Xavier Becerra

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments, numbered 28 and 29, and I ask unanimous consent to have the two amendments considered en bloc.

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

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule proposed for House Joint Resolution 1, the balanced budget amendment. I support balancing the Federal budget, but I believe, as an elected Representative of the people, that I owe them the responsibility and respect to tell them how I will do so. This balanced budget amendment does not do that. The Republican leadership, as the new majority, made a commitment to procedural rules for open debate and fairness. But sadly, the rule before us now is closed. Closed. I have an amendment that I would like to offer. It provides for rainy day funds for purposes of emergencies, natural disasters. But I cannot offer it on the floor of this House today, even though I think it is a very worthy amendment, especially for folks in California, where I am from, where we are suffering tremendously. We cannot do that. That is a closed rule. Madam Speaker, we have to admit that we really have entered the world of Alice in Wonderland when Democrats end up fighting harder than Republicans to keep Republican promises. It is time, Madam Speaker, that we try to do the people's work and give the people their day in court. It is a slap in the face to our constituents when we cannot even come up here and to propose amendments that are valuable and will affect the Nation's course of history, because we are talking about an amendment to the Constitution. Madam Speaker, I urge everyone to vote against this rule.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I too would like to speak on the issue of welfare reform and specifically the legislation proffered by the majority party in the Contract on America, H.R. 4. I want to rise today to voice my concerns with that portion of H.R. 4 which talks about block granting all the nutrition programs that currently exist to provide assistance to our young children in this country who are unfortunate enough to be poor. H.R. 4 calls for the elimination of all the Federal food assistance programs, which would include WIC, food stamps, and school lunches. It would clump all of them together in a block grant at substantially reduced funding levels. Reduced funding levels will lead to fewer people being served and also will not take into account the increased need for food assistant program during economic downturns. As hard as it may be to believe, this is not the only disconcerting aspect of H.R. 4. This bill not only proposes to limit funds provided for nutrition, it also intends to cut off immigrants, legal immigrants from the very start of any program. No service or assistance to legal immigrant children, even though their parents are here at the invitation of this country, even though these parents pay every single same tax that American citizens pay and even though these parents are obligated and do serve in our military in time of war. All responsibilities are there for the parents of these legal immigrant children. Yet the services paid for in part by the tax dollars of these legal immigrant parents would not be there for these children. Though they receive less attention, the immigrant children, in this whole debate on welfare reform, the provisions of H.R. 4 which deal with immigrant eligibility for Federal benefits need to have clarity. H.R. 4 would completely withdraw the safety net from nearly all legal immigrants, immigrants, as I said before, who came to this country with every right to be here because they were told by this country that they could come in. Sixty programs would be eliminated from participation of immigrants and their children. Immigrants would be barred from all of the major Federal programs for job training, human investment, as well as those that provide nonemergency health care, housing, nutrition, cash assistance for women, children, seniors, and persons with disabilities. This means, for example, a 6-month-old baby who came here with his mother would be ineligible for basic vaccinations. A 7-year-old legally present in the United States would be denied foster care and adoption assistance upon the death of her parents. A 23-year-old woman legally present in the United States, forced from her home in flight from an abusive husband, would be denied job training, child care, and other services coordinated by a battered women's shelter. A 35-year-old man granted political asylum here after fleeing torture in his native land for his religious beliefs would be ineligible to receive canned goods from the food bank run by his local church. A 60-year-old woman who emigrated legally when she was 15 years old and who has worked in the United States all of her life would be rendered ineligible for Medicaid to treat her dangerous heart condition. These things would occur because this is where the new majority party thinks it could find so-called savings. In fact, the savings which result from denying benefits to legal immigrants represents less than 3 percent of the 5-year budget of the affected programs. I strongly support a reappraisal of our welfare system and Government spending. However, in this case, it seems that a great number of people would be hurt for an almost insignificant financial gain. What is the practical application of H.R. 4's restriction? How would this work in the following scenarios, for example? Looking at school breakfast and lunch, a brother and sister whose parents have recently become unemployed begin their school year. Will the brother, who was born in this country, be eligible for a subsidized lunch while his sister, born in Russia, will be ineligible because she is not yet a citizen? Will poor immigrant children be further stigmatized because their family cannot afford lunch money for their kids? Will they stay out of the lunchroom altogether because they are embarrassed because they are immigrants? Is this constitutional? Based on the Supreme Court decision in Plyler versus Doe, immigration status is irrelevant when the right to education is considered. Following World War II, Congress approved the National School Lunch Act as a measure of national security to safeguard the health and well-being of our Nation's children. I think it becomes clear, Mr. Speaker, to say it makes no sense to deny these children the basic benefits, and I would hope that we would reevaluate H.R. 4. Mr. Speaker, further, the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 was enacted ``in recognition of the demonstrated relationship between food and good nutrition in the capacity of children to develop and learn.'' Is the health and well-being of our children no longer an issue of national security? Is there some new evidence disproving the relationship between nutrition and learning? Is it the intent of H.R. 4 to change our Constitution? Looking at the Women Infants and Children Program [WIC], which provides coupons for women to meet basic nutritional needs, we find that through WIC: Medicaid costs were reduced on average about $12,000 to $15,000 per infant for every very low birthweight baby. On the initial investment, total saving in health and education related expenditures over the 18 years of life of WIC children amounted to over $1 billion. Setting aside the issue of humanity for a moment, are we willing to incur these huge debts just because immigrants have become unpopular? The WIC Program has proven itself over and over again; why stop the savings we know we can accrue? Are we willing to deny a pregnant woman who is a legal immigrant-- whose child will be a citizen at birth--the benefits of the WIC Program? Are we willing to all but guarantee the birth of a low birthweight citizen? And as for emergency food aid, are we willing to say that a legal immigrant who is disabled on the job and becomes unemployed can't go to a soup kitchen? In recent days, there have been reports that the Republicans may resolve the matter by allowing individual States to decide whether their noncitizen residents will be barred from aid. A Republican Member was quoted as saying, ``We should not be mandating to the States how they should best decide who they consider most deserving and most in need of social assistance.'' What do you suppose would have happened if there had never been a Brown versus Board of Education Supreme Court decision? Do we now value one person in this country more than another? What message does this send to legal immigrants? Why should they feel less worthy than any other individual? Why should one baby born to a law-abiding mother not get benefits when another baby will? We cannot begin this debate by stigmatizing a whole group of people who certainly do not deserve it. Welfare reform is supposed to be about fixing the system and giving people a chance to succeed. Let's not get confused and try to balance the budget on the backs of immigrants. The Senate has said it will not pass legislation which would cut off benefits to noncitizen immigrants. I think this is the only option we have before us. I encourage all Members to reject a proposal that has at its base a return to segregation; but this time it is segregation where one group of people is stigmatized, discriminated against, and denied access to programs simply because the people--regardless of how responsible and committed to this country they may be--were not born in this country.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. And the gentleman's proposal which does provide for capitol budgeting, could that allow for that type of process, a 30-year mortgage?

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from West Virginia makes a very good point. I think some folks that may be watching may think those of us who are saying this balanced budget amendment is the wrong way to go are against ever balancing the Federal budget when of course we want to balance the budget, but we want to be realistic. That is why the gentleman from West Virginia's alternative is really a sound way to go because, as I explained earlier, if this was a family, and we are a family in America and we were trying to make decisions for this family of America, we would want to be able to purchase a home and, we our kids to college and be able to get some student loans to help pay the cost. If the gentleman can explain, does the balanced budget amendment that is on this floor by the majority party, the Republicans, allow for that?

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

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just explore that analogy that was made. The interesting analogy that was made by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] about the playbook, about the 49ers and the San Diego Chargers, makes it clear that the majority's opinion of this whole debate is that, as the 49ers, they have to keep the play book, in other words, how we will plan to balance the budget, away from the Chargers, which would be the American people, so they treat the American people as adversaries in this whole process.

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

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member, for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, having listened to all the remarks that have been said by most of the Members, it occurs to me we probably, in these few hours, have had to debate what will be a constitutional amendment to the Constitution of this country, and hopefully will last more than the 200 years that we have already spent as a democracy. It occurs to me perhaps the best thing we could have done is had every Member who came on the floor to speak say exactly how he or she would propose that we cut the budget to balance it, if they in fact are supporting a balanced budget amendment. That is the best thing we could do, because everyone says they want to do it and they do not want to inflict pain on seniors when it comes to Social Security, and they do not want to devastate children by cutting Head Start and other children's programs, but no one who is saying they are for this is saying how they will do it. Everyone talks about how well families have to balance the budget and local governments have to balance the budget and States have to balance the budget, and that is right. Let us take a family under his balanced budget amendment proposal by the majority party. Could a family out in the real estate market go out there and buy a house? They could if they could come up with every single dollar and dime and cent that that house would cost, because under this proposal they could not run a deficit for a year, so that family would not be able to take out a 30-year mortgage, not be able to take out a 15-year mortgage. They could take out a 1-year mortgage, but by the end of that year they had better pay it all up or they cannot get that house, and they are out. What about student loans? How many folks have children in school or desirous of going to college? Forget about borrowing money from the Government under the NDSL, the GSL or other student loan programs at low interest rates that allow people to do it, because by the end of the year that family has to balance its books. Auto loans? Want a car? Need a car? the person had better be able to pay all the cost of that car by the end of the year. I had a amendment which would have changed the way we look at this balanced budget amendment, and said if we happen to have a surplus one year, then let us use that surplus as a rainy day fund for those days or those years that come along when we have a recession. I could not even get that amendment considered in committee. I was blocked in a closed rule which would not allow the debate. If I wanted to add that amendment today, I would not be able to because this debate is closed, only to that which the majority said we can debate. This amendment, Mr. Chairman I cannot offer, as much sense as it might make. Understand something, all the money that we spend in a year, if we end up with a surplus, those agencies that ran that surplus know they cannot use that money. It goes back to the Treasury. What does it encourage? The use or lose mentality. ``I have the money in my account. I had better use it, or I am going to lose it for next year.'' That is not prudent spending. Where will the cuts come? I believe we can say that the majority here is playing hide and seek. First the Republicans tell us they are going to increase military spending, not cut it, just increase it. Second, we know we have to pay the debt, the interest on the debt, which is around $250 billion. That amounts to about 30 percent of the budget. Off the table, we cannot consider it. What is left to cut $1.2 trillion to balance the budget? Social Security, which the Republicans have refused to include in this balanced budget amendment as exempted; Medicare, education, Head Start. What is the conclusion? We have heard it before: ``Read my lips.'' The problem is we are not being told what there is.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, while some Republicans talk about buckling knees, President Clinton's stance last night was bold and firm: Cut the deficit and balance the budget, but not on the backs of our senior citizens and children. The Republicans' so-called balanced budget amendment requires $1.2 trillion in cuts. But get this, they will not tell us how they are going to get there. We do know one thing for sure: Republicans will not exempt Social Security and Medicare. In fact, during a recent hearing on the balanced budget amendment in the Committee on the Judiciary, every Republican but one voted against an amendment to protect Social Security from the budget ax. I understand that Speaker Gingrich has said in an interview recently that Social Security is off the table. If this is so, then why are his Republican colleagues voting against such an amendment and why in the past has Speaker Gingrich himself said that ``everything is on the table''? Everything includes Social Security. Mr. Speaker, the President's words rang very true last night when he said the elderly have made us what we are. And unlike the Republicans, the President's words were very clear and unequivocal when he said ``My budget cuts a lot, but it protects education, veterans, Social Security, and Medicare.'' Mr. Speaker, rather than just talk about balancing the budget, I challenge the Republicans to bring their real budget cleaver out from underneath the table.

Mr. BECERRA

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

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman raised the point that this would not protect children but it would actually provide those of us in Congress with the ability to somehow obstruct families from caring for their children. I have the amendment before me. I am trying to figure out where the gentleman takes from this particular amendment all those things that he ascribed to it. All this amendment says is that along with the other nine exemptions that we currently provide in the bill, including Social Security being exempted, including civil rights laws that protect against age discrimination, that protect against racial discrimination, ethnic discrimination, we have no provision, and this is the entirety of the amendment, that says we would exempt as well those provisions which provide for the protection of the health of children.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. Becerra asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I feel compelled to come here and respond to some things my colleagues from the other side of the aisle have said. I read this bill and I read the amendment, and to those on the other side of the aisle who say that this bill is adequately written, that as it is written it will protect children, my response to them is, if it does that, then what is the problem with accepting an amendment that just makes it implicitly clear. If the response is, well, we do not need it because it is already there, then I turn to the actual bill itself and I see that the bill must not have been drafted that well, because there are at least seven different distinctions made and explicit references made for exemptions to this bill to make sure that those exemptions are identified as being protected. In the case of Social Security we see it here under subsection 7. We see it for emergency legislation that the President might pass. We see it for national security. We see it for emergency assistance to State and local governments in the cases, for example, of a natural disaster. We see it in the case of our constitutional rights. If this is such a well-drafted bill, why do we explicitly ensure our constitutional rights are protected? I would think that would be automatic. There is also an exemption for our statutory rights that prohibits discrimination. If that is there, clearly there are needs for exemptions and we have to stop fooling ourselves and admit to that. Then I turn to the amendment and I read the amendment and I look at the actual text of the amendment and it is one phrase. So what it would do is, add one additional phrase to those seven exemptions I listed, and all it does is say we would exempt as well any laws or regulations that provide for the protection of the health of children. Simple. But yet we have objections to that. Why do we have objections? In response to what the gentlewoman said a few moments ago about how this bill would provide for informed and deliberate debate, H.R. 5 takes care of that. We have had years of informed and deliberate debate, but on many occasions when we have had a chance in this House to support Head Start for children, we have not done so, at least not everybody. Some of us have supported it. I am today prepared to support Head Start. I know some of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle, though, would not. We have had an opportunity to provide full funding for immunization of our children in this country and I know Members of the other side of the aisle have not done so and have not done so at a time when at this stage of this country's development less than 60 percent of this Nation's children are immunized, and in some cases, in poor areas, you are talking about less than 30 percent of the children in this country immunized. Remember, that unimmunized child will ultimately cost that local government and the neighborhoods more money because, when that child does more to heal that child. So we have no protections and we cannot count on what someone will do prospectively. We need to know now, and if we do care about children, if we do wish to protect them, then add a simple amendment to this bill that would do so. I find it ironic. We have the Republicans in this House who have proposed a Contract With America, I say a contract on America, and they say that they will increase by billions of dollars military spending, they will increase the deficit by cutting taxes on the wealthiest of Americans, and somehow with all of that they will still find a way to balance the budget to the tune of $1.2 trillion. We will have to find cuts. We cannot cut entitlement programs, so we have to go to discretionary programs. What kind of discretionary programs? That is where we find all of the children's programs, discretionary cuts to the tune of around something like 30 percent. Head Start, immunization, child nutrition programs at our schools, health care for children, 30 percent, folks, across-the-board in some cases, unless, of course, the Republicans are willing to tell us how they would otherwise cut. So why are we concerned, and why do we want to have explicit language that says you will protect the health of a child? Because there is no guarantee and this is not the time to play with the lives of our children. Now just about an hour or two ago we voted on an amendment that would protect seniors or elderly, our older Americans from discrimination based on age. There was only one single vote out of this House of 435 Members, one single vote against that amendment. There was no problem explicitly exempting seniors from age discrimination and specifying it in this bill. But now we talk about kids. There is a clear distinction between someone who is a minor and someone who is a senior. Most of us get elected by seniors, and it is unfortunate that we find that we cannot protect a child here, and in some cases you have to wonder why. One of my colleagues from California on the other side of the aisle said we have sympathy for what you are doing and for the kids. The kids do not want sympathy. They do not want any of our sympathy. They want a fighting chance to grow up and succeed and let them prove themselves, but let us do our part in having them do that. Let us help the children, help, not hurt our children. Pass the Maloney amendment.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments Nos. 30 and 31 at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.

Mr. BECERRA. Of course, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I have spoken on this floor about my concerns with H.R. 5, the unfunded mandates legislation, for a number of reasons, local governments are taking on burdens. More to the point, however, we do not take into account in H.R. 5 numerous provisions to protect those very States and local governments and neighborhood communities that we say we are about to protect through this particular legislation. One specific example to me, Mr. Chairman, which is very glaring, is that the legislation we have before us today does nothing to protect our American people against discrimination based on age. Today we have before us H.R. 5, that says nothing about preserving the rights of people, based on their age, to work, to live freely, and I believe it is important that at least something like this be included in H.R. 5. The Federal laws prohibiting age discrimination provide protection for millions of older Americans from arbitrary and unjust discrimination. As with all laws prohibiting discrimination, the laws prohibiting age discrimination set basic standards for fair treatment in a workplace and other areas of American society. The right to work free of age discrimination is a fundamental right. However, age-based employment discrimination remains prevalent, despite the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the ADEA. The problem is particularly severe for persons who have lost jobs in declining industries such as heavy manufacturing. I know in Los Angeles, Mr. Chairman, we have a lot of unemployed engineers and scientists who are getting on in age, and they are finding it very difficult to find jobs, even as qualified as they may be. Mr. Chairman, once unemployed, older workers face sharply limited employment opportunities. Persons aged 45 to 64 are unemployed longer, on average, than younger workers in America, and they become what we term under the law discouraged workers. In other words, they are those who give up the job search because they feel it is futile. Mr. Chairman, the arguments for preserving our important civil rights laws are the same regardless of whether the laws concern age, race, religion, or ethnicity. The authors of H.R. 5 have recognized that civil rights laws are deserving of special protection from any burdens that may impede their force and effect. It is our job now, Mr. Chairman, to ensure the inclusion of age discrimination laws among those civil rights laws to be exempted from H.R. 5's impact. Mr. Chairman, along with the amendment that I have, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski], who has worked tremendously on these issues, also had an amendment. He has agreed, we have all agreed, to join together on this particular subject, along with the chairman of the committee, and I thank the chairman for having done that. However, Mr. Chairman, I do want to make sure that I do acknowledge that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski] graciously allowed me to go first on this particular amendment. He has worked tremendously on this as well.

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

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a growing number of conflicting and disturbing reports over Bookgate, the Speaker's book deal. Here is the bottom line, though: If the Republicans want to close the books on this episode, it is time for them to open up the books to the book deal and accept the call for an independent counsel to investigate these mysterious dealings. Some Republicans are hoping that this issue will quietly disappear. But, Mr. Speaker, it will not go away, for a simple reason: America does not know what there is to ``go away.'' As recently as last week, the Speaker and Republican leaders met with media moguls in this country, including tycoon Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch is pushing the Congress to eliminate the ban on foreign ownership of America's TV and newspaper companies. Murdoch's publishing company, by the way, was the one that gave the Speaker the $4.5 million book deal. Do not forget also that Murdoch and his lobbyists had a private meeting with the Speaker prior to the announcement of that lucrative book deal. Last week's meeting could have been just a friendly get-together, or there might have been a lot more to it than that. It is time to, Mr. Speaker, open up the process and find out exactly what did happen.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, January 17, 1995, I was unable to cast my floor vote on S. 2, the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995. As an enthusiastic supporter of this important legislative proposal which I have voted for in the past, I would like to announce for the record that, had I been able to, I would have voted ``aye'' on S. 2 on January 17, 1995.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. According to, as I was saying, the Children's Defense Fund, young people who work for more than 20 hours a week have diminished investment in school. They are more likely to be delinquent in school and are more likely to use drugs. Over one-third of working adolescents in a study said they took easier classes in order to manage their school work while they were employed. In a hearing before the Committee on Government Relations or Government Operations last session, real life horror stories were relayed by the victims or survivors of accidents which occurred as a result of child labor violations, whether it was a pizza delivery young man who ends up dying because he is trying to drive around and he is lucky enough to have a license or unlucky enough to his life or whether we are talking about the boy who lost his leg because it was torn off by a dryer which did not have a safety lid, in which case the company paid a $400 fine, we find that there are violations that are occurring. We must change this. The States have asked us to do this, and what we should do today is understand that in unfunded mandate legislation, we should not abandon our children.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a cosponsor of this amendment with the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] to urge its adoption. I think we all know that we have one of our jobs here to protect those of our workers in America who are out there producing for America. But let me focus my attention, if I may, on one particular aspect of our labor force. And that is our children, the most vulnerable group of people in our society that are out there sometimes working. As currently drafted, H.R. 5 would pull the rug out from under these members of our society that are not yet prepared to go on and become as productive and fully participatory in our society as we would like. This unfunded mandate bill makes no effort to preserve our children's future health and safety through child labor laws. Under H.R.5, any new child labor laws would be suspect. This amendment that we are proposing here today would simply exclude child labor laws from the effects of this unfunded mandates bill. Across the country exploitation of child labor is unfortunately making a vicious comeback. From New York to California, employers are breaking the law by hiring children who put in long hard hours and often work in dangerous conditions. In 1990, the Department of Labor detected over 42,000 child labor violations, an increase of over 340 percent since 1983. And that is just what was detected. Who knows how many child labor violations actually occurred during those years? Rising injuries, lack of labor law enforcement, rampant child labor law violations in agriculture and elsewhere all contribute, if anything, to the need for a renewed Federal attention to child labor. Let me give some quick examples: In Los Angeles, many children who should be in school are instead working in garment industry sweatshops that are dirty, crowded and often contain hazards like locked fire doors. In California and Texas, young children work beside their parents for up to 12 hours a day as migrant farmers. Augustino Nieves, at age 13, was picking olives and strawberries in California. He missed months of school that particular year, working from 6:30 a.m. until 8 p.m. with a 20-minute lunch break, 6 days a week at less than minimum wage. This is not an anomaly. It happens all the time across the country. Another situation that is becoming more common is the hiring of children for candy selling scams. Candy sellers hire children, sometimes as young as 7 years of age. They pile them into a van; then they drop them off in unfamiliar neighborhoods to go door to door. These children sell their candy for $5 and usually they get to keep about a dollar. Brandy, a girl who started selling candy at age 11, said, ``On a good night, I could sell 10 boxes. Sometimes the kids drank in the van or used drugs. One time the driver left a boy in Napa,'' that is in California, ``and he had to walk 15 miles home at night. Another night I waited for 2 hours on the corner to get picked up.'' This is frankly embarrassing. It is disgraceful that in the United States of America, the model for developing countries, we have kids who should be on the playgrounds but who are instead waiting on the corners of some strange street for a stranger to remember to pick them up and take them home. Since 1990, several States have updated their child labor laws, making significant advances in protecting minors. Unfortunately, the vast majority of States have not updated their laws in close to 50 and, in some cases, 80 years. It seems ironic that H.R. 5 would stymie Federal regulation of child labor laws, which were originally requested by the States themselves. Walter Trattner wrote, in 1933, in his reform-oriented study called Crusade for Children. Sweatshops and fly-by-night plants were exploiting children for little or no pay, moving at will across State lines to take advantage of laws of nearby States. The individual States were unable to halt these abuses which had far- reaching effects, including the complete breakdown of wage scales. Trattner then concludes by saying the following: ``Everywhere people were looking to Washington for help and direction.'' The massive illegal employment of children damages the United States in two major ways: First, it has a negative impact on the education and thus the future of our young people. Who are they but the Nation's future work force. And we should be doing what we can in this particular work force that we will be counting on so tremendously to be able to say that they will get educated. And second, this massive illegal employment has as a result, in many cases, the death and serious injury of many young workers. According to the Children's Defense Fund, young people who work more than 20 hours a week have diminished investment in school.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, in this debate one point bears repeating. What we are really doing here is signing on the dotted line before reading the actual terms and conditions of the document. We are being told to do something in this House that no prudent family would do in its own home. The majority party is insisting that we race through this legislation, but, in doing so, the institution is closing its eyes to the many pitfalls and unanswered questions in this bill. I ask, ``Who doesn't agree with the general idea that sparing State and local governments from costly, unreasonable mandates is the thing to do?'' We all agree, but the problem here is that this bill before us is filled with all sorts of unintended consequences. Before we make final decisions, we ought to know in detail what this bill really means to America's people and its communities. Are we placing consumer protections in jeopardy? [[Page H342]] What about measures that have safeguarded our environment, the Clean Water Act, our child protection laws, our laws protecting senior citizens against age discrimination? What will happen to these laws? Before we get any work done on this bill, we should ask ourselves, Do we really know what it's all about? I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.