Xavier Becerra

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we all agree that we have to remove any type of voter fraud that might exist in our electoral system, and we need to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law anyone who does violate that, and we have to make sure that we base our laws on the evidence and documented facts that are out there. The reality is that while we know that there are isolated cases of voter abuse, it does not amount to what this majority is trying to make us believe, that we must now disenfranchise thousands, if not millions, of American citizens from the ability to vote, simply to tackle what we hear are anecdotal stories about people who may have abused the process. Mr. Speaker, it may not be an intended consequence, but it certainly is an inescapable consequence that this bill will disenfranchise many Americans who are citizens and wish to vote. It will also amount to a poll tax, as we have heard. Nearly 75 percent of Americans do not have a passport. It costs about $100 to get one. In many parts of our country, especially in the South, we have many elderly African Americans and a number of Native Americans throughout our country, who were born at home or under the care of midwives, who never received a birth certificate. Approximately 6 to 10 percent of the American electorate does not have any form of State identification. African Americans are four to five times less likely than whites to have photo identification. And, finally, in Georgia, 36 percent of its voters over the age of 75 do not have government-issued photo IDs. Isolated cases of abuse must be addressed, but this bill does not do that. It takes a meat axe to try to deal with the problem, and if you do not believe me, then talk to the folks who were victims of the Katrina hurricane, who lost everything, including any type of personal identification. How do they tackle the problem of trying to go vote and only being given 48 hours to show a photo ID that they no longer have? We can resolve this in a bipartisan fashion, but this is not the direction to go. I urge Members to vote against this rule and against this bill.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, with approximately 12 days left in this legislative 2- year session, we are talking about retreads, an idea that we have already voted on before, an idea that has passed this House but has been rejected by the Senate. That is what we are being left with to tell the people of America what we will do about our broken immigration laws. We are on a path to do nothing once again in this Congress on immigration reform. This is a bill which says we want to build a fence but provides not a single penny to get the job done on a project that will cost several billion dollars. This is a bill that says we should try to protect our borders but does not one single thing to increase the number of Border Patrol agents, Immigration Enforcement officers, or Customs inspectors that we need to make sure that we protect our borders. This is a bill that says it wants to protect America but does not a single thing about the cargo containers that are coming into this country through all our seaports every day, some 12 million or so cargo containers per year. We are not doing anything to increase our inspection of them when only one of every 16 of those cargo containers that enter into our country is inspected as we speak. Mr. Speaker, we are on a path to do nothing. We are in essence moonwalking on the issue of immigration reform once again. Without the Senate's supporting us in the last 12 days of this legislative 2-year session, what can we accomplish? Not a great deal. There is a bipartisan bill out there that we could vote on today and get this done to the American people's satisfaction, but that is not being proposed today. Instead, we have a prescription to do nothing. It is time to change. Democrats are ready to sit down with our Republican colleagues and friends and come up with a bipartisan approach that is tough, smart, and comprehensive. Let's get it done.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, September 14, 2006, I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall Nos. 443 and 444. The votes I missed included final passage of H.R. 2965, the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act and a vote on ordering the previous question for providing for the consideration of H.R. 6061, the Secure Fence Act of 2006. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 443 and ``no'' on rollcall vote 444.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 994 was our opportunity in this House for the Members of the House of Representatives to speak, not as Republicans, not as Democrats, not as conservatives or liberals, but as proud Americans, one Nation commemorating the events of 9/11. That is in fact what the 100 Members of the other body, the Senate, did when they unanimously, 100 Members, passed their resolution commemorating America's faith, its determination, and certainly our response to the vicious attacks perpetrated on 9/11. We could have demonstrated our faith in our country by acknowledging the heroes, all of them, the men and women who gave their lives on 9/ 11. We could have acknowledged the families who have suffered tremendous loss. We could have acknowledged our law enforcement and military personnel, our safety servicemembers, those who work every day to protect us. Instead, cloaked within this resolution in this House is language that is controversial, that is not supported by many Members in this House, that indeed is not supported by many people in the public, and it is cloaked within the words to commemorate the events and the people that make us proud about how we responded on September 11, 2001. Many believe in this country that we are not as safe as we should be. Many of us believe that we have a right to be tough today as we respond to those who wish to harm us. Many of us believe we must act smartly as we respond to those who wish to harm us. But many of us believe we need to have a great deal more hope that we can do things in a better way. And, unfortunately, today we must report to the world, as did the 9/11 Commission that explored the events after 9/11 and our response, that indeed today we have failed our people in responding adequately with the government that we have with us today. Five years after 9/11, the members of the 10-member bipartisan Commission on 9/11 issued a report card on how the Federal Government has responded to their recommendations. Their report card included five Fs, 12 Ds, and two incompletes. It is irresponsible for this resolution today to say the Nation is safer than it was on September 11, 2001, when there is still so much work ahead of us and so much that is preoccupying our time outside of our own domestic borders. Our failures are critical. Today, only one in every 16 cargo containers that come into all of our ports throughout our Nation are ever inspected before they enter into our territories. Today in America we talk about our broken immigration system, and yet today we stand some 11 days before we are closing this 2-year legislative session without having addressed comprehensive immigration reform the way the American public has demanded, and today we know that there are some 10 to 20 million people who live in the shadows of America working every day in this country, not able to come out because they don't have documents to be here but still working, and we go on and do nothing to address the fact that there are some 12 million people who live in our shadows. We don't know what they are doing, we don't know how they are doing. And today we have a resolution that doesn't treat all of these different issues that are coming before us. Mr. Speaker, we could do this much differently. If you talk to America's troops in Iraq and throughout the world, they could give you some answers of what we should be doing. If you talk to the American families who suffered from 9/11, they could tell you what we could be doing. I believe we should be not speaking politics, and I urge my colleagues to let's move forward together bipartisanly to move forward commemorations that really do have the support of all Americans.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, July 24, 2006, I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall Nos. 394, 395 and 396. The votes I missed included motions to suspend the rules and pass the Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2005 (S. 1496), the National Heritage Areas Act of 2005 (S. 203) and a bill to establish a grant program whereby moneys collected from violations of the corporate average fuel economy program are used to expand infrastructure necessary to increase the availability of alternative fuels (H.R. 5534). Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall Nos. 394, 395 and 396.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I hate to say it but I think it has become very obvious that our system for devising trade agreements, so very important to this country's functioning around the world, has not only broken, but it has broken completely. Today, we have a trade regime which has led to the largest trade deficits this country has ever experienced. The latest report is that the trade deficit for the month of May was almost $64 billion. We purchased $64 billion more in goods than we were able to sell to others around the world. We are on pace this year to have a trade deficit that is larger than $800 billion. We have never faced that before, but we continue to put forward trade agreements like these that leave us naked to competition that is neither free nor fair. Today, Mr. Speaker, you find that for every six ships that China sends laden with goods from China into this country, only one of those six ships returns to China with American goods in it for Chinese purchase. And we continue to bring forward trade deals like these that say simply this when it comes to protecting the rights of workers, whether in this country or in the country that we are reaching an agreement with: Enforce your own laws. And even though we know in most cases many of the countries, including Oman, do not have laws that protect their workers, which means that our workers will suffer as well, we continue to move forward with these agreements. Yet, if you are not convinced that these trade agreements and the regime itself now that we use is broken, look at the provision that was included in the agreement that allows a company that has substantial business in Oman to operate our ports. We dealt with this issue with the Dubai Ports World issue. We rejected that opportunity for a Dubai company to come in and run our ports. Yet in this agreement we have something that would allow that to happen. I know many of my friends on the Republican side say that will never happen, we have got the national security, essential security interests protection exemption. Then why is it in the agreement in the first place? What you do is you set us up to go before a trade dispute resolution panel that is not ours. It is not our courts that will decide. It will be some other body. We have now today a system that has led to these large trade deficits, and they continue to come forward. It is time for a change. We need a new direction when it comes to our trade policy. It is broken in this Congress the way we deal with our trade. Not only for our workers, but also for the health of our American companies that have to compete in this world, where artificially other companies in other countries are gaining advantage over us because they are not following the rules. This is another example of why we should reject trade agreements that do not protect America's interests, whether security-wise or otherwise. Vote against this trade deal.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, we should be proud, because in this country we look back at our history so that we may move forward wisely into the future. The Voting Rights Act is proof positive that America learns from its history. Today, more Americans from every corner of our Nation, whatever their race, creed, or color may exercise their right to vote. But, Mr. Speaker, I said more, not all, Americans can exercise that right. Just 2 weeks ago, the United States Supreme Court confirmed that fact when it rejected Texas's redistricting map because it disenfranchised thousands of Latino voters. Mr. Speaker, we know why we have the Voting Rights Act. We know what history has taught us. We believe that we must look to the future, and we must not only reaffirm our belief in the Voting Rights Act, but reaffirm it completely and absolutely. We must reject the amendments which would undermine what has been a tremendous accomplishment in America's history of moving all people in America forward to exercise their right to vote. Support this bill. Defeat the amendments. Let's move forward with the Voting Rights Act.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, July 10, 2006, I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall numbers 358 and 359. The votes I missed included motions to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 2463 and H.R. 5061 respectively. The former authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to conduct feasibility studies to address certain water shortages within the Snake, Boise, and Payette River systems in Idaho, while the latter is the Paint Bank and Wytheville National Fish Hatcheries Conveyance Act. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 358 and 359.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Ladies and gentlemen, our government is in complete disarray. We have no policy in Iraq. We have seen the highest level of fiscal irresponsibility this government has ever propounded upon the American public. We have breathtaking record deficits in our budget. And our priorities, as articulated in this House, are upside down. We have soldiers today who are dying. We have millions of Americans working to feed their family on a minimum wage of $5.15 an hour. We have gasoline prices that are double what they were when President Bush first assumed office. But what do we have from our friends on the Republican side to deal with all of this? A tax cut that will go to the wealthiest families in America. I hope, ladies and gentlemen, that we will recognize that every time a Member who supports this tax cut for the wealthiest families in America comes up to talk, that we recognize that they are talking about helping 7,500 families, period. Of the millions of Americans and of those Americans who will die, this bill will help only around 7,500 of all of America's families. It is because it deals with only the very wealthiest. So everything they say, put it in context. It will help 7,500 families. Or put another way: of a thousand people who will die in America, less than two will receive the hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts that will go to those who pay estate taxes; 7,500 families, less than two of every 1,000 Americans who will die. What could we, instead of giving money to the very wealthy in America, do? Well, we could have fully funded the Medicare part D prescription drug benefit that Republicans have failed to fund. We could have sent 40 million American children to a year of Head Start. We could have provided full health insurance for 174 million children for one additional year. We could have hired 5 million additional public school teachers for one year. We could have given 4-year scholarships to 14 million students to public universities. We could have provided worldwide AIDS programs for 29 years. And we could have provided for every child in the world basic immunization for the next 96 years. Our priorities are upside down.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on June 14, 2006, I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall 283. The vote I missed was an amendment offered by Mr. Oberstar to H.R. 5576. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall 283.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, June 9, 2006, I was unable to cast my floor votes on rollcall numbers 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249 and 250. The votes I missed included eight amendments to H.R. 5522 and the final passage of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall 242, ``aye'' on rollcall 243, ``aye'' on rollcall 244, ``no'' on rollcall 245, ``aye'' on rollcall 246, ``aye'' on rollcall 247, ``no'' on rollcall 248, ``aye'' on rollcall 249 and ``aye'' on rollcall 250.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with profound sadness to pay tribute to Mr. John Hall, a dear friend, a devoted community leader and a passionate champion for America's working men and women, who passed away suddenly of heart failure on the evening of Saturday, February 25, 2006. He was the loving son of Joann Hall and the devoted father of his only child, Katrina Susan Hall. Born September 15, 1953, in Los Angeles, John was a lifelong Angeleno devoted to his family, his trade and his community. He began his career as an apprentice plumber in 1980 with the United Association of Plumbers Local 78 in Los Angeles. John quickly mastered the skills of a journeyman plumber and became an active member of UA Plumbers Local 78. While working at his trade during the day, he donated his time as a plumbing instructor at night at the union's training center. John eventually worked his way up to Business Manager of Local 78 in 1995, a position from which he advocated for the preservation of pensions and health coverage for working people. John was also known for his civic participation, serving honorably on the Contractors State Licensing Board following his appointment by Governor Gray Davis. It was fitting with John's generous character and sense of responsibility that he volunteered much of his personal time to the charitable organization Big Brothers of Greater Los Angeles. He spent many years as a big brother to Sean Wall, imparting his wisdom and leadership skills onto the next generation. John was highly admired by the labor community and policy-makers alike for his efforts to improve the lives of working families, and for his warm personality and generous spirit. John was a selfless leader, who dedicated himself completely to his craft, his union and all those who looked to him for support and guidance. Mr. Speaker, it is with heartfelt sorrow, yet great admiration and appreciation, that I ask my colleagues to join me today in saluting John C. Hall. May his generosity and dedication to improving conditions for working families be remembered and carried on by those of us who were fortunate enough to call him ``friend.''

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a loving family man and eminent jurist who worked tirelessly to protect the rights of ordinary Americans throughout our country, Judge Delbert Earl Wong, who passed away Friday, March 10, 2006. Delbert Wong rose from humble means, and it was this experience that led him to dedicate his considerable talents to serving the public. Born May 17, 1920, in Hanford, CA, to a Chinese-American mother and Chinese immigrant father, Delbert encountered great adversity and discrimination early in his life. His mother, born in Weaverville, CA, lost her American citizenship for the simple act of marrying Delbert's father in 1919. Unable to own land and forced to apply for citizenship due to the Chinese Exclusion Act, his parents' experiences would embolden Delbert and instill in him a commitment to justice and equality. Raised in Bakersfield, CA, Delbert attended Bakersfield College where he received an associate of arts degree. After transferring to the University of California at Berkeley, he graduated with a bachelor's degree and also met his future wife, Dolores Wing. Upon graduating from U.C. Berkeley, Delbert heeded the call to serve his country and enlisted in the Army Air Corps during World War II, serving as a navigator on a B-17 Flying Fortress. Completing 30 missions over Europe, he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross. In 1945 following the end of the war, Delbert enrolled in Stanford Law School, breaking barriers of discrimination as the school's only student of color. After being admitted to the State Bar of California in 1948, Judge Wong began his career working for the Office of the Legislative Counsel in Sacramento. He later transferred to the Office of the Legislative Counsel in Los Angeles, where he was one of two Chinese-American lawyers in all of Southern California. In 1951 he joined the Office of the California State Attorney General. There, he served as the first Chinese-American deputy attorney general under then Attorney General Pat Brown. When Pat Brown was elected governor, he appointed Delbert to the bench in 1959, making him the first Chinese- American judge in the United States. Delbert Wong became a judge because of his deep commitment to justice, equality, and civil rights; ideas that he fought for throughout his entire life. He served on the bench during the tumultuous decades of the 1960s and 1970s when these issues dominated public debate with the social upheaval surrounding both the Vietnam war and the civil rights movement. Hearing cases involving free speech and assembly, employment discrimination, and school desegregation, Judge Wong was at the forefront of some of the most important court decisions of that era. Judge Wong's professional achievements were extraordinary, as was his love for family and community. Together, Dolores and Delbert raised four children: Kent, Shelley, Duane and Marshall. Though Judge Wong retired from the bench in 1982 after 23 years of service, his role in public service continued as a private arbitrator and community leader, roles he would hold until the end of his life. He was appointed by Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley to a panel that authored the city of Los Angeles's first ethics code, and also led an investigation into charges of racial discrimination in employment at the Los Angeles International Airport Police Bureau. Delbert was a key supporter of the Asian-Pacific American Legal Center and the Chinatown Service Center. He is fondly remembered by his family for making breakfast for his children each morning and serving as a Boy Scout leader. Judge Wong overcame great odds to serve his country, opening doors for countless others; but even more importantly, he did so while maintaining a sincere commitment to loving and supporting his family. Mr. Speaker, it is with immense sorrow, yet great admiration and appreciation that I ask my colleagues to join me today in saluting Judge Delbert Earl Wong, a devoted husband, father, public servant and community leader. May his passionate dedication to opening doors for others and service to this country be remembered and give birth to the next generation of champions for justice.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, May 22, 2006, I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall Nos. 177 and 178. The votes I missed included a motion to suspend the rules and pass S. 1235, the Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2005, and a motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3858, the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act of 2005. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 177 and 178.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, it is with utmost pleasure and privilege that I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Daniel R. Mishell, Jr., an outstanding physician and pioneer in the field of women's health. This Saturday, May 13, 2006, family, friends and admirers will gather to celebrate Dr. Mishell's 75th birthday--which occurred on May 7--and salute his many achievements as husband, father and consummate professional. Daniel Mishell, Jr., earned his BA with great distinction in 1952 and his medical degree in 1955 from Stanford University. As a faculty member at the University of California, Los Angeles in the 1960s, Dr. Mishell's breakthrough research resulted in the first pregnancy tests in the United States not involving animals. In 1969, he joined the faculty of the University of Southern California's Keck School of Medicine. As the Lyle G. McNeile Professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and as its chairman from 1978 to 2005, Dr. Mishell has left an indelible hand print upon this nationally recognized institution of women's health. Throughout his career, Dr. Mishell has held several prominent national posts and consulted internationally throughout the years in the field of obstetrics and gynecology. Since 1970, he has served as editor-in-chief of Contraception, the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals' official journal. He served as president of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology from 1986 to 1990 and then as its chairman from 1990 to 1994. In 2003, he was elected as a fellow ad eundem of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Great Britain. Respected as an international trailblazer in his field, Dr. Mishell led the World Health Organization's only clinical research and training center for human reproduction in the United States. Included, Dr. Mishell has received numerous awards and honors throughout the years, including the Distinguished Scientist Award from the Society of Gynecologic Investigation in 1994 and the Guttmacher lectureship of the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals in 1999. The countless studies and research that he has conducted and guided throughout his career have placed Dr. Mishell at the forefront in the field of women's health. His studies in the late 1960's resulted in the development of many of the devices and hormonal methods used for contraception today, including the Copper IUD, Norplant and the Contraceptive Ring. He directed research that led to technologies and tools that make it easier for women to conceive. He published more than 260 scientific papers in peer review journals, co-edited 34 medical textbooks, and wrote more than 140 textbook chapters on contraception, reproductive endocrinology, and infertility. There's no doubt that you will agree with me when I say that Dr. Mishell continues to influence the field of women's health today. Dr. Mishell regards as one of his greatest achievements having ``trained over 400 residents and made sure they would provide excellent health care in the field of Ob/Gyn.'' Imagine that! There are over 400 residents who have had the opportunity to learn from Dr. Mishell and they continue to build on his work in the field of women's health and share his enthusiastic commitment to ensuring that all women have the healthcare they deserve. Mr. Speaker, I can make this declaration with full confidence in its accuracy because I am the fortunate spouse of one of those superbly trained obstetrician/gynecologists. Moreover, as another of America's finest physicians, Dr. Paul Brenner, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Keck School, points out, Dr. Mishell has been instrumental in opening the field to more female physicians. With Dr. Mishell playing a major role in the education of numerous residents, fellows and junior faculty, it is easy to see why Dr. Brenner acknowledges that ``in my lifetime, I don't think there's been anyone else who's had a greater impact on the field of ob/gyn.'' Mr. Speaker, as Carol, Dr. Mishell's wife of almost 45 years, their children Sandra, Daniel and Tanya, and their four grandchildren gather with family and friends to toast his 75th birthday, it is with great admiration and pride that I ask my colleagues to join me today in saluting this thoughtful human being and tireless champion of women's health.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, this motion to instruct is not about a debate as to whether we should cut taxes for Americans; this motion to instruct talks about how we should cut taxes for Americans. In essence, what are our priorities in Congress and in the White House? Should we, on the one hand, provide relief for over 17 million middle-class American taxpaying households, as we propose; or should we, as the other side proposes, provide relief that benefits principally one-fifth of 1 percent of the wealthiest Americans in this country? Federal budgeting is no different than family budgeting at the end of the day. Yet if you look at the actions of this Congress today and over the last several years, what this Congress is saying to American families is, do as I say not as I do. This year, the Federal Government will run a $518 billion deficit. We are running record deficits this year. That deficit is portrayed as being $337 billion, only $337 billion, because this Congress is taking $181 billion out of the Social Security trust fund to help cover the massive size of the Federal budget deficit. The total national debt today stands at over $8 trillion, and President Bush, in his budget, admits that we will pay more than $247 billion next year in interest payments on the Federal debt alone. A quarter of $1 trillion to do nothing but pay the interest on the debt. There was a joke I heard not too long ago about how you could know if 2006 would be a challenging year. The top three choices, to let you know, are: one, your twin sister forgets to congratulate you on your birthday; two, you see a ``60 Minutes'' crew waiting outside your office for you; and the number one way you can tell it is going to be a challenging year is you file your income tax statement and are expecting a refund, and what you get is a bounced check from the Federal Government. Now, as funny as it may sound, there is some truth in that as we run massive deficits and increase the size of the national debt. President Bush has borrowed three times the amount that the first 39 Presidents in the Nation's first 191 years borrowed in all their time. We are spending about $6 billion a month in Iraq, and we are talking about cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans. That is something that had never been done until this administration cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans at a time when we are running massive deficits and have men and women sacrificing their lives abroad. It is time for us to have some fiscal sense, be responsible and recognize what every American family must: that you have got to figure out your books before you spend money. And that is what this motion to instruct says. Let us have priorities when it comes to tax cuts, let us target help towards middle-class America before we give tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. If you have some left over after you help middle- class America, okay, fine. But don't cut $14 billion out of student loans for mostly middle-class families sending their kids to college. Don't cut $600 million out of foster care programs for some of our neediest children who are being abused. Don't take money out of the child enforcement program that helps make sure kids get money from their deadbeat dads. If you can take care of all those things, fine, let's cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans. But today we are running massive deficits and we cannot do it. So vote for this motion to instruct. It says our priorities are middle-class Americans, and we will do the work the right way. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. What the gentleman from Michigan does not mention is that the fix they have in their legislation takes care of $2 billion worth of a $35 billion hole for alternative minimum tax. That is not a fix for most middle-class Americans. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Madam Speaker, the difficulty in this debate is that we are talking about one tax cut versus another tax cut. But what the American people should understand is that in one case, the tax cut would benefit principally the most rich in America, the 1 percent richest Americans. And in the other case, the tax cut would benefit principally middle- class Americans, some 17 million Americans who would otherwise fall within the grasp of the alternative minimum tax. This side of the aisle is saying, if we are going to do tax relief, let us target it towards those who need it most, and that is middle- class America. About 17 million Americans are going to fall prey to the alternative minimum tax if we do not do something this year and into the future as well. And every year there will be more and more Americans who creep up into the AMT unless we do a permanent fix. The bill that is now being considered in conference would not take care of this problem and certainly not long term. Instead it focuses most of its money on the wealthiest Americans in this Nation. To what degree? Well, the average dividend and capital tax gains cut that would be received by a majority of Americans in this country are those folks with annual incomes below $40,000; and you are talking about 55 percent of American households below $40,000 in income. How much would they receive in the capital gains and dividend tax cuts? About $7 this year. That would be their share of all of those billions of dollars of tax cuts. If you make $40,000 or less, get ready, you are going to get $7 back for the year, maybe enough for a couple of gallons of gas. If you happen to be in the one-fifth of 1 percent richest Americans in this country, how much would you get back this year? On average about $32,0000. That represents about 45 percent of the entire tax cuts that would go to one-fifth of 1 percent. Let me make sure it is clear so that no one thinks that I am making a mistake here. One-fifth of 1 percent would get 45 percent of the benefits of the dividend and capital gains tax cuts. It translates into about $32,000 per one of those households that makes over $1 million. So that is to say this: sure, if you are supporting the capital gains and dividends tax cuts, you can say it goes to millions of Americans, but you are only giving them half the truth, because what you are not telling millions of Americans is that their share is $7 for the year, whereas the very wealthy in America will get $32,000 each. What are our priorities? A lot of us believe that 17 million middle- class Americans should get definite relief from the AMT, the alternative minimum tax, before we go towards relieving the tax burdens on the wealthiest of Americans. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.