Xavier Becerra

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. McHale] for his remarks. Let me now ask a colleague from California, a friend, someone who also knew Frank well, the gentleman from southern California [Mr. Matthew Martinez], to come forward to make some remarks.

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman from Texas for his words, and it is absolutely true. Those of us who had the opportunity to be at the memorial service saw just this throng of people outside trying to send a wish to Frank, and that perhaps was one of the most moving things that I saw in my trip to Texas. Let me now yield to a very distinguished Member from Texas as well and a good friend, Mr. Chet Edwards.

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for his remarks. Let me now ask the gentleman who has served this country in the military and is now serving his country just as ably here in Congress, a good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Paul McHale.

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman who knows a little bit about what it means to be a member of the military for his kind words toward Frank. Let me now ask another fine gentleman and distinguished Member of this House from the State of Texas to come forward, and that is the gentleman by the name of Ken Bentsen.

Mr. BECERRA. Let me now recognize a colleague of mine from the State of California, a friend and someone whom I know knew Frank well and respected him, Mr. Duke Cunningham.

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for his remarks. Let me now ask a distinguished friend and colleague of the House who has served so very well representing veterans for so long, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans].

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for his remarks. Another colleague from Texas and I think it is clear the respect of the Members from Texas for Frank Tejeda as they come here to express themselves, I would like to invite another gentleman who just got elected and will serve us well in this Congress, Mr. Ruben Hinojosa, to please add his remarks.

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for his words. Let me now ask another colleague from the great State of Texas and a great friend of mine, Mr. Gene Green, for his remarks.

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for his remarks. Mr. Speaker, another colleague who will serve this institution so well is another gentleman from Texas [Mr. Jim Turner].

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for his remarks. Let me now turn to another colleague from Texas, Mr. Reyes, a gentleman whom Frank respected a great deal. We are looking forward to working with him as a new Member.

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for his remarks and I think he is right, he probably could speak longer on this than anyone, about Frank, I know he would love to, but at this point I yield to the dean of the Texas delegation, someone who has been a fighter for Texas for some time, I know Frank spoke of him with great regard, that is the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez].

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, we have taken out this special order of an hour for the purpose of trying in the short time that we have to try to commemorate the life of a friend, of a colleague, of a great American hero, Frank Tejeda, who passed away but a few days ago in his home in Texas shortly after having been sworn in to the 105th Congress. Without further remarks on my part at this stage, I do want to yield time to someone who was a great friend of Mr. Tejeda, and I want to acknowledge that Mr. Tejeda's family is here with us today, but I think it is most fitting that the individual who knew him best, who would sit right back there every day of a vote with Frank and laugh and do work and do the business of this country with him should best have the opportunity to go first in making remarks about our great friend. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Solomon Ortiz.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, for yielding me time. Let me also begin my remarks by thanking the leadership on both sides of the aisle so very much for making this possible and, with such grace, adding to the words others have said about Frank Tejeda. I do not know if angels blush, but I know right now there is one angel blushing, and that is Frank Tejeda, because he is the most modest of individuals. He would look at us right now and say, you need not do this, I do what I need to do. So in naming a post office after Frank, I think we pay him tribute but it is a tribute that he himself would probably say, I just did my job. And unfortunately in this case, we are doing it because he has left us, and I wish we did not have to name a post office after Frank. If we take a look at the bill for today, there are two paragraphs, and in typical Frank Tejeda style, that is the way he would like it. More than two paragraphs probably would be too long for Frank, because he would say, keep it simple, keep it brief. I think we could all learn a great deal from a man for whom simplicity was such a tribute and such a way of life. Too often we bog down in the politics of things here. Too often we lose sight of what we are really trying to do here. As much as Frank never spoke up a lot, I think he always kept sight of what he was in charge to do as a Member of Congress. For me to be able to stand here and say to the blushing angel up in the sky today, ``You deserve this, Frank,'' is an honor. I thank both my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and the leadership, especially, for making this time available to Frank Tejeda.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the dean of the Texas delegation for yielding time to me. I also make mention that tomorrow the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Ortiz] and I have also requested time through a special order to also commemorate the life of our good friend, Frank Tejeda. It is truly with profound sadness that we extend our deepest condolences to the three children of Frank Tejeda, Marissa, Sonya and Frank III and to his mother, Lilly, on the untimely passing of Frank Tejeda. I do not think anyone would disagree if we were to say that this is a man who perhaps was not the best known Member in the House of Representatives, perhaps was not the Member who came and spoke down in this well most often, perhaps was not the gentleman who was out in committee making the most noise most often and perhaps was not the one socializing at night with all of his colleagues most often. But certainly I think no one would deny that this is a man who with total dignity every day that he was here showed that he earned the respect of the constituents of his district so that he could be the Representative from Texas. I consider Frank Tejeda an American hero. It is not too often you do not know about the Superman's of the world and the Superman's of America, but a Frank Tejeda does not come very often. That is why at the age of 51, it is such a sadness to have seen him leave. It was Frank's courage in the face of great obstacles that served him so well throughout his time here in Congress. Two years ago I remember that, 1995, 2 years ago many believed upon learning of his illness, of his cancer of the brain that he would never serve another day in Congress. But in typical style, Frank, remember Frank is a guy who went to Harvard and went to Yale to graduate school and who also at the same time was a dropout from high school, remember Frank is the Vietnam veteran who got not just the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart but also posthumously was awarded the Silver Star for having saved the lives of American soldiers, forsaking his own in the process. This is a man who has always fought back. He returned to service in Congress even after all those folks said that there is no way in the world someone with that type of an illness could ever come back. And yet he continued to serve and finished off the days of the 104th Congress. He was elected and even was sworn into the 105th Congress representing the 28th District of Texas. Had he had the chance, there is no doubt that with every fiber of his body and with every drop of blood he would have been here today. But I think as we heard at his funeral yesterday, the bishop, the archbishop say, it was destined that God wanted Frank with him, that Frank had served a greater purpose here and the Lord had seen fit to take him with him. I will argue with the Lord for having done that for probably the rest of my life, but Frank knew his duty and he always served it. I think it has always been said so well about Frank, he gave when it was time, and he never, and he never, I am not sure if I have ever known anyone, but he never complained. This is a guy who not just in his physique but in the way he conducted himself told you that he could take punishment, but he would be there the next day. And that is perhaps the biggest tribute any one of us could pay to a man like Frank Tejeda. He never boasted about what he had done. He never said to any one of us here that, while I may not be the most famous Congressman, I saved the lives of some of the Americans who are watching today as I act as a Representative in Texas. He never once said to anyone, I graduated from some of the schools that most people in this Nation will never even get to step foot on. At the same time, he was someone who never had a chance to quite finish high school. He never bragged, but he was always there. I think that is the mark of someone who really is an American hero, and that is why I say, Frank Tejeda, you are an American hero. Frank was a quiet, dignified and disciplined man. But, oh, how proudly and eloquently his life spoke to the value of being an American. Look back at your life, Frank, please look back at your life. We are many who will miss you. Today as we adjourn this, another august day of democracy in this Nation, we say goodbye to a very distinguished American. Thank you, Frank, for your service to this country. Frank, thank you very much for your service in life. And I think all of us understand that today we mourn the passing of a great American hero.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding for a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BECERRA. My parliamentary inquiry would be, at what point would it be appropriate to raise a point of personal privilege when the gentleman from Colorado indicated that I inaccurately stated some facts, when I think I stated them correctly when I said the committee of jurisdiction never heard this bill? I never spoke of the Committee on Rules. So I am asking, when would a point of personal privilege be appropriate?

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the additional time, and I will not take much time, I will not consume it other than to say that I appreciate what the gentleman from Colorado is attempting to say, but I do not believe I misstated any fact, because when I said that this bill has not gone through committee, I said the committee of jurisdiction, which is the Committee on the Judiciary, upon which I sit. It may have gone through the Committee on Rules at about 8 o'clock at night on, perhaps, 3 hours' notice, that is true, when a number of us had many things pending throughout that night of work. I will say this though. In all the months, and we have been debating the immigration bill since last year, and my friend from California knows this, the originator of the amendment knows this because he is on the committee with me in Judiciary: Not once did we debate the substance of his amendment in the Committee on the Judiciary when we had a chance to do so. But my point here is, we have a bill that has gone through the process in less than 12 hours, or 24 hours, when we have a lot of substantive legislation that affects the lives of Americans in this country that will never see the light of day because we are going to run out of time. Let me yield back my time, and, as the gentleman from Colorado said, we each have time to yield.

Mr. BECERRA. I yield to the gentleman from California if it is a brief comment.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, first let me respond to the issue of no costs would be involved if this legislation were passed. Let us just debunk it right now because if there were no costs involved, then you would not have organizations like the California School Board Association that represents every single school board in California opposed to this legislation. You would not have most of the law enforcement agencies in this Nation opposing this particular legislation. You do because they know the costs would be tremendous, tremendous to the schools because someone would have to administer it, tremendous for law enforcement because someone would have to watch these kids that would not be in school but on the street. These organizations know what happens in real life practical terms and they are opposed to it. We can say all we want, but until you are going to put some money where your month is, it is going to cost and someone will pay and the locals will have to pay the price. Let me read from a few of the letters, just a few of the many that have come in. The International Union of Police Associations: Make no mistake, our position is not based on partisan election year politics. They are opposed: It is not based on broad social theory. But we do clearly object to denying any child access to schools and education within our borders regardless of origin. We base our position on immediate pragmatic concerns that can only come from collective years on the streets of America. How can anyone advocate throwing thousands of children onto the street without supervision where they will become both victims and criminals? Local law enforcement officers, our members will be overwhelmed at a time when we can ill afford the extra pressure. That is, as I said, the International Union of Police Associations. CLEAT, the Combined Law Enforcement Association of Texas, says: Numerous officials and organizations within the law enforcement community have contacted you and other congressional conferees in a unified position of opposing the Gallegly bill. This issue as we see it is very simple. We must do all we can to support every child's right to receive an education. Legislation that promotes the notion of keeping children out of school is only going to act as another avenue of increasing the already unacceptable practice of placing more children on the streets. I could go on and on. The city of Elmhurst in Illinois, the National Association of Police Organizations, which represents over 185,000 law enforcement officers and 3,500 police associations, opposed to this bill. The Sioux City, ID, police chief, the city of Chicago's police chief, the city of San Jose's police chief. The 47 Senators, Democrat and Republican, who signed a letter asking that the Gallegly bill be defeated. It goes on and on and on. Let us be real. We can set policy in this Chamber, but we can talk politics. This was a measure, an amendment that was included in the immigration bill that we just voted on that passed by a pretty wide margin. It was pulled by the Republicans yesterday. Why? Because they were afraid it would jeopardize the entire immigration bill. Now we have it. Miraculously, in less than a day we have a bill go from inception to the floor. Folks, understand this, whether you are on this floor getting ready to vote or watching on television, this is a bill that is on the floor being debated today when we have hundreds of other bills that will never be heard because we are about to end the session that went from nothing, because it was not a bill we were considering, to all of a sudden being debated on the floor of the House. It did not go through the committee. It never was heard in the committee on jurisdiction. But here it is being debated on the House floor. We could have debated it in the immigration bill that we just passed, but it was pulled because there were some discussions that had been taking place over the last several months. A lot of them were with Bob Dole in his campaign about how to do best to politically structure this debate, and what do we have? It is this debate on the floor. We know the President is going to veto this bill, so what are we doing? Why are we wasting this time when we are really at the end of this session and we have other things that are more important to deal with? Well, there is a point to be made here, there are some political points to be made here, and unfortunately what we are going to run into is a situation where, damn the cops, damn the school administrators, damn the teachers, damn, the least important of which, I guess, in many people's eyes, the children; let us do this because there are points to be had. It is fortunate that practical people are against this bill. We should be against it, too.

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

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, point of personal privilege. I believe the gentleman said----

Mr. BECERRA. Parliamentary inquiry then? When would a point of personal privilege be----

Mr. BECERRA. I would ask the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly] then to yield for 10 seconds.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from California, a friend of mine, for yielding me this time. I also want to join all my colleagues who are acknowledging the many years of service the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] has provided to this institution and to the people of America. They probably do not realize how instructive he has been in helping us fashion all sorts of policy, and I certainly will miss him, and I hope that he continues to be involved in policy for this country, because he has been a voice that has brought reason and, I think, a great deal of wisdom to this country's policies and laws. Mr. Speaker, let me go on to say that I am very disappointed in what we have here today, for a couple of reasons, not only because I think substantively this is a bill that needs a great deal of improvement, but because procedurally it is disappointing to see, in the greatest democracy in the world, that the Republicans, the majority in this Congress, saw fit not to allow anyone to participate in the structuring of this final version of the bill unless one happened to be Republican. Not one point in time, since the bill first passed out of the House of Representatives back in March, have Democrats had an opportunity to provide amendments to this particular conference report or to participate even in discussion of amendments on this report. We had a conference committee yesterday that was only for the purpose of offering an opening statement. We did not have a chance to make an offer of an amendment that say, ``This is a provision that needs to be changed; can we change it?'' Not a word. We were not allowed one opportunity to do so. This has come to the floor, with changes made in the back room in the dead of night, and some people are only now finding out what some of the provisions are. I want to give you one example of how procedurally this bill has gone wrong. In conference we happened to have found out, because we were handed a sheet that same morning, that a provision in the bill that we thought was in, which would deny a billionaire a visa to come into this country after that billionaire had renounced his U.S. citizenship. In other words, we have a billionaire in this country who renounces his U.S. citizenship, says, ``I do not want to be a U.S. citizen any more.'' Why? Because he wants to avoid taxes. If an individual is not a U.S. citizen, they do not pay U.S. taxes. So he renounces his citizenship, goes abroad, and then comes right back, applies for a visa to come back into this country. He has not paid any taxes, and he gets to come back into the country. We had a provision in the bill that said, no, if an individual renounces their U.S. citizenship because they want to avoid taxes, they cannot come back in. We walk in that morning, and that provision is no longer there. So these billionaires can come back into the country without having paid their taxes. We said, why did you put that back in there? Why did we not have a chance to discuss this? Good news? Billionaires cannot come back in, if they renounce their citizenship. Bad news? We did not know it until this morning when we walked in and found it is back in the bill. That is the democratic process that we have undergone in this bill, where Members are not told what is in the bill until the last moment. What is the result? One Member called it, one colleague called it nitpicking. I do not call it nitpicking when through a stealth move we remove increased penalties for employers who we know are hiring people who are not authorized to work in this country. Why? I do not know. Who does it hurt? Only those employers who are violating the law. Why do we want to reduce the penalties on employers who are violating the law? Final point I will make, young student in college, tries to get financial aid, has been valedictorian in high school. Because he is a legal immigrant, he happens to be qualified for a Pell grant. Gets a Pell grant for 1 year, is now deportable because the person qualified for a Pell grant or maybe a student loan. Crazy.