Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118568754
label
LULAC (League of United Latin American Citizens) (2)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118568754
contentType
document
title
LULAC (League of United Latin American Citizens) (2)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
94
collections
Records of the Office of the Chief of Staff (Reagan Administration)
James Cicconi's Subject Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118568754
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1985-12-31
year
1985
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1981-01-01
year
1981
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
e549644826d05f0d
ocrText
LULAC
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 29, 1983
TO:
MIKE BAROODY
FROM:
JIM CICCONI
SUBJECT: Letter and report from LULAC
Per our conversation.
Talked w/ Obledo; issued
blanket ofjection to report.
He'll chk on its Status and
call me back.
for 10/4
UTAC
League of United Latin American Citizens
MARIO OBLEDO
office of National President
P.O. Box 1026
Sacramento, CA 95805
916/441-5000
September 23, 1983
Mr. Jim Ciccohi
Assistant to the Chief of Staff
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C.
Dear Jim:
Thank you for your hospitality during our visit to
your office on Thursday, September 15th. As per our conversation,
enclosed please find the report prepared by LULAC on the Adminis-
tration's record on Hispanics. If you feel any of this information
is incorrect, please notify me at your earliest in order that
the record may be corrected.
My office is available at any time you wish to commu-
nicate with us; we desire open channels so together we can
build a greater America.
Sincerely,
ARIO OBLEDO Other
National President
MO:mp
Enclosures
"All for One, One for All"
League of United Latin American Citizens
MARIO OBLEDO
office of National President
LULAC'S PRELIMINARY REPORT ON PRESIDENT REAGAN'S
RECORD WITH HISPANICS
AUGUST 24, 1983
"All for One, One for AIl"
Hispanics and Reaganomics
August 24, 1983
Page 2.
In the area of unemployment, we find President Reagan's claims that "things
are getting as callous and totally out of touch with the human suffering
which employment causes." LULAC intends to measure progress on this
front by the Reagan Administration if and when the unemployment rate for
Hispanics at least is at the level President Reagan inherited from
President Carter. Until then, Mr. Reagan's economic package is only
putting to work those who his policies put out of work. Under President
Carter we saw a continued decrease in Hispanic unemployment while under
President Reagan a major increase as the following indicates:
1975 -- 12.2% Hispanic unemployment
1976 -- 11.5% Hispanic unemployment
1977 -- 10.1% Hispanic unemployment
1978 -- 9.1% Hispanic unemployment
1972 -- 8.3% Hispanic unemployment
1980 -- 10.1% Hispanic unemployment
1981 -- 10.4% Hispanic unemployment
in late 183 '82
1982 -- 13.2% Hispanic unemployment
15.3% 12.3% July
1983 -- 15.0% Hispanic unemployment (six-month average)
Economic Tax Cut and Deficits
The Administration's tax cut is a major inequity for it gives the largest
benefits to wealthy individuals and big business. It reduced the top
tax rate from 70% to 50%. Under this program, the President gave added
meaning to the saying "the rich get richer while the poor gets poorer.'
Eighty-five percent of the real reductions in taxes went to 5% of the
population earning over $50,000 per year. Moreover, due to inflation
caused bracket creep and the increases in social security most indivi-
duals earning under $20,000 per year can actually pay higher tax rates.
For Hispanics who have a 15.0% unemployment rate and a median income in
1982 of $16,228 it appears the Reagan tax cut is and will be an unknown
benefit, if any at all.
League of United Latin American Citizens
MARIO OBLEDO
office of National President
HISPANICS AND REAGANOMICS
In April 1981 LULAC wrote to U.S. Senator Pete V. Domenici, Chairman, Senate
Budget Committee to raise our concerns with President Ronald Reagan's economic
recovery package. The package was and is based on three major points:
Reduction in inflation rates,
Reduction of tax burden on American taxpayer,
Increasing real incomes by stimulating capital investment and enhancing
Hispanics and Reaganomics
August 24, 1983
Page 4.
Despite major dismantting of domestic spending and new terminology to
justify a callous policy ("safety net") the President continues to blame
the deficit on domestic spending.
The unprecedented increase in the military budget has clearly proven
itself to be deficit causing factor. This :.S been a conscious and often
stated policy position by President Reagan that he would not step back
from his multy-trillion dollar military build-up. Despite his clear
decision which has resulted in unprecedented deficits the President
continues to blame domestic spending as the major culprit for these
deficits. By destroying social programs this President has cut-off the
sole lifeline of many poor Americans and clearly Hispanics. In essence,
the President has chosen to totally destroy domestic programs, self-help
programs which coupled with the Hispanic economic profiles makes life
even more difficult for Hispanics.
The President cannot be allowed to continue to blame domestic spending for
his deficits for this is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. It appears that
the President has chosen by his unprecedented military expenditures that a well
financed military is a higher priority than a well-fed, educated, housed and
employed America.
Most disconcerning about the President's policy decision is that his
standard of rooting out wasteful domestic expenditures has yet to be
applied to the defense budget despite the Mr. David Stockman's contention
of their being "10-20-30 billion dollars in waste in the defense budget."
The President's decision is difficult to consider anything but mean and
totally insensitive to the poor in this country.
League of United Latin American Citizens
MARIO OBLEDO
office of National President
RY
REAGAN AND CIVIL RIGHTS: FY '84
When the President delivered his budget message to Congress, he claimed that
the Administration's FY '84 budget "represents a substantial increase in priority
accorded civil rights." Contrary to the President's claim, the budget represents
yet another step in a retraction from the long-standing bi-partisan commitment
to investigate claims of discriminatory treatment or effect and from earnest
enforcement of civil rights laws.
The Reagan Administration's lack of fiscal support for effective implementa-
tion of federal civil rights laws is consistent with the overall attitudinal
change in nominations and appointments and shifting the emphasis away from
enforcement to administrative activities.
A. HUD Office of Fair Housing
Under Title VII of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the Department of Housing
and Urban development (HUD):
Investigates alleged instances of housing discrimination and attempts to
resolve them through informal conciliation
Refers complaints to those state and local agencies which offer rights
and remedies "substantially equivalent" to those available at the federal
level
Provides technical assistance to public and private agencies, organiza-
tions, and institutions to develop and carry out programs to prevent or
eliminate discriminatory housing practices
Awards grants and technical assistance to increase the number of state
and local agencies engaged in processing fair housing complaints.
REAGAN POLICY: reduce the funds for assistance grants to the agencies from $6.7
million (estimated '83 outlays) to $3.7 million cut $2.5 million
from the Community Housing Resource Boards which are designed to
promote voluntary fair housing efforts.
The Reagan Administration and Housing
As consistent with his agenda, President Reagan has targeted housing as
one of the areas where he would like the role of the Federal government
"All for One, One for AIl"
Reagan and Civil Rights: FY '84
August 24, 1983
Page 2.
minimalized, ignoring the realities of the housing situation faced by
Hispanic Americans. In fiscal year 1982, President Reagan proposed new cuts
in appropriations of 18.7 billion dollars, a one-third reduction from the
requests of President Carter. The 1983 preliminary budget shows estimated
outlays and operating subsidies for subsidized housing to total 10 billion,
down from 27.8 billion in 1980. In 1983 Congress approved the President's
request to increase rent for tenants of subsidized housing, to 30% of their
adjusted incomes from 25%, over five years. Congress rejected, however, his
proposal to count foodstamps as încome when computing the rent.
The reduction in appropriations to housing assistance from fiscal year
1981 to the levels proposed by the Administration for fiscal year 1984 is
cut by 98%.
THE STATE OF HISPANIC HOUSING
Background
Fact 1: Fully 29% of the Hispanic community lives in substandard housing.
Fact 2: Hispanics have a homeownership rate of one half that of the nation as
a whole.
Fact 3: One out of every three Hispanics households has inadequate heating
equipment.
Fact 4: Although Hispanics and other minorities are targeted (in theory) by
federal housing programs, Hispanics receive little of those funds and,
ironically, are disproportionately displaced by federal programs.
Fact 5: Although the federal fair housing law provides that it is unlawful to
discriminate on the basis of race. color, religion, sex or national
origin in the sale, rental, financing, etc., of homes, the mechanisms
for enforcement of that law do not exist. In 1980 the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) estimated that more than two
million instances of discrimination occur each year.
B. Equal Educational Opportunity Programs
The Administration proposes to eliminate completely a number of major
programs designed to promote equal educational opportunity - programs which can
properly be viewed as elements of the federal civil rights statutory framework.
These programs are:
Reagan and Civil Rights: FY '84
August 24, 1983
Page 3.
The Emergency School Aid Act and Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 authorizes funds to school districts' school desegregation efforts;
The Women's Educational Equity Act authorizes funds for such activities
as suplemental educational programs in basic skills, modeland experi-
mental programs, adult education and vocational counseling.
Reagan Policy: In FY '82 over $16 millions were spent on these programs. The
Administration expects to spend $17 million in FY '83 and $6.7
million in FY '84. Moreover, the Administration has opposed
targeted funding for these programs, in the past and has already
asked congress for the recession authority to avoid spending any
of the funds it appropriated for this fiscal year on the Women's
Equity and Title IV programs.
The Reagan Administration policies display a lack of sensitivity to the
discriminatory obstacles confronting Hispanics and other minorities. A report to
the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights Committee on the Judiciary of
the U.S. House of Representatives prepared by Gary Orfield found that there has
been a serious increase in the segregation of Hispanic students in all regions of
the United States. Additionally, the National Center for Education Statistics
has found that less than one in three Hispanic students enrolled in graduate
schools actually obtain degrees.
Devastating cuts in higher education programs include a reduction from $154.7
million to $35 million for a program authorized under the Higher Education Act to
provide counseling and other support services to minority and disadvantaged students
who otherwise might have difficulty entering or completing higher education programs.
C. Legal Services Corporation
The proposed elimination of the Legal Services Corporation is additional
evidence that the Administration is not committed to protecting the rights of those
who need the government's assistance most.
In 1982 Legal Services Corporation provided legal services to 1,090,555
persons, of those 149,642 or 13.5% were Hispanics. In 1981 L.S.C. indicates that
16.6% of clients were Hispanics.
The President's lack of support for and disbelief in affirmative action
programs, consistent civil rights enforcement and equal opportunity fof for all,
both in the workplace and at school, has increased and will continue to increase
the numbers of Hispanic-Americans unemployed. Prior to this administration/
unemployment among Hispanics was dropping. We are convinced that the President's
policies on the economy and by those favoring disturbance of long standing legal
precedents through needless redefinition are to blame.
Reagan and Civil Rights: FY '84
August 24, 1983
Page 4.
Affirmative action programs are effective in encouraging voluntary efforts
and in creating the opportunity where reluctance or none existed previously.
Despite their success, albeit negligible in some areas, President Reagan has
proposed dangerous changes to executive order 11246 as it is implemented by the
Department of Labor and administered through its Office of Federal Contact
Compliance Programs (OFCCP). The President seeks to:
Minimize the "burden" of paperwork on private industry
Raise the threshold determining applicability of filing requirements from
the present 50 employees and $50,00 to 100 employees and contracts of
$100,000
Change the contract val-e requirement for employers/contractors with 250
employees and $250,000 contracts to $500,000 contracts.
Implement a short form affirmative action plan for such employer/contractor
to file and to include a statement of the contractor's equal employment
opportunity policy in all personnel action, a utilization analysis, goals
development if utilization exists and an internal monitoring system of an
affirmative action program.
The President chooses these measures and suggests that the proposed rule
changes through which "the employee and dollar thresholds have been raised so that
smaller contractors will not have to develop written affirmative action programs,
although such contractors will remain covered by the executive orders non-discrimi-
nation in employment provisions and its affirmative action requirements." Further,
the Administration reasons that change will satisfy the need for and promotes
uniformity with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) W to has the 100
employee threshold.
Thus, at the expense of the many Hispanics, women, other minorities and youth
who have been and continue to be unemployed, the President seeks to reward past
non-compliance by employer/contractors with an effective exemption and to promote
uniformity of standard where convenient but unnecessary.
Utilization Standards
Under the proposed rule change OFCCP has decided that contractors are complying
with the law if they employ minorities and women at least 80 percent of their
availability. In essence, OFCCP has decided that the goal need not exceed
availability and that contractors can shoot for a much lower standard. It is
ridiculous to decrease the utilization standard when contractors have generally
done a poor job of seriously attempting to reaching the previous standard of 95
percent. The 80 percent standard allows contractors to lessen their already
Reagan and Civil Rights: FY '84
August 24, 1983
Page 5.
questionable commitment to employing minorities and women. The U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights recently reported that minorities adn women continue to suffer major
discrimination with this proposed utilization standard we can expect this to
continue.
Availability Factors
Availability is the most vital element in developing an effective AAP.
Unfortunately, OFCCP in proposing its changes has reduced the AAP to being totally
dependent on the good faith and Benevolence of private industry. OFCCP has
proposed to allow contractors a free hand in determining that standard availability
they choose to utilize. We strongly urge that the current practice of negotiating
availability remain in place and that OFCCP be directed to insure reasonable and
accurate estimates of availability.
Goals and National Origin
A major concern of ours deals with how goals are developed for the hiring of
minorities and women and the need for greater specifity. Currently, Hispanics
are seldom target population affirmative action programs. It is our experience
that contractors seldom establish any goals for the hiring of Hispanics but rather
use general category which often times excludes us. We would recommend that goals
be broken out so as to establish objectives for the hiring of Hispanics. In
addition, it is imperative that national origin provisions be required inclusion
in affirmative action plans.
We are very displeased with the Administration's proposed changes and are
committed to working to insure that they not be allowed to regress affirmative
action programs but rather are altered to allow Hispanics the opportunity to
progress in our quest for equal treatment in American society.
The Voting Rights Act
In no other area of domestic policy have the President's anti-Hispanic atti-
tudes been more clear than in his opposition to the Voting Rights Act. At the
time of his inauguration in January of 1981, no civil rights issue pending was
more critical. Key provisions of the Act were due to expire in August of 1982.
Throughout the comprehensive House hearings, during House floor consideration and
after passage of the Voting Rights Act extension, the Reagan Administration's
lack of support and commitment was conspicuous. Rather than supporting the
House bill. the President and his Attorney General supported alternatives and
weakening amendments.
Despite this opposition, the strong bipartisan support for the bill with
strengthening amendmentes resulted in an overwhelming vote of 389 to 24. The
country had spoken thorugh the legislative process. The President rhough inaction
had spoken as well.
***END***
UCC
League of United Latin American Citizens
MARIO OBLEDO
office of National President
REAGAN RECORD ON HISPANIC EDUCATION
The President recently stated his support for "effective bilingual programs."
The President's statement contradicts the legislative policies of his Administra-
tion. It is important to review the President's record in bilingual education,
and other educational issues of importance to Hispanics, to assess his "support"
to Hispanic educational concerns.
The President has:
Reduced funding for Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(Bilingual Education) from $161 million in 1981 to $138 in 1982 and was
defeated in his attempt to reduce funding from its present level of $138
million to $94.5 million;
Supported the Bilingual Education Improvements Act (H.R. 2682) which would:
authorize a broad range or instructional approaches that do not require
instruction in the child's native language. School districts must
provide evidence in their application that the selected method is the
most desirable for the children to be served;
place a five-year limit on federal aid to school districts so that the
districts could build capacity to continue to serve limited English
proficient children after funds are not available;
target Federal funds on projects that serve limited English proficient
children whose "usual language" is not English;
strengthen the role of state educational agencies by providing financial
support for activities to improve bilingual education and to review and
coordinate bilingual education programs;
authorize vocational projects for providing out-of-school youth and
adults of limited English proficiency with vocational education under
the Bilingual Education Act.
Proposed a cut in funding for Bilingual Vocational Training programs for
fiscal year 1983 from $3,686,000 to $2,524,000. These programs currently
serve 1,062 students, 60% of which are Hispanic.
"All for One, One for AIl"
REAGAN RECORD on Hispanic Education
August 24, 1983
Page 2.
Threatens to rescind the 1983 $3.16 billion figure by $126.4 million of
the Chapter I (formerly Title I) of the Education consolidation and
Improvement Act (ECIA). If the President gets his wish:
funds for the delinquent and neglected would be reduced from $32.6
million to $21.9 million;
funds for handicapped would be cut from $146.5 million to $104.8
million; and
migrant education services would be cut from $256 million to $129
million.
Proposed to rescind the congressional approved budget for 1983 of $7.5
million for the High School Equivalency Program (HEP) and the College
Assistant Migrant Program (CAMP) and is proposing not to refund them in
1984;
Proposed regulations to redefine the eligible population of "currently
migratory children" which would reduce the number of migrant students
served from 468,000, 70% of which are Hispanic, in Federal year 1983 to
243,000 in Federal year 1984.
these would require that children considered "currently migratory" must
have transferred from one school to another during the school year.
another change would also decrease the number of years of eligibility
for formerly migrant students from five years to two.
Proposed elimination of all desegregation assistance grants from Title VII
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Bilingual Education). This
comes in spite of a study by Gary Orfield, a professor of political
science at the University of Chicago that showed that by 1980 68% of
Hispanic students being in predominantely minority schools. A second
study by Mr. Orfield showed that during the 1980-81 school year:
fifty six percent of Hispanic children in New York State were enrolled
in 90 to 100% minority schools;
forty percent were in similar schools in Texas;
thirty-five percent were in similar schools in New Jersey;
twenty-five percent were in similar schools in Florida;
twenty-two percent were in similar schools in California.
REAGAN RECORD on Bilingual Education
August 24, 1983
Page 3.
Proposed a 77% reduction in TRIO funds for Federal year 1983 and on
altering of the programs authorizing legislation. The $35 million for
TRIO would be available as Special Services and would be limited to
institutions whose enrollment is more than 50% minority.
The President's budget would:
affect Hispanic students who comprise close to 17% of the total TRIO
participants;
affect the two TRIO programs most utilized by Hispanic youth: Talent
Search is 23% Hispanic and Educational Opportunity Centers is 21% Hispanics;
-eliminate 1,137 TRIO projects serving 471,930 students 79,000 of which are
Hispanic at 695 institutions and 69 community agencies.
Proposed funding student aid at $3.65 billion in Federal year 1984,
excluding the Guaranteed Student Loan (GSL) program. The changes would
require a financial needs test from all GSL applicants. The Administra-
tion's GSL request for 1984 is slightly over $2 billion, down from the
current $3.1 billion.
Proposed no new funding for the National Direct Student Loans (NDSL)
program. Current funding is at $178.6 million.
Proposed that Pell Grants would be transformed into a "self-help" program
requiring students to provide a minimum of 40% or a minimum of $800 of
their annual educational expenses before a grant would be awarded. Over
60% of Hispanic students receiveda pell grant in 1980.
Zero-funded the Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (SEOG), which
currently receives $355 million and funds grants to 545,000 low-income
students.
Zero-funded State Student Incentive Grants for 1984. Current funding is
at $60 million and supports on a matching basis with states some 295,000
grants.
The following statistics illustrate the due need for financial aid Hispanic
students have:
Forty five percent of Hispanic students are in community or two-year
colleges, compared to 27% for non-Hispanics;
Eighty-three percent of the Hispanic students attending a public
community college receive financial aid;
REAGAN RECORD on Hispanic Education
August 24, 1983
Page 4.
ninety two point four percent of Hispanic students on public four-year
postsecondary schools receive financial aid;
ninety-five point six percent of the Hispanic students in private four-
year postsecondary schools receive financial aid.
Enclosed please find a copy of a letter from then Representative George
Bush to then local President William J. Flores.
***END***
League of United Latin American Citizens
MARIO
office of National G
HISPANIC-AMERICAN APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION
*35 total full time appointments
27 full time active appointments
7 full time appointments which have since left
1 full time appointment pending
*34 total part time appointments Cprimarily boards and commissions)
31 part time active appointments
3 part time appointments which have since left
"In fact, the President has appointed more than 130 Hispanic-Americans t
high-level government positions." (Letters to the Editor, WASHINGTON POST, Ju
1983 by Velma Montoya, Assistant Director for Strategy White House -- former
employee).
We have attempted to secure a listing of the supposed 130 Hispanic appoi
but have been unable to receive any concrete data despite several efforts. T
above statistics reflect no Hispanic appointments in the Departments of Labor
Justice, Education, and in the White House or in major cabinet or sub-cabinet
positions.
The Reagan Administration has been in office for 2 years and 7 months an
made approximately less than 50 appointments of Hispanics to major positions
requiring Senate confirmation. We have alloted for less than 50 for the 27 1
time appointments one are as of April 1983. We have given the Administration
additional 13 positions as a margin of error for these appointments could hav
been made between April 1983 and August 1983. Giving this margin of error i1
nonetheless reflects a poor commitment when coupled with the lack of appointm
in the positions stated above. Under President Jimmi Carter we have identifi
over 110 full time Hispanic appointments including various assistant secretai
one under secretary, and White House special assistant.
* of the above total for full-time and part-time appointments, seven (7)
appointments have been filled by 4 appointees.
"All for One, One for AII"
Hispanic-American Appointments under the Reagan Administration
August 24, 1983
Page 2.
The 34 part-time appointments are primarily to Presidential Boards and
Commissions. Under the Carter Administration there were over 100 such appointments
of Hispanics.
Despite this prior record of appointments we must give the Administration the
opportunity to fulfill its term in office and perhaps additional appointments
will be made.
Lastly, we must add our major opposition and concern for the Administration's
continued efforts to undermine the independence of the U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights by nominating three new individuals and removing three seating Commissioners
due to their criticism of the Administration's record on civil rights. In the
process of taking this action, the President will be removing the only Hispanic
serving on the Commission which has had a Hispanic member since 1968.
***END***
League of United Latin American Citizens
MARIO OBLEDO
office of National President
P.O. Box 1026
Sacramento, CA 95805
916/441-5000
REAGAN LATIN AMERICAN POLICY AND HISPANICS
Hispanic Americans are more concerned than ever about Central America. Many
believe that the cultural insensitivity and ignorance of U.S. policy is related to
a misunderstanding of and insensitivity toward Hispanic-Americans.
Continued references to Central America as "our back-yard" are an example of
a paternalistic, crisis-oriented mentality. The United States has historically
neglected and disregarded Central America; that cannot be rectified simply by
throwing money into wars.
The reason for our growing interest in this matter stems from our assessment
with countries of Latin America. We believe that we as a country have not
seriously concerned ourselves with the fate of these countries and their relation-
ship with our present and future status. We have neglected strengthening
hemispheric solidarity except when there have been threats of communist expansion
in the region. It is this simplistic, narrow understanding which has served as
the foundation for U.S. foreign policy in Latin-America, and has led to the
destructive chaos in the Southern Western Hemisphere.
That mentality is reflected in Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick's suggestion that
a "Marshall Plan" is needed to thwart Soviet-backed "subversion" in in Central
America. That -uts the problems of Latin America solely in a U.S.-Soviet context.
It's indeed unfortunate that such a Latin American "expert" should think of
cultural exchange and development aid only in terms of response to Cuban literacy
programs and Soviet-supported fellowships.
It would appear that the Reagan Administration has decided since its beginning
to offer unqualified support to any Latin regine, however repressive so long as
it is on "our" side. The New Republic of December 27, 1980 stated that, "To back
repressive regimes on the far right would merely polarize situations always in
danger of splitting between two extremes. It would make Marxist the only
effective alternative to the extreme right and ensure that change, when it came,
would be virulently anti-American. To this the Reaganites have an answer: In
Central America the United States has the power to maintain its "friends" in power.
Throughout this century every regime in the area has governed with Washington's
blessing. They may have been brutal, repressive, and rapacious, but at least they
were ours. We have the power to make sure there are compliant regimes in the area
it is said. Why should we settle for anything less?"
The Reagan Administration is fully committed to this policy of "making friends
through selling arms" As evidenced by its policy decision to expand its military
"All for One, One for AIr"
17
Reagan Latin American Policy and Hispanics
August 24, 1983
Page 2.
aid and arms sales abroad for FY 1983 and 1984. The Administration has indicated
that they would not be indiscriminate but would "continue to assist firendly
nations."
The result of present policy seems înevitable: The administration is seeking
a military solution in Central America that would have Hispanic Americans in U.S.
armed forces fighting in disproportionate numbers against our Latin brothers.
Hispanic Americans would be the first on the front lines to carry out this
unrealistic and mistaken policy. And in view of the paranoia about undocumented
workers, it is possible that under war conditions we could hear in the United
States calls from the far right for internment camps for "latin communists."
It is the obligation of United States decision makers to see that înterna-
tional law and our own Laws are обеуед, that peaceful coexistence with our
Southern neighbors is mainted, and that the lives of American citizens are
protected. Contineud failure to meet this obligation could mean war.
Despite the loss of 45,000 lives in theregion and growing human tragedy, no
policy changes are in sight. It is un-American to question or criticize this
insane policy? I certainly hope not.
UCC
League of United Latin American Citizens
MARIO OBLEDO
office of National President
THE DEFENSE BUDGET, THE MILITARY AND HISPANICS
In proposing the largest peacetime military buildup in our history, the
Administration would spend 1.9 trillion dollars over the next six years on the
military. This means we will spend some $36 million every hour for the next six
years, costing a total of more than $20,000 for every taxpayer in the United States.
The Administration's defense budget appropriates $263 billion for military
expenses for fiscal year 1983, growing in increments up to $408.4 billion for 1987.
(PARADE MAGAZINE, September 19, 1982). These figures almost double and triple the
$142.211 billion authorized for 1980. (N.Y. TIMES, November 14, 1982). These
dramatic increases in the defense budget sought, and up-until-now won, by the
Reagan Administration during a period of increasing deficits, high unemployment,
withdrawal of commitment from social programs. and recession have resulted in
increasing controversy over defense spending.
President Reagan has stated that "the one prime responsibility of government
is to protect the lives and freedom of its citizens. The budget we submitted and
the budget figure we believed was the absolute minimum that was necessary to
continue redressing our defensive capability, which had been allowed to deteriorate
so badly in the previous decade." (WASHINGTON POST, March 30, 1983). Many argue,
however, that the dramatic build up for high-cost, high-technology, highly
destructive weapons is inefficient in terms of national security, employment and
spending. For Hispanics President Reagan's defense program has meant increasing
unemployment, high interest rates, a void in for federal programs addressing
Hispanic needs, and an even worse outlook on the situation on Hispanics in the
military.
National Security
The Pentagon is buying weapons at an accelerated rate: indeed, budget
authority for weapons procurement is scheduled to go up from $35.3 billion in 1980
to more than $85 billion in 1983 -- more than doubling in three years. The cost
of maintenance for these weapons will be very high and any reductions in spending
will come from such areas as spare parts, operating expenses. ammunition, and
military pay. An internal Pentagon report, prepared by Franklin Spinney, a
civilian analyst for the Pentagon and a former air force pilot, found that high-
technology arms create a form of "organizational cancer" and suggest that buying
complex weapons may actually erode the combat readiness of U.S. forces. (THE
COSTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF REAGAN'S MILITARY BUILDUP). Many also argue that strong
"All for One, One for AIr"
19
The Defense Budget, The Military and Hispanics
August 24, 1983
Page 2.
national security cannot be dependent upon massive nuclear weapons which are
intended to serve as a threat and deterent while never being used, but is as or
perhaps more dependent on a strong economy, an educated population, equitable
systems of social policy and defense, and a realistic and sensible foreign policy.
Hispanics and the Military
While President's defense program focuses on a nuclear buildup, in a more
conventional national security sense, the picture for Hispanics in the military is
not very promising. Hispanics have disproportionately shouldered their responsibi-
lity in the defense of the U.S., still they are not treated equally in advancement
opportunity within the military. At a briefing for Hispanic leaders given by
the Department of Defense, Dr. Lawrence J. Korb, Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Manpower, Reserve Affairs and Logistics, stated that the military branches
satisfy vacancies in the offices corps primarily with college graduates. Hispanics
unfortunately, have a high rate of educational drop outs and have been further
limited in the educational opportunities by the Administration's policy towards
higher education. While the Hispanic community boasts some 34 medal of Honor
recipients, few Hispanics have input into the foreign policy which dictates life
and death decisions to those who will carry out our foreign policy. Few Hispanics
are employed in the State Department, the International Communication Agency and
other foreign service agencies. of those that are, a very small number are in
influencial positions or are appointed ambassadors.
Department of Defense statistics support our contention that Hispanics,
despite their celebrated and historic contribution to the military effort, are
neglected and overlooked in the promotion process.
Of a total of 294,965 commissioned and warrant officers in the Department of
Defense 4,066 or 1.4% are Hispanics. Further, Hispanics comprise 4.0% or 72,970
of the overall total of 1,832,156 enlisted personnel. Hispanic women have fared
no better, comprisong 1.7% or 432 of the overall total of 25,833 commissioned
and warrante female officers. Also Hispanic women make up 3.1% or 5,351 of the
overall 170,194 enlisted personnel.
Employment
Military îndustry is capital intensive. meaning that military contractors
tend to buy a lot of elaborate machinery instead of hiring people. Tax dollars
which are spent on a high military budget and military technology are dollars
which could have been spent on food, clothing and services, and, therefore, been
fed into the economy. Also.- a recent study by the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities of the Defense Budget Project shows that while over the past several
years defense contractors have received dramatically larger amounts of money, the
number of people they employ has decreased. Numerous sources, including the
Congressional Research Service, show that more jobs are created throughout the
economy when the Federal government engages in non-defense spending as opposed to
League of United Latin American Citizens
MARIO OBLEDO
office of National President
P.O. Box 1026
Sacramento, CA 95805
916/441-5000
REAGONOMICS AND HISPANIC HEALTH
After much research, it is safe to say that the absence of any studies that address
the impact of this Administration's cutbacks on Hispanics, in particular, is due
to this Administrations's preoccupied attitude on other issues which they feel are
of more significance than health. It is important to note that this disinterest on
health care services is for all low-income American families, and englobes Hispanics.
So when health statistics become vague for the American public in general, you can
be sure they are totally lost on Hispanics in particular. In an effort to counter-
rest this the Hispanic Health And Nutrition Examination Survey (HHNES) is the main
source of future information, yet as significant as it is it was not fully endorsed
by this Administration. The Administration reduced the scope of the survey by elimi-
nating the city of Chicago from the original plans for the Survey, and the study on
tuberculosis was eliminated.
The Administration's preoccupied attitude on other issues include:
Defense expenditures in fiscal 1983 have been increased by $258 billion
of 14.2% in an unprecedented peacetime military build-up. (The U.S. has
already spent over $2 trillion on the military since the end of WWII).
At the expense of:
Tragically, human resource programs were cut $17.4 billion from: Education,
Employment, and Training, Social Services and General Revenue Sharing, Health
and Income Security.
The Women, Infants and Children Feeding Program (WIC) has already turned
away 75,000 people since the Reagan policies began. (This are malnourished
undernourished certified people of which an estimated 75% are Hispanics.
(Certified by medical officials).
There are 556 soldiers but only 85 doctors per 100,000 people
While business in the military sector is booming, there are 500 million
malnourished people.
For the needy, poor, unemployed and elderly, the cuts are terminating assist-
ance that provided life's basic necessities for survival.
This Administration has had a devastating impact on farmworkers health care.
According to the DHHS estimates in 1981, the proposed block grants would
lead to a reduction of 274,895 in the number of patients being served in
in Migrant Health Clinics (MHC) An estimated 85%-90% of the Migrant Labor
Force is Hispanic
this includes a reduction of 1.3 million or 25% in the
number of migrant and seasonal farmworker patients served
in California, Texas, and Florida.
Reagonomics insensitivity to its low-income individuals and families moves them
further away from the Administration policy of self-sufficiency.
The Defense Budget, The Military and Hispanics
August 24, 1983
Page 3.
defense spending. Hispanics, facing an unemployment rate of 13.8%, are especially
hard hit by the fact that jobs created by defense spending tend to be high paid
and highly skilled due to the ever advancing technology of weaponry. Hispanics
generally do not have the advantage of having the necessary background or
training for such high skilled jobs. Hispanics have one of the highest rates of
educational drop outs and this Administration's policy towards educational
programs has severely limited the means and opportunities for Hispanics to gain
entry into institutions of higher education.
The Economy
The deficit created by high military spending increases interests rates and
promises to prolong the recession and hamper the economy for years to come. Also,
one buildup of new, high technology weapons will mean irreversible expenditures
in procurement and maintenance for years to come. The Bipartisan Budget Appeal,
founded by Former Secretaries of the Treasury Michael Blumenthal (1977-79), John
B. Connally (1971-72), C. Douglas Dillon (1961-65), Henry H. Fowler (1965-68),
William E. Simon (1974-76), and Secretary of Commerce Peter G. Peterson (1972-72)
published a two-full-page advertisement in the in the NEW YORK TIMES of April 6,
1983 in which they say, "We feel that in a time of severe fiscal strain, the
Administration has a duty to justify (defense) programs in
...
terms (of clear
and realistic defense goals and missions) and that, if adequate justifications are
not forthcoming, appropriate reductions in the rate of growth of defense
investment and spending must be given serious considerations." Another area of
fiscal concern is that of waste in the defense budget. Budget Director David
Stockman himself said that the Pentagon is "a swamp of 10-20-30 billion dollars
waste."
The Nuclear Freeze
LULAC has taken the position that a budget agenda based on the accumulations
of nuclear and high-technology weapons contributes to the fear of nuclear war, is
fiscally unsound, detracts from much needed social programs, and exacerbates the
unemployment problem in general, but expecially with regard to Hispanics. LULAC
National has taken the position that such an accumulation does not build a
national security, but rather international security. Nuclear weapons are not
military forces. Former Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird said that nuclear
weapons "may be important for political purposes, but they are useless for military
purposes," (WASHINGTON POST, Monday, April 11, 1982). They can only offer the
ultimate and incomprefiensible option of nuclear war. In view of this, the LULAC
National Executive Board passed a resolution in support of a mutual and verifiable
freeze on the testing, production, and employment of nuclear weapons and their
carriers, and LULAC joined the Citizens Against Nuclear War (CAN), which is
composed of fifty two national trade union, professional, civil rights, and civil
Liberties, religious, and environmental membership organizations.
***END***
REAGONOMICS AND HISPANIC HEALTH
8/23/83
PAGE 2
The lack of adequate health care increases the chances that individuals
will depend upon public assistance and other public support programs.
Poor health increases the chances that individuals will suffer from
chronic, debilitating illnesses
Many of the nation's 1.5 million farmworkers work for less than the
minimum wage rarely earn enough to pull themselves out of their poverty-
stricken living conditions, where toilets, drinking water and a place
where they can wash their hands
It has been through the Congress that Community Health Centers (CHC) and Migrant
Health Clinics (MHC) have been rescued to reach the health needed individuals.
HR1718 (Continuing Resolution) - $70 million was appropriated for CHC and
Maternal Health Care
Emergency appropriations PL 98-8, referred to as the Jobs Bill of March
24, 1983 - $65 million allotted to CHC, MHC, Health Insurance, WIK Programs,
and Home Health Care
PL 98-8 Con. Res. - $14 million have been made available
for new CHC and for expanding CHC already available
In FY 81, DHHS regional offices awarded grants for the operation of 128 migrant
health center in 30 States and Puerto Rico. These 128 centers provided health
services to 557,000 of the approximately 800,000 migrant and 1,9 million seasonal
farmworkers and family members in the United States.
Most older Hispanics feel themselves cut off from the cultural norms and language
of those who make most of the decisions affecting their welfare. The 1980 national
needs assessment of Hispanic elderly, conducted by the National Association of
Spanish-Speaking Elderly, showed that 76 percent reported a need for social
services.
Despite this high need, 40 percent of older Hispanics use no social services.
More than 1,200 Spanish-speaking participated in the above mentioned assess-
ment and testified that the Medicare/Medicaid program is inadequate.
The fear of mistrust of hospitals deters them from seeking needed care.
Transportation to clinics or the doctor is often not available.
Lack of nutrition centers is a health problem.
Lack of bilingual/bicultural personnel further impedes older Hispanics'
access to health care.
GEORGE BUSH
WASHINGTON OFFICE:
7TH DISTRICT, TEXAS
LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
MEMBER:
DISTRICT OFFICE:
WAYS AND MEANS
Congress of the United States
FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING
COMMITTEE
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002
House of Representatibes
Washington, D.C. 20515
February 3, 1968
Mr. William J. Flores
308 Buena Vista
E1 Paso, Texas 79905
Dear Mr. Flores:
I have been giving considerable thought to the matter of
helping Mexican Americans in Texas and I am enclosing a
four point program that I feel is at least a step in the
right direction.
Individually and as a community, this large segment of the
population of our state is essentially law-abiding and
family-oriented and, yet seems to have been forgotten. It
is apparent to me that these Texans are beoming increasingly
more interested in evolving their own futures. I want to be
part of helping them make a better life for themselves.
I feel strongly about this program and I feel sure that my
party will help in the implementation of it. I would welcome
your comments or criticism, particularly if they would lend
themselves to needed legislation at this level.
Very truly yours,
Cyc Buh
George Bush, M. C.
Enclosure
"FOR THE MEXICAN-AMERICAN TEXAN - A FUTURE OF FAIR PLAY AND PROGRESS"
George Bush, M. C.
I. PREJUDICE
Vast strides have been made toward the elimination of
prejudice in Texas, but where pockets of this ugliness continue to
thrive, we must battle to wipe them out. Much can be done in the
schools - not just in those which have Mexican-American students, but
in all Texas schools. Much can be done in political campaigns and
in the conduct of local and state governments.
Recommendation 1:
The elimination of prejudice is principally a by-product
of education and with it a development of our innate
sense of fair play; however, we must:
Encourage all schools to stress the importance
of Latin America to our own global welfare and
to emphasize the contribution that has been made
by Mexican-Americans in our state. Emphasize their
stability of family, their respect for law, their
service to country. There is an important and
dramatic story here of timely importance as all
citizens worry about civil disorder and the war.
Wipe out any vestiges of discriminatory statutes
at the local and state level.
II. EDUCATION
We must take a fresh look at the educational problems that
face our Spanish-speaking citizens. Though school systems in the
United States must be oriented towards our history, our culture,
and our language, we should push for a flexibility that recognizes
the very special problems of our Mexican-Americans. Only a small
part of this problem can be solved in Washington - most of it
relates to state and local answers.
24
Recommendation 2: Federal Level
We should push for adoption of bi-lingual education
bill introduced by me and others in the House of
Representatives. This will supply federal funds to
the states earmarked to help more at the earlier
stages through:
1) Bi-lingual education programs
2) Teaching in Spanish as well as English
3) Programs to teach students a pride in
their ancestral culture and language
4) Efforts to attract teachers of Mexican
descent
Strengthen Head-Start and other "early bird" programs
which through early education help the child keep up
when he gets to regular classes.
Recommendation 2: State Level
We should implement the recommendations found above
as much as possible at the state level. Curriculum
changes and teacher employment should be a goal of
state and local leaders.
It is essential that we recognize the long-range
benefits that can accrue to Texas through increased
productivity and reduced welfare by affording better
education to our Mexican-American citizens.
& LULAC
LULAC ISSUES BRIEF BOOK
LULAC NATIONAL CONVENTION
DETROIT, MICHIGAN
HOPE
HISPINICS ORGANIZED for POLITICAL EDUCATION
PREPARED BY
LULAC NATIONAL STAFF
JUNE 29, 1983
League of
United Latin
American Citizens
Office of National President
TONY BONILLA
Dear LULAC Members:
Enclosed you will find information on national issues of
major concern to the Hispanic community. It is provided to you
in keeping with the continued efforts of my administration to
politically educate LULAC members and the Hispanic community.
We continue to believe that the more politically educated
and aware our community is, the more prepared and effective we
will be in influencing the decisions which shape the situation
of Hispanics in this country and the futures of our children.
I would like to emphasize that this information is to be
used by us and is to be shared with other interested groups who
are as concerned as we are in insuring that Hispanics and others
are not ignored. We provide this material consistent with our
non-partisan ideals and urge all concerned to utilize it to fur-
ther educate Hispanics throughout the country. Again, it is not
intended, nor has it been developed with any partisanship in mind.
It's purpose is to educate and to stimulate community action with
your Congressional representatives.
In closing, it is important to recognize the major attention
given to the 1980's being coined the "Decade of the Hispanic".
Despite our phenomenal population growth we lack political
participation. Whether we truly can make this decade ours remains
in our hands and in our ability to provide direction. LULAC and
it's national membership must respond with more vigor and committ-
ment than in our previous history. The challenge has been made,
we must now act.
Sincerely,
Toy Billa Tony Bonilla
P.O. DRAWER 5427 2590 MORGAN AVENUE CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78405 512/882-8284
400 FIRST STREET, N.W. SUITE 716 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 202/628-0717
HOPE
An independent Political
HISPANIC
EDUCATION
Education Arm of the
League of United Latin
American Citizens
ORGANIZED
for
POLITICAL
IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION
Perhaps the major legislative battle facing Hispanics and other ethnic
minority groups in the next 30 years is immigration reform legislation
Simpson/Mazzoli, S. 529/H.R. 1510. The reason for this concern is based on
the outright discriminatory consequences of this legislation and its faulty
design aimed at stopping the flow of undocumented workers to the U.S. This
bill and its major proponents have chosen to simplify the issue by contending
that passage of this bill would effectively stymie the flow of the undocu-
mented. In order to secure the support of the general public these
proponents have chosen to make the undocumented the scapegoats for high
unemployment, contend that their presence is a threat to American values and
lifestyle and that their numbers in the U.S. could divide American society.
This attitude and effort has major far reaching implications for all
Hispanics and American society for the next 30 years when reform could take
place again. These implications have and will affect our civil rights,
economic livelfhood, education, housing and other aspects of our daily life,
which will result in greater problems in our effort to become part of
mainstream American society.
What follows is an analysis of the bill passed by the Senate and the
various versions of the bill now in the House. Also, we have included:
1. Los Angeles Times editorial written by LULAC,
2. Press release on Senate,
3. News articles opposing bill.
P. O. Drawer 5427
2590 Morgan Ave.
Corpus Christi, Tx. 784O5
512/882-8284
YEAS-29
Armstrons
Glenn
Melcher
Bentsen
Hart
Metzenbaum
Biden
Hatch
Moynihan
Ringamas
Inouye
Packwood
Borea
Johnston
Rickle
Beachwits
Kennedy
Surbanes
Bradley
Lautenberg
Specter
Cranston
Leahy
Tower
Levin
Weicker
Durenberger
Exon
NAYS-59
Abdnor
Hecht
Presier
Andrews
Heflin
Proxmire
Baucus
Heinz
Pryor
Burdick
Helms
Quayle
Byrd
Huddleston
Randolph
Humphrey
Roth
Chiles
Jackson
Rudinan
Cochran
Jepsen
Suser
Cohen
D'Amato
Kasten
Simpson
Denton
Laxalt
Stafford
Dixon
Long
Stennis
Dodd
Lugar
Stevens
Dole
Mathias
Symms
Eacleton
Mattingly
Thurmond
East
McClure
Trible
Gam
Mitchell
Tsongas
Gorton
Murkowski
Wallop
Grassley
Nickles
Warner
Hatfield
Nunn
Zorinsky
Hawkins
Percy
NOT VOTING-12
Baker
DeConcini
Hollings
Bumpers
Domenici
Kassebaum
Chafee
Ford
Fell
Danforth
Goldwater
Wilson
Cranston Amendment
This amendment would have provided for some judicial review of an
applicant denied legalization. Specifically, this amendment would have
reflected the House version which combines appeals of final deportation
order with denials of legalization application. Due to defeat, the Senate
version allows for no administrative review or judicial review of such
denial. Senator Simpson argued that no one has the right now, to appeal
visa application denials made aboard so why make this available to those
seeking legalization, he stated, "We are not dealing with U.S. citizens
"To provide judicial review from an extraordinary act of grace
I feel
would simply overwhelm the court system. N This would not have been the
consequence of this amendment.
YEAS-20
NAYS-75
Biden
Lautenberg
Packwood
Abdnor
Exon
Mitchell
Bingaman
Leahy
Pell
Andrews
Ford
Murkowsk
Boschwitz
Levin
Rickle
Armstrong
Garn
Nickles
Cranston
Matsunaga
Sarbanes
Baker
Goldwater
Nunn
Glenn
Melcher
Specter
Baucus
Gorton
Percy
Inouye
Metzenbaum
Weicker
Bentsen
Grassley
Pressler
Kennedy
Moynihan
Boren
Hatch
Proxmire
Bradley
Hatfield
Pryor
Bumpers
Hawkins
Quayle
Burdick
Hecht
Randolph
Byrd
Heinz
Roth
Chafee
Helms
Rudman
Chiles
Huddleston
Sasser
Cochran
Humphrey
Simpson
Cohen
Jackson
Stennis
D'Amato
Jepsen
Stevens
Danforth
Johnston
Symms
Denton
Kassebaum
Thurmond
Dixon
Kasten
Tower
Dodd
Laxalt
Trible
Dole
Long
Tsongas
Domenici
Lugar
Wallop
Durenberger
Mathias
Warner
Engleton
Mattingly
Wilson
East
McClure
Zorinsky
NOT VOTING-5
DeConcinl
Heflin
Stafford
Hart
Hollings
House
The following is a brief analysis of the major amendments and provi-
sions of H.R. 1510 - Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1983. The bill
was marked-up and unanimously approved by the House Subcommittee on
Immigration, Refugees, and International Law on April 6, and full Judiciary
Committee May 5, 1983. It has not been formally scheduled for final floor
action but it is expected that action will take place sometime before
August recess.
Analysis: H.R. 1510
Employer Sanctions and Enforcement
Kindness Amendment
Requires employers to keep information on persons hired only
after they have been cited for hiring undocumented. Prior to
being cited all paperwork is voluntary.
LULAC Comments
This amendment was accepted by Representative Mazzoli and full
Committee Chairman Rodino in order to secure the endorsement of the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce for the bill. Again, we see efforts being made to
address the paperwork concerns of employers while willing to ignore the
discriminatory concerns of Hispanics and other groups. In fact, Represen-
tative Mazzoli went as far to state that the bill was not an anti-
discriminatory bill but unfortunately concessions have been made on behalf
of employers. This amendment should be stricken from the bill during House
floor action.
Lungren Amendment
Amendment would emphasize that unions who refer individuals for
employment would be held responsible if person is undocumented.
This was done to absolve growers who are referred union members
by agricultural unions.
Mazzoli Amendment
Amendment requires state and employment agencies to maintain
documents verifying legal status for new hires.
LULAC Comments
The Lungren amendment is clearly in the interest of protecting the
employer. Unfortunately, no one has been as forthcoming with amendments
aimed at protecting the worker from discrimination due to employer
sanctions.
McCollum Amendment
Amendment would exempt growers from having to have documentation
of worker (s) for 36 hours. In other words, growers need not to
be concerned with keeping documentation of those persons they
hire for 36 hours and have no fear of being held liable.
LULAC Comments
This amendment creates a major loophole for agricultural growers for
they can continue to hire undocumented workers every 36 hour cycle. In
other words, because there is no documentation being kept, a grower can
simply continue to hire the same person over and over. This loophole is in
keeping with the interest of Congress which usually does what it has to do
to accomodate grower interests. This amendment is insulting and a major
contradiction to the claims of wanting to stop undocumented from entering
the U.S. and taking U.S. citizen jobs. It appears that Congress is
willing to be aggressive in trying to stop the population movements to the
U.S. but is willing to make exceptions if these prople will work and not
remain.
Mazzoli Amendment
Amendment increases budget for Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS) for enforcement and service approximately $500
million over the next three years.
1983
increase of $35
million
1984
increase of $400 million
1985
increase of $718,553,000
1986
increase of $763,568,000
LULAC Comments
This increase would allow for some 1,187 new Border Patrol agents in
addition to the existing 2866. While some have advocated for increased
enforcement in an effort to avoid having employer sanctions and interior
enforcement, no increase in INS enforcement should be allowed unless
the President is instructed to develop a permanent system of employment
verification. We regard this as a national I.D. system for eventually
local law enforcement and others will use this card to ascertain
legitimate status in the U.S. It will result in abuse and harassment of
American citizens.
With this amendment the opportunity is given to discuss the pros and
cons of developing and implementing a permanent employment verification
system which we believe will become a national I.D.
An additional issue which has received little attention has been the
substantial cost which will result from the establishment of employment
verification system. Various proponents have advocated a phone bank system
which would require employers to phone in employee I.D. numbers for
employment verification. These and other proposed concepts all pose serious
privacy problems as well as high costs and logistical difficulties which
make it safe to say that any system will probably create more problems than
solve any.
Congressman Sam Hall (D. TX) has repeatedly introduced an amendment
which would state the sense 'of Congress to have local and state law
enforcement participate and cooperate with the INS in the enforcement of
immigration law. We have been able to defeat these efforts every time but
unfortunately, we expect him to introduce the amendment again on the House
floor.
The Hispanic community has had an extremely poor experience and
relationship with local law enforcement without their being involved in
enforcing immigration law. Unfortunately, many rural law enforcement units
are not provided adequate training and professionalism. These problems
also appear to be a reality for certain large urban centers due to revenue
reductions in local law enforcement. This situation, coupled with poor
relations with Hispanics and no knowledge nor responsibility for dealing with
immigration matters would indicate that the role of local law enforcement in
this area should be minimized as much as possible. Their involvement has
often times resulted in major violations of Hispanic civil and constitutional
rights. The Community Relations Service (CRS) of the Department of Justice
which deals with police-community relations has indicated that major
problems have and do arise between ethnic communities and police, when'
immigration matters are handled by local law enforcement.
H-2 Program
The House Subcommittee by a Mazzoli-Lungren amendment has created
a transitional temporary guestworker program which will allow all
undocumented workers to participate whether or not they qualify for
legalization. It is a three year program in which a grower can use
100% of all workers he selects, the first year, 65% the second year,
and 33% the third year. A grower only has to inform the U.S.
LULAC Comments
While we regard the Frank amendment as positive and improving the bill,
the 5-year restriction will create significant problems for if a person
has been here 10 years and has never drawn any federal benefits and has
payed taxes, owns property, Been employed, and becomes unemployed during
the 5 years, he or she cannot draw any assistance despite having
contributed to assistance funds. The 5-year restriction was increased from
4 years which was the standard after subcommittee mark-up. This is not
equitable and will result in many undocumented being discouraged from
coming forward and identifying themselves. Furthermore, there is a major
problem which will arise from those who do come forward and are denied
assistance, their alternatives then become few, if any.
LULAC National will try and introduce an amendment which takes into
consideration the need factor and the contributions made by the undocu-
mented in order to minimize this harsh and inequitable restrictions.
Technical amendment indicates that an applicant for legalization is
required to be PHYSICALLY PRESENT in the United States. The importance of
this amendment is as follows: an alien OUTSIDE the United States, who may
technically have "continuous residence" prior to the cut-off date (s),
whatever be (or it is), without this amendment, might have a legal "right"
to apply for legalization.
LULAC Comments
This is an extremely ridiculous amendment which is very restrictive
and unnecessary. It is clearly designed to minimize levels of participation
in the legalization program; LULAC will move to strike this amendment.
A.S.T.
amt
There is very little opposition to this bill for many groups have begun to
prepare themselves for participating in the legalization program. Therefore, it
is absolutely incumbent on LULAC and other organizations opposing this bill to
agressively pursue our efforts to stop this bill. We must inform our Congress-
persons of our views and our concern that they oppose this legislation.
Amendments and Conference Committee
Should we be unable to stop this legislation we will be advocating for
amendments to be approved on the House floor dealing with employer sanctions,
H-2 labor protections, and legalization. These amendments will do the following:
Hawkins Amendments - despite this amendment carrying provisions which will
strengthen employer sanctions, it also carries anti-discrimination
provisions which we have long fought for in Congress. The amendment
is not ideal nor is it what we prefer, nonetheless, it does provide
a system of redress against discrimination.
Miller Amendments - attempts to insure that U.S. citizens, residents will
receive first opportunity for jobs in the agriculture industry, while
also insuring proper labor standards and protections for foreign and
domestic agriculture workers. Also provides for increased enforcement.
Legalization amendments - amendments will be developed to insure that the
legalization program is improved and provides for equitable treatment
of persons wishing to legalize.
What makes this whole effort somewhat futile is the concern that there are
no guarantees that amendments we support will, in fact, remain in the bill when
the House and Senate (conference committee) get together to settle the
differences in the bills they have passed. Therefore, it is better to defeat
this bill and avoid such sensitive, complex, and risky negotiations. We must
agressively oppose this bill.
-2-
These provisions raise a number of issues. Included are what
will be the fate of undocumented aliens who fall outside the cut-off
dates or cannot prove that they satisfy other eligibility requirements?
What kinds of proof will be required of applicants? What is the likely
effect on rates of participation of a two-tiered (Senate) or one-tiered
(House) approach? Will a $100 minimum application fee prevent partici-
pation of persons who are otherwise eligible?
B. Duration of Program and Anticipated Rates of Participation
Both the House and Senate bills provide for a three month education
period, followed by a twelve month period for the filing of applications.
INS assumes that under a 1980 cut-off date, 2.3 million may come forward.
Many are concerned, however, that if even a small number of applicants
are rejected and deported during the early stages of the program, then
others may be substantially deterred from participation. Many local
organizations argue that the 15 month implementation period will not
prove adequate, while others argue that the longer the period the greater
the danger of fraud.
The experience of other Western democracies which recently have
undertaken legalization programs underscores concerns about limited par-
ticipation. In France, Canada and Australia, less than 25% of those
expected actually participated. Such low turnouts have been explained
by fear of deportation, confusion regarding eligibility requirements,
limited participation by community organizations trusted by the undocu-
menteds, and inadequate resources for outreach and counseling.
C. Outreach, Processing of Applications and Safeguards
Current INS implemenation plans provide for educational campaigns
undertaken by both INS and private organizations. A range of issues are
undecided, including the content of advertising and outreach materials,
what private organizations will receive contracts, and the extent to
which local groups trusted by the undocumented will be willing and/or
able to participate in outreach activities.
Current plans also provide for the establishment of "intake" centers
in approximately 90 cities around the country. INS will contract with
"qualified organizations" to run such intake centers. Contracts may be
limited to non-profit groups with demonstrated experience in INS processing
type activities. Current expectations are that such organizations shall
receive $15 per application accepted. INS generally has agreed that its
personnel will not be stationed at intake centers, but this remains an
area of some controversy. INS is now considering giving intake organiza-
tions options regarding INS presence, and increasing the per capita grant
to groups which allow INS on site.
Although subject to changes, it is now expected that applications
received will be adjudicated in one central INS office, which will notify
-4-
There is also uncertainty about the extent to which legal repre-
sentation and other advocacy services will be available to undocumented
aliens who may wish to apply for legalization. Under current law the
Legal Services Corporation is prohibited from providing representation to
the undocumented. Voluntary agencies and some other organizations have
some experience or capacity, but are troubled by conflict of interest
issues if they also participate in the intake functions outlined above.
Immigration attorneys can provide assistance, but most will charge fees
which many undocumented may be unable to afford. The private bar has
some capacity to provide pro bono assistance or free legal services, but
as yet there has been no concerted effort to organize such a project.
Should Congress enact a legalization program, it will represent a
one-time opportunity to bring within the protection of the law unknown
millions of undocumented aliens residing in the United States. It is
of critical importance that the program be conceived and carried out in
as effective a manner as possible. The issues and uncertainties outlined
above, however, raise questions about the ability of the system to achieve
this objective, and maximize the participation of those persons who are
eligible.
F. Possible Activities to Improve Implementation
(1) Collection and Dissemination of Information. A project could be
designed to collect and disseminate to a wide range of organizations infor-
mation regarding legislative proposals, implementation planning, the
development of INS regulations and operating instructions which will govern
their personnel, contract provisions and negotiations, the identification
of processing sites, the delineation of roles of national, regional and
local organizations, and other matters relevant to the structure and im-
plementation of a legalization program. The project would also gather
information regarding the concerns and ideas of locally-based organizations,
federal agencies and Congressional offices.
(2) Briefings, Mediation and Planning Meetings. With the involvement
of INS and others, a project could be designed to convene regular briefings
and meetings in Washington and regional centers to facilitate the direct
exchange of ideas and enhance participation by a wider range of communities
in the policy and planning process. Target cities for regional meetings
include Los Angeles, San Francisco, Phoenix, Denver, El Paso, Houston,
Chicago, Boston, New York, Miami and Washington. The purpose of these
meetings would include the identification of locally-based groups which
may have the capacity and interest to participate directly in implementing
legalization, to challenge such organizations to effectively coordinate
their activities, and to build better communication networks among various
regions.
(3) Establishment of Local, Regional and National Legalization
Task Forces. Another project could establish a series of task forces
around the country to facilitate communication and coordination efforts.
These task forces might be challenged to monitor and evaluate the legali-
PRESS
RELEASE
League of United Latin American Citizens
FOUNDED 1927 INCORE ORATED 19:3
OFFICE OF: Arnold Torres
DATE: May 18, 1983
202/628-8516
Anticipating passage of S. 529--Immigration Reform and Control Act of
1983 by the Senate today, May 18, 1983, Arnold Torres, National Executive
Director of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), this
country's oldest and largest Hispanic organization, stated, "The Senate
has chosen to support poor and clearly discriminatory legislation, and
has failed to comprehend the complex reasons for population movements.
It has made a conscious decision to apply quick-fix approaches to problems
which have developed over decades, and to which this country has contributed."
Torres was referring to the long-established practice of the United States
to encourage and stimulate flows of undocumented workers to provide. cheap
labor to U.S. economy since the 1900's, and to the consequences of a foreign
policy in the Western hemisphere which has been instrumental in creating
many of the push factors which now result in major flows of people to the
United States.
Torres believes that the legislation in its final form will do very
little to seriously decrease the flow of undocumented persons to the U.S.
while presenting major government-sanctioned discrimination and exploitation.
He stated, "The Senate failed once again to provide any protections or
redress for employment discrimination. We recognize that this bill is to
discriminate against undocumented workers but the Senate has chosen to
discriminate against all persons with certain physical and linguistic
characteristics." Torres was extremely concerned with the inclusion of
a transitional temporary worker's program which contradicts the interest
of stymieing the flow of undocumented workers. Torres said that, "This
country continues to want cheap labor at any cost, and if they are Hispanic,
there is no need to protect their rights as human beings and workers. The
Senate has contradicted itself by satisfying the insatiable appetite of
the agricultural industry for cheap Mexican labor. They have shown that
exceptions can be made."
In closing, Torres emphasized that LULAC and the Hispanic community
has not, and will not, advocate that nothing be done to address the immigration
issue. However, it cannot be part of a legislative effort which is short-sighted
and discriminatory. "S. 529 isnot immigration reform, is not a compromise,
nor is it honest. It is a desperate attempt to address a major issue which
requires more patience, honesty, intelligence and pragmatism. It is difficult
to anticipate that this bill can in any way quell the uneasiness that pushes
people to the shores of this country. We had hoped that Congress would not
settle for 'something better than nothing,' for there are more realistic
approaches which would have had a more long-range effect and would have
provided fair treatment to all."
2500 MORGAN F O. DRAWI R 5427 CORPUS CHRISH, TEXAS 78405 512 $62.784
The New York Times, Thursday, May 19, 1983
SENATE APPROVES
Need Seen to 'Control Borders'
IMMIGRATION BILL
Search Warrant Amendment
Senator Simpson said the legislation
was needed because "the first duty of a
By a vote of 62 to 33, the Senate today
approved an amendment to require im-
IMMIGRATION BILL
sovereign nation Is to control its bor-
PASSED BY SENATE
migration agents to obtain search war-
ders, and we don't."
rants before entering open fields to
The bill sets a scale of fines and
selze people whom they believe to be
WITH HIRING CURB
prison terms for employers who know-
illegal allens. Senator James A.
ingly. hire illegal aliens. Employers
McClure, Republican of Idaho, who of-
would be required to ask job applicants
Continued From Page A1
fered the amendment, said the search
for documents verifying they are either
warrants should be required for open
citizens or aliens with work permits.
fields just as they were for other places
FOCUS ON ILLEGAL ALIENS
In its report on the bill, the Senate Ju-
Smith said, "The Administration ap-
of employment.
diclary Committee stressed It was
plauds this historic Senate action and
The Senate also approved an amend-
"most emphatically not requiring or
notes that House action is not far be-
ment offered by Senator Alfonse M.,
permitting the development of an 'in-
hind." However, he added, "We do have
D'Amato, Republican of New York,
Measure, Passed by 76-18, Is
that would require the Government to
ternal passport' or 'national I.D.
significant concern regarding the
reimburse the states for the cost of
Backed by Administration
card.''
House version's overgenerous legaliza-
holding illegal allens in prison. Mr.
tion program."
D'Amato said that there were more
Move to End Quirk In Law
The Senate report on the Simpson bill
and Goes to the House
than 4,000 illegal allens in prisons
At present, Mr. Simpson said, "It's
says It would make the biggest change
across the country.
legal for an employer to hire an illegal
in the immigration law since 1952, when
Arnold Torres, executive director of
alien, but it's illegal for the illegal alien
the McCarran-Walter Act established
the League of United Latin American
By ROBERT PEAR
to work." He said his bill was almed at
the basic rules for admitting and ex-
Citizens, said that Hispanic groups op-
Special to The New York Times
ending this anomaly, which he de.
cluding aliens. Congress amended the
posed the bHI because they feared it
law in 1965 to abolish "national origin"
scribed as "an extraordinary departure
would lead to an Increase In employ-
WASHINGTON, May 18- The Sen-
quotas that favored European Imml-
ment discrimination against Hispanic
ate today passed a comprehensive im-
from sanity."
grants.
Americans.
migration bill that would, among other
Federal Immigration and census offi-
Under the Simpson bill, an employer
The final obstacle to Senate passage
things, outlaw the hiring of illegal
cials estimate that one million to two
would be subject to a civil penalty of
was removed this afternoon when Mr.
aliens and offer amnesty to more than a
million illegal aliens might qualify for
$1,000 for each illegal allen hired. After
Simpson and Senator Edward M. Ken-
million people now in the country ille-
amnesty under the bill. Illegal aliens
the first offense, the penalty would be
nedy, Democrat of Massachusetts,
who entered the United States before
increased to $2,000 for each illegal
gally.
reached a compromise to preserve
Jan. 1, 1977, could immediately become
alien. In addition, the bill says that a
legal protections for aliens. The com-
The vote on the bill was 78 to 18.
The Senate passed a similar bill last Au-
legal permanent` residents and after
"pattern or practice" of such violations
promise permits full judicial review of
would be a crime, for which the em-
gust by a vote of 80 to 19, but the bill died
five years, could apply for citizenship.
deportation, exclusion and asylum
ployer could be Imprisoned for six
Illegal allens who arrived from Jan.
cases in the Federal Court of Appeals.
In the House.
months and fined $1,000.
1, 1977, to Dec. 31, 1979, could obtain
Morton H. Halperin of the American
The Reagan Administration gener-
Business groups such as the Chamber
ally supports the legislation, having,
legal status as "temporary residents"
of Commerce of the United States have
Civil Liberties Union said his organiza-
and, after three years they could be-
opposed penalizing employers, saying
tion "supports the compromise and be-
made similar proposals itself. The bill,
sponsored by Senator Alan K. Simpson,
come permanent residents.
this would shift the burden of enforcing
lleves that It is an Improvement over
However, Illegal allens who arrived
the immigration law from the Govern-
the House bill" in most respects.
Republican of Wyoming, is designed to
after 1979 would not be eligible for the
ment to private industry, making busi-
The Senate also agreed on an amend-
curtail unlawful immigration by deny-
ing jobs to illegal aliens, which is pre-
amnesty and could still be subject to
nessmen into policemen.
ment to allow some foreign students
sumed to be their main reason for com-
deportation under the existing law. The
G. John Tysse, director of labor law
with advanced degrees to stay in the
for the Chamber, said tonight that the
United States while they applied for
ing to the United States, The bill now
House bill is more liberal in this regard
Senate bill would create a "paperwork
visas.
goes to the House, where similar legis-
and sets Jan. 1, 1982, as the cutoff date
nightmare for small business." The
In other floor action, the Senate ap-
lation is awaiting a floor vote.
for aliens seeking legal status.
Chamber prefers the House Judiciary
proved a $35 million contingency fund to
Attorney General William French
Committee's bill, under which record
deal with immigration emergencies
keeping is optional until an employer is
such as the migration of more than
found to have Illegal aliens in his work
120,000 Cubans to Florida in 1980.
force.
HOPE
An independent Political
HISPANIC
EDUCATION
Education Arm of the
League of United Latin
American Citizens
ORGANIZED
for
POLITICAL
MEDIA
A major issue which LULAC has undertaken in 1983 has been the effort to
correct the manner in which America's media industry cover
Hispanics. The continued defamation and neglect of Hispanics by the media
has perhaps become the greatest impediment to our community participating in
Americas mainstream. While some progress has been made in sensitizing the
media industry, a great deal of work must be done before real progress can
be made. Affirmative action behind and in front camera, increased news
coverage of Hispanics, and improved editorial coverage are issues which the
media must respond to favorably.
LULAC Media Watch
In order to bring about the desired changes our community must begin to
work with the media industry, as well as to apply appropriate pressure should
there be a reluctance to undertake necessary improvements. It is with this
in mind that National President Tony Bonilla instructed LULAC State Directors
to urge local councils to form local media watch committees which are desigened
to work with local media, electronic and printed, to improve relations with
the Hispanic community. We encourage a positive and constructive approach;
however, should this prove ineffective, local committees must consider
applying appropriate pressure to bring about improvements.
Electronic Media
The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) filed a class action
commissioner's charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
agaisnt the major television networks, movie studios and advertising agencies
in October of 1982. Since that time, Mr. Tony Bonilla, LULAC National
President and other LULAC officials have met with numerous network and other
media officials, including a meeting with the vice-presidents of ABC, NBC,
and CBS in San Diego last December.
P.O. Drawer 5427
2590 Morgan Ave.
Corpus Christi, Tx. 784O5
512/882-8284
A recent survey by the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) titled, "Minority
Casting Summary Report," revealed statistics which support LULAC's contention
that Hispanics face discrimination when attempting to break into the
entertainment industry.
Although Hispanics are few in the technical positions within the networks
studios and advertising agencies, the SAG study focuses on the number of
minorities casted for acting roles. For a 15-month period from July 1, 1981
through September 1982, Hispanics received less than 3% of all acting roles
in motion pictures and dramatic primetime television.
Although Hispanics comprise an estimated 6.4% of the U.S. population, as
of 1980 only 3% of SAG's membership is Hispanic. Only seven SAG Hispanic
actors and/or actresses earned more than $50,000 in 1980, and only 19 earned
more than $25,000, compared to the 931 white actors/actresses who topped
$25,000 that year.
Hispanic women are the hardest hit, achieving only 1.6% of all leading
roles available to women; however, nearly 6.3% of the U.S. female population is
Hispanic.
The issue of Hispanics and the media is crucial to the way Hispanics
are viewed nationally because of the stereotyping which takes place on
television. LULAC is urging the EEOC to process the complaing as soon as
possible so that the attention of the networks, studios and advertising
agencies will be given to hiring Hispanics for key administrative, technical,
and acting positions so that the misconception some Americans have of the
Hispanic community will be rectified because of the talent and diversity this
community possesses.
Public Television
The Public Broadcasting Services (PBS) prides itself as providing
equality television programming. It is funded by the federal government and
private contributions and produces programs which provide a more in-depth and
wider perspective of issues. It does not however, have any better record of
creating opportunities or employing Hispanics. According to its April 21,
1982 projected employment statistics, the overall number of 233 employees
representes 123 females, 52 blacks, and only 4 persons of the "other minority"
status.
Printed Media
A majority of America's newspapers continue their "benign neglect" of
Hispanics and minorities. Figures collected in a 1982 survey commissioned
by the American Society of Newspaper Editors Fund that only 1.3% of the
reporters and editors working on the nation's general circulation dailies are
Hispanic. Other findings by this survey include:
Minority employment continues to progress in daily newspapers, but the
rate of progress is slowing.
Wall Street Journal
Total About
(continued)
Total by
Total
Hispanics
Hispanics
Signed Editorial Page
188
0
0
articles
Letters to the Editor
374
3
6
TOTAL
662
4
6
Los Angeles Times
Editorials (unsigned)
270
4
N/A
Signed Editorial Page
articles
415
5
6
Letters to the Editor
941
8
11
TOTAL
1004
9
7
The Annenberg School indicates that "underrepresentation means restricted
scope of action, stereotyped roles, diminished life changes, and undervaluation
ranging from relative neglect to symbolic annihilation." The impact of this
condition results in the development of generations which are made to see a
world through T.V. which is comprised of primarily non-Hispanics/Minorities:
truly a major deception.
In view of these statistics we can easily see the need to undertake an
agressive campaign to insure that the media in the U.S. ceases its defamation
and neglect of Hispanics.
Columns
The Miami News
Wednesday. July 21, 1982
It made the judgments and
laid down the rules on who
qualified as American, and /
never challeged it
Tony Bonilla
Reader's Digest taught a lot, but was it fair?
Tony Bonills. of Corpus Christi,
rine. Probably more than any other. at
Tex., is national president of the
influences our attitudes and views as a
League of United Latin American Citi-
people. If It ignores Hispanic Americans.
millions may assume that we don't
zens. the nation's largest Hispenic or-
genization. Hispanic Link assembles
Selecciones
exist. If it says we're bad for America. a
lot of other Americans will accept that
and distributes commentary by the
Working with Robert Gnaizda. who
top Hispenic writers and experts from
heads the San Francisco-based puolic :n-
across the nation.
terest law firm. Public Advocates. we
TONY BONILLA
I
Lime
1
ones
had a researcher como hundreds of
Reader's Digest copies to ascertain
whether there are patterns to support
our suspicions about the magazine's
Back In the central Texas town of
Digest
coverage of the nation's 20 million His-
Calvert. every month there used to be a
panic Americans.
Bonilla family scramble when the mail-
It was our guidebook. It provided us
USTED
There are. Among them:
man brought us the Reader's Digest.
From January 1970 to July 1982.
the magazine printed 3.300 non-ficuos
with role models. With distinct. clear
articles, but only one related any attin
lines. it separated the world's good peo-
mative accomplishments of the U.S. His
ple from the corrupt, barbaric and slov-
panic community. ("New Daws for
only.
America: Latins. February 1979).
To me. the little magazine was espe-
Of those 3.300 articles. only one
claily important as I advanced into my
focused on affirmative accomplishments
teen years. As soon as 1 got hold of it. I
would retreat to my bedroom. close the
DEBE SABER
of an Hispanic individual or leader.
("Chi Chi Rodriguez: Golf's Ace With a
door. prop a pillow behind me on the
aldrew
Heart." June 1982)
bed, and start reading.
In the same time period. six arti-
It introduced me to America's leaders.
cles (ranging from "America's Newest
Crime Syndicate - The Mexican
its rich and compassionate families. It
Mana." November 1977. to "Hilegal
Increased my word power. It taught me
who
Allens: Time to Call a Halt!" October
to spot the world's political and crimi-
1111475
1976) either showed U.S. Hispanics as
nal menaces and to relate to the jovs and
humor of Life in These United States.
deeply involved in crime or criticized us
things which weren't always easy to
through attacks on undocumented
workers.
Identify in a town where the tarber
wouldn't cut our hair because we were
Never, in its entire 61-year history.
"Mexican."
has the Reader's Digest reprinted an ar-
I was one of Ruben and Maria Bonil-
APRENDA
ticle from a U.S. Hispanic magazine
such as Lu= Latino or Nuestro. or any
la's eight children. My father owned a
of our many academic journals. At east
service station. He and my mother
since 1970. not one of its articles has
pushed us constantly to impro e our
been written by a U.S. Hispanic. Nor
minds, to respect knowledge. And there
has the "world's most-read magazine"
it was. conveniently packaged IB the
New citizens learned the American way from Reader's Digest
been able (based on & review of a July
Reader's Digest.
We chicanos lived with the blacks ou
but was the magazine damaging cultural identities?
82 Usting of staff) to find one Hispanic
American "qualified" for a job as one of-
the west side of town. but we crossed
its 148 editors, researchers and cther
the tracks to go to the white school.
editorial staff.
That gave me an additional motive to
Bow-KNEE-yah. As you grow up. some-
fied as American. and I never challeged
America is entitled to a more object
read the Digest. The angio kids read il
times you permit the community to de-
it. It wasn't until later. much later. that
nve, balanced view of its Hispanic city
and quoted it with great authority I
fine you. rather than to define yourself.
I realized the insidious impact It was
zens. who by 1930 could constitute the
wanted to be accepted as an equal by
You allow vourself to be transformed
having on me and thousands of other
nation's largest minority For your chit-
them. "I'm one of you." I wanted them
from who you really are into what the
Americans who happen to have an His-
dren's sake. and my children's sake. the
to know.
community thinks you ought to he.
panic heritage.
League of United Latin American City
I never dared to correct them when
Such was my relationship with the
With an advertised circulation of 31
zens has asked for a meeting with the
they. or my teachers, called me Banilla.
Reader's Digest It made the judgments
million. the Reader's Digest is the na-
magazine's Board of Directors. We want
as in vanilla. insted of my real name.
and laid down the rules on who quali-
non's largest deneral circulation maga-
it to improve its performance.
HOPE
An independent Political
Education Arm of the
HISPANIC
EDUCATION
League of United Latin
American Citizens
ORGANIZED
for
POLITICAL
THE STATE OF HISPANIC HOUSING
Background
Fact 1: Fully 29% of the Hispanic community lives in substandard housing.
Fact 2: Hispanics have a homeownership rate of one half that of the nation
as a whole.
Fact 3: One out of every three Hispanics households has inadequate heating
equipment.
Fact 4: Although Hispanics and other minorities are targeted (in theory) by
federal housing programs, Hispanics receive little of those funds
and, ironically, are disproportionately displaced by federal programs.
Fact 5: Although the federal fair housing law provides that it is unlawful to
discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national
origin in the sale, rental, financing, etc., of homes, the mechanisms
for enforcement of that law do not exist. In 1980 the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) estimated that more than two
million instances of discrimination occur each year.
The Reagan Administration and Housing
As consistent with his agenda, President Reagan has targeted housing as
one of the areas where he would like the role of the Federal government
minimalized, ignoring the realities of the housing situation faced by Hispanic
Americans. In fiscal year 1982, President Reagan proposed new cuts in
appropriations of 18.7 billion dollars, a one-third reduction from the requests
of President Carter. The 1983 preliminary budget shows estimated outlays and
operating subsidies for subsidized housing to total 10 billion, down from
27.8 billion in 1980. In 1983 Congress approved the President's request to
increase rent for tenants of subsidized housing, to 30% of their adjusted
incomes from 25%, over five years. Congress rejected, however, his proposal
to count foodstamps as income when computing the rent.
The reduction in appropriations to housing assistance from fiscal year
1981 to the levels proposed by the Administration for fiscal year 1984 is cut
by 98%.
P. O. Drawer 5427
2590 Morgan Ave.
Corpus Christi, Tx. 78405
512/882-8284
HOPE
An independent Political
Education Arm of the
HISPANIS
EDUCATION
League of United Latin
American Citizens
ORGANIZED
for
POLITICAL
CIVIL RIGHTS
The phenomenal growth of the Hispanic population in this country from
1970 to 1980. The U.S. Bureau of the Census reported that the Hispanic
community increased 61% during these ten years. This significant population
growth in ten years also brought with it growing civil rights concerns of
Hispanics. During the 1970's the American public and its institutions have
begun to recognize that Hispanic-Americans are indeed a major minority group
in this country with major civil rights problems requiring specific attention.
It is, however, imperative that we recognize the need to focus more
attention on the civil rights problems confronting the fastest growing
minority group in American society. The phenomenal population growth cited,
also brings with it growing opposition to Hispanics from American society.
As has historically been the reaction to immigrants and non-Anglo groups,
Hispanics are encountering major civil rights proglems. Due to the
ignorance most Americans have of Hispanics, and due to the general neglect
of Hispanic concerns, we are presently confronted with a major population
group which feels that is being denied coverage of equal protection laws and
regards government institutions responsible for enforcement of such laws as
unaware and uninterested in understanding the Hispanic experience.
Areas of major concern to Hispanics are school segregation which studies
indicate Hispanic children are the most segregated group in American public
education, discrimination in higher eduction, violence perpetrated by hate
groups, the constant civil rights violations of migrant farmworkers, exessive
use of force by local law enforcement, affirmative action, and equal employ-
ment opportunity.
Re-Authorization of U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights was created in 1957 to:
"Appraise federal laws and policies with respect to
discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws
because of race, color, religion, sex, age, handicap, or
national origin, or in the administration of justice."
While the Commission has been effective in raising the conciousness of
American Society to the civil rights affairs confronting Americans in general.
P.O. Drawer 5427
2590 Morgan Ave.
Corpus Christi, Tx. 78405
512/882-8284
Civil Rights Nominations
As you well know, President Reagan has nominated three individuals to
serve on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Mr. John Bunzel, Mr. Morris
Abrahams, and Mr. Robert Destro, In addition, he has nominated Ms. Linda
Chavez to serve as the Commission's staff Director. This action, should it
be supported by the Senate, would result in the President making virtually a
wholesale change in the Commission and thus compromising its independence; it
is for these reasons we should vehemently oppose the nominations. The
President had attempted to do the same thing last year; however, the
Senate let the nominations die on the Senate floor.
The legislative history governing the Commission unequivocally declares
that Congress intended it to be an independent, bipartisan, factfinding
agency.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is the only independent, bipartisan
federal agency responsible for monitoring civil rights in this country. In
its 26 year history, almost without exception, both Republican and Democratic
Presidents have respected this independence. Indeed, from its inception,
the Congressional intent regarding the independent nature of the Commission
has been clear. During the 1958 Senate Judiciary confirmation hearings of
the first nominees to serve on the Commission, for example, the following
exchange occurred:
Senator McClellan.
This Commission, when established
becomes its own boss. I do not think anybody has any authority
to call you in to give you instructions.
Father Hesburgh. I did not know that, sir.
Senator McClellan. I think you ought to know that, I
thought this was to be an independent commission.
Chairman Eastland. That was the congressional intent, but
you know those things are forgotten at times.
Senator McClellan. I did not know there was any question
about that. I did not know anyone had any idea someone could
give them instructions what to do.
However, the President's decision to replace three of the six commissioners
spoils the Commission's objectivity and weakens the nation's commitment to
equal protection under the law. In addition, confirmation of the President's
nominees will seriously dilute the Commission's voice, making it merely
another agency controlled by the prevailing political philosophy.
The Commission's effectiveness has been the result of its ability,
historically, to perform its duties objectively and honestly, without fear of
retribution. Efforts to mold the Commission into a rubber stamp of this -- or
any -- Administration's civil rights policies would be a grave mistake and would
seriously impair its role as the nation's only independent voice against
discrimination and denial of equal protection.
Past
'Illegality' Is Not the Issue
The Post's editorial "A Reagan Civil Rights Commission"
[May 24] says the president's decision to replace three current
commissioners with nominees more in tune with his own philoso-
phy is not illegal. But legality is not the key issue; the indepen-
dence of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is. The administra-
tion in effect is attempting to circumvent the congressional intent
of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which established the commission
as an independent fact-finding agency. A fixed term for commis-
sioners, as the editorial suggests, would not solve the problem, for
if this administration gets away with undermining the congres-
sional mandate, then fixed terms or no, succeeding administra-
tions angered by the commission's findings will be tempted to
seek ways to "pack" it with friendly voices.
-Maudine R. Cooper
The writer is vice president for Washington operations of
the National Urban League, Inc.
The Post's editorial ignores the role of impartial monitor
that the commnission must play in order to hold not only the
president, but the entire nation accountable for our actions
with regard to the deserved rights of every U.S. citizen. In-
stead, the editorial paints a picture of a Reagan-appointed
commission that will perhaps provide Clarence Pendleton
with his "colorblind society." What is needed is not a "color-
blind society," viewed through the rosy-tinted glasses of com-
missioners all of the same mind and experience, but a society
that appreciates all the colors of skin that our nation boasts,
guarded by the conscience of a Civil Rights Commission rep-
resentative of each facet of that society.
The administration has removed the only Hispanic serving
on the commission without replacing her with another Hispan-
ic, thus effectively muting our community's voice in the most
important federal civil rights institution. President Reagan's
concern for Hispanics, as reflected in his speeches to Hispanic
audiences in San Antonio and Miami, should thus be viewed as
sheer hyprocrisy. Hispanics demand more than eating our tacos
and black beans as a show of commitment.
-Arnoldo S. Torres
The writer is national executive director of the League of
United Latin American Citizens.
T
The WASHINGTON Past JuNe 4-1983
New YORK Times
6-19-83
A Strong Rights Unit
By Allan J. Lichtman
WASHINGTON - In the wake of
Ordinarily, Presidents have author-
President Reagan's attempt to fire
ity to dismiss appointed officials and
three of its commissioners, the United
to select qualified replacements who
States Commission on Civil Rights re-
share their political views. But court
leased reports critical of Federal civil
decisions have restricted the power to
rights enforcement in education and
remove members of bodies that Con-
minority appointments. The reports
gress intended to be free of executive
provide clear and encouraging evi-
direction.
dence that members of the commis-
In 1958, the United States Supreme
sion intend to maintain an independ-
Court revoked Harry S. Truman's fir-
ent voice despite the President's ef-
ing of a member of the War Claims
forts to undermine their autonomy.
Commission. Even though the ena-
President Reagan's recent attempt
bling statute like its counterpart for
to replace the commissioners is just
the Civil Rights Commission- did not
e latest in a series of attacks by an
expressly forbid Presidential removal
iministration that is intolerant of
of Claims Commission members, the
dissent and that seeks to restrict the
Court found for the member. Justice
scope of Federal civil rights responsi-
Felix Frankfurter declared for a
bilities. If the Senate confirms the
unanimous Court that it must "be in-
three new appointments, the commis-
ferred that Congress did not wish to
sion's tradition of political independ-
have over the commission the Damo-
ence - which has added crucial cred-
cles' sword of removal by the Presi-
ibility to its reports and monitoring of
dent for no reason other than that he
Federal enforcement activities -
preferred to have on that commission
may well be destroyed.
men of his own choosing."
As part of an anticivil rights offen-
Each of the pending nominees to the
sive that has included obstructing the
Civil Rights Commission has insisted
extension of the Voting Rights Act,
that he will follow his own conscience as
curtailing civil rights enforcement,
a commissioner. But if their appoint-
cutting back on minority appoint-
ments are confirmed and survive a pos-
ments and aggressively opposing af-
sible court challenge by one or more of
firmative action, the Administration
the fired commissioners, then, for the
has sought - at various times in the
first time, all civil rights commission-
last two years - to replace every
ers will find themselves sitting under
member of the commission.
Mr. Frankfurter's "Damocles' sword"
By contrast, no previous President
of Presidential power.
had ever fired even a single commis-
Beyond his penchant for replacing
sioner. In 1973, Richard M. Nixon
commissioners, President Reagan
asked for and obtained the resignation
has become the first executive to re-
of chairman Theodore M. Hesburgh,
ject the members' recommendation
replacing him with Arthur S. Flem-
for a staff director. He chose instead a
ming, who proved to be an outspoken
political appointee deemed unquali-
civil rights proponent.
fied by a majority of commissioners.
By early 1982, Mr. Reagan had sacked
Earlier, the Office of Management
chairman Flemming as well as vice
and Budget had also broken precedent
chairman Stephen Horn, substituting a
and formally requested that commis-
political ally, Clarence M. Pendleton
sion reports and testimony "be
Jr., and Mary Louise Smith, a former
cleared by the Office of Management
head of the Republican National Com-
and Budget in advance of their trans-
mittee. But nominations to replace the
mittal to Congress." Although the Ad-
remaining commissioners faltered be-
ministration strategically retreated in
cause of the nominees' poor qualifica-
the face of resistance by the commis-
tions. One nominee withdrew under
sion staff, a new regime may begin an
pressure and three more were among
era of cooperation between the White
the few appointees that the Senate failed
House and the commission.
to confirm at the expiration of the last
Congress should return President
session.
Reagan's nominees to the White
Now the Administration has
House on the grounds that, whatever
shrewdly selected a set of nominees
the legal technicalities, their confir-
who combine solid credentials with a
mation would destroy the political in-
commitment to the President's own
dependence necessary for the com-
view of civil rights. At issue, however,
mission to continue functioning as
is neither their qualifications nor their
Congress intended. Rejection- which
skepticism about racial quotas and
would leave the incumbents in place
mandatory busing. Rather, it is the in-
- could usefully be combined with ex-
stitutional integrity of the commission
plicit protection of commissioners
itself.
from removal without cause and a
long-term extension of the commis-
Allan J. Lichtman is professor of his-
sion's life, as already recommended
tory at the American University.
by the House Judiciary Committee.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the House Subcommittee on
Employment Opportunities. My name is Arnoldo S. Torres, I am the National
Executive Director of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC),
this country's oldest and largest Hispanic organization with over 100,000
members organized in 44 states. WE very much appreciate the opportunity to
come before you today and present our perspectives on the Reagan Administra-
tion's proposed changes of the affirmative action program, Executive Order
11246. This program over recent years has created a great deal of
controversy, often times as a result of misunderstanding, improper enforce-
ment, and most recently due to a deliberate non-commitment to its effective
enforcement,
Affirmative Action
In having carefully observed the implementation and operation of the
affirmative action (AA) program administered by the Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs (OFCCP) of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), it is our
opinion that this program has been poorly implemented since its inception
due to the constant resistance America's employers have had, and has been so
poorly designed that we have come to believe that it has become too burdensome
for employers and must be altered for their benefit. In essence, we regard
this program as having been sabotaged from its very beginning.
We have seen how AA has been able to create employment opportunities for
minorities and women, opportunities that before AA and without it most
probably would not have been available. However, these opportunities came
about with great difficulty at times, due to the historical reluctance
employers have had with AA and the pervasive employment discrimination that
continues with regards to minorities and women. A significant amount of
criticism originates in the private sector which maintains that compliance with
AA regulations is excessively burdensome and expensive, and that the extreme
costs of such compliance outweight the benefits of existing programs.
Under this Administration we have experienced a significant withdrawal of
effective enforcement and support of AA, as well as agreement with the view
that changes must be made to benefit private industry. The Administration's
proposed changes in the AA program clearly reflect and promote this interest
and will go far in undercutting the intent of AA and lessening even further
the possible employment opportunities for minorities and women. It is our
firm belief that this Administration has no serious concern for eradicating
employment discrimination and setting into motion remedial policies.
Under the current AA program Hispanics have only recently begun to be
serious candidates for employment opportunities careated by this program.
Unfortunately, the Reagan Administration's proposed changes would negate the
progress made and would seriously jeopardize the potential benefits AA has
begun to provide Hispanics in the employment arena. These changes would
make AA an even more unknown concept to Hispanics and would further frustrate
our desire for participation in mainstream American society.
$250,000 in federal contractors to $500,000. We oppose changing thresholds
for there has been little positive response from currently covered contractors
increasing thresholds would allow these contractors to avoid compliance. In
addition, Hispanics tend to be employed in smaller businesses than the
proposed threshold levels, which if increased would deny Hispanics of being
covered by AA through contractors, Any upward chances in thresholds would
have a very adverse effect on Hispanics,
Utilization Standards
Under the proposed rule change OFCCP has decided that contractors are
complying with the law if they employ minorities and women at least 80
percent of their availability. In essence, OFCCP has decided that the goal
need not exceed availability and that contractors can shoot for a much lower
standard. It is ridiculous to decrease the utilization standard when
contractors have generally done a poor job of seriously attempting to reaching
the previous standard of 95 percent. The 80 percent standard allows contractors
to lessen their already questionable commitment to employing minorities and
women. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights resently reported that minorities
and women continue to suffer major discrimination, with this proposed
utilization standard we can expect this to continue.
Availability Factors
Availability is the most vital element in developing an effective AAP.
Unfortunately, OFCCP in proposing its changes has reduced the AAP to being
totally dependent on the good faith and benevolence of private industry.
OFCCP has proposed to allow contractors a free hand in determining that
standard of availability they choose to utilize. We strongly urge that the
current practice of negotiating availability remain in place and that OFCCP
be directed to insure reasonable and accurate estimates of availability.
Goals and National Origin
A major concern of ours deals with how goals are developed for the hiring
of minorities and women and the need for greater specifity. Currently,
Hispanics are seldom a target population affirmative action programs. It is
our experience that contractors seldom establish any goals for the hiring
of Hispanics but rather use general category which often times excludes us.
We would recommend that goals be broken out so as to establish objectives
for the hiring of Hispanics. In addition, it is imperative that national
origin provisions be required inclusion in affirmative action plans.
We are very displeased with the Adminsitration's proposed changes and are
commited to working to insure that they not be allowed to regress affirmative
action programs but rather are altered to allow Hispanics the opportunity
to progress in our quest for equal treatment in American society.
Thank you.
percent of the Hispanics in Justice are in
Reviewing litigation during fiscal years 80,
The cost of the hearings will be minimal
the Immigration and Naturalization Service:
81 and 82 one finds that of 935 cases placed
when compared to the amount of money we
4. In seven agencies black employees are
in litigation 27 were national origin, His-
spend on just one consultant contract. The
well in excess of their national labor force:
panic. This Is 2.9 percent of the litigation
Commission, by forming the task force, has
5. Hispanics are not even close to being
over the three year period. As of April 6,
committed to expenditures. I'm sure no one
represented in the upper GS levels commen-
1983. the General Counsels Office had 536
believed there was going to be a quick and
surate with their percentage in the labor
cases in litigation. Of this total approxi-
cost free solution, especially for a commit-
force.
mately 44 percent were sex discrimination
ment that Chairman Thomas has character-
The MALDEF findings restate the fact
complaints. 20 percent were age discrimina-
ized as a study which we hope will get
that even though equality in promotions
tion complaints, 24 percent were race dis-
to the root of the [low number of national
should be stressed this cannot be in lieu of a
crimination complaints and 2.4 percent were
valid hiring program. To benefit from a pro-
origin charges]. It is a top priority at the
national origin, Hispanic, complaints.
Commission."
motions program a class or group must be
The General Counsels Office monetarily
adequately represented in the workforce.
I know you believe that by holding fact
recovered $31,120,953 in 1982. If we assume
This is why EEOC's federal sector guidance.
finding hearings we will receive some criti-
that Hispanics recovered in proportion to
reinforcing affirmative hiring practices, is
cism from other groups. This is not neces-
their litigation representation, 2.4 percent.
so important.
sarily true. Other groups have been and are
Hispanics recovered $746,903 or 2 percent of
Turning now to an agency we have some
well served by EEOC. including white males.
the General Counsels total monetary recov-
control over. EEOC. one finds that His-
The composite of an age discriminatee rep-
eries. Compare this with $20,149,840 that
panics have not fared much better here. My
resented by EEOC is a white male. 55 years
was recovered on behalf of victims of age
concern as Deputy General Counsel is to
old, in middle management. earning over
discrimination.
insure that all protected groups were receiv-
$32,000.00 per year. If you recall I have al-
To summarize the administrative and liti-
ing equal protection and EEOC resources.
ready pointed out that this group recovered
gation efforts on behalf of Hispanics by
After a cursory review I found that no His-
over $20 million through EEOC litigation
EEOC the word "dismal" makes matters
panic has ever had any policy authority in
efforts in 1982 alone: compared to approxi-
sound better than they actually are. If we
the General Counsel's Office. This means
mately. $746,903 for Hispanics.
total the monetary recoveries of both ad-
there has been little Hispanic involvement
Even though we did not create the situa-
in setting forth priorities or strategies.
ministrative and litigation. $132,314,953.00.
tion that presently exists we can do some-
Without a mixture of individuals in decision
Hispanics received $1,959,023 or 1.48 percent
thing about it. TQ merely stand idle in the
making positions there is bound to be a fail-
of EEOC's total monetary recoveries in
face of the facts as we know them is not
ure to adequately assist all groups protected
1982. One purpose of Title VII. 1964 Civil
why we were appointed to our respective po-
by Title VII. The result, in the General
Rights Act. is to alleviate Hispanics are
sitions. If we do as prior Commissions have
Counsel's Office, is a lack of any enforce-
benefitting little in this area as you can see.
and disregard the problem we will be violat-
ment effort on behalf of Hispanics.
I believe that the above information vali-
ing our oaths of office not to mention our
In 1982. 34,145 charges of discrimination
dates the Commissions collective opinion
mission,
were received by EEOC and 38,255 charges
that there is a problem. The task force has
"Insuring equality of opportunity by vig-
were received by state and local anti-dis-
collected internal data which shows a his-
orously enforcing federal legislation prohib-
crimination agencies. EEOC benefitted
torical neglect of this area. The fact that
iting discrimination in employment through
51,886 persons with approximately
this Commission is willing to clean its own
investigation, conciliation. litigation. coordi-
$101,194.000 in administrative settlements.
house speaks highly of this Commission's
nation, regulation in the federal sector.. and
Approximately 32 percent of all charges re-
desire to serve all segments of society. It is
through education. policy research and pro-
ceived by EEOC in 1982 were settled admin-
clear that this problem is one that has exist-
vision of technical assistance."
istratively.
ed. practically. from the EEOC's inception
There is no better example of how we will
In 1982 4.9 percent of all EEOC charges
and we inherited the problem.
implement our mission than to do so in con-
were from Hispanics alleging national origin
The task force. of which I am a member.
junction with the Hispanic Task Force be-
discrimination. This represents 4,330 His-
has gathered enough statistics and facts to
cause each component of our mission will be
panic charges. Using the EEOC administra-
determine that a service problem does exist.
utilized to solve our problem.
tive case settlement average of 32 percent
The next step is to determine if the problem
What I have imparted to you through this
we find that of the 4,330 discrimination
is internal, external or both. If the problem
letter is but the surface view. If you wish to
charges received 1,443 would be settled ad-
is that Hispanics won't file charge with
discuss more statistical data. socio-economic
ministratively. The average settlement rate
EEOC based on past performance and/or
conditions. or fact finding methods I would
per case was $4,800. Therefore the Hispanic
treatment then we need a solution different
welcome the opportunity. What the Com-
administrative settlements totaled. approxi-
than if the problem is strictly internal. The
mission does in this area will send a message
mately, $1,212,120.80. This means EEOC ad-
only way to determine the root of the prob-
not only to Hispanics but to all groups that
ministrative recoveries on behalf of His-
lem is to ask Hispanics why they either
the Commission is ready. willing and able to
panics totaled 1.19 percent in 1982.
don't file charges in proportion to other
enforce the laws it is charged with regard.
Of the total Hispanic charge number ap-
protected groups and/or if EEOC can do
less of the opposition or difficulty of the
proximately 4 percent. 173 cases, will be re-
anything to be of service to the Community.
task.
viewed by the legal units for litigation rec-
The fact finding hearings are just one part
Thank you for your concern in this area.
ommendation. The remaining 2714 charges
of this process.
Respectfully.
will either be dismissed or disposed of
MICHAEL N. MARTINEZ
through other administrative methods.
Deputy General Counsel
HOPE
An independent Political
HISPANIC
EDUCATION
Education Arm of the
League of United Latin
American Citizens
ORGANIZED
for
POLITICAL
THE DEFENSE BUDGET, THE MILITARY AND HISPANICS
"This world in arms is not spending money alone - it is
spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its
scientists, the houses of its children.' President Dwight D.
Eisenhower, 1953.
In proposing the largest peacetime military buildup in our history, the
administration would spend 1.9 trillion dollars over the next six years on
the military. This means we will spend some $36 million ever hour for the
next six years, costing a total of more than $20,000 for every taxpayer in
the United States. The Administration's defense budget appropriates $263
billion for military expenses for fiscal year 1983, growing in increments up
to $408.4 billion for 1987. (PARADE MAGAZINE, September 19, 1982). These
figures almost double and triple the $142.211 billion authorized for 1980.
(N.Y. TIMES, November 14, 1982). These dramatic increases in the defense
budget sought, and up-until-now won, by the Reagan Administration during a
period of increasing deficits, high unemployment, withdrawal of commitment
from social programs, and recession have resulted in increasing controversy
over defense spending.
President Reagan has stated that "the one prime responsibility of
government is to protect the lives and freedom of its citizens. The budget
we submitted and the budget figure we believed was the absolute minimum that
was necessary to continue redressing our defensive capability, which had been
allowed to deteriorate so badly in the previous decade." (WASHINGTON POST,
March 30, 1983). Many argue, however, that the dramatic build up for high-
cost, high-technology, highly destructive weapons is inefficient in terms of
national security, employment and spending. For Hispanics President Reagan's
defense program has meant increasing unemployment, high interest rates, a
void in for federal programs addressing Hispanic needs, and an even worse
outlook on the situation of Hispanics in the military.
National Security
The Pentagon is buying weapons at an accelerated rate: indeed, budget
authority for weapons procurement is scheduled to go up from $35.3 billion in
1980 to more than $85 billion in 1983 -- more than doubling in three years.
The cost of maintenance for these weapons will be very high and any reductions
in spending will come from such areas as spare parts, operating expenses,
P.O. Drawer 5427
2590 Morgan Ave.
Corpus Christi, Tx. 784O5
512/882-8284
The Economy
The deficit created by high military spending increases interests rates
and promises to prolong the recession and hamper the economy for years to come
Also, the build up of new, high technology weapons will mean irreversible
expenditures in procurement and maintenance for years to come. The Bipartisan
Budget Appeal, founded by Former Secretaries of the Treasury Michael Blumenthal
(1977-79), John B. Connally (1971-72), C. Doublas Dillon (1961-65), Henry H.
Fowler (1965-68), William E. Simon (1974-76), and Secretary of Commerce
Peter G. Peterson (1972-72) published a two-full-page advertisement in the
NEW YORK TIMES of April 6, 1983 in which they say, "We feel that in a time of
severe fiscal strain, the Administration has a duty to justify (defense)
programs in
terms (of clear and realistic defense goals and missions)
and that, if adequate justifications are not forthcoming, appropriate
reductions in the rate of growth of defense investment and spending must be
given serious considerations." Another area of fiscal concern is that of waste
in the defense budget. Budget Director David Stockman himself said that the
Pentagon is "a swamp of 10-20-30 billion dollars waste."
The Nuclear Freeze
LULAC has taken the position that a budget agenda based on the accumula-
tion of nuclear and high-technology weapons contributes to the fear of nuclear
war, is fiscally unsound, detracts from much needed social programs, and
exacerbates the unemployment problem in general, but especially with regard to
Hispanics. LULAC National has taken the position that such an accumulation
does not build a national security, but rather international insecurity.
Nuclear weapons are not military forces. Former Secretary of Defense Melvin
Laird said that nuclear weapons "may be important for political purposes, but
they are useless for military purposes,' (WASHINGTON POST, Monday, April 11,
1982). They can only offer the ultimate and incomprehensible option of nuclear
war. In view of this, the LULAC National Executive Board passed a resolution
in support of a mutual and verifiable freeze on the testing production and
employment of nuclear weapons and their carriers, and LULAC joined the
Citizens Against Nuclear War (CAN), which is composed of fifty two national
trade union, professional, civil rights, and civil liberties, religious, and
environmental membership organizations.
"Because you (the United States) are the most powerful
nation on earth, you more than any other are responsible for
peace. Never has any nation borne so heavy a responsibility.
but there is no nobler a mission for a people."
Geroge Pompidou, President of Frenace (1969-1974), 1970.
"Controlled, universal disarmament is the imperative of
our time. The demands for it by the hundreds of millions
whose chief concern is the long future of themselves and
their children will, I hcpe, become so universal and so
insistent that no man, no government anywhere can withstand
it." President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1959.
WEAPONS V. READINESS
Where is the Defense Dollar Really Going?
+50%
+ 40
WEAPONS SPENDING
+ 30
+ 20
+ 10
0
- 10
- 20
READINESS SPENDING
Percent change as a share of the national defense budget.
- 30
- 40
- 50
FY1980
FY1981
FY1982
FY1983
FY1984
FY1985
FY1986
FY1987
FY1988
The graph above illustrates how rapidly the balance between weap-
ons and readiness spending in the national defense budget is shifting.
While the share of spending to research, develop and produce
weapons is growing at a rapid pace each year, the share of readiness
spending (personnel, operations and maintenance) is quickly declin-
ing. The percent change was calculated from February 1983 CBO
budget authority estimates.
HOPE
An independent Political
HISPANIC
EDUCATION
Education Arm of the
League of United Latin
American Citizens
ORGANIZED
for
POLITICAL
CENTRAL AMERICA AND U.S. POLICY UPDATE
"Our traditional struggles to achieve economic and social
parity give us a special view and a keener understanding of
changes taking place in the crowded, less developed nations of
the world. In a certain sense, we come from a Domestic Third
World." Dr. Ralph Guzman, former high level official in the
State Department,
"Latinos traditionally have been more concerned with
domestic bread-and-butter issues. But as we have become more
involved in the immigration issue, we have become more aware
that we cannot deal with it in a vacuum, that we need to
function in the larger context of United States policy toward
Latin America." Raul Yzaguirre, Executive Director of the
National Council of La Raza.
"We find the cultural insensitivity and ignorance which
is prevalent in U.S./Latin American policy and the insensiti-
vity towards and misunderstandings of the Hispanic community
in this country very much interrelated." Arnoldo S. Torres,
LULAC National Executive Director.
In May of this year, President Reagan went before a special joint
session of Congress to elicit support for his policy towards Central
America and, more specifically, as a reaction to a rejection by the The House
Foreign Affairs Committee of his request for an additional $50 million in
aid to El Salvador. "In summation" President Reagan said, "Tonight there
can be no question: the national security of all Americans is at stake in
Central America.'
On March 10, 1983, President Reagan had requested a new FY '83 package
of $110 million in military assistance for El Salvador. While the President
will receive some of that request, he will not receive the full $110
million and certain conditions to that aid have been set forth. One such
condition was that the administration appoint a special envoy to facilitate
negotiations in the Central American region. That special envoy, Ambassador
Richard Stone, will address LULAC's 54th National Convention on July 2, 1983.
P.O. Drawer 5427
2590 Morgan Ave.
Corpus Christi, Tx. 78405
512/882-8284
Guerrilla Strongholds
EL SALVADOR: pop. 4.7 million
Hotty Disputed Areas
Provisional US-backed government
Occasional Fighting
preparing for Dec. elections
War-shattered economy
-6,000 leftist guerrillas in several
factions hoid key regions
PAN
US seeks $206.3 million military,
$75.5 million economic aid FY 84
GUATEMALA: pop. 7.2 million
Strongman military government
AMERICAN
planning assembly elections in
Generally Peaceful
December with cautious US support
olettist guerrillas octive since 1962,
(occasional fighting
ecently beaten back in rural areas
this year)
San
Agricultural, light industrial
Salvador
economy
EL SALVADOR
.US seeks $50.2 million military,
$26.6 million economic aid in FY 84
Pacific Ocean
MEXICO
BELIZE
HONDURAS: pop. 3.7 million
Civilian government but pro-US
military wields predominant power
7,000 rightist guerrillas attack
Nicaragua from border areas
Original banana republic economy
US seeks $81 million military, $46.2
GUATEMALA
million economic aid in FY 84. plus
six new airstrips and regional
anti-guerrilla training center
HONDURAS
Anti-Sandinista Guerrilius
Guatemola*
Caribbera Sea
Tegucigalpa
Miskito Indian insurgents;
led by Stedman Fagoth
EL SALVADOR
Anti-Sandinista
Enlarged Above
Guerrillas
Principle US-backed
PANAMA: pop. 1.85 million
NICARAGUA
force; led by former
Civilian presia nt but head of Natl.
Somoza National Guard
Guard wields predominant power
NICARAGUA: pop. 2.9 million
Canal revenues, tonnage, transits up
Marxist Sana.nista junta moved left
Managua
since treaties of 1977
after ousting dictator Somoza in
Banking center, but investors
1979
former Sandinista soldiers and
nervous. US Southern Command HQ
State of siege to fight 7,000 rightist
officials: led by Eden Pastora
US plans $5.5 million militory, S12
guerrillas
million economic aid in FY 84, plus
US cut sugar quota, all aid. Gets
$4.6 million at School of the
extensive Cuban, Russian military and
Anti-Sandinista
Americas.
economic aid, also economic help
Guerrillas
from Europe and Latin America.
COSTA RICA
Pacific Ocean
San Jose
Panama
CENTRAL AMERICA:
SIX NEIGHBORS
COSTA RICA: pop. 2.3 million
PANAMA
Pro-U.S. working democracy
TO THE SOUTH
35% inflation, heavy debt
*No army Warried about rightist
guerrillas who attack Nicaragua
from border area
US seeks $72.2 million military,
COLOMBIA
$36.2 million economic aid FY 84*
*Source: Department of Defense
U.S. Aid to Latin America (1978-1983)
(in thousands of U.S. dollars)
Fiscal
Economic
Development
Military
PL 480
Fiscal
Economic
Development
Military
PL 480
Year
Support
Assistance
Assistance
Title I
Year
Support
Assistance
Assistance
Title I
Fund
(AID)
Fund
(AID)
BOLIVIA
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
1978
-
34,300
800
10,800
1978
-
1,300
700
-
1979
-
28,900
6,700
12,000
1979
-
26,400
1,000
13,900
1980
-
4,507
300
17,300
1980
-
34,640
3,500
15,000
1981
-
2,286
-
-
1981
-
17,393
3,430
15,000
1982 est.
-
2,693
-
-
1982 est.
-
24,700
5,450
17,000
1982 CBI
-
-
-
-
1982 CBI
40,000
-
-
-
1983
-
3,000
100
18,600
1983
-
26,000
10,250
19,000
COSTA RICA
ECUADOR
1978
-
6,900
-
-
1978
-
800
10,700
I
1979
-
16,400
-
-
1979
-
500
400
-
1980
-
13,561
-
-
1980
-
8.303
3,300
I
1981
-
11,475
35
-
1981
-
12,512
4,345
-
1982 est.
20,000
12,955
50
18,000
1982 est.
-
11,779
4,975
-
1982 CBI
70,000
-
-
-
1982 CBI
-
-
-
-
1983
60,000
15,000
150
10,000
1983
-
10,000
6,700
-
EL SALVADOR
HAITI
1978
-
8,000
-
-
1978
-
8,900
700
10,500
1979
-
6,900
-
-
1979
-
9,100
4(X)
8,600
1980
9,100
43,155
6,205
3,000
1980
1,000
10,100
100
8,600
1981
44,900
33,300
35,495
17,200
1981
-
9,160
423
9,000
1982 est.
40,000
34,970
81,000
22,400
1982 est.
-
12,015
550
9,000
1982 CBI
128,000
-
35,000
-
1982 CBI
5,000
-
-
-
1983
105,000
25,000
61,300
30,000
1983
-
15,000
715
11,000
GUATEMALA
HONDURAS
1978
-
4,500
-
-
1978
-
13,000
3,200
-
1979
-
17,400
-
-
1979
-
22,000
2,300
2,000
1980
-
7,764
-
-
1980
-
45,824
3,900
2,000
1981
-
9,135
-
I
1981
-
25,660
8,935
5,800
1982 est.
-
5,764
1
-
1982 est.
-
28,770
10,651
5,000
1982 CBI
-
-
-
-
1982 CBI
35,000
-
17,000
-
1983
-
8,000
251
-
1983
25,000
29,000
15,301
5,000
COLOMBIA
NICARAGUA
1978
-
-
52,200
-
1978
-
12,500
400
-
1979
-
300
13,000
-
1979
8,000
1,700
-
2,600
1980
-
340
300
-
1980
1,125
18,300
-
15,000
1981
-
-
284
1
1981
56,574
1,825
-
-
1982 est.
I
-
12,500
-
1982 est.
#
2,426
-
-
1982 CBI
-
-
-
I
1982 CBI
-
-
-
-
1983
-
-
12,860
-
1983
-
-
-
-
*$20 million in ESF is earmarked for Nicaragua by the International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1981. Nicaragua is not
mentioned in the Foreign Assistance and Related Programs Act of 1982. The distribution of these funds to Nicaragua is unlikely, given the
sense of the Appropriations Conference Report that no funds should be spent to these ends.
2
E 3222
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - Extensions of Remarks
June 28, 1983
and to subvert the revolutionary govern-
ment of Nicaragua in the most expeditious
manner possible. The question in Congress
has been at what speed to continue along a
path which invariably will lead us to direct
intervention or failure. Unfortunately. the
question has not been one of redefining ob-
jectives or methods, or of looking for intelli-
gent alternatives. As time goes on. the feasi-
bility of such alternatives diminishes.
In February of this year U.S. Army Sar-
geant Jay T. Stanley was injured by rebel
fire in El Salvador and, tragically, on May
25 the deputy Commander of U.S. military
advisors in El Salvador, Navy Lt. Command-
er Albert A. Schaufelberger, was killed. The
fires of the supporters and opponents of the
Administration's policy are being fueled by
this tragedy. As time goes on emotions, com-
mitments, and complications will be deep-
ened and our alternatives will become in-
creasingly fewer. narrower, and more dra-
matic. Now is the time for thoughtful and
deliberate decision-making. not for the with-
drawal from controversy which we have wit-
nessed on the part of all but a handful of
members of Congress such as yourself, for
fear of the President's finger being pointed
at them. The decision regarding U.S. direct
intervention. U.S. flexibility and support for
positive change and development in Central
America, or U.S. withdrawal from the
region is being made in favor of the Admin-
istration's inflexible policy by a non-active
Democratic alternative and by Congress'
lack of resolve.
Although Hispanics will be the first on
the front-line carrying out this unrealistic
and mistaken policy, and although we will
be the targets of the frustration of an
American people involved in an unwinable
LETTER FROM THE LEAGUE OF
war against Latinos, all Americans will pay
UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITI-
the price. Our involvement has already been
denounced by the United Nations and indi-
ZENS REGARDING CENTRAL
vidual countries such as Brazil, Spain,
AMERICA
Panama, and others. We are presently
breaking international law, our own
HON. NORMAN Y. MINETA
charters and treaties, and, as is increasingly
OF CALIFORNIA
apparent. the Boland Amendment in our ac-
tivities against Nicaragua. Further involve-
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ment will mean further isolation from our
Tuesday, June 28, 1983
allies and participation in an unpopular and
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I am in-
unwinable war.
serting into the RECORD a letter I re-
It is the shared obligation of the decision-
ceived from Arnoldo S. Torres, the na-
makers in Congress and the Administration
to see that international and our own laws
tional executive director for the
are obeyed, that peaceful coexistence with
League of United Latin American Citi-
our neighbors is sought and maintained,
zens (LULAC) expressing his views on
and that the lives of American citizens are
U.S. policy in Central America.
protected. As those obligations are increas-
LULAC is the Nation's oldest and larg-
ingly violated and as the number of deaths
est Hispanic Organization and I be-
of Americans in Central America increases.
lieve that the administration as well as
we must ask. who in Congress or the Admin-
Congress should consider their views
istration wishes to bear responsibility for
as we develop our policies relating to
failing to meet their shared obligations?
Central America. Thank you.
That failure means further military involve-
ment: the finger being pointed will be that
LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN
of war.
AMERICAN CITIZENS,
June 3, 1983.
Our continued military approach is exac-
Hon. NORMAN MINETA.
erbating the problems and death tolls in
Reyburn House Office Building,
Central America, and we are approaching
Washington, D.C.
the ultimate decision of present policy: will
DEAR CONGRESSMAN MINETA: As the days
we see it through (when we are forced to ac-
pass, the inevitable trajectory of our
knowledge that the military of El Salvador
present Central American policy becomes
and the "contras" cannot do it alone), or
ever more evident and ever more forebod-
will we realize that our attempts to inter-
ing. The Administration has chosen to
vene in El Salvador and Nicaragua are unre-
become militarily involved in no win situa-
alistic, and accept failure? When the day of
tions in El Salvador and Nicaragua: Con-
that decision comes, Congress and the ad-
gress has accepted that choice: we are in-
ministration will have failed to have met
volved. It has been apparent throughout
their shared responsibility. When that day
that the objectives of this policy are to for-
comes and when decisionmakers say that we
cibly suppress the opposition to the govern-
are already too involved to back away. let it
ment/military ruling body in El Salvador
not be said that they did not know what we
were getting into. What the President and
Congress are getting us into is very clear.
Respectfully.
ARNOLDO S. TOREES.
LULAC National Executive Director.