Lucille Roybal-Allard

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I just want to add and emphasize something that I feel is extremely important. Not only was the subpoena power given to an ordinary citizen, but the power that was given to subpoena far beyond the district election that was being contested so that the constitutional rights of thousands of other Orange County voters who had nothing to do with this particular election, their records were also subpoenaed. So it is extremely frightening, the fact that, No. 1, this leadership would give subpoena power to an everyday citizen and, second, that that power is extended far beyond the contest in question.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield further, I just wanted to make one more point. Although the contested election is about the result of the 46th Congressional District, in which 93,000 people voted, Mr. Dornan and his Republican allies sanctioned the INS to pry into the records of all of 1.3 million Orange County voters. This means that the Republican-led Committee on House Oversight ordered the INS to go through the records of hundreds of thousands of people not associated with the results of this contested election. Most of these people could not have cast a vote either for or against the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, or Bob Dornan because they were not even living in that district. So it is definitely unfair, it is unethical, and an invasion of privacy for these registered voters to be subjected to the antics and the subpoenas of this private citizen, Dornan.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with my colleague, and again I wish to point out that all of this has been at a tremendous cost to taxpayers. Over $300,000 has been spent on an election that has been duly certified by the Republican Orange County registrar and the Republican Secretary of State. So this is money that has been thrown away, and in spite of all the money and time and the violations and things that we have talked about on this floor, Dornan is no more closer to getting the election than he was on November 5. It has been a total waste of money, of taxpayers' money, and it really is a black mark on the leadership for allowing this to happen.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate Chairman Lewis and Ranking Member Stokes on producing a bipartisan bill with broad support in the House. However, Mr. Chairman, I would like to highlight the multi-Family Preservation Program in the hopes that the HUD-VA Conference Committee will appropriate funding for this essential program. This program is very important to low-income communities not only in my congressional district but throughout the Nation because it is critical to maintaining our country's dwindling affordable rental housing supply. The Preservation Program keeps housing affordable for low-income families, the disabled and the elderly by allowing private owners to transfer their rental properties to tenant-endorsed nonprofits who will continue to serve this vulnerable residential population. As a consequence of HUD's Preservation Program, over 800,000 units of affordable housing have been preserved. Currently, there are 260 projects nationwide, consisting of more than 29,000 units, that need funding to avoid their conversion to market- rate rentals and prevent the displacement of thousands of low-income tenants. The Preservation program continues to have solid bipartisan support. As recently as June 20th, I joined 27 of my California colleagues from both sides of the aisle in sending a letter of support for the Preservation Program. In our letter, we stressed that California alone has 25 percent of the country's unfunded preservation properties. This represents approximately 5,000 units awaiting preservation funding in California alone. The Preservation program has been criticized as being too expensive and many references have been made to a pending GAO report, which is critical of the program. While there have been some high costs associated with the program, the fact is that it is relatively inexpensive. In its findings, GAO cities almost exclusively the high cost preservation projects, which are not representative of the entire group of properties in the national queue. While I have no doubt that the GAO findings are accurate for the small sample studied, this report does not mean that Congress should make hasty or ill-advised conclusions about the program's overall true costs to the taxpayer based on an unrepresentative sampling. It is important to note that temporary enhanced vouchers--which are being proposed to mitigate the loss of housing for thousands of displaced low income families and the elderly--are not a viable or cost-effective substitute for this important housing stock. Vouchers will not protect the physical housing stock, nor will they guarantee the current residents any long-term security because it is dependent on annual congressional appropriations. The HUD-VA Conference Committee has consistently recognized the value of the Preservation Program and provided adequate funds over the past 2 years. I rise to ask the conference committee to mirror the sensible and cost-effective efforts of past years and fund the Preservation Program at a level of $350 million for fiscal year 1998.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mink-Morella-Sanchez- Woolsey amendment to the vocational education reauthorization bill. These gender equity programs have been highly successful throughout the Nation and have dramatically increased the number of women who participate in vocational education programs. We have studies that indicate that women who participate in these programs are able to increase their earning capacity in nontraditional occupational fields and successfully eliminate their cyclical dependency on public assistance. A recent GAO study of employment training programs found that the 1,300 displaced homemaker and single-parent programs in operation throughout the Nation are among the most successful programs of this type. In Oregon, for example, these programs increased the employment rates for participants from 28 to 71 percent, increased hourly earnings by an average of $1.45, and reduced AFDC dependency from 29 to 15 percent. The study documented similar increases in earnings and placements in nontraditional jobs and reductions in welfare rates in other States as well. Clearly, the need to ensure equal access to training programs is even more important today than it was when the gender equity provisions were originally enacted by Congress. For example, the passage of last year's welfare reform legislation places severe restrictions on the ability of poor women and their children to continue to receive welfare. Since the majority of women on welfare are women with children, it is imperative to provide them real opportunities to earn higher wages in highly skilled jobs to support themselves and their children. The failure to continue to protect vocational training could severely limit single parents, single pregnant women, and displaced homemakers' ability to find employment and will increase the likelihood that they and their children will remain in poverty or become homeless. We simply must not abandon the Federal commitment to gender equity in vocational education by eliminating minimum guarantees of funding for gender equity programs. The gender equity provisions of the Mink amendment strike a reasonable compromise between set-aside programs and assurances that States will continue to allocate resources to gender equity programs. I urge my colleagues to support the Mink-Morella-Sanchez-Woolsey amendment.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, those who negotiated the original bipartisan budget agreement recognize that restoring aid to legal immigrants residing in the United States prior to August 23, 1996, and later become disabled is good policy and a needed improvement to last year's welfare bill. The reconciliation bill before us today violates the budget agreement reached earlier by the President and congressional leaders. As a result, innocent people who played by the rules will suffer. An example is Mr. Loza, a 60-year-old legal immigrant residing in Los Angeles. Mr. Loza worked in the United States for 8 years before suffering a stroke which resulted in an unstable heart condition. In November 1996, his application for SSI disability benefits was denied because of last year's welfare bill. He is now trying to live on less than $200 per month of general assistance relief. Mr. Loza is an example of one who has worked hard, played by the rules and paid his taxes but by virtue of this reconciliation bill, we now abandon due to his disability. We must vote to defeat this unfair bill.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a budget spending bill that violates the budget agreement and takes away some of the hope and promise built into the original agreement. First, the President and congressional leaders guaranteed $16 billion in health care coverage for 5 million uninsured children in our Nation. The bill before us takes away that guarantee and creates a large block grant that could result in untargeted revenue sharing. In other words, the money does not have to be used to cover uninsured children. Second, welfare reform was to provide a way for able-bodied adults to earn a living and free themselves from the dependency of welfare. Instead, this bill stigmatizes them and strips them of their self- esteem by eliminating workplace protections enjoyed by other American workers, protections such as overtime pay, OSHA, and the Civil Rights Act that protects working Americans from employment discrimination and sexual harassment. This is a frightening thought when we consider that the majority of welfare-to-work recipients will be women, the most vulnerable to this type of discrimination. At a time when we are encouraging people to choose work over welfare, it is unconscionable to create a hostile work environment for these welfare-to-work recipients by undermining workplace standards. Finally, the negotiators of the original budget agreement recognize that restoring aid to legal immigrants living in the country prior to August 23, 1996, and later become disabled is good policy and a needed improvement to last year's welfare bill. This budget bill violates this promise to over 75,000 perspective elderly and disabled immigrants, 30,000 of which live in California. In essence, the majority is saying to these legal immigrants who have worked hard and played by the rules, you can work here and pay taxes into our system, but if you become disabled, we will abandon you. I urge a ``no'' vote on this budget reconciliation bill.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, in my district, on June 14, at MacArthur Park, located in the heart of downtown Los Angeles, three brave, elderly, former soldiers renewed a battle first begun in World War II. In an unprecedented display of determination, Percy Javellana, age 74, Angel De La Cruz, age 71, and Orcencio Salem, age 71, chained themselves to the statue of their former commander, General Douglas MacArthur. They have vowed to remain there for 24 hours a day in protest of our Government's denial of benefits for Filipino veterans of World War II. Mr. De La Cruz took his personal sacrifice one step further by beginning a hunger strike he has promised will not end until Federal legislation to restore these promised benefits is enacted. Let there be no mistake, their symbolic act of protest, which is gaining national media attention, is not merely motivated by a desire for monetary compensation. Instead, their struggle is about honor, dignity, and respect for their sacrifices as soldiers. More importantly, it is about the moral obligation of our Government to live up to its promises once made. In 1941, recognizing the critical strategic value of the Philippines to the allied forces, President Roosevelt called upon Filipino soldiers and civilians to join United States forces in retaking the Philippines. In exchange for their volunteer military service, they were promised pay and benefits equal to that provided to United States troops. In response, during almost 4 years of the most intense and critically important phases of World War II, more than 200,000 Filipinos fought side by side with allied forces and won a strategic forward position vital to our success in the Pacific Theater. Willingly, these brave men sacrificed their well-being and their lives in defense of freedom. They fought, believing in our country's promise that they would earn the right to the same compensation and benefits given to American men and women with whom they fought side by side in defense of the free world. To the ultimate shame of our Nation, not one promise was honored. Instead, in 1946, the United States Congress passed legislation severely restricting the veterans' benefits that members of the Phillipine Commonwealth Army and the Special Scouts could receive. Ever since that betrayal, Filipino veterans and their survivors have fought an uphill battle to restore these hard-earned benefits. In their support, I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 836, a bipartisan bill introduced by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner] to extend full benefits to these Philippine veterans. I support not only its passage but the efforts of the Filipino veterans to have congressional hearings to illuminate the unkept promises and the impact it has had on the lives of these aging veterans. As our Nation focuses increased attention on World War II through the creation of a memorial recognizing the contributions of all World War II veterans, and as we continue to celebrate the recent dedication of the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial, a great portion of which focuses on his leadership during the Second World War, there is no better time than now to correct this injustice. Clearly, the Filipino veterans who fought, bled, and suffered alongside American troops deserve the recognition and compensation they were promised and then denied for over 50 years. I urge my colleagues and the American public to recognize that correcting this injustice is a matter of national honor.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Congress representing parts of Los Angeles, I am acutely aware of the devastating impact natural disasters have on human life. The Northridge earthquake, for example, not only destroyed homes and parts of communities but lives and people's livelihood. In response, Congress acted to ease the misery of these victims by quickly appropriating much-needed disaster assistance. By so doing, Congress sent a clear message to these victims that they were not being abandoned by their government and we gave them hope that they would be able to rebuild their lives. Congressional response to the Northridge earthquake represented the Federal Government at its best. Today, 83 days after the President asked Congress to pass legislation providing desperately needed funds for families suffering the aftermath of the recent floods, these victims are still waiting for Congress to help them in their time of need. Their cries for help fall on the deaf ears of the Republican majority who insist on using the disaster relief bill as a vehicle to ram through an unrelated political agenda which the President has said over and over again is unacceptable. Despite the President's warning of a veto, the Republican majority put their interests ahead of the interests of the flood victims and included unrelated provisions, knowing the bill would be vetoed. These Republican machinations represent government at its worst. Yes, the issues of the continuing resolution and the census should be considered by this House. But those are separate issues. Our first and most immediate responsibility is to give help to those who are suffering the ravages of the floods. North and South Dakotans, Minnesotans, northern Californians and Ohio River Valley residents want and deserve to rebuild their lives. They want and deserve to have peace of mind and a modicum of security. They need help to relocate their businesses, repair damaged roads and clear their farms in time for planting. Yet the Republicans keep placing their political agenda ahead of the needs of these victims. Such game playing is untenable when lives and livelihood are at stake. I call on the majority to do the right thing and immediately remove objectionable extraneous provisions from the emergency supplemental appropriations bill. Send President Clinton an emergency supplemental appropriations bill he can sign. Send the flood victims the relief they so desperately need and deserve.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kennedy substitute and in strong opposition to H.R. 2. H.R. 2 is an unprecedented and indefensible retreat from the Federal Government's 60-year commitment to those in greatest need of housing assistance, our Nation's poor. Although proponents argue that the bill promotes local flexibility in the administration of public housing programs, that flexibility is achieved at too high a human cost. Experts agree that access to affordable housing is the No. 1 problem confronting needy families, yet H.R. 2 will allow housing authorities to replace poor families with those whose incomes are as high as $40,000 a year in some parts of the country. This will remove a critical safety net for tens of thousands of poor families well into the next millennium as they seek to move from welfare to work. As a result, their only options are to resort to dilapidated, substandard housing, if they can find it, or to join the growing ranks of the homeless. This is a new American tragedy in the making. The Democratic substitute, however, reforms the public housing system without punishing those in greatest need of our help. It offers local flexibility without sacrificing accountability, and it provides sensible, workable reforms to public housing programs, and most importantly, it reinstates the Brooke amendment that ensures that poor families receive a fair share of housing assistance. On behalf of poor and working families throughout the Nation, I urge my colleagues to support the Kennedy substitute.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the bill. The supporters of H.R. 1 are trying to convince hard-working Americans that this is a flexible pro-family, pro-worker bill. In reality it is none of these things. Instead, the bill gives more power to the employer and limits the employees' ability to determine for themselves what is best for their family, comp time or overtime pay. H.R. 1 gives the employer the power to determine when and how employees can use their comp time, and it encourages employers to avoid paying overtime wages by allowing them to discriminate against employees who opt for overtime pay instead of comp time. When real wages are stagnant or dropping for low and middle income Americans, the ability to work overtime is often the difference between paying the rent and putting food on the table or being homeless and hungry. Equally as important is the fact that this bill will not only impact the lives of American workers now, it will also impact their future retirement income, because current earnings determine future Social Security and pension benefits. Mr. Speaker, it is the American worker who knows what is best for his or her family. Let us have a bill that truly empowers the employee and preserves basic worker rights. Defeat the bill and this mislabeled family-friendly workplace act.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, child and teen suicide is a national tragedy in our country. The national suicide rate among 10 to 14-year- olds has increased by 120 percent since 1980. One in 12 high school students attempted suicide in 1995, and each year more than 270,000 teenagers attempt to end their lives. More than a desire to die, these children say their attempt was a cry for help. This tragedy impacts all Americans. In affluent Palos Verdes a 15- year-old girl took her life by jumping off a cliff because she felt hopeless and anguished. In east Los Angeles a 15-year-old boy, devastated over his parents' separation, hung himself. Child and teen suicide is a painful and critical tragedy which cannot be ignored. Members of Congress and indeed all Americans must work together to save our children. It is literally a matter of life and death.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to remember our friend, Congressman Frank Tejeda. Frank's commitment to his constituents, family and country was unparalleled. Often when we walked from our offices, in the Cannon House Office Building, to the Chamber, Frank expressed regret that there were not more hours in a day to accomplish his goals and serve his constituents. Sadly, the years afforded Frank were too short as well. Yet, Frank made the most of the time he was given. His spectacular ascent from high school dropout to Member of Congress, alone, is eloquent testimony to his drive and dedication. Frank's success derived from his renowned discipline. As a proud marine, this self-described ``grunt'' exemplified the American dream. His hard work and single-minded focus enabled him to overcome every obstacle, except the final hurdle of cancer. And, even then, Frank fought the good fight. Where most people would have retreated upon diagnosis, Frank fought to return to the work he loved--serving the people of Texas' 28th district. Whether serving as a marine in Vietnam, obtaining his high school equivalency, completing graduate programs at Berkeley, Harvard, and Yale or representing his constituents, Frank tackled each challenge with a sure sense of responsibility. Frank felt that he owed this country for providing him with opportunity. He repaid the perceived debt fully, by serving in war and in peace. My condolences go out to Frank's family. We have lost a dear friend and colleague, but his children have lost a caring, devoted father. I hope that they find comfort in knowing how special he was.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4134. It is indeed a sad day in the long history of our country when Members of this esteemed body must come to this Chamber to plead that the right to an education given to all children in this country by our Constitution should not be violated. There is no question that we all want to protect our borders. The fact is, however, that H.R. 4134 will do nothing to stem the flow of illegal immigration or lessen the burden on our schools. It will, instead, significantly reduce the quality of life for all Americans. The bill will substantially increase costs to school districts and State and local governments by requiring them to use scarce resources to act as INS agents to document the legal status of all students. And, there is no doubt that foreign appearing and speaking children will be discriminated against. This bill will only serve to create a climate of fear and distrust in which the children of U.S. citizens may also be harassed, or prevented from enrolling in school if they are unable to provide the necessary documents. H.R. 4134 is not a viable alternative to sensible immigration control policies. All this bill will accomplish is to put thousands of children on the streets and either tempt them to turn to crime or make them vulnerable to the influence of gangs. That very real danger is precisely why numerous law enforcement officials, school teachers and administrators, and police associations are opposed to H.R. 4134. Mr. Speaker, we must not crush the future of thousands of children whose only crime is their desire to go to school and to earn an education, as is their right under the U.S. Constitution. I urge my colleagues to take a stand in preserving this important constitutional right by defeating H.R. 4134.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2202. We all agree that we need to control illegal immigration by strengthening our borders, enforcing our laws, and ensuring compliance with our national labor laws. While there are some provisions in H.R. 2202 that move in this direction, this bill continues to fall short of achieving meaningful reform in crucial areas. For example, rather than provide the Labor Department with additional resources to investigate labor abuses, H.R. 2202 contains zero additional funding in this area. In addition, this bill deletes important anti-discrimination protections in the workplace, and denies fair compensation to employees for errors in the employment verification process. This bill fails to address the fact that jobs are the primary reason immigrants, whether legal or illegal, come to this country. Instead, this bill unfairly punishes legal immigrants, and threatens discrimination against American workers. H.R. 2202 is flawed and unfair. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and the bill. Historically Americans have struggled to build a democratic society in which all citizens have equal access and opportunity. To ensure that every citizen was informed, our forefathers printed Government documents in German, French, and other languages. In 1975, the Nixon-Ford administration recognized the importance of an informed electorate and successfully led the fight for bilingual ballots to help eliminate discrimination in the electoral process. Given our country's great history, it is a disgrace that we have this divisive and unnecessary bill before us, divisive in that it denies American citizens who are not yet proficient in English the right to access Government information in their native language, unnecessary in that 95 percent of U.S. residents already speak English. The bill's premise is also flawed. The common thread binding Americans is not only a common language but the quest for democracy, freedom, and justice for all. This bill breaks all strands of that common thread by dividing American citizens and unraveling civil rights in the name of national unity. Let us uphold the tradition of respect for the fabric of diversity that makes this country great. Let us defeat the rule and this bill.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano]. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the English Plus Act, which provides a commonsense approach to the national language debate. The English-plus substitute reaffirms that English is the primary language of the United States. It also acknowledges that in today's expanding global economy, multilingualism must be factored into any formula for economic success. Encouraging the use of world languages is critical if the United States is to remain a world economic leader. The strength of our economy increasingly depends on trade and international business. More than 40% of large corporations in the United States hire bilingual employees to communicate, negotiate, and market American goods and services. The English Plus Act combines two objectives. It establishes English as the primary language of our country, while at the same time recognizing the importance of multilingualism for the future success of the United States. I urge my colleagues to stand united behind The English Plus Act, and vote for the Serrano substitute.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren].

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Madam Chairman, I, like other Members of this body, am in strong support of welfare reform. But I am not for reform regardless of the consequences. For that reason, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3734. This bill will have many unintended consequences to women, children and families in this country. One of those consequences is its impact on victims of domestic violence. Current studies reveal that 25 to 60 percent of participants in welfare-to-work programs are victims of domestic abuse. For these women, the welfare system is often the only hope they have for escape and survival. This bill will effectively shred that safety net. By eliminating the guarantee status of AFDC and imposing inflexible time limits and work requirements, H.R. 3734 will force many battered women to stay with their batterers or return to them for financial support. With the passage of the Violence Against Women Act, Congress has taken a strong stance against domestic violence. Let us not turn our backs on the victims of this deplorable crime. The lives of battered women and their children depend on it. I hope that my colleagues will vote no on H.R. 3734.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Payne], chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus. (Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson]. (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra]