Xavier Becerra

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mollohan-Fox amendment and in opposition to the bill's dramatic cuts to Legal Services.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Let me begin by trying to dispel some myths and correct something that the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means has just said. Legal immigrants are not over utilizing welfare, AFDC, for example. In fact, they use it as a lower rate than does the citizen population. What we find is a skew in the numbers because of the refugee population, which by definition comes without anything because they are escaping persecution. We have in the law a requirement that we try to aid them as they try to transition from a place they had to escape without bringing anything with them. We hear people say that we have to deny immigrants, legal immigrants, not undocumented, access to services for which they pay with their taxes, because in every respect they do what a citizen does. They must contribute in their taxes. We are saying here in this bill, ``Let's deny them services because they are coming in this country to get welfare.'' Absolutely not true. A respected, well-known research center, conservative research center which the Republican majority often uses, the Cato Institute, told us immigrants contribute about $285 billion to the economy, pay $70 billion in taxes, and net, in other words, in excess, they contribute $25 billion more than they use in services from the government. Now, why do we hear all this talk? Because they cannot vote, they cannot hurt people who attack them, and they are an easy target, especially when we call them non-citizens. On behalf of my parents who were immigrants, on behalf of the over 1 million active and now veteran legal immigrants who served this country in time of war, and on behalf of the two Congressional Medal of Honor winners who served this country, both legal immigrants, that I can talk of, I say they do not come here to take, they come to give. The proof is in the pudding, and we should not attack a group just because it happens to be politically tenable to go after them, because they cannot go after us. It is unfortunate it is done. Let us have some decent debate on this and get meaningful welfare reform, but let us not attack folks trying to make this country better than what it is.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding me this time. Madam Chairman, let me begin by first thanking many of my colleagues and the folks within my own leadership in the Democratic caucus of the House for the time and effort that has been spent with many of us who have had concerns about welfare and meaningful reform of welfare. I want to thank those who took the time to hear us out. Unlike some of the folks on the other side of the aisle, there has been a great deal of effort on the part of our leadership and many of the members of our caucus, from both sides of the spectrum, to try to address issues of grave concern to us all. As President Clinton has said, the current welfare system is broken and must be replaced. This is true for the sake of the people who are trapped by it as well as for the taxpayers who pay for it. But when we began to consider reforming welfare, discussions centered on providing sufficient child care to enable recipients to leave welfare for work, on rewarding States for placing people in jobs, on restoring the guarantee of health coverage for poor families, on requiring States to maintain their stake in moving people from welfare to work, and on protecting States and families in the event of economic recession and population growth. But this House bill has failed miserably in achieving these goals. Instead, it relies on catchy slogans and soundbites of setting time limits so you are off if you do not make it, if you do not cut it. We block grant in this bill, give you a lump sum of money which looks good but never is enough to cover your needs in the States. And we talk about, as we have heard some of the Members on the other side of the aisle say, the noncitizen alien, and they use as graphic a term as they can to try to describe these human beings who are in this country, one, legally; are in this country, two, paying taxes; are in this country, three, willing and ready and obligated to serve in time of war, as many have, and are prepared to die, as many have, for this country even though they have yet not become U.S. citizens. The effect of this bill, well, it is weak on work. They force people off of welfare, but they do not help them get into work. It will shove more children into poverty, and we know that from many of the studies, and everyone across the board says that. Let me focus finally for the rest of my time on this one last issue: The hidden tax that you do not hear many people talk about. There is a tax in this bill. Let us go ahead and disclose it now. Thirty billion dollars of the so-called savings that amount to $60 billion comes from a particular population of people, not because they are lazy and do not work, not because they have come into this country without documents. These are folks who happen to be immigrants; they haven't yet reached the stage of becoming citizens. But this population of legal residents in this country who are entitled to be here because this country has granted them permission has now been told you are going to pay a tax of about $2,000 per person, about $30 billion is being extracted from the hides of people who are entitled to be here, who are working and paying taxes. Why? Well, they do not vote. They do not have a say in this place and chances are they are not going to contribute money to the coffers, campaign coffers of people who are hitting them. So there is no stake here or negative stake here in going after the legal immigrant. So what we see is that these individuals are being told, and their children are being told, no, you have worked 5 years, 10 years, 15 years and now all of a sudden you have been hit by a car and you need some assistance with the medical bills because you cannot pay them all yourself, sorry. You happen to not yet have become a citizen, even though you have worked here for quite some time and paid taxes, and that hidden tax will cost those individuals about $2,000 per person, and if you exclude children, it is a much heavier hit for the adults. More than 200 years ago we had some folks toss some tea over a harbor because of the issue of taxation without representation, yet we see it being done here today but in a very concealed way. Finally, let me close by saying the following things: For some reason this Congress this session has decided it wants to hit my family in virtually everything I have to come up here to discuss, and in committee as well. It seems that I am having to defend my parents or my relatives. My parents who migrated to Sacramento, CA, would face many of the situations that are in this bill that would deny them services, even though my parents have worked hard in this country for decades. I am not sure why I have to constantly try to explain to my father that the Congress of the United States and this noble country is out to get them. They are fortunately now citizens, so they will not be impacted. But isn't it ironic just because they happen to have that day been able to become citizens things have changed? It is a hidden tax. It is an unfair tax and that must change. We need meaningful reform. Let's change welfare as we know it, as the President said, but let us do it in a way that includes all Americans.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill and in support of this particular amendment.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and would say that I agree with everything she has said. All the information we have, the data and any studies you look at show that we are absolutely in need of teachers who can help transition a lot of our young students who are not yet proficient in English so that they can become fully proficient. What we have found is that the best way to do that is to not let them fall behind in math, in geography and science while they are trying to learn English but let them learn all those subjects so that within 3, 4, or 5 years they are actually in fully mainstream course work. I would agree with the gentlewoman completely we do need to see more funding, we do need to see some money allocated to the professional development component of bilingual education so we can have the teachers that we need to teach. We are drastically by tens of thousands of teachers understaffed in our schools for bilingual education and hopefully we will see something remedied as we go through the process of trying to pass a bill.

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

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

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I am actually quite encouraged to hear the chairman's remarks because I think, if he were to go to some of the large cities like mine in Los Angeles, what he would find is that transition is actually occurring rapidly. But when you have a situation where, like in Los Angeles, you have so many new kids coming in who are in a situation where they must learn anew--in fact, you have some kinds who have never seen a computer so they do not even know how to say computer even in their native language--it takes some time for a school to be able to show the success. But if you look at the individual children, the average time of stay in a bilingual education program is 3 years. So they are transitioned to a fully mainstreamed program of English-only instruction in about 3 years. So I am very encouraged to hear the chairman's remarks and I hope that we are able to do something because over the last decade, bilingual education has taken about a 60-percent cut in funding. So these are kids who are trying to learn who have seen their funding at the Federal level cut by 60 percent. I have a figure here that says that the Department of Education recently estimated that we are short approximately 175,000 bilingual education teachers to help these kids transition quickly into mainstream instruction.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend and colleague from California for his very thoughtful approach to this. I must say that I disagree with his interpretation of that Supreme Court decision in the Sure-Tan case, which he cites, and say that the NLRB, the National Labor Relations Board, in its decision, I believe, was eminently correct in saying that backpay for anyone who is employed is appropriate because in this particular instance what the NLRB was trying to say is we must protect the provisions of the NLRA, National Labor Relations Act, which are trying to preserve rights for employees. I would say to my friend that what we are really talking about is the fact that in this particular case at issue which caused the gentleman some concern and the case of Sure-Tan, what we have is a case where employees would have been paid for work which would have been performed but for the illegal, the unlawful firing by the employers of these particular individuals. That is why the NLRB decided that it was absolutely appropriate for backpay to be issued because, but for the unlawful activity of the employers, there would have been pay provided to these employees. Now, we get to the next issue of, well, these individuals as employees were here without documentation and may not have been authorized to work. What the court has said, and I believe if we look to the case in the 9th circuit, I think it was the Filbro case, and I will try to get the specific citation in a second. What the 9th circuit said was that in fact the Supreme Court in the Sure-Tan case cited by the gentleman from California, the Supreme Court did not say that you should not award any type of backpay to someone who is undocumented. But what you should do is make sure it is based on the status of the employee had it not been for the unlawful conduct of the employer. So had that employee been working but for the unlawful firing by the employer, then in that case if would be under the NLRA entitled to back pay as that particular employee. What my colleagues would have, if they allow the gentleman's amendment to pass, is a case where they punish the employee for the employer's unlawful firing, and they do nothing to the employer. They let the employer escape all punishment for having committed an illegal act. Sure-Tan, I would submit, is prospective; it is not retrospective as the gentleman from California, I would allege, is trying to make it. And for those reasons I would urge people to vote against this particular amendment.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, due to a commitment in my district, on Thursday, May 23, I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall Nos. 192 through 195. As a strong supporter of a clean minimum wage increase, I would have voted as follows: ``aye'' on rollcall 192, ``no'' on rollcall 193, ``no'' on rollcall 194, and ``aye'' on rollcall 195.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, April 16 and Tuesday, April 17, 1996, I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall votes 116 through 120. I would like to state for the record, had I been able to, I would have voted ``no'' on 116 and 117, and ``aye'' on 118, 119, and 120.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join another colleague and friend, the gentlewoman from Hawaii, Mrs. Patsy Mink, to salute all those in this country, all those Americans of Asian/Pacific Islander descent who have made this such a great country. I rise because I have grown to know and to respect the many accomplishments of our Asian/Pacific Americans, and I happen to have a district in California, in the Los Angeles area, that happens to have a great number of Asian/Pacific Islanders in Los Angeles. It happens that much of my work, much of my effort and much of my success is a result of the efforts of many of the people in my district, and I count among those the many people from the Asian/Pacific community that have helped me along the way. Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend a few moments talking a little bit about the individual and the collective contributions of Asian/Pacific Americans to our country, and I would like to do that within the context, if I may, of my particular district, because as I said, my district is rich in what makes America great, the diversity, the talents, and I can speak of so many individuals from my particular district in southern California, so I would like to concentrate on just a few of those. First, I would like to just make sure it is clear that someone who has an opportunity to represent Koreatown in Los Angeles, parts of Chinatown in Los Angeles, a great percentage of the Filipino community in Los Angeles, and countless other Southeast Asians who live in Los Angeles, I have had a great opportunity to get to know the much and diverse ways in which our culture here in America is reflected. We can talk about people like Mr. Don Toy, who is a Chinese American, who has become probably Mr. Chinatown over the years because of his many efforts on behalf of the residents of Chinatown within the Los Angeles area. This is the executive director of Chinatown Teen Post, and in that capacity he has been able to help so many of our youth go on and lead productive lives. He has been instrumental in making sure that senior citizens throughout Los Angeles have an opportunity in the areas around Chinatown to have safe and decent homes to live in at the point of their retirement. Cathay Manor, which houses more than 300 units and is home to more than 500 seniors in Los Angeles, is really a tribute to the success of someone like Don Toy. Cathay Manor is there, and the people living in Cathay Manor owe a great deal to Don Toy. Stewart Kwoh, another Chinese American, is a resident of Los Angeles, the Silver Lake area, part of which I represent. He is the executive director of the Asian/Pacific American Legal Center of southern California. Most people know of the legal center because of its many successes in defending the rights and protecting those rights of Asian/ Pacific islanders who are in this country. We have found on too many occasions the need to go to court to defend the rights of all citizens of this country, of all people of this country, to have the protections of the Constitution. Stewart Kwoh and the Asian/Pacific American Legal Center of southern California have been there to ensure that those people have been able to assert their rights. Bong Hwan Kim, a friend and another individual from my district, he is Korean American. He is also the director of a fantastic program at the Korean Youth and Community Center. It is the largest Korean American service organization in the Nation. Through his leadership it has continued to grow, and it continues to build bridges with the different races and ethnic groups that make up Los Angeles, the patchwork which has become such a renowned part of Los Angeles. It is because of his efforts that the Korean American community has been able to reach out to the African American community, to the other communities which make up that portion of America that we call Los Angeles. Linda Wong, a Chinese American of fantastic reputation, is chief financial officer of Rebuild L.A., the organization created to make sure that we could, after the aftermath of the unrest in Los Angeles, go on to rebuild this great city. She has worked tirelessly for many years as a lawyer defending so many people, not just Asian/Pacific islanders, but many people through her public interest work as an attorney, and now she is also someone who is working as a trustee of the Los Angeles metropolitan project, which is a $100 million educational reform movement in Los Angeles. The honorable Delbert Wong, Chinese American resident, is the first superior court judge in the United States, a fantastic jurist, someone who would be just the epitome of what we would want to see in our courts. He is someone who is Los Angeles bred. One last friend, Dr. Haing Ngor. Some of you may remember this Cambodian American because he is the individual who won the Oscar for best supporting actor in the film, the Killing Fields. He has unfortunately left us because of his brutal murder, a tragic death, but he too was an Asian American of renown. Throughout his lifetime Dr. Ngor never gave up his work to someday obtain peace in Cambodia. I want to thank the Speaker for the opportunity to say to all those people who have represented this country so well and will continue to do so whether they are of a particular ethnicity, or race in this case, we are talking about the Asian/Pacific islander community, that what make America great is the fabric that keeps us together. The Asian/ Pacific islander community is among the various communities that make this Nation so great, and I wish to extend to all those people my congratulations and my thanks for the greatness that comes through those people.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I want to make sure it is clear that what the gentleman has said to try to further explain makes it clear that you do not have to have only physical force in to face these particular enhanced penalties, that you can engage in misleading conduct. If that father had engaged in misleading conduct to try to help his wife be relieved of the penalties in a criminal prosecution, he still could face not the penalties that relate to witness or jury tampering under current law and not just the penalties that his wife may have faced, which may have been greater penalties than what he would face under the current juror or witness tampering laws, but he could face the penalties that some kid unknown to him faces for having shot that convenience store clerk, which could be first degree murder and therefore the death penalty. What I am just trying to make clear is there is a disconnect between what this bill ultimately can do and I believe what the gentleman is trying to do. I believe the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], is onto something that is crucial. That is to make sure that, if someone is going to tamper with a witness or with a juror or retaliate, that we penalize them. And if we find that the penalties under current law for that type of activity tampering are too minimal, then maybe we should attach to them penalties that relate to the tampering they did, but keep it consistent. If that person tried to tamper to try to help someone who was a low level offender, make sure they pay the price that the low level offender would have paid, not the price that someone totally perhaps unrelated to that person faces. I think, if he had done that, I have no problems with it whatsoever. But it just goes beyond, I think it overreaches, and it makes it very difficult to believe that we would really want to say this in our statutes. My only problem is, again, it is not with the intent. It is that we are passing laws here, and what we are saying to the people of this country, quite honestly to the history of the United States, is that we are trying to do the best by America. And it does not seem to me the best thing to do for America is to pass laws that ultimately someone is going to say, whoa, we have to redefine this and go back into it.

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman from North Carolina stated very eloquently the problems with this particular legislation. Let me again begin by stating, as I believe I did in the previous bill, that the idea here behind this legislation is a good one. I support the stated objective of H.R. 3120. If someone, it can be proven, violated the law by tampering with a juror or a witness in order to try to help out a defendant, that person should be penalized. If the penalties that we have under current law for the specific crime of jury tampering or witness tampering do not seem to be commensurate to the type of offense that may have been committed in tampering and perhaps helping someone get off without penalty, then we should consider extending the violation of law and the penalties thereby to that person who tampered with a juror or with a witness. Where this legislation loses me is in its scope. It overreaches. We had the discussion in committee, and I respect the gentleman from Florida's position that it does not, but it does in two respects. First, I would disagree with the gentleman from Florida that in fact the language in the bill is clear that no one could face the death penalty. I think it is very ambiguous as to whether someone could face the death penalty under this legislation for having tampered with a juror or a witness. In fact, it probably can be cured fairly readily with some language that made it clear that when we have language that talks about the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case, if it were to be clear that it would include any term other than the death penalty, that would make it very clear that the previous language where it talks about the maximum term of imprisonment is meant to exclude the death penalty. But that is not my biggest concern, because it is the fact that you can get to that stage which concerns me, and that is what I would like to focus the rest of my remarks with regard to this legislation on. It seems to me that in trying to penalize someone for having done the misdeed, and it is a terrible misdeed, of trying to help someone get off in a prosecution by tampering with a witness, threatening a juror, or anything like that, that we go beyond that sensibility that we try to maintain in our judicial system, and is some cases we mock justice by saying that someone who may have tampered with a juror or with a witness in an effort to try to help someone in a low-level offense that may be related in a case with a number of other offenses, including very high level offenses, for example, first degree murder, that that individual that tampered with the juror, and, remember, tampering could be offering an incentive to someone, a juror or a witness, that that person all of a sudden can face the same penalty that that criminal defendant that may have killed five people is facing, of either the death penalty or imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Mr. Chairman, let me see if I can try to come up with an example that makes it a little bit clearer what I am trying to say. We tried to do this in committee, and I know to some degree folks get lost. But if you have an individual, let us call him Joe, involved in a crime, let us say he is out there with some friends, and his friends tell him to come along, they are going to get some cash. They need some money, so they are going to stop by and rob a convenience store. Joe has no idea that his friends may do anything more than just try to get some quick cash. Say one of Joe's friends does the worst thing of all and kills the guy in the convenience store working there, the clerk. That individual who did the shooting is now subject to first degree murder charges, and, because Joe may have been, let us say, in the car driving at the time, waiting for these guys to come back out, he, as a result of the felony murder, is also subject to up to the death penalty for that first degree murder. That is rightfully so. He participated, maybe not totally knowingly, but he participated in a crime that could have and did in fact, lead to the death of an individual. So, now Joe goes home and he tells his mother he has to flee the law because he just did a bad thing. He does not necessarily explain to his mother what he did. Let us say his mother tries to harbor him for a few days. Now she has abetted a first degree murder defendant. She can be charged with having abetted a criminal defendant. Now, let us say all these folks get charged in the same case, including the mother, because she tried to protect her son before maybe even she even turned him in. Somehow she is involved in a low level offense. Mr. Chairman, let us say Joe's father is totally broken up by this. His son is now subject to first degree murder charges, his wife tried to abet her son, and so now he sees his son and his wife facing criminal charges. Say he goes and speaks to a witness and says, ``My wife didn't mean it; can't you have mercy? Let her go. Judge, do whatever you have to do with my son, just be fair,'' et cetera, et cetera. The witness comes back and tells the prosecutor, ``You know what? Joe's father tried to talk me into helping Joe's mother in this case so she would be let go and I wouldn't testify against her.'' What penalty should he pay? Well, we have the current law that says anyone who tampers with a jury or witness can face criminal punishment. That is already in existing law. Joe's father can face penalties for witness tampering or jury tampering right now. But this bill says that Joe's father, because he went to the witness or a juror and said ``Help my wife out, she didn't really know what she was getting into,'' that Joe's father now can face the same first degree murder penalties that Joe faces, and, really, that the gunman who did the killing faces for what was done? Now, Joe's father may have been trying to help his wife get off of a small offense, and it was wrong, and he should be penalized, But should he now face the death penalty or life imprisonment without possibility of parole because he tried to help his wife out? Most people I think would say no. But this bill says yes, he can. Mr. Chairman, I would not mind seeing Joe's father charged with something similar to what his wife was being charged with if it was greater in penalty than what he faced exclusively under our witness or juror tampering laws right now. But I do not believe Joe's father should have to now go before a jury that may decide to give him the death penalty. I do not think most juries would, to begin with, and I do not think we ever really get to that stage very often. But because we do not think anyone would go to that extreme, it does not mean we should legislate to those extremes, and we should not legislate to the point where we mock justice and sensibility. That is where we are heading. I do not know if this runs afoul of the Constitution as something approaching cruel and unusual punishment. I certainly think that we could have corrected this in committee, and it still can be corrected, to make it clear that we can relate the punishment for those who tamper with witnesses and jurors to those crimes that are related to the person they were trying to help get off, those defendants they were trying to help get off from criminal penalties. But this goes a little bit beyond, not a little bit, quite a bit beyond, and I think it is unfortunate that the drafting of this legislation makes it very difficult for someone who really takes the time to read this bill to support it. Otherwise it would be a good bill. If it was connected to the purpose, I think we could find we could get total support. As I said before, it is unfortunate the drafting was not done very well.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I was looking through the code book to try to see if I could understand what the gentleman from Florida was saying with regard to my example. The gentleman from Florida said that it would only apply if there were a case of physical force in the jury tampering or witness tampering. I failed to find the exclusion or the requirement that there be physical tampering. It can include a number of things which would provide for intimidation and physical force, but that is not a requirement within the statute. So it could include a number of other things.

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

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, so the example that I gave still applies, that there is not always a need for physical force in order for these enhanced penalties to attach. I think the gentleman left the impression that, unless someone went out there and committed physical force, that witness or juror tampering could not include the enhanced penalties.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by first thanking the gentleman from North Carolina for raising so many important constitutional and civil rights questions in this particular bill. I know a number of us thought this legislation would move through the course of this evening very quickly and a number of issues have been raised. I must say that the gentleman from North Carolina raises some extremely important points, and this particular amendment unfortunately I know will not get the attention from Members that it deserves, but it should. This is an amendment that says we have a process, let us follow it. Too often these days we find that the public, particular constituencies, particular communities, are not really pleased with the American process, whether it is judicial or legislative process. We can say the same thing about our political process. People are in many cases fed up. We can talk about certain high-profile jury verdicts that have come down, where people have said perhaps we should totally undo the jury process. But we have a process and fortunately we have a Constitution that says we have to stick to a process. The Congress quite some time ago said we need a process to make sure we legislate appropriately when it comes to criminal matters. We have to make sure that people who are committing crimes are swiftly punished and appropriately punished for what they do. We set up a Commission. That Commission was free of the politics that occurs day in and day out in this Chamber. We said, ``We will charge you to tell us what you think we should do on these particular issues that we bring to your attention.'' That is what we have been doing, is bringing these issues to their attention, directing them to take a look at certain things and get back to us. We have every right, as the gentleman from Florida has said, to disagree with the Commission and do something differently. That is what we have before us in this case with this bill. The Congress, or a majority of Members, I suspect, in this Congress object to what the Commission has done. Does that mean it is right? Well, chances are what we are going to see happen is passage of this bill, and then we are going to have to revisit this in a few years because we are going to find that much of this is unworkable. Why? Because right now I think people are looking at November 1996, not May 7, 1996. We charged a particular set of experts to tell us how best to conduct ourselves when legislating on issues of criminal law violations and we are telling them, ``You've done your work, we set a course for you, but we wish to ignore it.'' To me, that is the worst type of legislating, because what are we saying to folks is, ``Give us something that we can show folks, that we can hold up and say we've had something to look at,'' but then we just disregard it. So we are acting like the experts, and I suspect most of the people who are going to push their button pretty soon on this bill will not even have heard the debate that is taking place on this floor, but that is where we have gone. We are now at the point of telling the Commission, you have done your work, and I have not even heard anybody say the work of the Commission was not good, but what we have decided to do is totally disregard it. The Commission did take substantial measures, as it was requested to do so by this Congress two years ago, to see what we needed to do to make sure that people who committed crimes against the elderly and our young were severely and adequately punished, but we are going to ignore that right now because a majority of Members are going to vote to pass this bill. That is they way things are done these days, especially during an election year. It is unfortunate, and it is most unfortunate when a Member is willing to bring this up, knowing full well that the chances of getting just a few votes or more than a few votes are unlikely. It is important at least because somewhere there will be a record that on May 7, 1996, somebody decided to speak up, have a rational voice and say this is not the way we conduct business, and certainly this is not the way the Constitution of the United States or the Founders of this country expected us to conduct ourselves in these hallowed Chambers.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer some thoughts on the tragic passing of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. I would first like to convey my sincere condolences to his family: his wife Alma, and his children Tracey and Michael. As I survey his life it is difficult not to be impressed by the richness and breadth of Ron Brown's accomplishments. It is the quintessential American story. He rose from modest beginnings in Harlem to the pinnacles of law, politics and government. Secretary Brown's life was an affirmation that in America a man of imagination, talent and determination could succeed. His joy in serving as Secretary of Commerce was infectious. His dedication to helping young Americans aspire and succeed was genuine. And his commitment to serve his country was a constant throughout his life. His smile, hopefulness and generosity will be missed.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, on balance, this conference report is transparently unbalanced. It is bad where State laws would otherwise benefit consumers and victims, and it is good where State laws would benefit manufacturers. The problems for States, this law preempts States that wish to take action at the State level against product liability abuse. Who does this conference report exclude the Conyers provision that would have held foreign manufacturers liable for damaging, injuring, killing American citizens? Why does this conference report on the manufacturer of a defective elevator that might be 14 years, 364 days old, let that victim sue that manufacturer of that defective elevator, but the next day that same victim would not be able to sue because of a statute of limitations that would not allow that to occur? Why does a victim of a manufacturer's product have to prove, through a higher burden of proof, the damage occurred or the injury occurred? This is an unbalanced conference report. It does not deserve the support of this conference, because it does not support the American consumer. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, let me rise in opposition to H.R. 3136 and mention that, along with some of the Members who have spoken earlier, I, too, believe that this bill will ultimately be found constitutional if it is signed into law. I also note with curiosity that we made the line-item veto effective after the term of the current President, Bill Clinton, has expired, and I think that is somewhat questionable as to why this Congress, under the new majority, has decided not to allow this particular President the opportunity to exercise a line-item veto if they are so adamantly for it. But let me mention something that I find extremely disturbing in this particular bill, which I cannot understand why it is even in here, and that is the whole issue of regulatory reform. I do not think there is any Member of Congress who does not wish to see regulatory flexibility and decreasing the burden on small business so long as we provide protections to the environment, to workers, and to people, our consumers. But, disturbingly, this bill commits an end run on the whole issue of regulatory reform because what it does is it provides, in this particular piece of legislation, through an amendment which I must say just came to us last night, which amends this bill which came to us just 2 days ago, the whole structure used to regulate agencies and regulate businesses out there in this country. How someone is supposed to be able to know what something that they got 2 days ago completely means and then now have to analyze something that they got last night, what that means is beyond me. But that is what we are being asked to swallow here through this end run. I am not sure what is wrong with this particular bill, but why was it that the majority was unwilling to let sunshine on these provisions so we could decide if, in fact, this is the true regulatory reform we need? Let me mention a couple of other things. This legislation creates, in the regulatory reform provisions, so-called regulatory fairness boards and advocacy panels. These are panels and boards that may be made up completely of a few favored small businesses that are trying to get themselves out of regulation, or can even include people who are exclusively major campaign contributors to particular Members of Congress or to particular parties. That I find very disturbing and very offensive. What else does this legislation do? It allows for private ex parte communications. In other words, all the interested parties are normally under the customary practice allowed to sit in, in an open and fair process on the record, on what should be done with regard to regulatory reform. This legislation says no, we do not need to do that any more. Let us go ahead and let a few people who happen to sit on these boards or advocacy panels have the opportunity to privately, without the other interested parties, sit down with some of these agencies that are actually going to create these particular regulations or remove certain regulations. That is unfair to those businesses that are trying to do this in a fair and evenhanded manner. Finally, the environment is at stake. I would urge all the Members to, if they really have a chance, take a look at this. We are going to take out the penalties for environmental violations of law. As I was saying, take a look at the provisions that deal with environmental regulations. What we see here are waivers of penalties that would otherwise apply to those businesses that we find in violation of our clean water and safe drinking water standards. Any penalty for having violated those particular laws or regulations could be waived. Not only that, but because we have not had enough time to examine it, it is going to be fairly clear from some of the cryptic language that is used that they are going to create a nest egg for attorneys, because they will be able to go in there and take this to court because so much of this is so difficult to understand. What they are doing though is putting the consumer at risk, they are putting the environment at risk, and I would urge Members to take a close look for all the reasons I stated on why we should oppose H.R. 3136.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I am confused. The debate I am hearing from that side has nothing to do with the medical procedure that it seems we are trying to ban. I continue to hear people talk about how we are conducting abortions on babies that otherwise would be able to survive; if the pregnancy were to go to term, we would have a living baby. When in fact, as my wife who happens to be a high-risk obstetrician- gynecologist who deals specifically with women who have difficult pregnancies, has said, this is not a procedure where you are talking about a fetus that will go to term and where you will have a healthy baby born. This is a procedure that is used when it is fairly clear that the baby has no chance to live, and to allow the pregnancy to go to term would jeopardize the health and perhaps the life of the woman. So it seems like the debate is not really on point. Now, let me read something that came from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, those doctors that are asked to perform these types of procedures and to protect the women involved. They state: The college finds very disturbing any action by Congress that would supersede the medical judgment of trained physicians and that would criminalize medical procedures that may be necessary to save the life of a woman. Moreover, in defining what medical procedures doctors may or may not perform, the bill employs terminology that is not even recognized in the medical community, demonstrating why congressional opinion should never be substituted for professional medical judgment. Mr. Speaker, I think that states it best. We have people here who are trying to impose their opinion on a medical profession where technical, highly sophisticated, highly trained individuals are being asked to perform lifesaving procedures. It does not make sense. We should stay out of this. We should let a woman make that very difficult choice of what type of procedure she would need to preserve her health and her life, and perhaps have a chance to have a pregnancy that will be able to go to term. Mr. Speaker, I would urge Members to seriously consider voting strongly against this particular bill, because it does not do what the proponents say.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the bill. It is wrong-headed and should fail.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for saying my name so well. I, too, stand in opposition to the amendment. We have no evidence that there is a need for this. We should preserve jobs in our hospitals and our clinics for the nurses that have gone through the programs in this country and are ready to serve the people that are in need of medical care. Mr. Chairman, there is no need to reach out at this time. There was a perceived need back in the early 1990s. If there was a need, it has been met by those temporary or foreign nurses that came in. We do not need the program. It expired last year. There is no need to revive it. Let us get on with this and let us preserve jobs that are available for American nurses.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, at this time we are moving on to the amendment by the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], in which case 5 minutes will be accorded to both those supporting and those opposing. My parliamentary inquiry is, what happens to the time that had been allotted for the Pombo amendment? Does that remain at the end of the debate of the Condit amendment?