Xavier Becerra

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time on this measure. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Arizona has offered an amendment that bars funding for an agreement that Congress has yet to consider, much less be approved. This summer, the United States and Mexico signed a totalization agreement, an agreement that would coordinate retirement coverage for at least 3,000 American workers who divide their careers between America and Mexico. But this agreement is far from final. It must be approved by the State Department, then the White House, and then sent to Congress where the committee of jurisdiction, the Subcommittee on Social Security, which is part of the full Committee on Ways and Means, will carefully review it. This amendment is premature and tramples upon the deliberative process at the heart of our committee system. So I oppose this amendment on jurisdictional grounds, but I would also like to speak for a minute on some of the other statements that are being made by those who support this amendment. First, the United States is currently a partner in 20 totalization agreements, with countries ranging from Canada to South Korea. Totalization is not a new concept. In fact, currently we are saving American workers and their employees about $800 million from double taxation that would otherwise occur. An agreement with Mexico will mean that the U.S. has totalization agreements with 8 of our top 10 trading partners. Secondly, totalization agreements have no impact on immigration law. Today it is illegal for Social Security to pay benefits to undocumented immigrants. Totalization will not change that. Finally, totalization will not bankrupt the Social Security Trust Funds. In the long term, Social Security estimates that the impact to the trust funds will be negligible. In the short term, costs will approximate $105 million per year for the first 5 years. In comparison, in the last year with Canada, that totalization agreement with Canada cost $197 million. Whatever your beliefs are on the merits of such an agreement, we need to debate the facts, not the rhetoric. Another reason why is our first consideration of this issue should be before the Committee on Ways and Means, not as an amendment to an appropriations bill. I urge Members to vote no on the Hayworth amendment.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, Friday, July 9, 2004, I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall numbers 355, 356, 357, and 358. The votes I missed include rollcall vote 355 on Agreeing to the Gordon Amendment to H.R. 3598; rollcall vote 356 on Agreeing to the Jackson-Lee Amendment to H.R. 3598; rollcall vote 357 on Agreeing to the Larson Amendment to H.R. 3598; and rollcall vote 358, the Motion to Recommit with Instructions, H.R. 3595, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 355, 356, 357 and 358.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, July 6, 2004, I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall Nos. 326 and 327. The votes I missed include rollcall vote 326 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as amended, to H. Con. Res. 410, Recognizing the 25th Anniversary of the Adoption of the Constitution of the Republic of the Marshall Islands; and rollcall vote 327 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Con. Res. 257, Expressing the sense of Congress that the President should posthumously award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Harry W. Colmery. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 326 and 327.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, June 21, 2004, I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall Nos. 276, 277, and 278. The votes I missed include rollcall vote 276 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Res. 591, Expressing the Gratitude of the House of Representatives for the Contributions made by America's Community Banks; rollcall vote 277 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended H.R. 4363, the Helping Hands for Homeownership; and rollcall vote 278 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Res. 660, Congratulating Randy Johnson of the Arizona Diamondbacks on pitching a perfect game on May 18, 2004. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 276, 277, and 278.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. There are 8.2 million Americans unemployed today, another 4.7 million Americans who have been so frustrated in their search for a job that they have dropped out of the workforce looking for work, and another 4.7 million Americans who cannot find anything more than part-time employment: Close to 18 million Americans today not satisfied with their opportunities to have a full paying job. There were 2.7 million manufacturing jobs lost in the last 3 years. The share of the population in America that is working today at 62 percent is the lowest it has ever been since 1994. Payroll remains 5.5 million jobs short of the average that we have seen in most economic recoveries since World War II. What is the response of this House to those conditions of America's trying to work? Billions of dollars of tax incentives for corporations to invest abroad and ship American jobs with that investment. This is a textbook case of how loopholes seep into our Tax Code. Where else but in the world of catering to special interests would it take $150 billion in tax cuts for corporations to remedy a $4 billion problem? The dirtiest joke about all of this is that while we are giving tax cuts to corporations to send jobs overseas, there is a provision in this bill that actually would have bounty hunters to go out and try to collect taxes from Americans who actually filed a tax return but have not yet been able to pay the perhaps $500 that they still owe the IRS. So now these bounty hunters will be paid 25 percent of what they collect from you and you and you to do the work that the IRS says it could do at 4 to 5 percent of the cost. That is what this bill is loaded down with. That is why this bill should not win. Democrats had a bill that would have kept jobs here, given manufacturing corporations in America a chance to pay less in taxes if they kept jobs here. We were not given a chance to put that bill on the floor today. That is what we have today. Who will win? It will not be the interests of the American public, but there are a lot of special interests that are watching very closely. Vote against this bill.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in solemn remembrance of President Ronald Reagan. I do not stand alone. All across the country, and the world, we mourn. We remember a strong governor, President, husband, and father. Let us stand firmly by Mrs. Nancy Reagan and her family, offer our prayers and show our support and appreciation--let us through our actions bring comfort to the Reagan family to help them cope during this difficult time. Little can be said to make this difficult time easier. Given the outpouring of support that this country and his family have received from the world, words are not necessary. Words are not necessary to honor a man whose popularity stemmed from his ability to communicate. No words I can say today can erase the sorrow and feelings of loss shared by so many communities that he touched throughout his tenure as governor of my state of California and as the President of our nation. Even the ``Great Communicator'' often relied on actions--not words--to help those who needed it. At a time when the immigrants of our nation had nowhere to turn, President Reagan signed the historic Immigration Reform and Control Act, granting hard- working and deserving families legal permanent residence, paving the way for new American citizens, and thus uniting our nation. Today, as a united nation, we stand together as fellow Americans and with the world to mourn the loss of Ronald Wilson Reagan, fortieth President of the United States--the picture of unity communicating our sorrow, remembrance and honor for a leader.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the members of the United States armed services who make sacrifices daily in defense of our nation, and to pay my respects to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their country. As our men and women in uniform continue to answer the highest calling and place themselves in harm's way, their sacrifices have touched us all--regardless of race, economic status, or party lines. We all must honor the bravery and commitment that each of these men and women have so proudly displayed, as well as the courage and resilience of their families and loved ones. This moment of silence provides an opportunity for us to remind our troops that they remain in our thoughts and prayers. In my own district, California's 31st District, our community has suffered the loss of a heroic, noble, and admirable young man--Eric A. Ayon. I wish to take this opportunity to recognize his strength, valor, and bravery as well as the sacrifice endured by his wife, son and family. This family is just one of hundreds whose sacrifice we are recognizing and honoring today. Let us continue to pay our respects to our fallen soldiers and their families who suffer the greatest loss. Through this honor and remembrance, we can stand unified with gratitude for their sacrifice.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, May 20, 2004, I was unavoidably detained, and unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall numbers 203 and 204. The votes I missed include rollcall vote 203 on the Tauscher Amendment to H.R. 4200, the Defense Authorization Act for FY 2005; and rollcall vote 204 on the Ryun (KS) amendment to H.R. 4200. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 203 and ``nay'' on rollcall vote 204.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, June 1, 2004, I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall Nos. 210, 211, and 212. The votes I missed include rollcall vote 210 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Con. Res. 295, Congratulating and saluting Focus: HOPE on its 35th anniversary; rollcall vote 211 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended to H. Res. 612, Recognizing the firefighters, police, public servants, civilians, and private businesses who responded to the fire in Richmond, Virginia, on March 26, 2004; and rollcall vote 212 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Con. Res. 417, Honoring the Tuskegee Airmen. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 210, 211, and 212.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. To be sure we are clear, this is a bill to make the child tax credit permanent, to extend it to include families that were not part of the legislation before, those families that are high-income earners. The other part of this that we have to talk about is the fact that it is $22 billion worth of costs without paying for it. The first part everyone will agree on. Child tax credit, let us go with it. Second part, increase it or expand it to include families who are among the highest-income earners in this country, we could debate that, but let us do it fiscally responsibly. The third part, to not pay for it, is the irresponsible part of this legislation. If my colleagues want to do something to expand the child tax credit at the same time they are making it permanent in the face of what is today a $400 billion deficit for this country, and in the face of, as we have heard other Members say, a $7.2 trillion debt that this Nation has on which we pay close to a quarter of a trillion dollars a year simply in interest, does nothing to give anyone any additional service or benefit, just paying interest. If we did not have that $17.2 trillion debt, that is about $24,000 for each man, woman, and child in this country today; and if we did not have in this fiscal year a more than $400 billion deficit that we face, that adds to that national debt, then perhaps you could easily talk about extending this to the high-income earners and not paying for the cost of it. But that is not the case. Today, what is the world like? We have men and women, over 100,000 of them, that have not seen their children, in some cases, for more than a year. We have a Social Security System where people are today contributing for their retirement, where every single cent of the Social Security surplus is being spent and more. We have a situation where more than a million and a half Americans in the last 3\1/2\ years have lost their jobs. And those Americans who have been lucky enough in the last few months to regain a job, are finding they are earning less today than in the job they held previously. So, then, you have to ask yourself, is this truly the direction we want our country to take? Is this the one problem we have to tackle today, increasing the child tax credit to include high-income earning families in America at a cost of expanding the size of the national debt? And that is where folks on this side of the aisle break. Because we would love to be able to go back to our districts and say, you know what, we just extended the child tax credit, we made it permanent so you can always count on it being there. But you cannot in good faith do that to people who have sons and daughters in Iraq or in a war where we have no exit strategy, where we have already spent more than $166 billion, again not saying how we are paying for it, and what we are doing is adding to the debt. One of our colleagues from Nevada came to the floor and spoke eloquently just a moment ago about how he held a newborn child in his arms, and he talked about how that child tax credit will now go to that family because of that child. What he did not say, of course, is that while that child is going to help that family receive, perhaps, if they are lucky enough to qualify, a $1,000 child tax credit, that child is born today with a $2,000 additional debt just from the last four bills that have passed this House in the last month that deal with tax cuts: this child tax credit; the marriage penalty relief; the relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax; and the cut on the 10 percent bottom tax bracket. If you total all those up and extend them for the 10 years, that is over $1 trillion dollars in cost, unpaid for. So you cannot continue doing this and be realistic, be fiscally responsible, be fair; and we go from there. This is not the way to go. Go with the Democratic substitute.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, May 17, 2004, I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall Nos. 177, 178, and 179. The votes I missed include rollcall vote 177 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Con. Res. 420, Recognizing National Transportation Week; rollcall vote 178 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Con. Res. 423, Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds; and rollcall vote 179, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended to H. Con. Res. 403, Condemning the Government of the Republic of Sudan for Its Attacks Against Innocent Civilians. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 177, 178, and 179.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, the low-income housing tax credit created by Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code, commonly known as the rental credit, is responsible for the production of more than one million affordable housing units valued at over $100 billion since 1987. Because of its tremendous success, the Bush administration and a bipartisan group of Members have proposed the creation of a new credit modeled on the rental credit and targeted at creating affordable housing for purchase by low- and moderate-income families. Concerns have been raised, however, that a homeownership credit, not properly crafted, could have unintended, negative consequences on the highly successful rental credit and on the very low-income Americans who benefit from the housing produced by it. Until today, these concerns have led me to withhold my support from H.R. 839, the ``Renewing the Dream Tax Credit Act,'' which was introduced early last year by the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Portman and the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cardin. I have decided, however, that despite my continued reservations, I will add my name as a cosponsor today because the goal of increasing affordable homeownership opportunities is one I strongly support and a well-developed tax incentive could play an important part in that effort. Of course, I will work to ensure that the matters detailed below are considered carefully as the bill moves forward in Congress. My prime concern is that the legislation when enacted not adversely affect the existing rental credit. How might this happen? Put simply, in the event that rental credits are less attractive than homeownership credits to equity investors, pricing for rental credits may fall and the program may be less effective in meeting the demand for high quality, affordable housing. In addition, it is worth emphasizing that the affordable homeownership tax credit should be utilized in communities where a new subsidy is clearly needed to enable homeownership. In some parts of the country, the supply of new subsidized homes resulting from the credit's creation may endanger the economics of existing multifamily rental properties and cause the value of homes presently owned by low- and moderate-income households--the successful result of current affordable housing programs--to fall. We must be exceptionally wary of this possibility. Mr. Speaker, in closing, despite the reservations I have raised that deserve continued analysis and deliberation, I am pleased today to add my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 839. Increasing affordable homeownership opportunities for my constituents and families across America has long been a top priority for me and this proposal can certainly help us work toward that goal.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, for the managing of the time on this side of the aisle.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have before us another proposal which in this case I think every single Member of Congress would like to step up to the plate and say we need to do something like this. We have a tax system where oftentimes folks who work very hard, those who are striving and obtaining middle-class status, sometimes find they are paying more taxes than people earning 10, 20, 100 times what they are. That seems very unfair, and it is very unfair. When we have a tax proposal which actually reduces taxes by starting at the bottom, by taking the lowest tax rate and giving a tax break there, you guarantee giving a tax cut to everyone, not just those who are very wealthy, but those who are middle income and those who are of modest income. If you start at the bottom tax bracket, everyone will fall into that bracket, whether rich or poor. So when we look at this particular proposal we have before us, H.R. 4275, from the onset we want to say, let us do something like this because it helps all of America. And so we should be able to say let us do this because it helps all of America. The difficulty is while we should do something like this, this bill, H.R. 4275, does not help all of America. What is worse is if I can tell Members that those who are not helped are those in the middle of America, Members would be most surprised. Members would think perhaps it does not help everyone because we avoid giving the very wealthy, who got tremendous tax relief from previous tax bills that the President proposed, it would be unfair to pile on top of the more than $130,000 in tax cuts they have received in the last couple of years even additional sums; but that is not the case. The folks who are losing here, and there are millions who would lose, are folks who make between $50,000 and $100,000. In other words, the one-fifth of America that most of us consider middle class is the group of Americans that are going to suffer, millions of them. Within the next 5 or so years, some 33 millions of those households that earn between $55,000 and $100,000 are the households that are not going to get to benefit from this particular tax cut proposal. As unfair as that sounds, that is the reality. There are ways to cure it, and on this side of the aisle there will be a substitute proposal presented which ensures that every single taxpaying family, including those between $50,000 and $100,000 would qualify for the tax reduction in this particular proposal. It is a simple amendment, it just needs to be paid for; and we have come up with a way to pay for it which is not just fair but fiscally responsible. Mr. Speaker, we have a proposal here that on its face can be sold to the American public, but in reality and in its implementation, not only is it unfair because it leaves out a good portion of middle America, at the same time it does nothing to cure what is going to haunt the rest of America for many, many years, and that is this growing deficit that we have in our Federal budget. This year we are being told we will have a budget deficit exceeding perhaps $400 billion. That is more than $1,000 for every man, woman, and child in this country. Think of it as a birth tax. Any child born today automatically is born with that family owing the Federal Government as a result of President Bush's budget for this year over $1,000 to the Federal Government, just on bearing that child. This proposal, which will cost billions of dollars, and as I said, it has no legitimate purpose behind it to help reduce the taxes for all Americans, if we do the right thing, is not bad because you are reducing taxes on one end, but if you are just raising them somewhere else, you are not getting much of a benefit. We will have an opportunity to get into this later. I applaud the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) for his efforts to try to move this forward. I would hope at the end of the day we realize we have not just an opportunity to reduce taxes for all Americans, but we have a way to do it so that the implementation really will reach all Americans, not just some; and we will do it in a fiscally responsible way by paying for the costs of this, rather than add to the costs of the national debt and the growing Federal deficit that we have today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to something my friend from Wisconsin mentioned, that last week we passed legislation from this House that would take care of the Alternative Minimum Tax problem. Again, that is one chapter in another book. What he does not mention is the other chapters in the book say that that was relief for 1 year. So all those millions of Americans, the 13 million Americans of the 100 million Americans who are Tax filers would for 1 year, if that legislation takes effect, be saved. But in 2006, 2007, 2008, it jumps right back up. What the gentleman does not say is that the reason we are in this fix to begin with is because the other side of the aisle, as is proposed in these bills, is not willing to put forth a permanent reduction right away because of the cost. So we are coming back every year doing this piecemeal because it seems to cost less, and the American public does not realize what the ultimate cost of this is. But you can only fool the American public so long. Let us do things right, be fiscally responsible, and do it fairly. We do not mind doing it. Let us just be fiscally responsible and fair about it instead of cloaking this behind some device and some statement. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the committee.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as I said before, there is the kernel of a very good idea in this legislation, and I believe that both sides have tried to extract the good idea from the proposal before us today. The difficulty is, as you ask any farmer, it takes time and it takes money and it takes a lot of sweat to have anything grow. No one in America should believe that we can pass legislation that will cost more than $200 billion and not have it take some sweat and some cost for America. Money does not grow on trees. There is a cost involved. It is a worthwhile idea, because this is a tax cut that everyone can agree to, because it starts from the bottom and everyone would get it, if you corrected the AMT, which, unfortunately, this legislation does not do. So while there is the kernel of a good idea, it is destroyed by the reluctance or the unwillingness to do what is right, and that is to take care of the 33 million Americans by 2010, in 5\1/2\ years, who will fall into the Alternative Minimum Tax and will see any savings from this particular tax cut washed out when they have to file their taxes using the Alternative Minimum Tax. Secondly, when you are facing mounting deficits, the largest this country has ever seen, and you are starting to now see the consequences of it, you have to reflect back on the term used in the late 90s, early 2000, when we talked about this ``irrational exuberance'' of the stock market, where you kept seeing the stock market just rise and rise and rise, and people could not make sense of it. But everyone kept buying and buying and buying, because that is where we were headed. All of a sudden the floor dropped out from under us, and people paid the price. Talk to the employees from Enron, who saw their company go bankrupt and saw their entire pension savings washed away not only because of Enron's corruption, but because of the drop in the stock market. That irrational exuberance is now driving much of what we have seen on the floor this year. A quick example: this year alone in this House we have passed out, and I will say to all of America, I did not vote for these measures, not because I did not want to, but because I did not think it would be fiscally responsible, we passed marriage penalty tax relief, a kernel of a good idea, unpaid for, over $100 billion; the extension that my colleague from Wisconsin mentioned of AMT relief for 1 year only that will cost close to $18 billion to make sure those Americans don't fall into the AMT. Good, but only 1 year. Three, a flexible spending plan that was on the floor yesterday for debate, which is, again, a good idea, to allow Americans who have health care costs to be able to have a pot of money that they can extend over to the next year if they did not use it up. A great idea. Cost, close to $10 billion, unpaid for. Extension of the 10 percent tax bracket that we are debating today, about $220 billion, unpaid for. The child tax credit extension done a few weeks back, again a good idea for families that have children. $161 billion, unpaid for. Total, more than $500 billion this year alone in unpaid-for tax cuts, most of which have a good idea behind them. To add to the $400 billion- plus deficit for this year alone, which adds to, as you heard my colleague from Massachusetts mention earlier, the more than $3 trillion debt that the Nation owes as a whole. Irrational exuberance? Take a look at today's paper, business section: ``U.S. trade deficit grows unchecked. $47 billion gap in the month of March.'' We are on track to have a more than $500 billion trade deficit with other countries. We are going to owe, at the end of this year, just for this year, to foreign interests, more than $500 billion. What they are going to do with those securities they get, that promissory note from us in its place, we do not know. If they dump it all of a sudden, we are in real trouble. What else should we know? Gasoline prices. Gasoline prices a year ago were 50 cents less per gallon. If you are the average American, that means it has added about $50 a month in your gasoline bill. That is about $600 a year more in gasoline this year you will be paying. On top of everything I have said before, the $400 billion-plus deficit for this year, that adds more than $1,000 for every man, woman and child. I will call it the birth tax. The $50 a month that you pay, call it a $600 birth tax, because if you have a child, let us put the debt on that child for the gasoline; and on top of that, there is $500 billion more that this House just passed, and, by the way, the Senate has not done it, because they know better, that would be added. Before you know it, you have got to conclude that this is irrational exuberance. Let us get real. Great ideas. Every single time these proposals have come up, the Democratic alternative has said okay, good ideas; but let us pay for them where we can. Where we cannot, let us pare them down, because we cannot continue to sell the American public a bill of goods. Someone will pay for this. Good ideas. We would all love to be there. If we had real discussions in committee, we could have hashed this out and come up with a bipartisan bill. But we bypass the committee process. Again, America does not know that. We are coming to the floor without having discussed this in committee. That is okay. That is the way it is going to work. We will live with that. But do not let the American public believe you can do this stuff and pluck it off trees and pay for it. Let us do it the right way. Let us be fiscally responsible. Let us be fair. Make sure that those from the President's previous tax cuts of a couple of years ago, who received $130,000 in benefits if you were a millionaire in tax cuts, pay their fair share. If a guy in Iraq, one of our soldiers, a man or woman, can sacrifice a little bit, and probably not take advantage of any of these benefits, then certainly those folks who are the millionaires, who are taking home the lion's share of all of these tax cuts, can sacrifice a bit to help us pay. That is what we do. We have a proposal that would say take the one- fifth of 1 percent wealthiest to help pay for this, for all Americans. We think you can do it. Sure, it hits millionaires; but it helps middle-class Americans. It is fiscally responsible, fair, and something that would get a bipartisan vote that could get signed by the President. Mr. Speaker, we are going, I guess, to continue to do this in the House and not watch the Senate do any of this whatsoever; and we are going to end again this year without having given people what they keep thinking we are going to give them, and that is what I think damages this institution overall as a whole. Let us move forward in a bipartisan fashion. We can do it, because there is a kernel of a good idea in these proposals. But we can be fiscally responsible and fair at the same time. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with some of what the gentleman just said, but the gentleman has to read the whole book to understand, not just look at certain chapters in the book. What the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) has excluded from his reading of the book is that we have something approaching 13 million households in America today, today, that by the time they file their taxes for next year will not qualify for the benefits in this proposal. That is 13 million, and that is because of the AMT, the alternative minimum tax. Remember back in the 1970s, early 1980s when we heard stories of the multibillion dollar corporations, the multimillionaires who at the end of the day when they filed their taxes would pay zero in taxes where the average American was having to give Uncle Sam some money? Well, there was a law passed to make sure that everyone, not just middle class, but even the super rich and megawealthy corporations paid some taxes. That was the alternative minimum tax legislation. But we have seen incomes creep up some, we have seen inflation creep up some; and as a result, the alternative minimum tax has seen more people creep up into its brackets and now qualify to have to pay taxes under the alternative minimum tax. There are 13 million households who next year when paying their taxes will not benefit from this proposal because they will fall under the AMT. And by 2010, in 5\1/2\ years, we will have 33 million households that will have crept up into the AMT world. Therefore, while they may get a tax break under this proposal at first, when they have to switch over to do their calculation for their taxes under the AMT, they will get nothing. This bill does nothing to cure that. The Democratic substitute does. We do not think it is fair to sell this as a tax cut for everyone when, indeed, middle-class America is the one that is losing out the most, and all at the expense of growing the size of the national debt. Let us be fiscally responsible and let us be fair. We have a way to do that. We would hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would join in that effort.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 1 minute. The gentleman from Tennessee called it Alice in Wonderland. I, a few minutes ago, called it irrational exuberance. And when we look at the bottom-line facts, not what projections are, because, by the way, 3 years ago it was projected that we would have a $5.6 trillion surplus, not deficits. When we look at the bottom-line facts, we are in some real trouble. Interest rates, which is really the determiner of whether or not Americans have more money in their pocket or not, have gone up in the last 2 months alone about a point, 1 percentage rate. What does that mean? Well, if you have a mortgage of about $200,000, 30-year rate, fixed, not flexible and not one that goes up and down, you are probably going to pay about, on that $200,000 mortgage, you are going to pay about $120 more per month now. That means at the end of the year, you are some $1,500 more out of pocket, and over the life of that 30-year loan, about $43,000. That is the cost of seeing an economy that is not fiscally righting. Finally, one last point. That same business section page that said, ``U.S. trade deficit grows unchecked'' has an interesting story at the bottom part: ``MCI awards $8.1 million severance.'' A gentleman who worked for 7 months for MCI WorldCom, which was in bankruptcy, was paid $8.1 million plus $400,000 more for vacation and so forth, severance, paid for 7 months work at the same time they are planning to announce that they are planning to trim their workforce by 12,000 people. Irrational exuberance.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend from California for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, let us make sure that we do not confuse our colleagues or anyone who might be watching this on what we are talking about. First, flexible spending accounts, most people who have insurance, health insurance through an employer, are eligible to, pretax, ahead of time, declare how much they think they are going to spend out of pocket that will not be reimbursed by their employer's health plan. That way, you are using money that has not yet been taxed to pay for some of these services, a copayment that you may have for a service that you receive, or vision or dental benefits that are not covered completely under your health care plan where you pay out of pocket. Those out-of-pocket costs, if you have a flexible spending account and you bank money in that account at the beginning, you can then use that money, you can bring down the account, and use that money, pre- tax, to pay for your out-of-pocket costs for your health services that are not covered by your employer's health care plan. A great idea, pretax dollars to pay for health care services. That is fine. Then the notion under the current law, that if you have money in that account and you do not spend it down through your out-of-pocket expenditures to reimburse yourself for those out-of-pocket expenditures, by the end of the year anything left over you lose. So you have to calculate how much you think you are going to end up spending out of pocket beyond what your employer's health care plan would provide, and then hope you spend it all. Some folks find themselves in a position where they still have money left over in this flexible spending account at the end of the year, and they lose that. That is a calculated risk. This proposal to try to allow some flexibility in that use-it-or- lose-it rule says you could carry over a certain sum, I think it is about $500, into the next year. So let us say you used up all but $200 in your flexible spending account; rather than lose it at the end of this year, you would get to carry that over into next year's flexible spending account. So then you would be able to go ahead and budget based on what you think your needs will be next year. A great idea. What is the problem? There are two. First, you got to ask the question, why complicate such a simple, straightforward, and sensible idea to allow us to carry forward a portion of that flexible spending account money to the next year and to modify that use-it-or-lose-it rule? Why then complicate it by saying, by the way, which are going to let you send it over to what are called HSAs, these health savings accounts which are principally accounts which help wealthy folks or healthy folks when it comes to getting access to health care, because these HSAs give you money you can use later on to buy these catastrophic care plans for health care, which, for the most part, the only folks who can afford to do that, whether healthwise afford or monetarily afford, are people who are very wealthy or very healthy, because they do not have to worry about trying to find a health care plan, because they figure they are 25 years old, they are not going to die, or they have so much money they can pay for whatever services they need, or they have enough health care through other types of plans or insurance. HSAs do not help the bulk of Americans. So why complicate this issue on a practical idea on giving us some flexibility on the spending accounts, the flexible spending accounts. The second problem, there are 8.4 billion reasons in the second problem. $8.4 billion is the cost this bill. The reason those $8.4 billion are 8.4 billion reasons there is a problem with this is we are $400 billion-plus in deficit this year for the Federal budget. So it is something different if you are talking about a Federal budget that is balanced and saying we are going to spend $8.4 billion more, because this bill does not tell us how we are going to pay for it. So this is not a case where we are saying, well, the budget is balanced at the Federal level. We are taking care of all of our expenses. We are taking care of the needs of the soldiers in Iraq, which, by the way, the President just told us he needs another $25 billion as a down payment. That is not saying that is going to cover the cost. That is a down payment. We are being told in the education committees they are cutting the amounts of money we are spending for our kids in schools. We are told the that the President's budget proposes cuts in veterans services, for people who have served in our Armed Forces and are now veterans. We are told in health care, believe it or not, the proposal in the House is to cut Medicaid spending for aged, blind, and disabled individuals in this country more than $2 billion. So were we talking about a balanced Federal budget, a proposal that costs $8.4 billion and does not tell us how it is going to pay for itself, you may want to think about whether we should do that or not. But when you are $400 billion in debt, the largest Federal deficit we have ever seen in the history of this country, to talk about not paying for this is crazy. Especially when it comes to education, veterans services, other health care programs, this Congress is requiring that there be a pay-for for any proposal that costs money. One more time: If I want to increase health care services to aged individuals, poor seniors in this country, I have to find a way to pay for that proposal before it can get through this House. If I want to increase spending for our schools and all the children that go to our schools today, I have to find something to pay for that proposal before it can get through this House. But this proposal, as sensible as it might sound, does not need that. Especially when you add the part about sending money off to these HSAs, to these health savings accounts, which help wealthy and healthy individuals, it makes very little sense. So a good idea, complicated by bad ideas within it, makes it very tough. That has sort of marked this whole session of Congress, and I hope we find a way to be more sensible about moving forward with ideas. The Democratic substitute addresses this, and I hope that we can vote for the Democratic substitute.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA). Earlier today, ACTA representatives formally presented the U.S. Department of Transportation with the final payments for a loan, including interest, which totals nearly $573 million. This final payment was made 28 years ahead of schedule. Opened on time and within budget, the Alameda Corridor is a 20-mile rail expressway connecting dock terminals in the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to transcontinental rail yards located in downtown Los Angeles. The project proceeds primarily along and adjacent to Alameda Street--with grade separations to safeguard local communities and pedestrian and vehicle traffic--through or bordering the cities of Vernon, Huntington Park, South Gate, Lynwood, Compton, Carson, Los Angeles, and the County of Los Angeles. Much of the Corridor's success was made possible by an innovative federal loan, which deferred debt service repayments in the early years of the project and allowed for financing at reasonable interest rates through the bond market. In fact, this novel financing approach was the basis for the Transportation Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act of 1998 (TIFIA), a national program to select projects for credit assistance. The Alameda Corridor is a project of national significance as it facilitates the movement of commerce from around the world to the entire nation. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach together handle more than 40 percent of the nation's imports by value. More than 2 million jobs nationwide are associated with trade through these ports. These workers, and this country, benefit from the Federal government's role in assuming the early project risk that made the Alameda Corridor possible. Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me again congratulate the ACTA team for their management of the project and the early loan repayment completed today. The Alameda Corridor is a model project and has set a new standard for excellence. I look forward to working on future ``goods movement'' projects such as this that will benefit our region and the Nation.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, everyone who has spoken today on both sides of the aisle supports tax relief for married couples. In fact, I know of no one who is going to come here and say to you they are prepared to vote against marriage penalty relief for married couples in this country. But at a time when we are facing as a result of policies in this government the largest deficit in the Nation's history, some $521 billion, and at a time when there is a double whammy of having to fight a war in Iraq and Afghanistan with no sense of when we are going to have an opportunity to bring our troops home and at what cost, we have to move on legislation like this in a responsible fashion. This legislation will cost over $100 billion. We do not have $100 billion to pull out of the Federal Treasury's pocket to pay for this bill. That means the deficit of the Nation will increase that much more. As I mentioned at the inception of this debate, we have a $7 trillion-plus national debt. I guess you could continue spending, the credit card looks good, but at some point we have to pay. And if we are not going to pay, that means our children will pay. At a time when we are this year, as a result of the administration's request, underfunding the President's own No Child Left Behind Act for education some $8 billion to $10 billion, at a time when we are underfunding the IDEA legislation, which is for special education needs of our kids throughout this country, by more than $2 billion this year, at a time when we are failing to help 44 million Americans have access to health insurance, at a time when we see men and women every day sacrificing their life in places like Afghanistan and Iraq for us, here we are talking about giving $100 billion in tax cuts, when we are not willing to pay for them. The Democrat substitute simply says, let us give that tax relief, but let us pay for it. We do so by taking the top one-fifth of 1 percent of the richest Americans in this country, one-fifth of 1 percent, and saying to them, you are going to get about $136,000 in tax cuts from the 2001 and 2003 tax bills that were passed. Take $100,000 instead of $136,000. That will help us take care of the millions of families, tens of millions of families that will otherwise face this marriage tax penalty. Sacrifice a little bit the way the young men or women in Afghanistan are doing today or Iraq are doing today, or the working family making $40,000 or $50,000 is doing today. You will still get $100,000. That is more in relative terms and in absolute terms in the tax cut than any other income group in America. One-fifth of 1 percent of the richest families in America would help cover the cost. That way we do not add another $100 billion to the national debt. Cannot do that? I guess that is considered responsible. Some of us believe we owe it to the people of this country to spend, but spend responsibly; to enact legislation, but do it responsibly. That is what I think the Democratic substitute does. It simply says, let us not try to hoodwink you, let us not do tax policy in the back room with a big black monster back there you cannot see. Let us do it so people can understand transparently, clearly. Big print, not fine print, is what we are trying to say. Let us give marriage tax relief to all families, but do it responsibly without adding to the debt that will have to be paid by the children of the people that will receive some of that relief. Do not take it from Peter to give it to Paul. Let us do it the right way. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Democratic substitute.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to mention that the last time I looked the majority party is in control of both the House and the Senate and controls any spending bills that come out of this Congress. Of course, they first are sent over to us by the White House, meaning the President as well. So in terms of who controls the spending and who is splurging, the minority party would love to have control of both the House and White House, but at this stage that is in the hands of the majority party, so the gentleman should take his concerns directly to his leadership of his party. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).