Elton Gallegly

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 17, a resolution I sponsored which congratulates President Arzu, the URNG, and the people of Guatemala for their recent success in concluding a peace agreement which brings to an end a civil war which has raged more than 30 years and has cost the lives of over 100,000 Guatemalans. This resolution is one of those good news stories involving the Western Hemisphere which, as chairman of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, I am very happy to report to my colleagues. The signing of the peace accords on December 29 concluded 6 years of negotiations between the two sides and established a framework within which the country will now embark on a process of peace, reconciliation, and reconstruction. The Guatemalan people now join nations such as El Salvador and Nicaragua in choosing peace over war, democracy over anarchy, economic development over poverty and chaos, and social justice over exploitation and abuse. The accords pose numerous challenges, and their success will surely test the wills and commitment of all sides. But the goals established in the accords were mutually arrived at, and the end results, when fully realized, will be very significant. In fact, the effort put forth by both the government and the URNG through the long years of negotiations is already beginning to pay dividends. Yesterday in what was clearly a signal of confidence in the peace process, some 30 guerrillas handed over their weapons to United Nations' observers. This act was the first of many similar events to take place throughout Guatemala in the coming months and serves notice that the commitment to peace is strong. Mr. Speaker, with the problems we currently face in the hemisphere, especially with the issue of the war on drugs, this recent news from Guatemala and Nicaragua as reflected in our other resolutions under consideration is very welcome. In conclusion, I want to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], my chairman, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], the ranking member, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Ackerman], the subcommittee ranking member, and my colleagues, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton], the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger], and the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega], for their sponsorship of this resolution and their support in bringing this bill to the floor today. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to support the peace process in Guatemala.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize one of Ventura County's outstanding citizens, Katherine Hoffman Haley. As the Granddaughter of the founder of Ventura County, Katherine has proudly carried on the legacy of her grandfather, William Dewey Hobson. Katherine along with her mother, Edith and brother, Walter, have been responsible for keeping the heritage and history of Ventura County alive. She was instrumental in raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for the construction of the Ventura County museum of history and art. She has subsequently obtained additional hundreds of thousands for the support of the museum's programs over the years. Her involvement in the community has not stopped there. She has served as a member of the board of directors of the Community Memorial Hospital in Ventura for over 35 years. And her generosity extends to the legions who have come far and wide to visit her home to see her extensive collection of western art. Her innumerable contributions to the community will serve as a legacy to her dedication. I am proud to pay tribute to her today.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation which congratulates the government and people of Guatemala for the extraordinary peace accords signed recently between the Government and the Unidad Revolucionaria National Guatemala [URNG]. With the signing of the accords on December 29, 1996, 36 years of civil strife ended and Guatemala embarked on a new era of reconciliation, reconstruction, democratization, and economic development. The peace process, which culminated in the accords, was a comprehensive effort involving all sectors of the country. The development of the actual agreements took 11 years of tough negotiation and include some far reaching reforms of the political, economic, social, and judicial system in Guatemala. Lasting peace in Guatemala is not only beneficial to the people of that nation, but it is in the best interest of all of the nations of the hemisphere, including the United States. My resolution congratulates the government of President Alvaro Arzu for his efforts in negotiating a final end to the hostilities. It recognizes the commitment of the UNRG to end the warfare and to resolve their differences within the political arena. And, it commends all of the people of Guatemala for their strong commitment to democratic principles and social justice for all.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to salute Orvene S. Carpenter for many years of outstanding service to his community on the occasion of his retirement. Orvene Carpenter began his public service over 50 years ago in the city of Port Hueneme when he was appointed postal clerk. He was later elected to the city council and served for 30 years, becoming the longest tenured councilmember in the history of the city of Port Hueneme. He was elected mayor in 1990. I have had the great pleasure of working with Mr. Carpenter for many years. During that time he has been responsible for numerous accomplishments and outstanding progress in the city of Port Hueneme. He will be missed greatly in both the government and civic arenas in which he was so active. His innumerable contributions will serve as a legacy to his years of dedication. I want to congratulate him and wish him the very best in his retirement.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, today, I officially became the chairman of the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere of the International Relations Committee. I am looking forward to working with my colleagues, both Republican and Democrat, on the subcommittee as we begin a very exciting and challenging period in which we will review our relations with our partners in the hemisphere. The end of the cold war and the movement toward democracy and economic reform in Russia and central Europe held great promise that the world would enter a period free of superpower rivalry, a lowering of the nuclear threat, and an all-around feeling that peace and political stability would prevail throughout the world. Despite the expectations that evolutionary changes in Europe would serve as a model for a greater global commitment to open societies, the promotion of democracy, and the development of strong economies and markets, the international environment remains as complex and as dangerous as ever. United States foreign policy continues to face complex and ever changing challenges from Bosnia to China, from terrorism to the stability of the global economy, from Palestine to Northern Ireland. But while U.S. policymakers within the administration and the Congress struggle to resolve the most difficult and dangerous of these issues, we are ignoring one of the most dramatic success stories of the post-cold war period. And the irony of it all, is that this transition is taking place right in our own backyard of the Western Hemisphere. The evolution of the nations of Latin America to democratic governments, market economies, and open societies has been perhaps the most overlooked event since the fall of the Berlin wall. Despite the direct impact events in Latin America have on the United States in terms of trade, narcotics trafficking, and immigration, U.S. policymakers, including the Congress, have often, although not entirely, turned an uninterested eye south of our borders and have failed to take advantage of the enormous potential for peace, political stability, and economic opportunity these changes are bringing about. The resolution of the crisis in Haiti, the recent peaceful elections in Nicaragua, and the signing of the peace accords in Guatemala, ending 35 years of confrontation, clearly argues that the transition to peace, cooperation, and the democratization of the entire hemisphere, although sometimes rocky, is in its final stages. The economic miracles taking place in Argentina, Brazil, and Chile are a credit to the genuine commitment of those governments and peoples to take their place as regional role models. Unfortunately, these stories are going largely unnoticed unappreciated in the United States. Latin America is a success story which the United States should be celebrating by pursuing a more engaged foreign policy designed to support the peace process, promote continued political stability, renew old friendships, cultivate new ones, and lend strong support to regional economic development and free market economies. Like many, though, I fear that the momentum achieved thus far by the nations of Latin America could be stalled unless the United States reenergizes its efforts to provide strong leadership throughout the region. Confronting no major conflict or problem in the region, U.S. policy seems to lack clarity or coherence which could lead to a further decline in our ability to influence events in the region. There can be no doubt that economic growth in the region is the key to strengthening democracy, ensuring long-term political stability, and reducing poverty. The 1994 Summit of the Americas held great promise for the critical areas of trade and economic development. The momentum created there must be renewed and sustained. But leadership requires a better knowledge and understanding of the nations of the hemisphere and the great strides made thus far. U.S. policy must look forward and should be based, not on what has happened in the past, but what can happen in the future if we work with the nations of the hemisphere in a cooperative partnership to strengthen democracy, implement economic development policies, encourage free trade, and to make a renewed commitment to civilian authority, human rights, and social justice. This is not to say that all is well in the hemisphere. Lingering problems associated with drugs, illegal immigration political corruption, arms competition, and the strength of the peso, temper the euphoria of the success story. Beyond those endemic problems, which must be addressed primarily by the nations of Latin America themselves, nagging questions arise regarding the future of the new democracies, NAFTA, fast track, and Cuba. Also, to a lesser, but nevertheless important degree to many in the United States are issues regarding intellectual property, patent, and copyright violations, the environment and labor standards which must be addressed. The foreign policy agenda for the Western Hemisphere is large and laden with both promise and problems. And while these issues may not seem as important as issues facing this Nation elsewhere, I believe we would be making a tremendous mistake if we did not take advantage of the positive signs and events emerging from the hemisphere by actively engaging our neighbors to the south in a renewed partnership for peace, stability, and economic development. This will be the thrust of the subcommittee's work and I look forward to getting on with the job.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation which is designed to correct a drafting error which appeared in Public Law 104-208 and which pertains to the ability of ineligible aliens to receive Federal housing assistance. Amendments made to section 214 of the Housing Act, as incorporated into the Immigration Reform bill adopted last year, were designed to make it more difficult for illegal aliens to receive housing assistance. The fact is, illegals are currently receiving housing assistance and every day newly arrived illegal aliens are applying for assistance. HUD, in the past has been very inconsistent in enforcing the laws designed to prevent this funding from going to ineligible families. Unfortunately, in attempting to correct the obvious flaws in the law, we made a drafting mistake and now HUD is threatening to make the proverbial mountain out of the mole hill. In considering the potential problems large public housing authorities may encounter as they try to implement mandatory verification of citizenship or immigration status of all applicants for housing assistance, the Senate tried to provide an opt-out provision which would allow HA's to grant housing assistance before all verification was completed if the verification process was taking too long or if the waiting period began to result in an unusual amount of vacant units. While House Members were at first reluctant to put this opt-out into statutory language, it was included in the final version of the bill signed into law. Unfortunately, HUD has now interpreted the opt-out language to mean that HA's could opt-out of the entire section 214. In other words, If HUD's view prevailed, HA's could legally give housing assistance to illegal aliens without any questions being asked. Needless to say, I totally disagree with the interpretation the Department has rendered on the issue. How HUD's lawyers could come to the conclusion that while adopting legislative changes to section 214, which were intended to make it more difficult for illegal aliens who have been determined by the HA's to be ineligible for new or continued assistance, the Congress would then intend to allow the HA's to turn around and not enforce section 214, is beyond me. For the record, and as the principal author of the section 214 changes, I will again, state that under no circumstance did the Congress intend any interpretation of the legislation which gives any HA the option of following the law as written in section 214. It is clear to me, as it was to all of the Members involved, that the author of the opt out only intended to allow HA's with high turnover to be able to place families in housing without having to wait for a verification from the INS. Again, it is inconceivable to me how HUD could say that our intent was to allow HA's to completely ignore a law we were trying to tighten. The effect of HUD's conclusions would suggest that HUD is now telling the HA's that if they do not want to enforce section 214 they do not have to. This means that HUD is telling the HA's that they may now elect to grant housing assistance to illegal aliens or continue to provide assistance to illegals even after they had been determined to be ineligible. I do not believe this is the official position of the Department. My legislation is intended to clear up any doubt among HUD or the housing authorities.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1332) to establish certain policies and responsibilities with respect to the administration of the Rongelap Resettlement Trust Fund, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, the Omnibus Insular Areas Act of 1996, H.R. 1332, includes a number of measures largely technical in nature affecting some of our U.S. territories as well as the native Hawaiians. These provisions have been developed based on hearings and consultations with leaders from the islands during the first and second sessions of the 104th Congress. All are noncontroversial, and enjoy bipartisan support. The administration has testified in support of a majority of the provisions and have now indicated no opposition to certain measures which have been modified to address any major concerns. Let me briefly explain the individual sections of the bill, which are listed in section 1. Sections 2, 3, and 4 affect the U.S. Virgin Islands. Section 2 would clarify that the physical absence of the Governor or Lieutenant Governor would not constitute a temporary absence which triggers a transfer of authority to the next administration official in the chain of command. Modern telecommunications enable the Governor and Lieutenant Governor to retain communication with the Virgin Islands from virtually anywhere in the United States or the world. Section 3 will enable the Virgin Islands to issue parity bonds rather than priority bonds. This is consistent with the current practice with most State and local governments and will potentially save money for the Virgin Islands. There is a bipartisan consensus of leaders in the Virgin Islands and Congress that a focused effort is needed to develop a plan which would assist the Virgin Islands in moving toward economic self-sufficiency. Section 4 would establish a commission appointed by the President, who would make recommendations to the Congress by mid-1998, when the commission would expire. The Government of Guam and the Delegate from Guam have requested that Guam be given the power to conduct the election for delegate by separate ballot. The provision of section 5 will save Guam the costs of printing separate ballots for the election of one position. Section 6 is a technical clarification providing for similar treatment of certain Federal insular funds received by any territory. Northern Mariana Islands special grant funding is considered to be local funds once received, and any funds received by a territory from this source would also be considered local upon receipt. The American Memorial Park established in Saipan in the Northern Mariana Islands has become one of the premier monuments in the Western Pacific honoring the sacrifices of our Armed Forces during World War II. Over $3 million were spent to build a world-class memorial. This is befitting the honor due to our men and women who fought over the very ground upon which the memorial stands. The amendment in section 7 would insure that the continued operation of the American Memorial Park under the National Park Service rather than the local Marianas government. Section 8 provides for a short-term commission to examine the near century-long relationship of American Samoa as a territory of the United States and the economic needs of the islands. The Delegate from American Samoa is the primary advocate for this action, and I concur with the need to review the territory's economic development potential. The last section is largely ministerial in nature as current law provides for the Congress to give final approval to any proposed change of the Hawaii State Legislature to the Hawaiian Homes Commission. The two measures adopted by the Hawaii's legislative body do not result in any increased costs to the Federal Government, but both will be helpful to native Hawaiians. Grandchildren of a native Hawaiian leaseholder would be permitted to assume the remainder of the home lease should that individual die and the other will help in the area of disaster relief bonds. I want to commend members on both sides of the aisle for their interest and support of the various issues affecting our territories. It is through bipartisanship that we have been able to forget a consensus on action necessary for the island and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1332, the Omnibus Areas Act of 1996. Mr. Speaker, I really cannot overemphasize the bipartisan effort that has gone into putting this together, not only with the ranking member, but all the other members of the subcommittee that I am very proud to serve with. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill just considered.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute two people who have probably had a more direct effect on the health and welfare of Ventura County residents than anyone else--Don and Jackie Pruner. In August of 1963, Don and Jackie scraped together nearly all the money they could find and bought an ambulance company that consisted of one 1958 Pontiac ambulance. Times were tight, so Don did the driving while Jackie handled business operations and dispatched about 15 calls a month (to a service population of about 9,000 people in the Thousand Oaks area) out of the couple's home. Back then, the business was called Conejo Ambulance. Over the course of three decades, Pruner Health Services grew to provide 24-hour emergency service to a population of more than 345,000 people in an area of approximately 650 square miles. Obviously, Don and Jackie have come a long way from that 1958 Pontiac. Like all business success stories, theirs is one of hard work, determination and day-to-day achievements that together form an extraordinary record of service. As we celebrate their retirement, it is entirely appropriate that we celebrate all that Don and Jackie have given to all of us--those who know them personally as friends, and those who have known them only through the essential service they provide. Anyone who has ever picked up a phone to summon an ambulance in the middle of an emergency knows that those calls are often made in frantic desperation. For more than three decades, the people of Ventura County and Malibu have found Don and Jackie Pruner on the other end of that phone--willing to do anything they could to preserve life. Through it all, Don and Jackie have also found the time to raise three children, Michelle, Mike and Scott, and to welcome five grandchildren into the world. Mr. Speaker, I would like to today salute my friends Don and Jackie Pruner, and to thank them for everything they have done for our community. It is rare to come across someone who has truly dedicated their lives to helping preserve the health and welfare of others. Don and Jackie Pruner are two such individuals. It is my hope that, in retirement, these two good friends can focus on their love of traveling, fishing and frequent excursions to Catalina. I think everyone who knows Don and Jackie personally would agree, after all the years of hard work, they deserve it. Mr. Speaker, I commend Don and Jackie Pruner to this distinguished body and wish them all the best in the future.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. If the gentleman would yield, I would just like to make one point about the Gallegly bill that was dropped because I think it is an important point. The White House referred to this so-called Gallegly bill as nutty. Yesterday, after we removed it from the bill, we surprised the administration by bringing the bill to the floor as a freestanding bill and let the democratic process take place on the floor of this House, full and open debate. With the President whipping all of his Democrat Members, and with all of the abuse and lies that have come through the media in the past 5 months about the Gallegly bill, after the debate, we had a vote. It passed overwhelmingly, a bill the President called nutty, that he was holding the immigration bill hostage with. It passed by a margin of 254 of 175 on this floor, with 41 Democrats supporting the bill he referred to as nutty before. His excuse today was the excuse he was going to use to try to kill the immigration bill. The facts remains, the objective here is to kill meaningful immigration and tell the people of California, ``You be damned.'' I would only make one last comment. I wish that the polls in California were much closer, at 4 or 5 percent, not just because it is obvious to all my friends that I do support Bob Dole, but not for that reason; for the reason, if it was four or five points behind, we would have a President that was on Air Force One headed for California as we speak tonight, headed for the San Diego border, telephoning the Senate to get this bill out so he could sign it on the border, with the troops there standing off any illegal aliens coming into California. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Let me just say to the gentleman, I am talking about the original version that passed the House in the bill, that said the States no longer would be forced to. It did not say they should not, did not say they cannot. Well, the President said, ``I do not like that.'' And there were some Members on the Senate side that said, ``I am a little uncomfortable.'' There was a lot of misinformation that said we are kicking kids out of school. All we were doing was changing the venue for the debate to where the bills were being paid. So we sat down and, not to my pleasure but in the sense of comity and with the attempt to reach a compromise that could bring this bill to fruition, I agree with my Senate friends to modify this bill that would grandfather every one that is currently in school in K through 6 and 7 through 12, so no one can say we are removing anyone from school, and they agreed. Now we have an agreement; let us move to the House and we will pass this very important piece of legislation. The President says, ``I will veto any bill that has any modification that would not force the States to provide a free public education not only to those that are illegally in this country today but anyone that illegally enters the country in the future.'' Not the children of immigrants or legal immigrants but those that illegally enter the country themselves. Well, I thought that was too bad that the President is advocating an entitlement in perpetuity to the States that cost billions and billions of dollars to the States, not the Federal Government, but even at that point I said, wait a minute now, this bill is too important. This bill is too important to the country. So I suggested that we remove the Gallegly portion from the bill and allow it to be a freestanding bill. We did that with the President's assurance that ``You take the Gallegly provision out and I will sign the bill quickly.'' Senator Daschle said, ``You take the Gallegly provision out,'' it is on the front page of almost every paper in the country, ``it will sail through the Senate and the President will sign it.'' Leon Panetta, the chief of staff said, ``You take the Gallegly provision out and the President will sign this faster than a heartbeat.'' Well, my colleagues, here we are tonight, we are ready to go, and now with the Gallegly provision out, this passed the House yesterday in a historic vote of 305 to 123, with the support of Democrats and Republicans. Tonight the President has said, ``I want to reopen negotiations,'' and I am sad to announce to my colleagues that the President says if we do not reopen negotiations, my words, I have kind of changed my mind. I guess we would say he is flexible. He says, ``If we do not reopen negotiations, I threaten to shut down the Government,'' not the Congress shut down Government but the President. Our President has put support, welfare and benefits to illegals ahead of keeping Government open, and my colleagues, that is wrong. I have taken more time than I had, than I wanted to, but I thought this message had to be made to my colleagues. I have other colleagues here from California and I would like to yield to them. If I have a little more time I would like to say a little more.

Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the gentleman [Mr. Burton] from the great State of Indiana for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I have served in this House, this is my 10th year. In those 10 years I have never availed myself the microphone to address the House in special orders. This is the first time in 10 years. But I say to my colleagues, tonight there is a real need to address the House on an issue that I have worked on for several years. In fact, a large portion of my tenure in Congress has been devoted to addressing the unchecked flow of illegal immigration coming into this country, a problem that is facing California probably more severely than any other State in the Nation. California, by most accounts, is the home of over half of the entire illegal population in the entire Nation. We have half a million students that are illegally in this country. Not the children of illegal immigrants, but those that have illegally entered the country themselves, that their own status is illegal in this country is what is crowding our classrooms. Two-thirds of all the births in Los Angeles County operated hospitals, public-funded hospitals that are completely paid for by the taxpayers, over two-thirds of every birth in the last 6 or 7 years, the mother has no legal right to be in the country. As Mr. Burton said, 26 percent of our entire Federal penitentiary population is made up of illegal immigrants, not for immigration violations but for hard crimes, murder, rape, robbery and mainly, to a large degree, drug trafficking, and so on. This is an issue that we have to address. We have worked hard and we have worked long. I would like to first say thank you to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for working in a bipartisan way to aggressively address this issue. In March of this year this House passed a historic immigration reform bill addressing many of the problems that we face in this Nation. It passed this House in a bipartisan way 333 to 87. Mr. Speaker, there are very few things that we address in this House that 333 of us collectively can agree on, so I think that there was a clear message. It was a good bill. It was a tough bill. It addressed the needs for more Border Patrol, providing up to 10,000 new Border Patrol agents. It provided for document fraud, one of the things that provides access to jobs and welfare benefits. On any street in most of the metropolitan cities in this country for 35 bucks you can buy a card like this, Mr. Speaker, that even most Federal officials cannot detect as being counterfeits. We correct that in this bill. In this bill we make it a crime equal to the crime for manufacturing, counterfeiting, or using currency that is counterfeited. The same penalties would apply for counterfeiting this Federal document that would provide you access illegally to jobs and Federal benefits. We stopped access to welfare benefits in this bill to folks that have no legal right to be in this country. We have not denied anyone emergency medical care. I think as humanitarians we all agree that you cannot deny somebody that is critically ill or injured from being treated in a humanitarian way. However, we do say once that person is treated and nurtured back to health, they should be escorted back to their native country. It should be explained to them, if they want to come to this country, how they can do it in a legal fashion. Mr. Speaker, we are a very generous Nation. We allow more people every year the right to legally immigrate to this country. I wholeheartedly support that. We are a country of immigrants. But there is a movement because of the tremendous influx of illegal immigrants, those that do not pass health examinations, they violate the laws coming here. Because of that, there are a lot of folks that want to close the front door to legal immigration because the back door to illegal immigration is off the hinges. Mr. Speaker, that is just the reverse of everything that this country was founded on and what I believe all my colleagues would agree is in the best interest of this country. Well, we worked the past few months after we passed this omnibus historic bill to work with our colleagues in the Senate. They passed a similar bill, and I believe their bill passed 97 to 3, if I am not mistaken. And then we started merging the two bills. We went to conference, and there were some issues that were maybe not quite to the agreement or to the satisfaction of our colleagues in the other body, and we worked in a bipartisan way to try to get to that point to where we could merge these bills and move this vitally important legislation ahead. In this omnibus bill that the House passed out was one provision that only in the last month or so met with great objection from our President. I might add that, putting modesty aside for a second, with the help of my colleagues I have 28 provisions in this bill, so the Gallegly amendment that we talk about is not the only thing that I have an interest in this bill, but it has been the target as one of the Gallegly amendments, the one that has received the greatest amount of attention. Let me tell my colleagues what the Gallegly amendment does, because there has been much misinformation about the so-called Gallegly amendment over the months. The so-called Gallegly amendment does not deny anyone access to education, does not say you should deny anyone access to education and so on. What the Gallegly amendment does merely, and it passed out of this House in the omnibus bill 333 to 87 in March, in an unmodified version, said merely that in the future, after enactment of this bill, the Federal Government could no longer force States to provide a free public education to those that have no legal right to be in this country. It does not say to the States they cannot. It does not say they should not. It only says that we at the Federal Level are no longer going to force them to do this, particularly since the States bear 95 percent of the cost of education to start with. This is a cost to the State of California of $2 billion a year, $2 billion a year, $2 billion that could hire 53,000 teachers, $2 billion that could put a computer on the desk of every elementary school student in the State of California.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? I just want to respond to one comment.

Mr. GALLEGLY. It was my suggestion.

Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The reason this was taken out is the President of the United States, our President, said he would veto any bill that gave the States anything short of an unfunded mandate in perpetuity, guaranteeing a free public education entitlement for anyone, whether they are here today or in the future. We did not want to see a very important immigration bill threatened. The President said we only had that in there so he would veto it.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Let me remind the gentleman, if the gentleman will give me 10 seconds uninterrupted, I will give him a complete answer. Will the gentleman yield me 10 seconds?

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my friend, and he is my friend, from the great State of Michigan for yielding, to answer his question about whose idea it was to change this. I think the gentleman would agree that this was something that I wanted in this bill or I would not have brought it to the floor during the debate in March.

Mr. GALLEGLY. I will tell you.

Mr. GALLEGLY. I will be happy to.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Yes, sir, I did.

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

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Cooley].

Mr. GALLEGLY. If the gentleman will yield, there is no tuition in the amendment here.