Elton Gallegly

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley].

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon].

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard]. (Mr. PACKARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GALLEGLY. Because I would not allow the President to hold this hostage. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to finish that. I think it is very important the American people understand why this provision is a stand-alone bill. In March this provision passed overwhelmingly in the House. We brought it back after we modified it. The President said I will veto this bill, I will veto this bill. We were not going to allow the President to have an excuse to veto this bill. I suggested we remove it, let it stand alone. I believe in the democratic process. If the people of this Congress say, Gallegly, your bill is bad, so be it. I do not think that is going to be the case. That is the reason it is here. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].

Mr. GALLEGLY. No, it is not.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. With all due respect to my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], I just could not let some of these statements stand without some form of rebuttal, as he referred to the element of farm worker issue being drowned. I have to remind the gentleman that it was only 3 months ago that this very body passed the bill that we are discussing, only a much tougher bill, 333 to 87, including the education issue, and in fact on a stand-alone vote, whether we should give the States the rights to make the decision for themselves, it passed by almost a hundred votes, stand-alone. The people of California have been crying for this support, and the issue, the issue of where we were 3 months ago with a 333 to 87 vote; how many votes do we have in this body that we get that many folks to agree on? Just let me finish this, and I will be happy to yield. Three hundred thirty-three to eighty-seven this body voted to support this immigration bill including a provision, unmodified provision, that would allow the States to deny a free public education to those that have no legal right to be in this country. Since that time we have modified it to the point of giving a grandfather clause to all of those in K through 6 and those in 7 through 12, watered it down considerably, and now even with a much more modified version the President of the United States is saying he would veto something that almost a 4 to 1 margin in the House supported, a strong bipartisan vote, and the people of California in an initiative 2 years ago voted by almost a 2 to 1 margin. It appears to me the President of the United States, if in fact he really is talking seriously about a veto, is not listening to the people of California. And further I would just like to add that with all the due respect that I have for our President, he has talked about vetoes in the past. Sometimes he does what he says; sometimes he does not. I am just saying that I do not believe that he would veto this bill, I do not think that it is the right thing for him to do, he knows it is not what the people of California want.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I cannot let the statement pass, and I thank the gentleman for yielding, that all law enforcement opposes it when I know my good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], knows that not to be true. In fact, just 3 days ago one of the largest law enforcement agencies in the country, the California Sheriffs Association, strongly endorsed it. The National Alliance endorsed it. A large portion of the rank and file of the Fraternal Order of Police endorsed it. So I would say to the gentleman the cops on the street support it.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, one of the most critical challenges facing the 104th Congress is the passage of comprehensive and effective immigration reform legislation. For many years the American people have expressed frustration that its leaders in Congress have failed to enact policies to eliminate the unacceptable high levels of illegal entry into our country. Under the able leadership of the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Lamar Smith, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, the House of Representatives will soon consider a conference report which finally addresses the public concern over this problem in a serious and comprehensive manner. One of the most important elements of this conference report is the so-called Gallegly amendment. This provision is really quite straightforward. It simply eliminates the ability of the Federal Government to force States to provide a free public education to illegal immigrants. This unfunded mandate is especially disturbing considering that 95 percent of the cost of providing a public education is born by State taxpayers. In addition, my amendment has been modified to make absolutely sure that illegal immigrant children who are already enrolled in public schools will not be removed from those schools. This compromise provides that illegal immigrants who are currently enrolled in a public school will continue to receive a free public education through the highest grade either in elementary or secondary school. For example, an illegal immigrant student in 2d grade could get a free education until the 6th grade or an illegal student in the 7th grade could continue through the 12th grade, provided they remained within the same school district. It is important to keep in mind that all these provisions dealing with illegal immigrants currently enrolled in public schools apply only to the States that choose to deny illegal immigrants a free public education. If a State, be it New York, Oregon, or any other State, wants to continue to provide a free public education to illegal immigrants as they currently do, they would be perfectly entitled to continue that policy. Mr. Speaker, California alone spends over $2 billion per year to educate illegal immigrants, and our Nation spends over $4 billion in this unfunded mandate. It is time that we at least give the States this important tool for reducing incentives for illegal immigrants to stay in our country.

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

Mr. GALLEGLY. I am happy to yield to my friend, the gentleman from California.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], this issue is very clearly I think an issue that the gentleman, my good friend, would agree is something that I have worked on for many years. I have 20-some provisions in this bill that I strongly believe in. We have modified, we have cut back. We have made compromises that quite frankly I do not think we should have made, but for the sake of moving the bill ahead, I have supported it. I think we have come to the point where we cannot continue to chisel away and have a real bill. The people of California can no longer afford to provide a free public education to everyone. It has a denigrating effect on the citizens of our States in providing an education to the children of legal residents and citizens. I think that issue has been sorely missed in this debate.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3642) to provide for the transfer of public lands to certain California Indian Tribes.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3642, the California Indian Land Transfer Act which I introduced at the request of the administration in June, would transfer into trust, 1,144.23 acres of excess Federal land to the following Indian tribes: 560 acres to the Pit River Tribe; 40 acres to the Bridgeport Paiute Indian Colony; 240 acres to the Utu Utu Gwaitu Paiute Tribe; 200 acres to the Fort Independence Community of Paiute Indians; 5.03 acres to the Barona Group of Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians; 40 acres to the Morongo Band of Mission Indians; and 59.2 acres to the Pala Band of Mission Indians. This bill also provides that valid existing rights shall be preserved on the lands to be taken into trust. H.R. 3642 was originally proposed by the administration and is supported by the tribes. Mr. Speaker, I recommend the approval of H.R. 3642. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2512, the proposed Crow Creek Sioux Tribe Infrastructure Development Trust Fund Act of 1996, was introduced by our colleague, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, last year. It would create a $27.5 million development fund to be used for the benefit of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe. This trust fund is being created to mitigate the effects of the Ford Randall water project and the Big Bend water project which inundated the lands of the tribe years ago. This development fund would provide the tribe with resources for education facilities, health care facilities, a water system, and recreational facilities. The moneys going into the development fund would be derived from the power program of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Program. The tribe would receive payments made on an annual basis derived from the interest earned on the development fund. H.R. 2512 is long overdue. It is a fair and just bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just like to take a minute and thank my colleague from American Samoa, my good friend, Eni Faleomavaega, for the bipartisan way that we continue to work on this legislation makes it a real pleasure for me. I want to take this time to publicly thank him.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2512) to provide for certain benefits of the Missouri River Basin Pick-Sloan project to the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. GALLEGLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the four bills just passed.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3640, the Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians Claims Settlement Act introduced by our colleague, Mr. Bono of California, would facilitate and implement a settlement to resolve long-standing land claims made by the Torres-Martinez Indian Tribe relating to the inundation of their tribal lands by drainage water from various irrigation systems flowing to the Salton Sea. It is due to Mr. Bono's efforts that this has been brought to our attention. This bill would establish three settlement trust funds in the U.S. Treasury which will be available to the Secretary of the Interior for distribution to the tribe. In addition, H.R. 3640 provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall take land into trust when acquired by the tribe from within two acquisition areas defined in the settlement agreement. It also provides that the United States and the tribe shall convey permanent flowage easements as to all Indian trust lands and all Federal lands, located below the minus 220-foot contour of the Salton Sink, to the Coachella Valley Water District and the Imperial Irrigation District. Lands acquired by the tribe shall be subject to all valid and existing water rights. The administration, the tribe, and the two irrigation districts have been working on this settlement for several years. Agreement has finally been reached and H.R. 3640 is the result. In fact, today Chairman Young of the Committee on Resources received a letter from the Assistant Secretary for Indians Affairs at the Department of the Interior in support of Congressman Bono's bill. I will include this letter as part of my statement. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me point out that there is a land acquisition issue, relating to H.R. 3640, to be resolved between the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians and the Torres-Martinez Tribe. I understand that complicated differences have arisen between the two tribes regarding the implementation of H.R. 3640. These differences can be negotiated and resolved between the two tribes in a manner which is equitable and acceptable to both tribes. It is my understanding that steps are being taken to work this out as H.R. 3640 moves forward in the legislative process. We all look forward to a resolution to this matter by these two tribes. I support H.R. 3640, Mr. Speaker. It is a good, fair settlement of a valid land claim and I recommend that it be passed by this body. The letter previously referred to is as follows: U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC. Hon. Don Young, Chairman, House Committee on Resources, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that the Committee unanimously approved H.R. 3640, the Torres-Martinez Settlement Agreement Act, at the August 1, 1996, make-up of the bill. If enacted, H.R. 3640 will ratify the June 18, 1996, settlement agreement resolving claims and issues related to lands held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Torres-Martinez Indians (``Agreement''). The Administration supports H.R. 3640, which it believes is an equitable and overdue resolution to this long-standing dispute between the Tribe and two water districts in Southern California. Moreover, as a signatory to the Agreement, the Federal Government is bound by the terms of the Agreement and has a legal obligation under its terms to support the enactment of this implementing legislation which is ``substantively the same in text and form'' as H.R. 3640. The Department is aware that the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians has raised concerns regarding the potential impact enactment of H.R. 3640 may have on its interests. The Department prefers that these differences be resolved without modification to H.R. 3640 and it has encouraged the Cabazon and Torres-Martinez Tribes to meet to try to resolve their differences as soon as possible. The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Again, thank you and the members of your subcommittee for your support and favorable treatment of this important legislation. Sincerely, Ada E. Deer, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3640) to provide for the settlement of issues and claims related to the trust lands of the Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, and for other purposes.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.