, we have to remember that South Africa were multilateral sanctions where we had virtually an entire world behind those efforts to change South Africa. We cannot say that about Vietnam. We know for a fact that the Europeans, Japan, other Asian countries, Latin America, they are all ready to go in and fill a void if the U.S. disengages. That will not just be at the expense of U.S. business, it will be at the expense of the U.S. government and the U.S. people. We must engage. If no one has faith with the folks that are speaking here, please remember our former colleague, Pete Peterson, ambassador to Vietnam, a former POW who says it is right to do this. Please oppose House Joint Resolution 120.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on July 27, 1998, I was away from the House on official business during Monday's rollcall vote No. 340, on agreeing to the resolution honoring the memory of Detective John Gibson and Private First Class Jacob Chestnut of the United States Capitol Police. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted ``yes.'' As the official designee of the House Minority Leader, I was present in Albuquerque, New Mexico on July 27 along with three of my Congressional colleagues representing the Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader, and the Senate Minority Leader to join the President of the United States as participants in ``The Great Social Security Debate #3.'' May I note for the record that immediately prior to the commencement of this debate President Clinton asked all in attendance, in person and via television, to observe a moment of silence in memory of the two heroic officers. I join with my colleagues in the House to express my deepest condolences to the families of Detective John Gibson and Private First Class Jacob Chestnut who sacrificed their lives for our nation. For their acts of courage, this country is forever grateful; their memory will never be forgotten.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, regular order.

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, there was no objection raised earlier to any unanimous consent made before.