Xavier Becerra

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. It strikes me, the perspective of the sponsors of this legislation, I think, was fairly well recapped by the gentleman from North Carolina a few speakers ago who said, ``Why would any small business member hire someone who wants to organize the workplace?'' The answer is, he would not. Well, that is the attitude of the sponsors of this bill. Right from the start, they suspect anyone they wish to hire to work with them. How sad that there are sponsors who believe that we cannot hire someone who we cannot look at as an enemy in the beginning. What a way to begin a working relationship. Why would any new employee want to undermine the very employer who will issue her first paycheck? And more than that, if they think of some of our successful small businesses, they originally started as successful family-operated businesses, but once they became too successful they had to hire outside of the family. They expected the same things from these nonfamily employees as they got from their family employees, probably good working competency, commitment to the effort. And the employee, whether family or not, probably expected the same as well, a decent wage, reasonable benefits. Well, what makes anyone believe that if we start off with suspicions, we are going to be able to treat anyone as a good worker, let alone the family of your business? Unfortunately, that is what this bill says. Beware, any employer; when you hire an employee, be suspicious; never be able to believe that that person you hire wants to make you succeed as well. How shameful that is that we in Congress will stand here and tell the American people that America's working men and women must be treated with suspicion simply because they wish to work and work under decent working conditions and also receive decent benefits. And if we cannot do that collectively, why do families do so well? They do it collectively. Let my employee come to any place of work and say, I will work competently for you, hard. I will make you succeed. I will make you have a profit. In return, let me have something decent. And if I wish to do it collectively, as many family-operated businesses do, do not think of me as someone you suspect. Please defeat this bill.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, due to a medical emergency, I missed 11 votes which occurred between January 27, 1998 and February 5, 1998. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: Roll call Vote number 1--Present, 2--No, 3--No, 4--Yes, 5--Yes, 6-- No, 7--No, 8--No, 9--No, 10--Yes, 11--Present.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I come here with some reservations about this bill, but with some confidence. This bill as it will leave this House and go to conference will not contain a provision which when it comes back from conference I guarantee you it will have, and that is a provision that will take, it is not clear how much, it is somewhere between perhaps $1 billion to $2 billion, from the food stamp program, which are considered administrative savings, and those moneys will be used for which programs we do not know. But the concern that a number of us have is that if we are going to take money out of food stamps, and we took a whole lot of money out of food stamps two years ago when we passed the welfare reform law, that we should put the money back into services for the hundreds of thousands of families, including mostly families with children that were now as a result of this bill denied access to food stamps. As I said before, I have reservations but I have confidence from speaking to many of my colleagues that a serious effort will be made to address this concern if in fact we have moneys that comes out of the food stamp account. I trust that the members of the Committee on Agriculture will remember that the moneys in these savings should go into those programs from where the money came. If that is done, then certainly when this bill comes back after conference, all of us could say that we could support the programs. I support those ag programs, the ag research programs that are there. If it were a straight bill on agriculture research, it would have my vote. But I express my reservation at this stage because it is unclear to me where we will head. But as I said before, I do have confidence, especially because of my colleagues the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley), that an effort will be made to ensure that if we take money from food stamps, it will be used to help the thousands of families who are in great need of providing nutrition to their children. With some reservations I say this is a bill that we should see go to conference, and with confidence I do say that I believe at the end we will all be able to vote for it.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Perhaps without knowing it, I believe that my colleague from California (Mr. Horn) made a very prophetic comment in response to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) just a few minutes ago when the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) raised some concerns that African Americans here in this country fear so much by this legislation when he said, ``but blacks are born in this country, they get automatic citizenship.'' I say to the gentleman, he forgets that there are a lot of black Americans in this country who came to this country from Haiti, African countries, and are now American citizens but came as immigrants. And there are many, many, many Latino Americans who came from Latin American countries and Asian Americans who came from Asian countries who, when they first were here, could have been questioned about their citizenship, and still may be questioned about their citizenship because of their looks and because of the way they may speak. But let us not forget that there are Irish in this country, there are Italians in this country, there are Bulgarians in this country whom, on appearance, one may believe were born here and are entitled to automatic citizenship and automatic right to vote, but that may not be citizens. And by empowering these local officials, without any kind of guidance to decide they are going to check people, what we are doing is returning us to the days when we had poll taxes and the like. We are suppressing the vote; we are going to raise hurdles to participation, and we are trying to do it with a system that cannot work, because Social Security, the administration has said, a Social Security number has never been more than a way to tell people if they qualify for Social Security, not for anything else. The INS will say that their records cannot tell if someone is eligible to vote; only if someone has naturalized. So we are getting ready to embark on something which will deny American citizens who have the right to vote that opportunity. Mr. Speaker, that is the worst signal we can give on the birthday of a man who made most possible the right for all Americans to vote.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, the Honorable Henry B. Gonzalez, Dean of the Texas Delegation and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, will be honored by his community on November 23 at the Henry B. Gonzalez Archival Library Dinner in San Antonio, TX. Although I will not be able to join his family and friends at this gathering, I take this opportunity to pay high tribute to his 44 years of public service and thank him for blazing a path for subsequent generations of Americans, especially Hispanics, pursuing the nobelist ideals of public office. The accomplishments of the Honorable Henry B. Gonzalez in public office, particularly in the last 36 years in Congress, are substantial. He shepherded 71 bills through enactment, ranging from abolishing the poll tax, which was still in effect in the early 1960's, to restoring the strength of our Nation's deposit insurance system. While he was chairman, the House Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs Committee held more than 500 hearings on financial issues that affected consumers, small businesses, and banks. Through his investigative powers Chairman Gonzalez wielded substantial influence in combating financial crimes. Chairman Gonzalez championed legislation enabling small businessowners to secure credit essential to the prosperity of their enterprises. And let us not forget that Dean Gonzalez was instrumental in reauthorizing Federal housing laws, providing shelter for thousands of families throughout the country. Always doing what he believed to be right rather than what was popular, Dean Gonzalez made superlative use of special orders in the House Chamber. He alerted all of us to the impending savings and loan crisis years before the industry collapsed; he educated the Nation about the culture and contributions of Mexican-Americans. In recent years, his most popular special orders were about history: his own, the history of San Antonio and Texas, and the history of the founding of our Federal Government. The Honorable Henry B. Gonzalez' accomplishments are many and his legacy is an inspiration to us all, but especially our youth. As the chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, I thank Dean Gonzalez, for blazing a path for ensuing generations of Hispanic leaders. His dedication to public service and the many contributions to his community, the State of Texas and our Nation were accomplished with tenacity, passion, and a tireless work ethic. Integrity was his hallmark. Our youth, who are certain to achieve great accomplishments of their own, will 1 day look upon the legacy of Henry B. Gonzalez for inspiration and pride. Mr. Speaker, on this auspicious occasion I ask my colleagues to join me and the people of San Antonio in saluting a great friend and grand American: the Honorable Henry B. Gonzalez. He will always be an exemplary leader * * *. He will always be Henry B.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I had a chance to speak during the rule, so I will try to be somewhat brief now on the actual bill. I think that the ranking member of the subcommittee, the ranking member of the full committee, the Chair of the subcommittee and the Chair of the full committee have done a tremendous job trying to pull together a bill that could get the majority support in this House necessary to pull this together and send it off to the President. I commend them for the work they have done. I think that those four individuals have worked sincerely to try to pull together something that could get the support of all of us. I must say that I continue to have the greatest of concerns with regard to the work on the census. I see no reason why we could not have sent this directly to the President and said, Mr. President, tell us what the experts say we should do with regard to a count of the citizens and the residents of this country when it comes to the year 2000. Let us not inject politics into this, and let us go straight with what the experts say would be best to do for this country, because we know in the past we have left many Americans uncounted. We had an opportunity to do that, but we failed. We failed miserably because the politics got in the way, and this legislation is apparently the best we could expect. The best we could expect says that we will have lawsuit after lawsuit filed to try to stop statistical sampling, even though expert after expert has said that is the only way to get an accurate count of America. Yet we stand here saying, this is what the President must sign. But in 16 or 17 minutes we will have to revisit this, because we do not have funding for a full dress rehearsal as sampling in the end to take place in the census. That is wrong, and that is why people should vote against this bill.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of the Members of this House to vote against this rule today for a number of different reasons. I want to first say that a number of things that did come out of this rule are good, and there are actually many good provisions in this. One is the section 245(i) that my friend and colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], just railed against. I will say to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], the 230-some-odd Members, bipartisan Members in this House, who voted to preserve section 245(i) did it for a number of reasons: First, because it preserves the integrity of our families; U.S. citizens are involved in this. Also, because the business community said they did not want to see a disruption of services, and also the opportunity for people to be employed. So section 245(i), fortunately, we did something good on that. Where we did something very wrong was on the census. I would like to concentrate my comments on the census with regard to the Commerce- Justice-State appropriations bill. As much as it involves so many other things, let me focus on the Census. Mr. Speaker, if Members recall, back in the 1990 census, we did a dismal job of counting the people of the United States of America, dismal because some 5 million people in America were not counted, 5 million people who were absent, 5 million people who disappeared for purposes of political representation in this body and for purposes of the distribution of tax dollars which they contributed to the Federal Treasury, which never went back to their communities, because they were not counted and they were not in the formulas that determined how much money would go back to these communities. If we take a look at what we have in the census, we find that a State like California, which probably had an undercount of some 1.2 million people, probably will suffer worse consequences if we do not act upon a system for the Bureau of Census which will allow it to have the most accurate count of the people of the United States of America. The Bureau has said that based on what the experts have told it, statistical sampling, a methodology used by technicians and the experts in the field, and they have talked to the National Academy of Sciences that has done research on this, that the experts are saying that statistical sampling is what is needed to try to give us the most accurate count possible. If we take a look at the language of the bill, let me read one of the findings that we are supposed to support in this legislation under the census. Finding No. 7 says, ``The Congress finds that the use of statistical sampling or statistical adjustment in conjunction with an actual enumeration to carry out the Census with respect to any segment of the population poses the risk of an inaccurate, invalid, and unconstitutional Census.'' Now, this finding is just what it says, it is a finding. It is not conclusive, nor is it constitutionally binding. But what we see is a manifesto here. This is a document which is being created by the majority to construct the ability to wage a campaign. This is a document to allow the majority and those opposed to statistical sampling to wage a campaign, both in the courts and on the streets, against the use of the most accurate method to count all of America. Why? Because there is a fear that the politics will turn against them if all Americans are counted. Why? Because most of the people who are missed are people who are poor, are people who are minorities, people who do not often have a chance to vote. There is a fear that we will empower them if we do count them. How do we empower them in this manifesto? Well, one, we give anyone in this country the right to sue the Government of the United States, to say we are being injured by the use of statistical sampling, and we bootstrap this by saying, you can go directly to the court, and even go directly to the Supreme Court on an appeal in this matter. Not only that, but read this. It says that the Speaker, unilaterally, without ever having taken a vote of the 435 Members of this body, can file a suit to oppose the statistical sampling. Not only can the Speaker unilaterally file a suit, but the Speaker can employ the House counsel, at our expense, and of course at the taxpayers' expense, to do this litigation. Not only that, but the Speaker unilaterally could hire outside counsel to do the work. So we are going to be using taxpayer dollars to let the Speaker, without ever having a vote in this House, hire attorneys to do the litigation for all of us, even though we may never even be asked to vote on that issue. What else does this do? It gives a board that will be created the power to oversee what the Census Bureau does. What is the problem there? For the first time, I believe, in the history of conducting the census, a body will be given access to private documents. For the first time, I believe, in the history of this country taking the census, and we have done it since we have become a Republic, a body that is not affiliated directly with the Census, which is under strict confidentiality requirements, will have access to every single bit of data that the census Bureau collects. Remember, Mr. Speaker, this is the utmost of private information which we tell Americans that will not be disclosed, and not even the FBI and CIA in lawsuits have been able to obtain some of this data. Yet this board will be able to take every single piece of information that the Census Bureau collects. What is wrong with that? This board, under this legislation, must share this with congressional bodies, committees. We just voted today with strong opposition from the Democrats to create another subcommittee of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight to look into the census. What is wrong with that? Well, that committee can disclose some of this information. Even though there are privacy concerns, for the first time there will be an opportunity to disclose information, because this legislation will provide that committee, that with body of Congress, with that opportunity. All of that is to say that we are licensing with this manifesto a campaign, if not legally, then certainly politically, on the streets against statistical sampling. And what will be done is this, I guarantee: In the next year or so after we do the dress rehearsal where we test all the statistical sampling, we will see a comparison of the actual numbers of people counted to those that we created as a result of an actual count with statistical sampling, and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars will be spent to say, look, the count was not much different between the two. Let us not go with what we speculate will be the real count through statistical sampling. Let us go with what we know will be the count. And, of course, that message will be directed to the State that will see their population shrink or not grow, because those are States that may lose representation in this body as a result of shifts in the demographic population of this country. The result, we are going to have an uproar of people saying, ``You mean to tell me that the census will use some sampling method to say that this is the number of people beyond what we actually counted, and that might cost me a representative?'' No way. And we are going to have a political fight in our land which we cannot overcome because it will be difficult to ever convince the American people that what we have done is actually done the best job of providing an accurate census. We heard many Members on the majority side of the aisle say we cannot let this go. I heard one Member say this is the Republican Jihad, religious war. There is a fear that if there is a count, if this is allowed to occur, if we get that accurate count, those minorities, those poor will be counted, and they may start to get engaged in the political process. Heaven forbid. That is where we are heading. So, as much good as was done by the chairman and ranking member on this Committee on Appropriations, I must ask Members to vote against this rule.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to add my voice to the already loud chorus of Members supporting the $300 million funding level included in this year's Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriation bill for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting [CPB] for fiscal year 2000. This sum represents a $50 million increase over last year, but unfortunately an amount that only partially offsets the consecutive 3-year reduction in recent years. However, while I am elated that the Congress has once again come to recognize the important role public broadcasting plays in our American life, we have neglected to properly and adequately fund programming dedicated to celebrating our multicultural country. In 1994, CPB committed to creating a formal partnership between the National Minority Public Broadcasting Consortia, television stations and other public broadcasting organizations to achieve this end, included in this effort is CPB's initiative Diversity 2000. Unfortunately, our goal has not yet been realized. My sincerest hope is that this year's additional funding will enable CPB to endeavor toward creating the type of multicultural partnerships envisioned in the 1994 agreement. As our Nation changes, grows, and develops, public broadcasters, above all others, have a responsibility to mirror back to us our progress, our achievements, and our shortcomings. This effort can only be successful if broadcasters allow us to view the full panorama of our Nation and its cultures.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] for yielding me the time. I, too, am one who is pleased that there was progress with the D.C. appropriations bill. It is certainly true that the District of Columbia needs the funding. I wish I could stand here and tell my colleagues that we should pass this rule and get on with our business, but I cannot because of many of the reasons that have been stated by some of my colleagues, especially from Florida, with regard to a particular provision which was added to this appropriation bill that really does not have anything to do with D.C. appropriations but, nonetheless, was added. Let me quote for my colleagues from a letter of the President of the United States of November 4, 1997, where he said with regard to the issue affecting immigrants, principally from Central America and the Haitian community, that he was trying, through the legislation he had provided Congress to work on, he was seeking fair and equitable treatment for these individuals from these countries in Central America and Haiti. He goes on to say, ``I am concerned, however, that this legislation, unlike my original proposal, inappropriately distinguishes among nationals from different countries, including those from Central America. It requires continued retroactive application of certain provisions in the 1996 immigration law and does not allow for an adequate transition to the law's new rules. Accordingly, the Congress should provide for a fair resolution of these issues.'' He goes on to say, ``In addition, I strongly urge the Congress to provide to Haitians treatment similar to that provided to Central Americans.'' What the President was speaking of was the change from his legislation that came to Congress and was being sponsored by certain Members in the House and the Senate and what is now in this appropriation bill, which is much different from what the President first proposed. As Cardinal Law from Massachusetts said, ``We are putting these immigrants through `emotional torture'.'' Cardinal Law goes on to say, ``The United States must provide for equitable treatment to Nicaraguans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans, as well as justice for Haitians, in emerging immigration legislation.'' Mr. Speaker, what a number of us are saying here today is that, when we had a chance to put forth equity, when we had a chance to right the wrongs of last year's immigration law, when we had a chance to show that we respect and dignify people who come to this country to escape persecution and to start a new life, we failed. We failed because we were able to do a great amount for some, and I am very pleased that the Nicaraguans will have a chance to say that they will receive amnesty, but we did not do it for any other Central American constituency similarly situated. The Salvadorans and the Guatemalans are in no different condition than the Nicaraguans, yet they are being treated differently. And the Haitians are completely shut out of this legislation. That is wrong. We could have cured this. We do not need to wait for future legislation to deal with this. We could have done it today, and we did not. That is the shame of this bill that we have before us. That is why, unfortunately, some of us have to stand here and say that it is better to vote no on the rule than yes.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 22 is about preserving religious freedom, plain and simple. I learned the depth of this problem when I was introduced to the hardships faced by scientologists in Germany. Early in my congressional career about 5 years ago, I met with Chick Corea the renowned jazz pianist and learned that he had been barred from public performances in Germany. He was set to go, he had performances all lined up. All of a sudden he was not granted a visa to go into Germany even though most of his performances had already been for the most part sold out. At the time I was able to work with a number of my colleagues and we put letters together and sent them off to the German government protesting such actions. Back in 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt said in the future days which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon 4 essential human freedoms. Those freedoms he listed were freedom of speech, of expression, of being free from want, and freedom from fear. He also told us of the freedom of every person to worship God in his own way everywhere in the world. I mention that because just yesterday, if Members read the New York Times, there was an article that said a Federal immigration court judge in Tampa, Florida, granted asylum to a German citizen who was a member of the Church of Scientology. Her asylum claim was based on the fact that she would be subjected to religious persecution had she returned to Germany. Many of my constituents, as I suspect many of your constituents, are members of religious minority groups like the Church of Scientology. This resolution calls for protecting their rights if and when they spend time in Germany. They deserve this protection. German citizens themselves who are members of minority religious groups deserve religious freedom as well. As Members cast their vote on House Concurrent Resolution 22, remember the words of President Roosevelt listing religious freedom as one of the four essential human freedoms. As he said, freedom of every person to worship God in his own way everywhere in the world. Today is one of those future days that President Roosevelt spoke of. Today we should be standing together to say aye to House Concurrent Resolution 22.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I believe it was the chairman in the beginning of this debate that said that this country has the right and the duty to control our borders. Well, if we pass H.R. 2920, we will be asserting our right but we will be ignoring our duty. You see, back in 1996, just a year ago, we passed a law that said that we must inspect our borders, both in terms of people entering and people leaving. For Mexico, last year we imposed that entry check, so anyone coming into this country from our southern border right now must go through this entry check. It was not until this year, a year later, that the exit check for both Mexico and Canada was to take effect, along with the entry check for Canada, which did not take effect when the entry check for Mexico took place. Only now is that entry check now going to take effect in Canada. But where was the outrage about the disruption to commerce, to tourism, to family ties, when we imposed the entry check on the U.S.- Mexico border? Now we hear the outrage. The same thing applies, but it is different treatment. What people are saying today is, if it was good enough for one part of the border, it is good enough for the rest of the borders. What we have to understand is, what we do today if we pass this bill is say we are allowing and willing to allow people to come into this country, overstay their visas, and become undocumented individuals in this country. Understand, there are people that cross through all parts of our border. If you vote for this bill, you are saying you are willing to allow people to overstay and become, as many of you term it, ``illegal aliens.'' So understand, do not make any mistake about it, this is not to just conform the law, this is not to try to take care of disruption for commerce and family, this is an attempt to try to withhold the function of the law, the application of the law, for one place but not for others. If it is fair for one place, it should be fair for all the others.

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

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Reclaiming my time, my understanding is we are operating under martial law which allows any bill to come to the floor under a unanimous-consent request. Most of us who opposed the bill right now on suspension are not opposed to this House bill. What we are opposed to is the preconferencing that we are aware of that has already been undertaken on this bill with the Senate which did not include funding for food stamps, at least not to any measurable degree. The concern on the part of a number of us is that the $1.2 billion that will be taken out of food stamps will not be used to any measurable degree to go back to food stamps. Otherwise, I think he would find that virtually with a unanimous vote, this bill would go through if there were some assurance that there would be money invested in food stamps to restore some of the $27.5 billion that we cut from food stamps last year.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would like to yield to the chairman, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith], to ask a couple of questions with regard to the conference that the committee would have on this bill. The question I have is, if we are going to conference, my understanding is there is a large difference between the Senate version and the House version in one critical respect, that the Senate version extracts $1.2 billion in savings from food stamp programs through administrative accounts, and my understanding from the Senate bill is that none of that money was put back into food stamps. On this side, some of my colleagues are concerned that none of the money, that $1.2 billion, will be used to restore food stamp programs, $27\1/2\ billion that was cut last year.

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

Mr. BECERRA. I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.

Mr. BECERRA. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX, I hereby give notice of my intention to offer a resolution which raises a question of the privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: Whereas, Loretta Sanchez was issued a certificate of election as the duly elected Member of Congress from the 46th District of California by the Secretary of the State of California and was seated by the U.S. House of Representatives on January 7, 1997; and Whereas A Notice of Contest of Election was filed with the Clerk of the House by Mr. Robert Dornan on December 26, 1996; and Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the 46th District of California met on February 26, 1997 in Washington, D.C. on April 19, 1997 in Orange County, California and October 24, 1997 in Washington, D.C. and Whereas Mr. Dornan's unproven allegations and the actions of the Committee on House Oversight have resulted in an unprecedented attack against Latino voters and created a chilling effect with a message to Latinos that their votes are suspect; and Whreas the allegations made by Mr. Robert Dornan have been largely found to be without merit: charges of improper voting from a business, rather than a resident address; underage voting; double voting; and charges of unusually large number of individuals voting from the same address. It was found that voting from the same address included a Marines barracks and the domicile of nuns, that business addresses were legal residences for the individuals, including the zoo keeper of the Santa Ana zoo, that duplicate voting was by different individuals and those accused of underage voting were of age; and Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has issued unprecedented subpoenas to the Immigration and Naturalization Service to compare their records with Orange County voter registration records, the first time in any election in the history of the United States that the INS has been asked by Congress to verify the citizenship of voters; and Whereas the INS has complied with the Committee's request and, at the Committee's request, has been doing a manual check of its paper files and providing worksheets containing supplemental information on that manual check to the Committee on House Oversight for over five months; and Whereas the Committee on House Oversight, subpoenaed the records seized by the District Attorney of Orange County on February 13, 1997 and has received and reviewed all records pertaining to registration efforts of that group; and Whereas the House Oversight Committee is not pursuing a duplicate and dilatory review of materials already in the Committees possession by the Secretary of State of California; and Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the 46th District of California and the Committee have been reviewing these materials and has all the information it needs regarding who voted in the 46th District and all the information it needs to make judgments concerning those votes; and Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has after over nine months of review and investigation failed to present credible evidence to change the outcome of the election of Congresswoman Sanchez and is pursuing never ending and unsubstantiated areas of review; and Whereas, Contestant Robert Dornan has not shown or provided credible evidence that the outcome of the election is other than Congresswoman Sanchez's election to the Congress; and Whereas, after nearly a year and the expenditure of over $500,000, the continued probe of the Sanchez election represents a direct attack on Latino voters and an attempt to silence the voice of new citizens; and Whereas, the Committee on House Oversight should complete its review of this matter and bring this contest to an end: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That unless the Committee on House Oversight has sooner reported a recommendation for its final disposition, the contest in the 46th District of California is dismissed upon the expiration of November 7, 1997.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I come here with one particular concern. I believe it could have been addressed adequately in committee and was not. On top of some of the other things that have been said by some of my colleagues with respect to concerns with regard to expanding NAFTA to the Caribbean Basin, I do support and I did support NAFTA and I would support trying to extend to the degree possible the free trade zone into the Caribbean Basin. But let me focus my attention on one particular aspect which to me personally rubs very deeply within me. In committee, I asked that we try to extend trade adjustment assistance in this CBI proposal as we had in NAFTA. Trade adjustment assistance goes to workers who are dislocated as a result of companies moving from this country into the new area of the free trade zone. There is $6 million available in this legislation to pay for that type of adjustment assistance. We were told we had no CBO comparison to tell us exactly how much it would cost. We thought it would cost about the $6 million that was available. We find out now that it is only $2 million that it would cost to provide the protections to workers who may face dislocation as a result of this legislation. Yet we have been unable to get any commitment on the part of the Republican leadership to include the $2 million it would cost to protect American workers who may face dislocation as a result of this. What a small price to pay, especially when we have the money there. It rubs me the wrong way to have to stand here to say that $2 million stands in the way of being able to protect American workers. Why we would not do that, I do not understand, and I am somewhat speechless, because we have the money. We have $6 million available, $2 million to protect American workers, to give them things like unemployment benefits similar to unemployment benefits, to allow them to get training, to allow them to have some assistance to make sure that their families do not go without while they are unemployed. Yet we are not going to do it. It does not make any sense, it is shameless, and for that reason I had to take to the floor today.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House, and I send to the desk a privileged resolution (H. Res. 294) pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX and ask for its immediate consideration. The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Hefley]. The Clerk will report the resolution.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, first let me make it clear to anyone listening, this motion to instruct says we must insist on the House's position. The House's position is to eliminate section 245(i). It does not talk about coming up with some modification or compromise. It says eliminate, because we did not do anything on it, so that means it would be extinguished. Secondly, this is not a section that would serve as a magnet, as one of the Members implied earlier in his discussion, to bring in people who are undocumented. An individual must have a legal basis for obtaining lawful permanent residency in order to qualify for section 245(i). If you do not have a legal basis to be in this country, you cannot apply. This is a Nation of laws, and the law says that you can adjust based on 245(i) if you meet the conditions. What we are fighting is last year we changed the law in midstream on hundreds of thousands of people. That is unfair. Due process requires us to say to folks, if we told you these were the rules of the game, then that is what you must abide by. We should not change. Now is the time for us to be flexible. Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act provides very needed flexibility for our business community and for very close-knit families. You have to be a spouse, a child or a parent to qualify, or you have to have a job in hand, because the business has proven to the Department of Labor that no other worker is available. Mr. Speaker, let us understand what this is. Section 245(i) does not serve as a magnet for illegal immigration, nor does it give some type of benefit to someone who just walks into this country and says ``now I want to be able to stay.'' You have to have a legal basis to be in this country in order to qualify, and then you pay a fine of $1,000. The fine has been used mostly for the purpose of helping to deter future illegal immigration. It is well worth it to have it. It provides the flexibility. The business community says it is worthwhile. So do families who are on the verge of losing a loved one. Mr. Speaker, let us support section 245(i) and oppose the Rohrabacher motion to instruct.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to add my words on behalf of a friend and someone who unfortunately has left us, Mr. Walter Capps. Walter, as most folks also remember, ran earlier in 1994 for election and did not win. He barely lost. And in 1996 he did win. I attribute his first loss to the fact that he did not run as a politician. I attribute his win the second time because folks finally had a chance to see shining through the real qualities of this gentleman. He came up here to serve, and he came up here as Mr. Smith in that movie came up here to serve, and it is unfortunate that he is gone. Most folks do not recognize, as well, that a year and a half ago Walter nearly lost his life in a car accident that almost took his wife's life, as well. He survived that, and I felt the Lord kept him here for a reason. Perhaps now, with his death, maybe he did; maybe he now wants us to take a look at not just what it means to live, but also what it means to die. I am very saddened to lose a friend, Walter Capps. I think this whole institution is saddened. Unfortunately, the American people, as they did not know about his near fatal car accident, as they did not know about his first loss, probably did not get enough time to know this man, who would have been a unique and essential man to the Congress of the United States. I extend my condolences to his family.