Xavier Becerra

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Further parliamentary inquiry. Is it then, based on the rule that was passed earlier, the prerogative of an individual who wishes to object only to object to the dispensing of the reading of those particular amendments?

Mr. BECERRA. If the Chair would indulge me in explaining what the Chair means.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I too must rise in opposition to this particular amendment and acknowledge that there are some changes that are made in the amendment, the manager's amendment, which I think improve the bill. I thank the gentleman for making some of those changes. Unfortunately, some of the changes made were matters that were never even discussed in committee, and which many of us on this side of the aisle never had a chance to really examine until just recently. It is unfortunate, because we are talking about making some major changes in immigration policy and law, and it would be a shame, I believe, to break from what is currently a bipartisan effort; although I still am still opposed to the bill, there is a bipartisan effort to try to do this. I think it is unfortunate in that there are various provisions in this particular amendment that I think go beyond the scope of real reform. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] mentioned that we talk now in this particular amendment of terminating Federal housing assistance to someone who is eligible to receive it, based on a particular criteria which may cause these eligible recipients of Federal assistance from being denied, accidentally or not, some assistance. I think before we take steps that would get us to that point, we should have had opportunity to have had input, have had some hearings to find out if in fact this is the way to go. I would say it is not, but certainly I would be willing to consider this as something that might be possible if in fact we were told by the experts that we would not be denying those lawfully entitled to housing assistance that assistance, and that we would not end up causing discrimination in the process of trying to somehow decipher who is and who is not going to fall under the umbrella of this particular provision within the amendment. I would also mention that this amendment broaches an area which has been one of great delicacy for quite some time; that is, the law enforcement powers of the Federal Government and when we should extend those to the States and local governments. Mr. Chairman, we have on many occasions rightfully been very circumspect in allowing someone other than the Federal Government to enforce or administer the laws of the Federal Government, because you never know when it get out of your own hands how it will be done. There is a great concern, and I know it was expressed in the terrorism bill, that we were going too far in deputizing State and local law enforcement agencies in what they could and could not do, and what that might mean. Mr. Chairman, this particular amendment allows the Attorney General, at the Attorney General's discretion, to enter into agreements with States to allow State law enforcement officials to perform deportation duties, those things that are conducted currently by immigration officials. I would say that when you start allowing local law enforcement to go out there and seek out people who may be undocumented, or who may have questionable immigration status, what you are doing is asking them to perform the work of immigration or Border Patrol officers. If they are going to go through the whole training that a Border Patrol officer goes through, that is something different, and perhaps we could discuss it then, but I see nothing in this amendment that would provide for that. I see no monies in the amendment to provide for that, and what it does for me is cause a great deal of concern that what we are doing is extending the reach of the Federal Government, without extending the protections that should be there with it. For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I believe that we should be opposing this particular amendment.

Mr. BECERRA. But the bill itself no longer has that tester section. It was taken out of the bill, before the bill was coming to the House.

Mr. BECERRA. To the reading of the modifications, no, but to the consolidation of various amendments en bloc, I am reserving the right to object.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to spend the remainder of the time that we have on this side to engage the chairman of the subcommittee in a colloquy and also discuss some aspects of this bill that are of concern. First, before we engage in the colloquy, I mention one of the principal areas of concern that is in the minds of a number of Members on both sides of the aisle, and that is, of course, the system that requires employers to conduct checks, verification processes, and I understand that the chairman has changed the bill so it no longer is a mandatory verification system, but now a voluntary system, voluntary for the employers, not voluntary for those who are seeking employment. The concern, of course, is that there are some very glaring statistics that must be dealt with. I know the chairman had mentioned some of this in the past, but I think it bears reiterating. First, people must understand that in this country, the size of this country, we have about 66 million job transactions that occur every year. That means either someone is hired or someone changes jobs 66 million times each year in this country. Now we are told by the Social Security Administration and the INS that they are in the process of cleaning up their data bases that maintain records on most people in this country; INS, most people who have immigrated into this country. Yet, a recent quote from a Social Security Administration official in the Los Angeles Times said that we can expect any verification system employing the Social Security System's data base to have error rates of up to 20 percent in the first years, and by the time they worked out the glitches, a 5-percent error rate. I must tell my colleagues that when we are told that there will be an error rate of perhaps as high or as low as 5 percent, and we are talking about 66 million job transactions in 1 year, that is well over 3 million people in this country who may be denied their livelihood. That is, to me, a dramatic introduction of a system at a government level that will intrude on the privacy and the protections that we, as Americans, have grown accustomed to having. That concerns me. But let me focus on one particular aspect of the verification process that is of concern to me, and I must say that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], the chairman of the subcommittee, was actually very supportive and helpful in getting a particular amendment I had in the subcommittee admitted into the bill, accepted into the bill. That was an amendment that makes sure that, to the degree that we have a verification system, we try to avoid discrimination. An employer who is not out there invidiously, trying to discriminate against people because of racial or ethnic hatred, but because it is a business practice for somebody to want to be able to make a profit and have skilled employees will take a look at some employees and say, ``Well, you look American. You don't. Why should I go through the hassles of trying to verify your status if I can get a good, qualified American who is just as qualified?'' We put into the bill, with the help of the chairman of the subcommittee, an amendment that said let us put in a checker system, a tester program, so we would have a system where someone could act as a qualified applicant for a job, go to the employer, present himself or herself and, although acting as a checker or tester, check to find out if this employer is automatically discriminating against some people who may look or sound foreign. We got that accepted in subcommittee. It stayed in the full committee. Now it is out. We had what I thought was good bipartisan compromise which now is out. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the chairman in a colloquy as to why we see that particular tester provision stricken from the bill, which would help prevent discrimination against American citizens and those legally entitled to work in this country.

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

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief, because I believe the arguments have been made in this particular debate very well by those who are opposing the amendment. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that it seems odd to me, at a time when we are talking about having the Federal Government downsize and devolve and allow us to have more control locally over what happens, that we have an initiative that would create a big Government enterprise. It would ask that the Social Security Administration do with the data base it has created over the last several decades what it was never meant to do, and that is, act as an identifier program. Never was the Social Security Administration told that the Social Security number would be used to check status. Yet, as we have seen and has been admitted by Members on both sides of the aisle, that is exactly what we see. The Social Security card is used for all sorts of purposes. Yet, we are told by the Social Security Administration that fully 60 percent of all the people who currently hold a Social Security card never had to prove that they were U.S. citizens, or whether they were here legally in this country. So we are talking about 60 percent of all the cards that we have issued out there that have no verification behind them. That will have to be provided, insurances would have to be provided, and we have to provide the money to do that. Where is the money? It is not there.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, first let us all agree that what happened a week ago that took the lives of several Americans was regrettable and should not have happened, but it is always bad policy when you try to achieve political ends through economic means, especially when they are indirect economic means. The actual three and one-half-decade-old embargo against Cuba is a perfect example of why we cannot achieve that through an economic embargo. The Castro government remains, and the only people who have been hurt are the people of Cuba, the women and children of Cuba. What we are doing through this bill is using our economic might to bully our international allies and friends to do what we think is best, even though the entire international community has spoken against this type of embargo. Indeed, even Canada, our northern neighbor, our great friend, has said it will take us to international court to say that this is a means, a barrier against free trade throughout the world. This is not the way to do things. Let us address what happened last week in the taking of several American lives, but let us not try to mix the things up that we have here today and say that because some people died, regrettably, that now we should institute a policy that will ultimately take the lives of many people in a country called Cuba though politically we may disagree with what is going on with the government. This is not the way to do it. We should focus where we should. Let us not create bad policy because a bad situation occurred.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. When you ask any American what is reform in welfare, they will tell you, go after the fraud, be tough on the cheats, require work. But if you ask them should we knock 330,000 children who are severely disabled off from any assistance whatsoever and you tell them that for the 650,000 other very severely disabled children who have things like cerebral palsy or Down's syndrome, that should we cut their assistance by 25 percent, will they tell you that is reform? Will they tell your cutting $35 billion out of food stamps that will affect the 14 million children in this country who receive some assistance through food stamps, that that is reform? They will not tell you yes, but they will say you are heading in the wrong direction. When you tell them that if you abide by the laws and you pay your taxes and you are doing everything this country asks you to, except you are not quite yet a citizen, should you be denied assistance if you should need it? I do not think they will tell you yes. This bill takes $20 billion out of the hide of legal residents to this country, and I think that is wrong. Let us get some reform. Let us not ravage our children. Let us get something on the table we can vote for. This conference report is not it.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I approach this with some trepidation. I have never been one who likes to use our American troops to do things outside of what is absolutely necessary for the protection of this country. I take a look at this and I ask myself did we get the best deal for the troops that are being sent out there? Is this really the peace accord that is the mother of peace accords, that will guarantee us that the parties will finally agree to what they have said? I ask if those paramilitary forces that are out there, under the control of no one, are really going to be stopped? And I ask do we really know how we will get our troops out should this operation fail At the same time, I know what I do not want to send a signal to the men and women who are going to Bosnia that I am not prepared to support them. Mr. Speaker, as I look at this vote, and I weigh the chance that I am sending people that are like me, in their thirties and twenties and forties, to go face off with people that we have never seen before, I do this with some trepidation. I will probably support the Hamilton resolution. I cannot, in good conscience, support the Dornan resolution, and I would urge all the Members to not support the Dornan resolution. What we must do is do the right thing for those that are going. And I do not believe, at this stage, we can say that cutting off funds is the way we want to send our troops to Bosnia. So I would urge Members to consider the fact this is them going. This is our chance to tell them that we support them, because they have no choice but to go, and it is our opportunity to say we will live up to our responsibility to do the right thing.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, it gives me the utmost pleasure to rise today to pay tribute to the wonderful people at KVEA-TV, channel 52, as they celebrate 10 years of quality service to the Spanish-speaking community in southern California. KVEA is a Los Angeles-based television station that is an affiliate on Telemundo, a national Spanish-language television network. Over the last 10 years, it has reached over 750,000 homes and served the Latino community through its Emmy award-winning newscasts, entertainment and most importantly, community outreach efforts. The vital work performed by KVEA makes it possible for members of the Latino community to connect and react to the social and political events around them. So, it should come as no surprise that when the frightening 6.7 Northridge earthquake struck, the people at KVEA came to the rescue. Almost as soon as the tremor shook the Earth around Angelenos, the station responded with information, food and a 14-hour telethon to bolster the efforts of the American Red Cross and the Salvation Army. When the wave of anti-immigrant sentiment surged during the 1994 election, KVEA took a stand and denounced proposition 187. The station sponsored the Riverside Summit to increase awareness and propose plans to combat immigrant bashing. As the proposition 187 vote neared, KVEA employed its newscasts, public affairs programs and public service announcements to alert viewers of the harm that its passage might bring. Mr. Speaker, in southern California, KVEA is recognized as a leader in children's rights. It was the first and only station to broadcast the ``De Mi Corazon'' telethon to raise money for abused children. KVEA has also actively supported Walk America, a March of Dimes campaign for healthier babies. The station has certainly taken to heart its responsibility to educate and entertain the children of southern California. And as a next step, KVEA is developing its own locally-produced children's program. One of KVEA's proudest moments had to be September 30, 1995. On that day, 5,000 of our newest Americans decided to become full participating members of society through citizenship. The station was there from the beginning making this idea a reality. KVEA went the extra mile and donated 40 spots of air time during prime time programming to promote citizenship. The result: Absolute success. Mr. Speaker, over the past 10 years, KVEA has been there for my family and the residents of southern California. Today, I respectfully request that the House of Representatives join me in conveying to KVEA- TV, channel 52, a heartfelt Happy Birthday and a sincere thank you for its service and achievements in America. May there be many more decennials to celebrate.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained during rollcall vote No. 810, the vote on the rule to H.R. 2491, the Balanced Budget Act. I would like the record to reflect that I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on November 1, 1995, I was unavoidably detained during rollcall vote No. 756, the vote on final passage on H.R. 1833, the so-called Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995. As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, I voted against H.R. 1833 when it was heard in our committee earlier this year. Had I been present for yesterday's floor vote, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, disgraceful. That is the only way I can describe the proponents' descriptions of what is going on. My wife, who happens to be a obstetrician-gynecologist in high risk pregnancies, these types of pregnancies, has never had to do this, but she tells me this is not what is going on. We are not partially aborting a baby that would be born alive. This is to preserve the mother's life.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleague, the gentleman from California, to take a closer look at this budget, because he may not know this but 52,385 working families in his district in California will have their taxes raised through this Republican reconciliation bill.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Take a look at this bill. The Republican bill increases taxes for 14 million working families at the same time it allows multinational corporations that make billions in profits to pay no taxes. The Republican bill taxes seniors through the $270 billion cut in Medicare and the $182 billion cut in Medicaid, and at the same time we are giving the Pentagon $8- to $10 billion more than the Pentagon even requested. Can it get worse? Yes. If you have students in your family and they want to go to college, get ready because they are going to have to pay billions more in this Nation to go to college, up to perhaps $5,000 more for that student to go through college. That is a tax because it would not be that way without this bill. So who is helped? Well, this tax cut for the wealthy and tax cut for corporations helps them. As we hear now from Speaker Gingrich and the Senate majority leader on the Senate side saying, they never wanted Medicare to begin with. It is becoming clear who this is benefiting. It is not those who work and pay taxes. It is for those who just invest and get money.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, let us try to make sure one thing is clear in this debate, both those who support and oppose the bill. No one objects to employee involvement committees. In fact, I think everyone would agree that, if we are going to remain the supreme economic force in this world, we must promote harmony between employees and employers. That is not the issue here. The issue is how you look at section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act. Most folks do not take the time to read it, but if we take a close look, what we will realize is that section 8(a)(2) has been the pillar protecting American workers against sham union companies created by employers. Maybe that is not a problem now, but 60 years ago that was. Now to eliminate that protection under 8(a)(2) concerns a great number of people, not because we have companies that are doing this the right way with their employees, it is because we still have companies that are not doing it the right way. Do we need H.R. 743? No, we do not. We do not need H.R. 743 because, as the majority, the sponsors of this bill admit in their own legislation, 80 percent of all large employers are already using employee involvement committees and over 30,000 workplaces already use them. We have them. They have been growing even after the case that has been cited so often, Electromation, as the cause of H.R. 743. What we do find, however, is that, if we provide an allowance to an employer, he or she may begin to deal with employees on issues of wages, of working conditions, of benefits, health care, for example, that why should the employer go to a union or to employees that want to be unionized when in fact they can create its own committee and claim that it is now dealing with an employee organization. Then we get into the situation of a sham union. That is what concerns so many of us. We do not need to change section 8(a)(2) to allow for employee involvement committees. We have them. And we have them flourishing even after the Electromation case that is the supposed reason for this legislation. But what we do find is that there is an undercurrent to try to undo the protection for workers. If a worker knows that there is an employee committee out there, the worker probably wants to participate. But if the worker cannot decide who will serve on that employee committee, cannot decide what the basis of consideration will be for that committee's work and cannot decide when and if someone can be removed because that committee is no longer representing employees, we find ourselves working with not an employee committee but an employer-created employee committee. That is what we want to avoid. Working men and women have never said: Let us make the decisions for this company. We are the workers. But let us be productive and let us to the degree we can work together in making this company productive. Do not let section 8(a) go. It has been the pillar of protection for workers against sham unions.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I was listening to the debate and watching the debate from my office when I was compelled to come here, because, as I remember, during the debate on the appropriations bill dealing with education programs, with programs for our working men and women to protect them at the workplace, for health programs for seniors, we made dramatic cuts in some of those programs, in some cases eliminating programs. For example, we cut out every single dollar that we put in to subsidize seniors' payments of their home heating bills during the times in the winter when it is very expensive, especially on the east coast, to try to heat your home. This is for families, mostly seniors, as I said before, who are on subsidized incomes already and who are finding it very difficult to pay their bills, very expensive heating bills. We saw the case in Chicago recently where 400 people died because they had problems keeping their places cool enough to stay there and live, 400 people dying. We cut dramatically into those programs, in some cases eliminating. Here we find that we are increasing a budget, and we cannot say the number because it is a secret, but we are increasing the budget for an operation which in many respects has outlived some of its purpose. The cold war is over. We have all said that. Certainly we need our intelligence gathering abilities to remain, but we must certainly tighten our belts, and that includes within the intelligence branch of government. Yet we see that we are increasing the amount by something close to $1 billion, and at least we are trying to cut at least $1 billion out, to have the pain of cuts go all around. Let me point out one thing that really disturbs me greatly. During the debate on this education appropriations bill, we dealt with the Head Start Program which helps young children. We were told during the debate by this new congressional majority that we had to cut Head Start programming to the tune of $137 million. That is what we cut from last year's funding levels. Why? Because we were told in some cases some of the programs that are administering these dollars for our kids were not very efficient. There was some overlap. We could make better use of the dollars, and this was a signal to them that they better shape up. Yet we learned that with the CIA we are funding assassinations in countries like Guatemala with the assistance of CIA operatives. We find that they are spending $300 million on lavish offices and buildings, and here we are telling the American people that we have to tighten our belt and cut Head Start $137 million because the administration has not been as efficient as we would like. I do not think that makes sense. On a budget that we cannot reveal the numbers to the American people, because it is an intelligence matter, we are saying ``Let us increase'', but when it comes to real intelligence, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] pointed out, when it comes to our school children, we are willing to cut. Forty years ago we had a President, Mr. Eisenhower, who said national security of this country relies on having educated people and a society that knows how to work, and for the first time the Federal Government became involved in helping local schools and local State governments fund education. Ten years later under President Johnson we passed for the first time an education act to really have the Federal Government get involved. Of all the moneys that schools spend, the Federal Government provides about 6 percent of those dollars, a very small amount, but it is more than we used to. Now we are told we have to cut back on what we spend on our children, because we have to tighten our belt, yet here we are told, ``No; you do not have to tighten your belt, spend more, spend more'', even though you are telling Head Start folks, ``You cannot get more because you did not administer very efficiently'', but the CIA, which helps fund assassinations by CIA operatives, that is OK. There is something wrong. There is an inconsistency here, and I hope the Members of this body will realize that and vote for this very sound, very well-meaning and, I think, very meaningful way to send a message that everyone must tighten their belt. It is time for us to do it, not just for Head Start but to do it for the intelligence community as well.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, let us not forget that the Ma Bell operating company, AT&T was broken up because the company used its control of local telephone companies to frustrate long-distance competition. It was the Justice Department that pursued the case against AT&T, through Republican and Democratic administrations, to stop those abuses. Mr. Chairman, the standard that is in the Conyers amendment, which is the standard adopted and passed by the Committee on the Judiciary, Republican and Democrats, except for 1 member voting for it, is the standard that we are trying to get included now. It is a standard that is softer than the standard that was passed by 430 to 5 last year by this same House. It is a standard that is softened for the regional operating companies to be able to pursue and it is a very rigorous standard that the Justice Department must meet in order to be able to stop a local company from coming in. Mr. Chairman, let us not forget that the Republican Congress is trying to eliminate the FCC, and now they are asking the FCC to be the watchdog for consumers in this area. We should have a safety net for consumers and ratepayers. Vote for the Conyers amendment.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, here in today's newspaper, USA Today, ``Nation rates average in school reform,''. Only ``average''. Yet today we will debate a bill that cuts education dramatically. It cuts the money that we provide schools to help kids who need help, doing math and reading, because they are behind. We are eliminating a program that actually helps us get schools reformed, eliminating the program that helps 44 million students. We are eliminating 27 percent of funding for vocational education. We are eliminating $137 million for Head Start Programs for our kids. We are cutting in half Healthy Start Program moneys. We are eliminating $286 million for safe and drug-free schools, to make sure our kids have a safe environment to go to. At the same time we are doing this--the Gingrich Republicans are axing education funding, not only are they doing that, but they are adamant about giving corporations and the wealthiest of Americans $20,000 in tax cuts and at the same time they are adding $8 billion to the defense budget, which the Department of Defense did not even request. Wrong-headed is the word.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Well, we hear the Republicans say they want to balance the budget and that is why we are cutting so dramatically into education programs. Well, do we want to balance the budget? We are cutting about $450 million out of two programs very important to our children: Safe and Drug Free Schools, which makes sure we try to protect our children as they go to school so they do not have to worry about drug dealers on the corner trying to sell them drugs or the gang violence they may encounter on the way to school; Special Education, $174 million is being cut out of that program for our kids who are disabled, who need a little bit of extra attention so they can succeed with their peers. On the other hand, we put $500 million extra into the defense budget which was not even requested by the Department of Defense for new spending on barracks and other pork that the Pentagon, as I said, never requested, and all of it targeted to 26 of the 31 States represented by the people who sit on the Committee on Appropriations. Cut in education: $1.2 billion in our title I program that helps kids that are behind in their reading and in their sciences learning. What is not cut? Well, we see on the Senate side the Armed Services wants to spend $1.3 billion for an amphibious assault ship that the Navy says is does not even want. Cut in education: $55 million for a school-to-work program which helps our kids have abilities once they get out of school. What is not cut? Well, $42 million, that is the amount the Committee on Appropriations preserved in taxpayer subsidies for tobacco growers. We are talking about balancing the budget? At the same time that we hear that we must cut the $4 billion out of education to balance a $5 trillion debt and an annual deficit of about $200 billion, we find that the Defense Department got $8 billion more than it even asked for, and we find that the Republicans are trying to spend about $300 billion on tax cuts over 7 years. That is not the way to go. We do not need to cut $4 billion out of education when it is so dramatic and so needed.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is anyone in this House that is not pleased to see us with a lockbox amendment finally before us so that when we do see cuts being made, we know they are not just going to be for naught, because the money that will have been saved will go on to other programs within that particular agency. If I may, I would like to propound a question to the sponsor of the amendment and tell the gentleman that I noticed something. This is an amendment that was made in order by the Committee on Rules. It was printed up. Unlike many amendments that were not included within the Committee on Rules report, this one was. As I understand it, this amendment applies to all the cuts and savings that will be made henceforth. But as the gentlewoman from California mentioned, there were $400 million worth of cuts that have been made in the previously passed appropriations bills over the last couple of weeks, but those $400 million will not be put into this lockbox. They will be used for other purposes, which I imagine include a tax cut for the very wealthy. So I would ask the gentleman, when he went to the Committee on Rules, if he had asked the Committee on Rules to make this lockbox amendment applicable retroactively to the appropriations bills which we have passed over the last 2 weeks?

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

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for this response, because that worries me, because I know this committee can do quite a bit, technical or not, to make sure we save the money. It is unfortunate we did not take the opportunity to do so.