Elton Gallegly

Mr. GALLEGLY

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, H.R. 2710, the proposed Hoopa Valley Reservation South Boundary Adjustment Act, introduced by our colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], would convey approximately 2,641 acres of land to the Hoopa Valley Tribe of California. The land to be transferred is presently part of the Six Rivers National Forest and has been fully timbered pursuant to the Forest Service timber sales. I note that these lands to be conveyed by H.R. 2710 contain the graves of the Tish-Tan-a-Tang band of Hoopa Indians and are currently used by the tribe for hunting, fishing, food gathering, and ceremonial purposes. H.R. 2710 would eliminate a longstanding alternation of the originally intended boundary of the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation. Mr. Speaker, this is a fair and just bill and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2710) to provide for the conveyance of certain land in the State of California to the Hoopa Valley Tribe, as amended.

Mr. GALLEGLY

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

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Bono]. (Mr. BONO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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 am introducing today a bill to provide for a nonvoting Delegate to the House of Representatives to represent the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. I do so with the original cosponsorship of Chairman Don Young. Both of us have set the goal of clearing away the old, traditional ways of dealing with the territories of our Nation. The Northern Mariana Islands Delegate bill serves that goal. This measure enjoys broad bipartisan support and I want to acknowledge members of the minority who are also original cosponsors. I believe in fairness and political justice. Every U.S. citizen living within the borders of this Nation should have a voice in Congress. Only the people of the Northern Marianas do not. My bill corrects that. It provides for a Delegate to represent the Northern Marianas here in the House of Representatives. Historically, Congress has provided for representation by Delegate for over 30 U.S. territories. Today, four of five territories and the District of Columbia, or the six areas of our Nation which have permanent populations but are not States, are so represented. My bill provides representation for the sixth, the Northern Mariana Islands. I also believe in reducing the influence of Washington in local affairs and in increasing local responsibility for local actions. During the last two Congresses, I urged the closing of the Interior Department office that has for years been a kind of territorial overseer. With the bipartisan support of my colleagues, the 104th Congress has terminated the Office of Territorial and International Affairs, eliminated the Assistant Secretary political position for that office, and reduced the bureaucracy in half. That office was no longer required since the territories have their own elected officials at home and their own elected official in Congress. However, only the Northern Marianas lacks an elected representative in Congress and the legislation I have introduced corrects that. With passage of the Northern Mariana Islands Delegate Act, all these territories will be able to speak for themselves and will be responsible for their own actions. Many of us in this Congress have concerns about local law enforcement and protection of fundamental human rights in the Northern Marianas and there is no intention to lessen the commitment in these areas. At the same time, we can also see that the society and economy of the islands have flourished as part of the United States. We should have a Delegate, elected by the people of the Northern Marianas, here in Congress, to whom other Members can go to answer our concerns. We should have a Delegate here who can legitimately advise Congress of what Federal actions are appropriate and necessary in the Northern Marianas. In introducing this bill today, I want to remind Members of the special circumstances under which the Northern Marianas became a part of the United States after World War II. The Marianas were one of four Micronesian archipelagoes in the United Nations Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands administered by the United States. The other three areas voted in self-determination referenda to become separate sovereigns in free association, with separate nationality and citizenship. However, unlike the other areas, the people of the Northern Marianas chose to be part of the American political family. In 1975, they did so by an overwhelming vote of 79 percent approving a Covenant of political union negotiated by their representatives and representatives of Presidents Nixon and Ford. In 1976, Congress approved that Covenant with Public Law 94-241. Despite this birth by democratic self-determination and having gained U.S. citizenship on November 3, 1986, the people of the Northern Marianas have never had representation here in the House of Representatives. In 1985, a Commission appointed by President Reagan and including Congressman Robert J. Lagomarsino, long an expert on insular affairs in this House, recommended a Northern Marianas Delegate. His predecessor on the Commission, former Congressman Phillip Burton, was another advocate of the U.S.-Marianas relationship, and supported eventual representation for the islands. The Northern Marianas Legislature has three times in the last 6 years petitioned Congress for a Delegate. The speaker of the NMI Legislature, Diego T. Benavente, recently appeared before a congressional hearing I conducted which addressed this issue, and affirmed that the NMI is prepared to enact the necessary implementing legislation for the election of a Delegate. The elected official who represents the islands here, Resident Representative Juan N. Babauta, has untiringly sought the voice in Congress his people want. Today, I am responding to the Commission's recommendation, the clear desire of the people of the Northern Marianas, and to my own sense of what is right. I hope that the House of Representatives and the Senate will act on this legislation in this session, so that the new Americans of the Northern Mariana Islands can cast their votes for the election of a Delegate to Congress on their 10th anniversary of U.S. citizenship. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Northern Mariana Islands Delegate Act. Following is the text of the legislation.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I was attending a function in my congressional district. As a result, I unfortunately missed several votes. Had I been here, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 248; ``yea'' on rollcall 249; ``yea'' on rollcall 250; ``nay'' on rollcall 251; ``yea'' on rollcall 252; ``nay'' on rollcall 253; ``nay'' on rollcall 254; ``nay'' on rollcall 255; ``nay'' on rollcall 256; ``nay'' on rollcall 257; ``nay'' on rollcall 258.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, today I am submitting for the Record a revision of H.R. 3024, the ``United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act.'' The purpose of the revised version is to enable Members of Congress to consider the actual language of the political status option which was presented to voters as the definition of the ``Commonwealth'' political status option in a 1993 plebiscite conducted by Puerto Rican authorities under local law. The local political parties in Puerto Rico formulated the ballot definitions in that plebiscite. On December 14, 1994, the Legislature of Puerto Rico adopted Concurrent Resolution 62, requesting the 104th Congress, if unwilling to accede to and implement the definition of ``Commonwealth'' from the 1993 ballot, to state ``. . . the specific status alternatives that it is willing to consider, and the measure it recommends the people of Puerto Rico should take as part of the process to solve the problem of their political status.'' Before responding to Concurrent Resolution 62, on October 17, 1995, the Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs, Committee on Resources, and the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, Committee on International Relations, conducted hearings on the 1993 plebiscite results in which representatives of each principal political party testified and persons of all persuasions were afforded the opportunity to submit statements for the record. Based on the record of that hearing (see, Joint Hearing Report, Serial No. 104-56 (Committee on Resources)), Chairman Don Young and I introduced H.R. 3024 along with 13 other cosponsors to the request of the Puerto Rico Legislature in Concurrent Resolution 62. H.R. 3024 reflects the best judgment of its sponsors with respect to how Puerto Rico's political status can be resolved consistent with the U.S. Constitution and this Nation's commitment to self-determination. The definition of ``Commonwealth'' on the ballot in the 1993 plebiscite was not included in the bill as introduced for reasons which include those set forth in the letter of February 29, 1996, from Chairman Dan Burton and I as the two subcommittee chairmen who conducted the joint hearing on October 17, 1995, signed as well by our respective full committee chairmen. See, Congressional Record, March 6, 1996, E299-300. On March 23, 1996, a comprehensive hearing on H.R. 3024 was conducted by the Committee on Resources in San Juan, PR. Again, all parties were afforded an opportunity to testify or submit written statements. On the basis of the exhaustive record now before the committee and extensive consultations with interested individuals, political parties, and elected officials in Puerto Rico, the Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs is prepared to consider further H.R. 3024. Obviously, it would be unfair and irresponsible to allow the deliberative process of Congress regarding H.R. 3024 to be held hostage by those who, for whatever reason, may prefer to delay or prevent a considered and unambiguous Federal response to the 1993 plebiscite. However, to accommodate the widest possible range of rational and responsible views on this matter, Chairman Young has taken the time to consider the record carefully, and he has agreed to support revisions to the bill based on comments and recommendations made in hearings and during consultation with some of our colleagues, representatives of the major parties, and other concerned parties. Thus, for example, we are prepared to ensure that a valid definition of ``Commonwealth'' consistent with applicable rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court is included in the democratic process under this bill-- even though the present status would not have changed under the original version unless the voters approved a new status. In addition, the revised version of H.R. 3024, with the 1993 ``Commonwealth'' definition prepared by the local political party which supports that status option, is being made available for consideration by the subcommittee and interested Members of Congress. The constitutional, fiscal, and political obstacles to implementation of both the core elements and most provisions of the 1993 ``Commonwealth'' definition remain, as indicated in the February 29 letter cited above, Still, Chairman Young has demonstrated exceptional sensitivity toward the difficult issues which arise from the inclusion of this ``best of both worlds'' definition on the 1993 ballot, and its approval by a slight plurality but less than a majority of the voters. Under the U.S. Constitution only Congress can determine what political status options it is willing to consider as requested by Concurrent Resolution 62, but Chairman Young's decision to present the 1993 definition to Congress for its consideration reflects his commitment to the most open and bipartisan approach possible. I want to express my admiration for the conscientious and careful approach which Chairman Young has taken in this matter. While some of the people of Puerto Rico and even some Members of Congress may well prefer this legislation not be considered on the merits, there is no credible basis for further delay. The process of hearings and accommodation of the views of others which Chairman Young has overseen has been exceptionally fair, and, by ensuring that people in Puerto Rico know that the 1993 definition of ``Commonwealth'' is considered by Congress in the original form without alteration, Chairman Young has demonstrated unprecedented flexibility and openness. That is why some 60 Members, including Democrats and Republicans, are now co-sponsors of the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, H.R. 3024. That is why we are going to move forward without further delay. The revision to H.R. 3024 is made by inserting the following language on line 22, page 9, of H.R. 3024 as introduced on March 6, 1996: (3) A path of Commonwealth, in which-- ``(A) the Commonwealth is a mandate in favor of guaranteeing our progress and security as well as that of our children within a status of equal political dignity, based on the permanent union between Puerto Rico and the United States encompassed in a bilateral pact that cannot be altered except by mutual agreement. ``(B) the Commonwealth guarantees-- ``(i) irrevocable United States citizenship; ``(ii) common market; ``(iii) common currency; ``(iv) common defense with the United States; ``(v) fiscal autonomy for Puerto Rico; ``(vi) Puerto Rico Olympic Committee and our own international sports representation; and ``(viii) full development of our cultural identity, under Commonwealth we are Puerto Ricans first; ``(C) we will develop Commonwealth through specific proposals to be brought before the United States Congress; and ``(D) we will immediately propose-- ``(I) reformulate section 936, ensuring creation of more and better jobs; ``(ii) extend the Supplementary Security Insurance to Puerto Rico; ``(iii) obtain Nutritional Assistance Program allocations equal to those received by the States; and ``(iv) protect other products of our agriculture, in addition to coffee.''.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday my flight to Washington from California was unexpectedly rerouted to Pittsburgh due to thunderstorm activity in the Washington area. As a result, I unfortunately missed several important votes. Had I been here, I would have voted: ``aye'' on rollcall No. 180; ``no'' on rollcall No. 181; ``aye'' on rollcall No. 182, the gas tax repeal; and ``aye'' on rollcall No. 183.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute a family restaurant in my district that is celebrating six decades of success--a family restaurant that never forgot the importance of family. Familia Diaz Mexican Restaurant, now a fixture on 10th Street in Santa Paula, was established in 1936 by two people who had just $500 in savings and a dream in their hearts. Jose and Josepha ``Pepa'' Diaz opened their cantina, originally called ``Las Quince Letras,'' and resolved that through hard work and determination they would succeed. While Jose worked the front, making conversation with faithful customers who, over the years, would become almost as close as family, Pepa would be in the kitchen turning out her famous recipies, sometimes sending daughter Vickie to the corner store to buy the ingredients for a particular dish. Word spread and the restaurant grew. In the 1950's, their son, Tony, came into the business and built on the progress his parents had made. For many years, Tony's wife, Cecila, and his sister, Nora, almost single-handedly turned out the restaurant's famous tamales. In 1980, when Tony was celebrating his 30th year in the restaurant, he was joined in the business by two of his children, Sandra and Dan. This was so very appropriate, because in Familia Diaz' 60 years of business, business has always been deeply rooted in family. While the number of fast food restaurants turning out food that is precooked, prepackaged, and preheated continues to proliferate, it is refreshing to know there are still places to go where food is prepared, the way it is at Familia Diaz. I would like to wish the Diaz family a sincere congratulations on this happy 60th anniversary and best wishes for the future. I know that as long as this restaurant maintains a healthy supply of its most precious commodity--family--it will continue to enjoy great success.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, after having a conversation with Mr. Goodling, the chairman of the opportunities committee, I wish to clarify, for the record, section 606 of H.R. 2202. The Department of Education recently signed a computer matching agreement with the Social Security Administration which is to go into effect for the 1996-1997 school year. The purpose of the matching program is to ensure that the requirements of section 484(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 are met. This matching program will enable the Department of Education to confirm that the social security number and the citizenship status of applicants for financial assistance under Title IV of the Higher Education Act are valid at the time of application. I would further note that the details of the matching arrangement can be found in the Federal Register publications of March 23, 1995, September 21, 1995, and December 1, 1995. The matching agreement addresses my concerns about the verification of a student's status and eligibility for student aid. However, we all know that statutory language is a much better source of authority than regulations. So, I just want to make sure that the verification takes place, that's all. That's why I have included the statutory language. If the Attorney General and the Secretary of Education agree that the matching agreement adequately meets the verification requirements of section 606 of the bill, then that is fine with me.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, as someone that has dealt with the issue of illegal immigration in this great House for the last 10 years, I have focused my energy on trying to find ways to stop the unchecked flow of illegal immigration. Initially I was opposed to having legal and illegal immigration combined, but the more I have studied this issue, the more I realize that we cannot deal with one without the other. We are a very generous nation. We allow more people to legally immigrate to this country every year than all of the rest of the countries in the world combined. This bill continues to provide that ability for those to continue to immigrate here. I ask you to oppose this amendment and let us address the issue of immigration once and for all in a way that will stop illegal immigration and we cannot do it without addressing legal as well.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say today that I do support the Pombo amendment, because we have a problem today in agriculture. We have a problem with illegal immigrants working in our agriculture. The most conservative estimates are 50 to 60 percent of those working in our fields today across this Nation are in this country illegally. That was confirmed by the Jordan Commission. Most of them have their families, one, two, three, four members here, most of which are living on public subsidies. Mr. Chairman, we are here today and we have been here for the past 3 days debating legislation that will significantly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in this country. All this amendment says is that if we can prove that there is a need for temporary guest labor to keep the crops from rotting in the fields, then we will allow a limited number of workers into this country to prevent that from happening, based on the following provisions: One, it must be proven that there is no domestic labor available to fill these jobs. Also, the employer must assume all financial responsibility for any and all benefits that would be a burden to the taxpayer. Further, temporary workers could not bring family workers along with them. Further, the program must provide a strong, positive verification provision through the use of biometric data, and it must include strong financial incentives for the workers to return to their homeland after the job is done, in the form of withheld wages. Mr. Chairman, these are the elements that the Pombo amendment provides for. We know the existing H-2A program is unworkable. If it were not, we probably would not be here today. We can do better. We must do better. The Pombo amendment provides for that. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], who is from the San Fernando Valley and parts of Ventura County. (Mr. BEILENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 1800

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, I would like to say that I have spent the overwhelming majority of my adult life as a small business person. This is the reason right here that we need a verification system. This is a counterfeit document that will meet the employer sanction requirements that a person can pick up on almost any street corner in any major city for about $30. Let us bring some sanity to this debate. Let us stop the flow of illegal immigrants coming into this country for easy access to jobs, protect American workers, and protect this country from more illegal immigration. I would ask the strong support of the Gallegly amendment for mandatory verification.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte]. (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier]. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], chairman of the subcommittee. (Mr. SMITH of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert].

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

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray].