Xavier Becerra

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from California. He is correct that it was debated on the floor, never having gone through committee, but it did get debated on the floor. I will say this. While it got debated on the floor, at least it came up through the process of the immigration debate. This came up as a result of having been extracted from an immigration bill. We could have debated it in the bill that just took place, because it was there, Mr. Gallegly. The gentleman and I know it. It was taken out, for whatever reason.

Mr. BECERRA. But the real issue in terms of cost and why this is so antieducation is the following. In California, which by the way, unfortunately, our Governor has been unwilling to fund education in our schools the way it should be. We are now ranked one of the last in this country. We used to be one of the first back in he 1950's in terms of education funding. But we provide about $6,000 per pupil in California in money. That is in school. You drive a kid off on the streets, and you are going to have come costs to the local law enforcement to try to make sure that they are making sure these kids that are on the street now are not committing crimes or becoming victims of crime. But should they become involved in criminal activity, this young child who has been kicked out of school will probably be incarcerated, not imprisoned because they do not take them to adult prisons. They take them to the youth offender facilities, which cost about $33,000 per year in the State of California. So if you think $6,000 is expensive in our public schools, then $32,000 is surely much more expensive than that. That is what you are driving towards with this particular piece of legislation. A couple of more points: Why we would want to set as a national policy a principle that says we are going to hit the kid, we are going to punish the kid for the acts of an adult, I am not certain. I know the courts right now are debating whether you can punish a parent for the acts of a child. Some of these delinquents, children who become delinquents, we are now having some local laws that say, OK, let us punish the parents for letting this kid become a delinquent. The courts have not decided yet if, in fact, you can punish the parent for the acts of a child. Not only are you going beyond what the courts have even permitted, but you are turning it on its head, you are saying punish the child for the acts of the adult, as if a 2-, 4- or 7- year-old could tell his or her parent, ``Don't cross that border without documents, Mom or Dad, because, if you do so, we're in trouble.'' Be realistic. This is not sound policy. If we are going to address the issue of illegal immigration, let us do it where it most counts, at the border. We did that in the bill that just passed. We did provide additional funding to Border Patrol. We could have done more to provide more protections at the workplace to make sure people do not work without documentation. We did not. This is just another measure that sounds good. That is why it is bottled up in California after Prop 187, because it does not work. We should be about the business of passing laws that will work, not just because they sound good but because they will work. Unfortunately, this will not work.

Mr. BECERRA. I am not suggesting that. I am just saying whether it is good or bad times. Mr. Speaker, I suspect the gentleman will agree with me, as a Republican, that these are good economic times. Let me continue if I may. This whole argument really, if you boil it down, is the following. I think everyone in this Chamber will ultimately agree, if you kick a kid out of school, you will not drive the parents out of the country. What you do is you kick a kid out of school and you put the kid on the street. The parent is probably here because he or she probably has a job, probably in the underground economy, is going to stay here because chances are in the home country the person would not be making as much money. In the home country there is a good chance the kid would not get educated anyhow. So they are probably going to stay here whether or not you place a kid out on the street. The real concern, as most of the law enforcement officials and Sherm Block, the Sheriff of L.A. County, will attest to this, and he is a Republican, he is opposed to this particular provision by the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly], he will attest, it is better to have a child in school than on the street. If this is meant to drive people out of the country who are here without documents, it is going to fail miserably. And if it is, what are the consequences? You and I will not see the consequences because we are here in Washington, DC, making the policy. The consequences will be faced by the school districts and the school boards that are opposed to this measure and most of the law enforcement officials who are opposed to this measure because it does not help them take care of their worries locally. How much will it cost? This really is antieducation. Why? Because if you think someone is going to have their child pay tuition, this proposal says, well, these people who are undocumented can pay tuition for their kids to go to school if they want to continue using the public schools. Let me tell you, if you are going to use $5,000 or $6,000, I guarantee you most people would send their kids to some private school for that amount of money if they could because they would avoid the problem to begin with of having their kids go to a public school and being caught. You are not going to do anything with this measure, no kid is going to be able to afford to pay the tuition for a public or private school.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am going to go back a bit, because a number of speakers have come up here and said, and I suspect will get up here and say about the costs of illegal immigration and the immigrants that are coming, and California and the costs. Certainly there are costs, but it would not be a full and honest debate, I say to each and every Member that is going to get up here and say that, if you did not also say what they are contributing. Whether it is the food you eat, the clothes you wear, you are able to purchase it for a decent price because of the work that some of these folks do. On top of that, it would not be an honest debate whether they are here legally or not. Because if they are not legally here, I think everyone agrees that they should be deported; but while they are here and working, if they happen to buy an article of clothing the way you or I do, they pay the same sales tax that you and I have paid. If they purchase a car, or furniture, they pay the same sales tax that you and I have paid. If they own property, and many of them do, they pay property taxes the way you and I do. If they do not own property but they rent, they are ultimately still helping to pay for the property tax on that property through their rent. If they own a business, and many of these folks do, they pay business taxes to the local government. All of that, as the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] had mentioned, all of that is the basis of the payment for education in most States. I know for a fact in California, most of the money comes from sales tax and local property taxes for the schools in our State. So please, if you are going to make an honest debate, if you are going to talk about the estimated cost because it only can be an estimated cost, what the estimated cost is of having a child go to school if he or she happens to be undocumented, also mention what is contributed by these families because they are not just languishing. Most of them are providing some payment. Another point: In bad times or in good times, we have had folks in this country who do not have documents who are, as I said before, and everyone will agree, deportable. Bad times or good times. In good times, folks were not saying that they were costing our schools all this money and as a result our kids were not getting educated, our people were not getting their health care. In good times or in bad times, they have been here. When the economy shot up, when the economy has shot down, they have been around. It just so happens that in bad economic times, you look for the scapegoats, and it is easy to point your finger at those individuals.

Mr. BECERRA. He is still going to, I hope, veto this. But the point remains that back when we debated it earlier and today, law enforcement organizations, the school board associations, a lot of folks are saying this is not a practical bill, this is not a way to go, it is not only going to deny kids an education, but it is going to put kids on the street to either be victims of crime and perhaps even be criminals themselves, and for that reason my colleagues continue to see objections from the folks who will have to administer this. It is not a good piece of legislation, and it should be defeated for those reasons, least of which are the procedural matters, which I believe violate the spirit of democracy.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, it is with the utmost pleasure and pride that I rise today to recognize Mr. Alfredo Perez for his inspiration as a hard working American, dedicated teacher and valiant victim of crime. Alfredo Perez was born in a small town in Jalisco, Mexico on November 23, 1965. When he was a boy of 8, he, his mother Maria Guadalupe Contreras de Perez and his seven siblings, Carlos, Francisco, Bertha, Hector, Guillermo, Jesus and Abelam emigrated to Oxnard, CA, to rejoin his father, Jose Perez. He attended El Rio Elementary School, then went on to Rio Del Valle Junior High. Alfredo received his high school diploma from Rio Mesa High School. In the Fall of 1985 Alfredo entered the University of California Los Angeles [UCLA]. In order to pay for his schooling, he worked several part-time jobs. Alfredo graduated from UCLA in 1989 with a major in Sociology and a specialization in Business Administration. Shortly after graduating from UCLA, Alfredo decided to enter the teaching profession. The importance of educating future generations was a challenge he took on with great devotion, commitment and love for children. He wanted to be a role model for children in the inner city. His main goal was to instill in them the desire to educate themselves and to make a difference in this world. On the morning of February 22, 1996, Alfredo Perez was where he wanted to be--with his students. His 5th grade students were in the library at Figueroa Street Elementary School in Los Angeles. Gunfire from a gang-related incident disrupted the quiet building, and a stray bullet struck and entered Alfredo's brain. Despite suffering this potentially fatal would, Alfredo's primary concern remained the safety of his school children. Paramedics found him waving the children to seek safe haven. This incident has had a tremendous impact on our city for the simple fact that Alfredo is a gifted young individual who dedicated himself to helping the most vulnerable and precious members of our society: children. The obligation to work with the children of the inner city is all too often lost among other, often selfish, priorities. Continuing his studies to become a school principal, Alfredo considered his work with children in the inner city his calling. While at UCLA, Alfredo met, fell in love with, and married Virginia Navar. Ms. Navar also studied to become a teacher and is presently on leave from the Los Angeles Unified School District assisting Alfredo with his recovery. Virginia, his supportive family and numerous well- wishers have been the constant hope in Alfredo's recuperation. Mr. Speaker, on September 22, 1996, several alumni associations from some of California's most prestigious universities have joined forces and will host a special reception to pay tribute to Alfredo Perez for the mobilizing efforts he has inspired and for the dedication he has given to the children of Los Angeles. It is with great pride that I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting this exceptional individual for his outstanding service to the children of Los Angeles.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I want to ask each and every Member who is somewhat in doubt to please vote to sustain the President's veto of H.R. 1833, and let me relate it to something very personal. My legislative director, Deirdre Martinez, right now is at the hospital. She is at the hospital because she is being induced in her delivery of her baby. She is in good hands, and I know she is in good hands because my wife happens to be her ob-gyn. My wife, as I have mentioned in the past, is an ob-gyn, and she is a high-risk specialist. She deals with the type of issues we are discussing on the floor right now. Deirdre is fortunate. My wife says her baby seems to be perfectly normal, good weight, and probably will be born very healthy. There are, unfortunately, too many women sometimes in this country who do not have the good fortune of Deirdre, and it is in time of need that some of these women ask doctors to help them out. There are late-term abortions that are performed that are not pretty because--by the way, no abortion is pretty; and no woman, I suspect, can stand up here and say they like to see what may happen to that pregnancy. But there are cases where a late-term abortion must be performed. We are not talking about a healthy 8- or 9-month-old baby being extracted from the womb; we are talking about a child that will never have a chance to see the light of day because, for whatever reason, it will never become a child within the womb. Sometimes there is a need, for the woman's health, for the woman's safety and her life, to perform an abortion, which we may not like. And as my wife has said, this is not a procedure that is done electively. A woman does not go into a hospital in her eighth month of pregnancy and ask that that fetus be extracted. No doctor in good conscience would do that. What we are talking about is preserving for this woman the opportunity to get past a very difficult situation. Why we would want to ban that for this woman, I do not understand. How 435 Members who do not practice the profession nor live through that experience, how they can say that this is the best thing to legislate for the entire country, I do not understand, nor does my wife, and I suspect, nor does Deirdre, who I hope will have a healthy baby by today. What I do understand is this: That we have politicized an issue because we have waited 6 months to take up the issue. If there was so much concern on the part of those who were for this bill to get this on the move so we would protect the lives of all these so-called unborn babies, why did we not try to overturn the President's veto right away? It is unfortunate, because we know there is an election coming up and there is a point to be made. It is unfortunate because there are a lot of women who are suffering very traumatic times as a result of having these late-term abortions performed. And the saddest part about it is that we have decided to take this issue and politicize it, when it has become a very, very emotional and private issue for that woman. I hope all those who have been able to watch this debate will learn something from this and take away that the experience is tough for them, but they should not have to worry about the politics of this particular procedure.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of problems with this so-called conference report, not least of which is the backroom deals that occurred on the majority side of the aisle in both Houses which did not allow anyone from the Democratic side of the aisle to participate in any of the negotiations that took place over the last 3 to 4 months. Now we are going to try to pass out a bill in about 48 hours, never having seen or had a chance to discuss any of these so-called changes. It is upsetting to see that the Republicans have decided to weaken protections against discrimination for U.S. citizens. They are gutting even a compromise that was reached in the light of day in committee, and the backrooms deals were cut, and that language that protected people from discrimination was removed. It is sad to see that this Congress has now reached the stage where it is going to blame children and punish children for the acts of adults. I have never seen that happen in a court of law, but here we go, not punishing adults for the acts of children, but punishing children for the acts of adults. That is what this Congress wishes to do by denying kids the access to education. By the way, talking about unfunded mandates, doing what they want to do in this bill will cost hundreds of millions of dollars to the schools throughout this Nation. That is not my statement, that is the statement of the California School Board Association, which is opposing the Gallegly amendment. What is worst about all of this is jobs. The reason people come into this country, whether with or without documents, is to get a better paying job for their family. This bill, unfortunately, does little, if anything, to try to preserve and protect American jobs. We had a provision in the Senate bill that said, let us provide 350 investigators to make sure we inspect the workplaces in this country to make sure jobs are held for American citizens. We have right now a total of 750 investigators nationwide to cover 6 million places of employment. That is about 8,000 places of employment per investigator, to investigate to find out if someone is hired with the authorization to work in this country. The Senate, including the Republicans in the Senate, said let us give the Department of Labor the opportunity to do a better job of investigating. Why? Because we have found we have been able to recoup money for a lot of American citizens that would have otherwise not been employed, and those people who are not employed and are in jobs that are not authorized, to get them out and leave the jobs for the American citizens. What we find is that that was all gutted. This so-called conference report that Democrats have never even seen until today does not include any funding for that. Why? If we are really out to protect jobs for Americans, if we are really out to reform our immigration laws, then let us do the thing that most Americans wish to see most, jobs, jobs for Americans, or those entitled to work in this country. This bill does not provide that type of protection. I am amazed, we found somehow the capacity in this Congress to give moneys, funds for 300 additional border patrol agents more than even what the administration, the Clinton administration, requested. The President requested about 700 new border patrol officers. This Congress said, we are going to give you 1,000. When the administration said we need more investigators to make sure people are employed because they are authorized to work, this Congress said no, you cannot do it. So there we have. We are going to find a situation, unlike what the chairman of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities said, that you can stop them all at the border. I wish it was true but it is not, because almost half of the people undocumented in this country come legally through a visa, a student visa or a work visa. Then they overstay and become illegal after that. They are the ones you will never catch. Half of the people, they will continue to be employed and you will not have the investigators to spot them. Bad bill. Vote against this.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, about a year and a half ago, January 1995, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], the majority leader, said, ``I will resist an increase in the minimum wage with every fiber in my being.'' Well, sure enough, on more than five occasions on this floor, Democrats tried to pass a minimum wage bill and each time it was defeated. The result, about 12 million Americans had no chance to see their wages increased. The result of that, well, about $5.6 billion in lost earnings for these people. What does that mean? About 3\1/2\ months of groceries for an individual on the minimum wage or maybe 6 months of health care insurance payments or about 4\1/2\ months of payments of utility bills or about 2 months of housing for that particular worker were lost as a result of 18 months of delays. It is about time, Mr. Speaker, that we got a message here in Congress, the message that America has known for a long time. American workers deserve a raise. I am pleased that we are finally going to get the message here in Congress.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Again, Mr. Speaker, if we could find out what the change would be before we decide.

Mr. BECERRA. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure which amendment the gentleman is talking about.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, under my reservation of objection, if I may ask the gentleman a question, if the gentleman is just providing some definition to ``Native American,'' is that the purpose of the gentleman's amendment?

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams].

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. It is hard to respond in just 2 minutes because I continue to hear people say we want these folks to learn English. We cannot have ethnic enclaves. We do not want kids to grow up only speaking a native language that is not the language of this country. My God, have my colleagues ever seen a child on the playground who does not understand English very well and how they yearn to be able to socialize with their classmates as quickly as possible? If my colleagues have not seen it, then I urge them to come to some of the schools in Los Angeles or San Francisco or Chicago or New York or anywhere in this country, and they will see the eyes of these kids just yearning to learn, and it is not just the eyes of the children they can look at. Look at the eyes of their parents who see that success comes when they learn English. And then look at Los Angeles that has had to turn to 24-hour, round-the-clock teaching of English as a second language because there is such a backlog of people hoping to take these classes. Then go to New York City, where they have to give out lottery tickets so that they can get a space in a class to learn English, and then realize that these folks are there to learn English. In fact, the studies show that people today are learning English at a rate that is four times as fast as people a hundred years ago were learning English. That makes sense because technology makes it easier for folks to acquire the English language. Please do not say that folks who come to this country and have said, ``I'm here legally, and I'm about to become a U.S. citizen when I qualify after 5 years,'' please do not tell these folks that they do not wish to learn English because our colleagues have just denigrated every reason they took to forgo their country's nationality and come to this country and make it their new place and their children's place. These folks want to learn. Recognize that, and unfortunately this bill does not do what our colleagues say. Their intent is good. Their bill is bad. Forget about the bill. Let us live with intent. We can all agree with it. Let us all have English in this country. But this bill does not do it.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Guam [Mr. Underwood]. (Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) modification offered by mr. underwood to the amendment offered by mr. cunningham

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez].

Mr. BECERRA. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. If my colleagues are somewhat confused in this debate, I can understand why. Everyone both for and against this bill is saying English is the language of this country, and it is. And it always will be. And as the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] said, it probably soon will become the language of the world. So why are we here debating a bill and why are there people opposed to it? Because what we want and what we wish and what we intend must be very clear in what we write. And unfortunately, what is written, it is not what people are saying. Mr. Chairman, what is written is completely opposite of what people are saying. There is nothing in this bill that will help teach those who wish to learn English the language. There is nothing in this bill that will promote those who are wishing to learn English the language. What this bill will do is strangle those who are taking classes trying to learn, and that is why those of us who are standing here saying English is the language of America will be strangled, those people will be strangled from ever having the chance to truly learn the language well. This is not a bill to send a message. This is a bill that will strangle those trying to learn English.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, while I do not oppose this particular amendment, I ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition to this amendment. I understand that this request has been worked out with the majority.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, either this is a good bill or it has got real problems. If it is a good bill, and that is what we were told when it left the committee, then why do we see more than 20 changes being made now at the last moment now that it is on the floor to try to correct all these problems in the bill? Explain to me and explain to the American worker, who you are going to impose this upon, how a good bill comes out of committee and needs more than 20 changes through amendments that we do not have a chance to read very well because we get it at the last moment and tell American workers that these are good changes. If they are so good, then why does the Wall Street Journal, which is not your most liberal of publications, and not your employee supporting of publications, make mention of analysis that they show that over 695,000 workers in America won settlements for overtime? Not that they claimed they were due overtime pay, they won settlements from their employers. There are estimates that two-thirds of America's workers deserve overtime and may not get it. There is no problem in having flex time. No one here disagrees with that. What we are saying is, truly give the flex time to the person who has earned it, the employee. What you have here are too many problems in the bill because it does not give it to the employee. It gives the employer the right to determine who will take time off, how it will be called compensatory time. Give it to them. Let us give it to them, but let us be honest and let us give them the time, not the employer. Once the employee has worked for that employer, he or she has earned either the salary or the time. But do not confuse the issues and do not deceive the American worker. Let them take the time. Do not let the employer all of a sudden have this leverage of denying overtime pay and saying, compensatory time is what you get whether you want it or not. This is not a good bill. The 20-some-odd changes that we have had to make proves it. There will be more changes if this passes, and, hopefully, the President will veto it if it gets through here. Let us defeat this bill.

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I believe everyone would agree that all of us who work would love flexibility at the workplace. Whether you are the employee or you are the employer, you want to know you have a chance to make use of your vacation time, your benefits, and obviously do the best job you can while you are on the job. With the realities that today's families must face, two working parents, kids off to school, kids trying to be able to participate in recreational activities, it is difficult. Let us give employees that flexibility, but let us give them the flexibility of doing what they wish with their time and the money they have earned through their wages. The problems I have with this bill are that it does not do that. Let me give some quick examples. The issue of coercion. We have people who work here who have graduate degrees, who oftentimes find themselves picking up laundry for Members of Congress or shuttling family members to and from offices because the Member says, ``I need to have it done.'' If we can see that happening here in the halls of this place, think what happens in the workplace where someone is working for $7 an hour and the employer says, ``I need you to do this this way. I need you to take comp time versus the overtime pay you could get on Saturday.'' What is the employee going to say? ``Sorry, I think I would rather take my overtime and not agree with you''? Chances are there is going to be a lot of pressure on that employee to do what the employer wants. This bill gives the employer that kind of leverage. Slow periods. When I was working my way through college, I worked as a construction worker on highways. It is seasonal work and it is unpredictable work. If it rains, you do not work because you cannot go outside and work in the mud. What happens in the case of seasonal work, slow periods, where the employer says to himself, ``I know I don't need any workers next week, I've got a slowdown in my jobs, in my contracts, so I'm going to tell everyone who has got comp time to use it rather than have them come in to work and not do as much work.'' It is great for the employer but it is terrible for the employee, because the employee is not expecting necessarily to have to use the comp time on that occasion. What you do is give employers a way to slough off some of their obligation to their employees where they would otherwise have to pay them to go to work. Finally, let us just leave it at this. On bankruptcy, the chairman of the committee says that there are provisions in the bill that deal with it. I say to the chairman, he cannot have that in there because this is a bill that deals with the Fair Labor Standards Act. We are not dealing with bankruptcy law, so there is nothing to address the concerns of those who say, ``I have got comp time and it is not taken care of because an employer goes out of business, I will not get my money.'' There is nothing in the bill that would protect the employee beyond what is in current law, and the changes that we have in this bill do not address the bankruptcy laws that we currently have in effect. Therefore, an employee who finds himself or herself working for someone who goes out of business takes the risk of not getting money from the employer, and that is not fair.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 2 minutes. That is all it should take Members of this House to pass this bill. Two minutes. Not 2 months and certainly not 40 years. But for 40 years we have seen the minimum wage constantly have the value eroded down to the point now where we are now talking to folks who are working for minimum wage who cannot afford to exist. Mr. Speaker, this is not a liveable wage. And it has been more than a month since this House, by a vast majority of its Members, decided to tell the American people, America you deserve a raise. But for more than a month this bill has been held in limbo because of politics. The Senate passed a raise on the wage more than a month ago and we cannot get this out so Americans can finally get their raise. Mr. Speaker, there is not a need to wait any longer. We need not have an instruction to tell Members of Congress to finally do their work. Let us get to the business of this Congress. Let us increase the wage of American workers who earn the least amount in this country and do some of the hardest work. They have waited a long time. They have had to suffer through this. And quite honestly, it is time for us to tell them we appreciate what they do. And rather than the politics day after day, denying them the opportunity to have a 50 cent increase in their hourly pay, let us get past this political bickering and say it is time to increase the wage of America. I urge Members to vote for this instruction and let us tell the leadership of the Congress: Fight if you wish, but do not do it on American workers' time. Let us pass this and get it over with and give America what it deserves. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, if there is one clarion call that we should hear in this Congress when it comes to reforming welfare, it should be: Hold our children harmless. We can disagree on a lot of things, but I think one thing is clear: None of us intends to put children in worse condition by reforming welfare. Yet we still have an issue. The Republican welfare bill that passed in this House would send 1.5 million children into poverty. It would increase the level of poverty for those children already existing without enough. Why would we want, as this bill does, to deny a child who lives in a home where there is domestic violence the opportunity to escape that home? Why would we want to deny more than 300,000 children who exist with a disability the opportunity to try to have the same opportunity as any other child? Why would we want to deny a child who is hungry the opportunity through food stamps to be nourished? I do not think we want to do that, and I believe on a bipartisan basis we can get there. We are getting closer. There are still some disagreements. But certainly we can get there. Let us not fool ourselves. If we do not give through the Federal Government some assistance through food stamps or other services to that child, no one in the community in Los Angeles where I live or any community where you live will say, ``We're going to leave that child on the street.'' We are going to care for that child one way or the other because we are very humane in this country. But let us not shift costs to the local governments and claim that we have saved welfare. Let us do it the right way and let us remember, in the end, the clarion call should be: We will hold our children harmless.