Xavier Becerra

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me give my colleagues a few numbers and see if we can find the connection in these numbers: 25, 161, 6.5 million, zero, and 93,500. If it does not seem readily apparent, let me connect the dots for my colleagues. Twenty-five represents the number of times that this motion that we are about to debate has come before this House of Representatives in an effort to try to do what the Senate did months ago, which is to try to do what the President said he supported, which was to try to give a number of working, tax-paying families, many of them military families, the same type of child tax benefit that we gave to many other American families, those families having already received checks in the mail for that child tax credit. Twenty-five times. This is the twenty-fifth time we are trying to get the House to do what the Senate did on a vote of 98 to 2. The number 161, that is how many days we have left out all of these American families with children from being able to benefit from the child tax credit that other American families, neighbors, in fact, of many of them, many of them right now, fathers and mothers in our military in Afghanistan and Iraq, 161 days they have gone without the benefit through the law that was passed 161 days ago, that many of their fellow Americans received in the mail. Mr. Speaker, 6,500,000? That is the number of families in America that have been excluded. 6\1/2\ million. Among those 6\1/2\ million families you have 12 million children. So we are not talking about trying to help one or two of America's families because they were left out. When Congress passed and the President signed a tax cut bill that cost $350 billion, that excluded the 6\1/2\ million families and their 12 million children. We are talking about quite a few American families throughout this country. Among those families, more than 262,000 of the people that I am talking about are children of our military personnel who were left out. And I should mention of our 200,000 or so men and women in uniform who are in Afghanistan and Iraq and throughout this world in combat zones, the result of not having extended the child tax credit expansion to them means that many of these men and women in uniform with kids are actually going to see a tax increase as a result of the action taken by this House in not moving forward to match the Senate on a 98 to 2 vote to provide the expanded child tax credit to these 6\1/2\ million families. The number zero? I have already mentioned it. That is how much money the 6\1/2\ million families are getting at the same time that their neighbors and friends were receiving an average of about $600, $615 in a child tax credit. Zero. The final number I mentioned, $93,500, that is the amount that this year many of America's millionaires will receive in reduced taxes as a result of the tax cut bill that passed in late May, 161 days ago, in tax breaks. Zero for 6\1/2\ million working families. And, by the way, these working families are not rich working families. We are talking about families that have incomes somewhere between $10,500, let me say that again, $10,500 annual salary to about $26,625 annual salary. We are not talking about wealthy families, but we are talking about working and tax paying and military families that are among those who earn between $10,500 and $26,625. 6\1/2\ million families. 12 million children within those 6\1/2\ million families. The tax bill did give to millionaires in America an average tax cut this year of $93,500. In this child tax credit expansion provision, it gave zero to those 6\1/2\ million families. What many of us have been trying to say in the 24 other times, including this, the 25th time we put this motion before the House is let us do what the President said we should, let us do what the Senate already did, in voting 98 to 2, and let us do what most American families thought we had done, until they realized that they did not get a check in the mail as well, including our military families. Mr. Speaker, let us be just. They work, they pay taxes, and certainly for the several hundred thousand of our men and women in uniform who have kids, it is the right thing to do. Now, it would not be so difficult to talk about this if it were not for the fact that within that tax cut bill and within additional legislation that has come before this House there have been measures to actually expand the scope of the child tax credit to more families. In fact, in this House my friends in the majority were willing to expand the number of families who could qualify for the tax credit by increasing the income limits, so that families with well over $150,000 could qualify for the child tax credit. Yet, in the same legislation, we cannot see how we can just do what we need to do for those families that are making somewhere between $10,500 and $26,500. It goes on and on and on in terms of the irony that we see here. I look back at some of the Tax Code and I think to myself are we doing something that is unfair, something that these folks do not deserve? Some will say, well, they do not pay that much in income taxes. They are getting off and we should not give them money. Well, they pay taxes. They do not pay that much income taxes probably due to the fact that they do not earn very much income, but they pay payroll taxes, they pay sales taxes, they pay property taxes, they pay excise taxes. You name it, they pay it. And, fortunately, we have a progressive tax structure that says in terms of income taxes if you are making $10,500 in a year, in a year, not in a month, because some of my colleagues may have misunderstood me, in a year, then, by God, I hope we are doing something to make sure that the $10,500 does not go to just pay taxes. But to deny them, then, the expansion of the child tax credit simply because they do not pay enough of a certain type of tax I think is un- American. But that is where we are. Then I thought to myself, well, do we do some things that give others some kind of tax break? Then I realized, wait a minute, my father worked for about 40 years in road construction, he worked canning tomatoes at Campbells Soups, he worked cleaning the hulls of ships, and every day he worked, he ate lunch when he had time. As far as I know, he ate lunch with his colleagues, his coworkers. Well, today if there is someone out in America in the business world who decides to go have lunch, and then follow that up with a nice dinner, and take out a business associate, and really try to cater to that business associate to try to, perhaps, gain some new business, and chauffeurs that business associate around in a limousine, and has a martini, then takes the associate to a nightclub to enjoy the evening and says, you know, we had a really rough night, maybe we should just stay at this hotel, all of that can be deducted to the tune of 50 percent. But somehow we could not find it in our powers within a $350 billion tax cut bill to give 6\1/2\ million Americans who work and earn about $10,500 to $26,500 a tax credit for their kids. The cost of doing that? $3\1/2\ billion. $350 billion tax cuts that went mostly to wealthy folks. $3\1/2\ billion, 1/100th of the cost of that tax bill would have corrected this problem for those 6\1/2\ million families. Could not do it. We still can. We have not finished the section. That is why we are here today. I am hoping the 25th time is the charm and we will get to it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin).

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

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, subject to rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 1308, the Child Tax Credit bill. The form of the motion is as follows: Madam Speaker, I move that the managers on the part of the House in the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1308 be instructed as follows: 1. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in the conference report the provision of the Senate amendment (not included in the House amendment) that provides immediate payments to taxpayers receiving an additional credit by reason of the bill in the same manner as other taxpayers were entitled to immediate payments under the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. 2. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in the conference report the provision of the Senate amendment (not included in the House amendment) that provides families of military personnel serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other combat zones a child credit based on the earnings of the individuals serving in the combat zone. 3. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in the conference report all of the other provisions of the Senate amendment and shall not report back a conference report that includes additional tax benefits not offset by other provisions. 4. To the maximum extent possible within the scope of conference, the House conferees shall be instructed to include in the conference report other tax benefits for military personnel and the families of the astronauts who died in the Columbia disaster; and 5. The House conferees shall, as soon as practicable after the adoption of this motion, meet in open session with the Senate conferees and the House conferees shall file a conference report consistent with the preceding provisions of this instruction, not later than the second legislative day after adoption of this motion.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, subject to rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 1308, the Child Tax Credit bill. The form of the motion is as follows: Mr. Speaker, I move that the managers on the part of the House and the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1308 be instructed as follows: One, the House conferees shall be instructed to include in the conference report the provision of the Senate amendment, not included in the House amendment, that provides immediate payments to taxpayers receiving an additional credit by reason of the bill in the same manner as other taxpayers were entitled to immediate payments under the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. Two, the House conferees shall be instructed to include in the conference report the provision of the Senate amendment, not included in the House amendment, that provides families of military personnel in Iraq, Afghanistan and other combat zones a child credit based on the earnings of the individuals serving in the combat zone. Three, the House conferees shall be instructed to include in the conference report all of the other provisions of the Senate amendment and shall not report back a conference report that includes additional tax benefits not offset by other provisions. Four, to the maximum extent possible within the scope of conference, the House conferees shall be instructed to include in the conference report other tax benefits for military personnel and families of the astronauts who died in the Columbia disaster. Five, the House conferees shall, as soon as practicable after the adoption of this motion, meet in open session with the Senate conferees and the House conferees shall file a conference report consistent with the preceding provisions of this instruction, not later than the second legislative day after adoption of this motion.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I think we have to make sure we clarify a couple of things. First, I do not think anyone would propose that our country become China when it comes to its manufacturing base and how we treat our workers and the type of product we put out. Certainly we have to do a number of things to continue our competitiveness with countries abroad, but there is no way that America will ever get to compete with countries that are paying 50 cents an hour for wages. And I hope that no one is recommending here that we spiral downward to try to compete; in other words, this become a race to the bottom in order to be able to compete and manufacture products abroad. My good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), mentioned that we are about to celebrate Halloween and all of those costumes that our kids are going to be wearing, if you take a look at the label, most have been made in places like China. They were made in America before. But I do not believe anyone is suggesting that we now pay Americans 50 cents an hour to manufacture and fabricate garments like that in order to be able to compete with China. At the same time, look at the bill. The only thing it calls for, well, first it commends the President and his administration for continued efforts to engage the government of the People's Republic of China and to encourage China to fulfill its commitments. Encourage. And then it continues to say the House of Representatives encourages the People's Republic of China to meet its commitments. We encourage. We encourage. We closely monitor. There is nothing this does. We should investigate. We have the power under statute to investigate the trade violations committed by countries like China. That is what this bill should say, not that just we encourage the Chinese to do something better.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 414 sends a message to China. But if this is as strong a message that we can send to China, we are in trouble. We could do much better than this. We can send a message that is very clear and very responsible about what we would expect of any trading partner, of anyone who wishes to be treated with dignity when it comes to trade with us as well. In the last 3 years, Mr. Speaker, Americans have lost 3.2 million jobs; 2.5 million of those 3.2 million jobs have come from the manufacturing sector. Now, if it does not hurt enough, let me just give you some numbers. California, almost 300,000 Americans without jobs as a result of the manufacturing sector losing them; Illinois, 125,800 jobs lost in the last 3 years, according to the September 2003 job numbers; Indiana, 67,000; Michigan, 127,000 Americans who have lost their jobs; New York, 132,000; North Carolina, 145,000 Americans without jobs in the manufacturing sector; Ohio, 151,000 jobs lost for Americans; Pennsylvania, 132,000 jobs lost; Wisconsin, 73,000 jobs lost to Americans in the manufacturing area, many of these going to countries like China. On top of that, today we are saddled with a national debt of more than $3.3 trillion. This year's budget deficit alone, $370 billion. Next year, we are told our budget deficit will probably reach $500 billion. In each case, these are record deficits for this country. Our trade deficit, just in what we do globally in trade with other countries, $482 billion in 2002. That is how much we were spending more by buying goods from other countries than they were buying from us. And if we keep on that same pace in 2003, we are going to have an even larger trade deficit with the world. How much of that comes from China? Well, this past year alone, $103 billion in deficit trading with China, and at the end of this year it will probably be at about $115 billion that we will have spent more in purchasing goods from them than they will have spent in purchasing goods from us. This week Warren Buffet, one of the wealthiest men in America, said our country is like a rich family that possesses an immense farm. ``In order to consume 4 percent more than we produce,'' which is in essence what our trade deficit means, we are consuming more than we are producing, ``we have been both selling pieces of the farm and increasing the mortgage on what we still own.'' Mr. Buffet said that our trade deficit has worsened to the point that our country's net worth is being transferred abroad at an alarming rate. He predicts that foreign ownership of America's assets will grow by about $500 billion a year. That translates to about 1 percent annually of our wealth being placed in foreign hands. Mr. Speaker, something needs to be done, and H. Res. 414 is not enough. It is time for us to investigate what the Chinese are doing, it is time for us to take safeguards to protect American industries and American jobs, and it is time for us to use the powers that we have under the Trade Act to investigate whether China is complying with its obligations under the World Trade Organization's regime. It is time to do it. Just talking about it will not make it happen. Let us take some action. House Resolution 414 may be a start, but it certainly is not enough.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, October 20, 2003, I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall Nos. 563, 564, and 565. The votes I missed include rollcall vote No. 563 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Res. 356, Expressing the Sense of the House Regarding the Man-Made Famine in the Ukraine; rollcall vote No. 564 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended to H. Res. 400, Honoring the 25th Anniversary of Pope John Paul; and rollcall vote No. 565, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 3288, Making Technical Corrections to Amend Title XXI of the Social Security Act. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote Nos. 563, 564, and 565.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, last year, during debate on the resolution granting the President the authorization he sought to commence a war against Iraq, I was concerned that the Administration was ignoring the fact that actions and words have consequences. The consequences of our actions then are exactly what we are trying to address through H.R. 3289 today. We took the burden of a notoriously ill-advised, preemptive war and placed it on the shoulders of our young men and women in the military to carry virtually alone. Now we are asking the American taxpayers to take on the burden almost exclusively of rebuilding an entire nation, while our own nation finds its schools in disrepair, forty-four million Americans without health care, and our homeland security needs under-funded. If this were a spending package focused on supporting and protecting our troops, this would be an easy vote for me. Nearly 5 months after the Commander-in-Chief declared, ``mission accomplished,'' too many of our troops are dying daily. I do not think these young men and women in the armed forces, National Guard, and Reserves expected to still be there so long after our President's proud and premature declaration of success in Iraq. Our soldiers are sacrificing too much: some their lives, and others their valued role as a parent, breadwinner, or caregiver to their families and their communities. I would support whatever it takes to bring these young men and women home as quickly as possible, and to ensure their success and safety in their mission while they are away. But even the portion of the bill that would support our military's ``post-war'' efforts in Iraq is deficient. We know from reports that weapons caches are poorly secured and that our troops are lacking absolutely vital equipment such as body armor. The bill also would leave 80 percent of our troops in Iraq without the ability to ensure a clean water supply for themselves. We should also be paying for our soldiers' rare calls home and for the full cost of traveling home while on leave. Equally disturbing are reports that our troops in Iraq are fatigued and suffering from low morale, the direct consequence of the Administration's failure to secure extensive international cooperation and compose a comprehensive exist strategy. A significant portion of this bill's $87 billion is for rebuilding Iraq, and like it or not we now have a moral responsibility to carry much of this burden. When scrutinized in the light of day, however, many of the items for which the Administration is asking us to sign away precious tax dollars simply do not make sense. I was appalled by findings reported in the New York times that Halliburton has been exploiting the American taxpayer with a 140 percent mark-up for a gallon of gas in Iraq. Despite our best efforts today to include some Congressional oversight to the contracting process, I am afraid that the Administration and its representatives in Iraq will continue to oppose sensible oversight even while they have compiled a very poor track record of ensuring that the largesse of the American taxpayer will not further be abused. As an example of what is already occurring on the ground, I would reiterate what the Democratic members of the Appropriations Committee reported about the reconstruction of a cement factory in Northern Iraq. In that instance, after the American contractor estimated that it would take $15 million to upgrade the factory, local Iraqis got the job done for $80,000. Something is wrong here, and I do not believe we have done enough to make sure the Administration does not continue to make these mistakes. I understand the overwhelming pressure to rebuild as quickly as possible, but we cannot afford to do this at any cost and without greater discipline. The American people know that this will not be the only request on their tax dollars--some have characterized the President's $87 billion request as a mere down-payment in a rebuilding effort that I expect to be long and very expensive. I am heartened that our international allies are starting to offer help, but these agreements should have been taken care of long ago through a collaborative international partnership. Again, the consequence of acting alone and without credible evidence has come back to haunt not just the President, but America's soldiers and taxpayers. Having said all of this, the most troubling aspect of this bill before us today is that it is not paid for at all; the full amount is added to this year's already alarming $500 billion deficit. Why? We have been told that the funds are simply not available. Why not? In large part it is because of the cost of the excessive tax cuts benefiting the wealthiest among us that this Administration decided were its first priority. The 2001 repeal of the estate tax alone--which benefits 30,000 of America's wealthiest individuals and only them, at the expense of more than 140,000,000 other taxpayers--costs more in two years than this entire appropriations package. Mr. Chairman, this is a policy with no fiscal discipline that stands in stark contrast to the discipline and sacrifices our young men and women are demonstrating every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. I sincerely wish I could have voted for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that would have met the burden that we have assumed in Iraq in a responsible way. I do not understand why the leadership denied us the ability to vote on that amendment, which would have reset our priorities in a very sensible manner, asking Americans to heed the call of shared sacrifice and asking the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans to give up just a little bit of their tax cut to help bring our troops home and rebuild Iraq. What the Administration has asked us to do here today--approve deficit spending in the amount of $87 billion--will place the cost of rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan squarely on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren and those of our soldiers, too many of whom have already made the ultimate sacrifice. We should be more responsible than that. I will vote against H.R. 3289.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, it is with utmost pleasure and privilege that I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to Dr. Tomas Arciniega, President of California State University Bakersfield. Dr. Arciniega has been a champion of higher education, a trailblazer who has opened doors for countless underrepresented students, and a good friend. After 30 years with the California State University system, this exceptional teacher and administrator will complete his service at CSU Bakersfield, retiring soon after the commencement of the Class of 2004. Recognizing that his career has been both distinguished and memorable, the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities will honor him tonight in its first ever Roast and Fundraiser, which will support a scholarship in Dr. Arciniega's name. Growing up in the projects of El Paso, Texas, Tomas learned his strong work ethic and core values from his parents, Tomas and Judith Arciniega. In tenth grade, he met his future wife, Concha, and together they became an indivisible team, blessed with a true partnership, friendship and love. Tomas and Concha are now the proud parents of four daughters (Wendy, Lisa, Judy and Laura) and seven grandchildren (Nico, Melina, Vanessa, Natalie, Jakob, Lukas and Benjamin). Family has always been the top priority for Tomas and Concha, who relish their regular road-trips to San Diego, Albuquerque and Phoenix to ensure their active and valuable role in the lives of their grandchildren. The first in his family to attend college, Tomas's successes in his early years demonstrate his commitment to learning, competing, and serving. He earned his bachelor's degree from New Mexico State University in teacher education. He holds a master's and doctorate in educational administration--both completed at the University of New Mexico. And his pursuit of education has taken him east to Harvard where he attended the Institute for Educational Management program for senior university executives. A well-rounded scholar athlete, Tomas played football and baseball throughout high school and received a football scholarship to New Mexico State University. He even played catcher in baseball's minor leagues on a farm team for the Pittsburgh Pirates. Tomas proudly served his country, first as an officer in the United States Army, and later as a foreign officer for the U.S. Department of State, where he was responsible for the coordination and contracting of technical support services in health and education in the Dominican Republic. Tomas continued his work overseas in Colombia, on behalf of UNM, as a principal advisor in school administration and higher education to the Colombian Ministry of Education. Tomas's educational career has always combined his passion for students with his commitment to making a difference as an administrator. His career has taken him from the Las Cruces Independent School District's hall of administration, to teaching at the intermediate and high school levels in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and then on to the University of Texas, El Paso where he served as an associate professor of educational administration and assistant dean. From there, he was named the dean of the School of Education and professor of educational administration at San Diego State University. The California State University system recognized Tomas's achievements by appointing him vice president for academic affairs and professor of educational administration at California State University, Fresno. In that capacity, Tomas accomplished significant changes including the reorganization of the academic budget management system, increasing the level of outside grant activities, revising the system for tenure and promotion of faculty, reorganizing the School of Social Work and Health Services, and initiating and implementing major affirmative action initiatives in academic affairs. For the last 20 years, Tomas has served as the president and a professor of education at California State University, Bakersfield. During his tenure, CSUB has grown dramatically as demonstrated by the institution achieving university status and record enrollment gains. CSUB has enjoyed increased funding for research and training, as well as major capital outlay projects, including an athletics activities center, a new library, a Child Care Center, an outdoor amphitheatre, a student union, and the Business Development Center. Tomas has been central to the fundamental redefinition of CSUB's institutional mission to achieve a closer nexus between CSUB and its regional community, resulting in the community's generous support for and coordination with the university. Furthermore, Tomas has demonstrated true leadership in promoting educational equity and access to a quality higher education for the region's diverse population, thus, helping to dramatically increase the enrollments of minority and women students and the hiring of ethnic minorities and women at the faculty, staff and administration levels. Mr. Speaker, as family, friends, and colleagues gather to roast and pay tribute to Tomas's many accomplishments, it is with great admiration and pride that I ask my colleagues to join me today in saluting this truly remarkable example of the American dream. Tomas is a fortunate man who can retire with the knowledge that he made a difference fighting his entire life to improve education for all students, but even more importantly, he did so while also maintaining a sincere commitment to loving and supporting his family. Tomas sent his own children off to school every morning with the simple, yet profound, message to ``just remember you're the greatest!'' And he worked hard every day to provide those same opportunities for all children to believe in themselves, dream big and obtain a first-rate education. As Tomas closes this chapter of his distinguished career, I would like to say ``thank you'' on behalf of the students, teachers and families whose lives he has changed by opening doors, leading by example and always holding firm to his convictions. His countless contributions will be felt for generations to come.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, it is with utmost pleasure and privilege that I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to Dr. Joan Paton Acosta, an outstanding educator, a passionate advocate for our youth, and a wonderful friend and confidant. Dr. Acosta will retire this Thursday, October 2, 2003, after 38 years of exceptional service to the students and families of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). A Los Angeles native, Joan is a product of the very school district to which she committed her professional career. She is a proud alumna of 68th Elementary, Audubon Junior High, and Dorsey High School. Her public education served her well on the path toward achieving a masters from California State University at Los Angeles in 1968, and a doctorate from Claremont Graduate University in 1978. Joan has become such an indispensable asset at LAUSD, with so many accomplishments, that her curriculum vitae is not stored on its computer database, but within the veteran microfiche files. She began her career with the school district on February 1, 1965, as a third grade teacher at Ford Boulevard Elementary School. Since that initial teaching position, Joan has worked as a special education teacher, an advisor and administrative coordinator at the Office of Legislation and Government Affairs, an administrator at the Office of Chief Advisor, and as an administrator in legislation and grants for the Division of Special Education. In 1984, Joan received the prestigious Theodore Bass Memorial Teacher in Politics Award, for her political activism and contribution to education. Los Angeles families are forever indebted to Dr. Acosta for her instrumental role in the pursuit of an accurate Census for the year 2000. Her work organizing LAUSD's ``We Count'' outreach campaign targeting typically undercounted and highly mobile minority families ensured that thousands of Angelenos were counted, many for the first time. Mr. Speaker, most of us wake up in the morning and, after subduing the regular aches and pains of life, move on to enjoy another day. We take for granted that simplicity of life. Joan Acosta understood how precious and complex living each and every ``next day'' could be, especially for our children. Joan leaves her work in Los Angeles and our nation's capitol, Washington D.C., as a true champion for disabled students. I am personal witness to--and willing victim of--her tenacious advocacy for increased funding for special education programs and reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities and Education Act. In addition to her hard work and dedication to the students of LAUSD, Joan has also fought for the teachers of the Los Angeles Unified School District. Joan was one of the initial organizers of United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA), which today represents the 44,000 teachers, counselors, psychologists, and nurses in LAUSD. Widely recognized by the teaching community as a leader, Joan has been elected by her fellow educators to represent them on the Board of Directors of UTLA, all the way to the 2.7 million strong National Education Association (NEA), where she served as the alternate to the NEA Board of Directors from California, and as a member of the body's Resolutions Committee. Regardless of what department or position Joan has served, she has always left a lasting mark, thanks to her professional demeanor, devotion to education, and cheerful disposition. Her smile is infectious, and I have never known her to start a day without it. Joan has rightfully earned her reputation as a dedicated public servant, committed educator, and advocate for the rights of all students and employees of the Los Angeles Unified School District. Joan's retirement marks the final chapter in a distinguished career in education that began and ends in Los Angeles. I wish her much luck and leisure in the days to come when she can enjoy her cherished pastimes of wine tasting and traveling. However, if I know Joan, I am sure we have not witnessed the last of her talents. She will always be a powerful and unyielding voice for children. Mr. Speaker, as family, friends, and colleagues gather to celebrate Joan's many accomplishments, it is with great admiration and pride that I ask my colleagues to join me today in saluting this exceptional woman. May we all be fortunate to wake up for many days to come and appreciate the simplicity of a better life that Dr. Joan Paton Acosta has secured for our children.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, I introduced bipartisan tax legislation with the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Weller, and the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Mrs. Johnson, to expand and make permanent the expensing of environmental remediation costs of America's brownfields. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines brownfields as abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial and commercial facilities where expansion, redevelopment or reuse is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination. Estimates of the number of brownfield sites range from 500,000 to a million. In general, these sites face a paradox: they are generally not eligible for remediation funding under the Superfund program because they pose a relatively low public health risk while, at the same time, developers may avoid them because of significant cleanup costs thereby stalling economic development. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 included a tax incentive to address this concern and help spur the cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields in distressed urban and rural areas. Under the brownfields tax incentive, environmental cleanup costs are fully deductible in the year they are incurred by the developer, rather than having to be capitalized. This incentive has helped to bring thousands of abandoned and under-used industrial sites back into productive use, providing a foundation for neighborhood revitalization, job creation, and the restoration of hope in our nation's cities and distressed rural areas. Unfortunately, this provision of the tax code is set to expire at the end of 2003. At a minimum, Congress must extend this provision for several more years. A better approach, however, an approach supported by the Bush administration in fact, would be enactment of the Weller- Becerra-Johnson legislation which would make this common-sense tax incentive a permanent part of the federal tax code. In addition, the bill would modify current law by amending the recapture provision and modestly expanding the class of substances that can be expensed to include petroleum, a contaminant commonly found at brownfields sites. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. Its passage will ensure the continued availability of this valuable tool for improving the livability and economic prospects of blighted, decaying communities and reclaiming idle land for more productive uses.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I thank my colleague from Texas for yielding us additional time as well. I hope that we will listen to the debate here by many, including those who are opposed to this agreement. I will stand here today in support of this agreement, but with some trepidation. First, I have to say that Chile and Singapore perhaps represent the type of country that we would like to extend these free trade agreements to, the opportunity to have these accords with us. Chile and Singapore have both proven that they are advancing countries, they have both demonstrated a respect for their laws and enforcement of their laws; and in regards to Chile in particular, it is a country within Latin America that has over the years demonstrated that it is ready to be a full-fledged partner of the United States when it comes to international commerce. Quite honestly, we would have had a great standard to work with in negotiating an accord on trade with Chile and Singapore if we had looked at the model that had just come through this House within the past year and that was the trade agreement with Jordan. In that Jordan agreement, we established that we would respect not just a country's manufactured products, not just that each country would respect its intellectual property and protect those rights of the property, not just that we would respect our agricultural industries, but in Jordan we also said we will respect the people who actually produce all these things, the workers; we will respect each country's environment, and we will respect that we want to bring everybody up, not just the manufactured good, not just a piece of intellectual property, not just agriculture, but the actual people who do the work. Unfortunately, this agreement did not include that language. This agreement treats workers differently than it treats a manufactured product. It treats workers less than it does capital, inanimate objects, and that, I think, is unfortunate. Yes, there are some provisions within the deal that speak to enforcement provisions to make sure that each of those two countries, Chile and Singapore, enforces its own laws. But what happens if they do not have these laws in the future? Then we cannot respect labor rights and environmental rights. Chile and Singapore probably would have been very happy to have negotiated an agreement that was similar to Jordan on labor and the environment because they already meet those standards in their own domestic laws. The unfortunate thing here is that we know that the administration is negotiating future agreements with Central America and other countries that are not prepared, like Chile and Singapore, to take on these obligations, because they have proven, they have demonstrated that they will not protect the rights of workers, the rights of the environment, and they will not enforce even those laws on the books that may be able to do that. What are we left with? A year ago when we debated the fast track law that gave the President the authority to negotiate these agreements without having to come to Congress for consultation, I said, this is a chance for this country to lead, for our country and its administration to lead. Mr. Speaker, the administration did not lead. Instead of trying to protect workers and the environment the same way we protect inanimate objects and capital, we did not do that. We had that opportunity to do so. Not only are we not protecting those things, labor and the environment, but we are also not funding the tools we have in place to try to make sure countries do respect the rights of workers and the environment. It is unfortunate that we are moving forward with a budget in this administration that would defund those systems that we have in place in agencies that would give us a chance to know if countries are actually protecting their workers and the environment. Mr. Speaker, this is not a way to lead. But am I going to fault Chile and Singapore for the failings of our government negotiators in not trying to protect workers here and abroad, and the environment here and abroad? I will not do that. But I hope that we will all learn, as the Congressional Hispanic Caucus decided a week ago, that we will not support future agreements on trade that use the same language as the Chile and Singapore agreements do with regard to labor and the environment. It is time to protect workers and the environment the same way we protect any other inanimate object.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, July 14, 2003, I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall Nos. 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, and 359. The votes I missed include rollcall vote 354 on the Rehberg amendment; rollcall vote 355 on the Blumenauer amendment; rollcall vote 356 on the Hefley amendment; rollcall vote 357 on the Ackerman amendment; rollcall vote 358 on passage of the Agriculture Appropriations Act of 2004; and rollcall vote 359 on the Motion to Instruct Conferees on the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 354, 355, 357, and 359, and ``nay'' on rollcall votes 356 and 358.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, public libraries and schools across this nation are experiencing a dire shortage of librarians. To help fill the void, I have introduced legislation that will encourage individuals to pursue careers as librarians in public schools and libraries in low- income areas by providing student loan forgiveness. The shortage of librarians is attributed to a combination of two factors. First, it is difficult to recruit and retain qualified librarians in the face of low salaries. Libraries are now in direct competition with industries needing workers with librarian skills such as those in multimedia technology, database administration, and systems analysis. Second, an alarming number of librarians are reaching the age of retirement. One in four librarians will retire in the next five years. Nearly 60 percent of professional librarians will reach the age of 65 between 2005 and 2019. State and local government budgets are tighter than ever and public libraries are being closed to save money. For example, Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens libraries closed their doors two days a week, reduced staff and eliminated programs. 67 of New York's 85 libraries have reduced services, affecting primarily children. Proposed cuts in Ohio nearly led to the closing of two-thirds of the state's 250 public libraries; in the end, the legislature chose to provide no state funding for the month of July. In Washington State, Seattle's 24 libraries will close for two weeks as they did last year, in an effort to save $1 million in costs. In 2002, branches were closed, hours were reduced, a hiring freeze was implemented, programs were eliminated and the book budget was cut. 2003 is looking worse. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, school libraries have become even more important as the place where our children learn outside of the classroom. Not just any college graduate can be a school librarian. Specialized training is necessary if we are to expect our libraries to be staffed by the right people with the right skills. My home state of California requires that a school librarian have a media teacher credential in addition to the usual teaching credential. The shortage of qualified librarians is so serious that many schools are asking teachers to leave the classroom to obtain the required training to become school librarians. Our schools cannot afford to lose teachers any more than they can afford to be without librarians. There have been bipartisan efforts to address the critical shortage of librarians. The President's FY 2004 budget requested $20 million to fund an initiative to recruit and educate librarians for the 21st century. This is a good idea, but I also think we can do something simple that will also encourage more students to enter and stay in the field and serve children and youth in our highest risk schools. Current law allows for the cancellation of educational loans for several categories of professionals that serve in low-income areas, such as teachers for Title I schools, special education, and Head Start, as well as members of the armed services, law enforcement officers, Peace Corps volunteers, medical technicians and nurses. The Librarian Education and Development Act adopts the same incentive for our college students to make the choice to train and serve as librarians in areas where there are concentrations of children with the greatest need for improved educational opportunities. Specifically, under my bill, a librarian working full-time in a public library that serves a geographic area with combined average of 40 percent of enrolled students at the poverty level, or in an elementary or secondary school library that is eligible for Title I assistance would qualify for the following levels of loan cancellation based on number of years of service: 15 percent of Perkins in the first or second years, 20 percent of Perkins in the third or fourth years, 30 percent of Perkins in the fifth year, and $5,000 (total) of direct and indirect Stafford after five years of service. I am honored that the American Library Association supports my bill. I've included their letter in the Record. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I think it is just as vital to the improvement of our public schools and education of our children as legislation the House considered today to encourage qualified graduates with increasing debts to enter educational fields that are suffering from critical shortages. American Library Association, Washington, DC, July 7, 2003. Hon. Xavier Becerra, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Becerra: Thank you very much for offering an amendment to H.R. 438 for Loan Forgiveness for Librarians. This issue is of great concern to school and public libraries as they face devastating shortages of librarians, especially minority librarians. As you are aware, over the next five years, 25 percent of currently working librarians will retire and there are too few people going into the profession. This is not for lack of desire, but because professional librarians must have at least one Masters degree and salaries in this field are not commensurate with other professional fields. There are a great number of college graduates who desire to be librarians and serve their communities, but the resources aren't available to them. This is especially true in low income communities. Your amendment will do a great deal to open up the opportunity for dedicated community members to go to library school. The American Library Association appreciates your continued support for libraries in this country. Sincerely, Emily Sheketoff, Executive Director.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I appreciate the dialogue that has occurred between the two gentlemen from the Committee on Rules. I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman, and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member, for the work that they have done in putting before this House this legislation which all of us understand and know that we need for our schools in America. Too many of our schools today do not have teachers with credentials teaching our kids. Too many of our schools just cannot find the teachers they need. So this is a good first step. I think everyone will agree with that. I believe this will receive a resounding vote when it is before us for final passage. I just believe that many of us are very disappointed that the bill we will be voting on today is so limited. It is so curtailed, when there is much need out there, and there is so much opportunity for us to try to really help our kids throughout our schools. My kids are in public school right now, and we are very fortunate that it is a good public school; but I have got to tell my colleagues that there are a whole bunch of kids in my district that cannot say quite the same thing. It is not that people are not trying hard. It is just that they do not have the resources. In my State of California, and I suspect in many of my colleagues' States right now, we are hearing about our public schools having to either close down certain classrooms, having to curtail their activities, reduce the size of the school year, any number of things, including sending teachers layoff notices at a time when we have to try to provide them with a good education. This is a good bill, but it could have been even a better bill had we allowed a few amendments to go forward, and I understand that there are certain constraints, and I appreciate that the Committee on Rules considered my particular amendment. My amendment was very simple. It said we have got a good first start in this legislation to try to help recruit more teachers in our math and science programs, but let us not stop there. Let us not leave any children behind. Why shortchange our schools, especially today when they are suffering through very difficult financing and budget problems? My amendment simply says, let us include librarians in our schools and in our public libraries because if the shortages are bad as the chairman from the Committee on Education and the Workforce pointed out just a second ago, if they are bad in the areas of math and if they are bad in the areas of sciences, they are even worse when it comes to our school libraries and our public libraries. How many of us know of libraries, not just our school libraries but our public libraries, that are closed on certain days in the week because they just do not have the funding to stay open? The difficulty that they face is that they are not finding the librarians that they need to staff these libraries. One in every three libraries in this country is staffed by one librarian, one librarian. Today, we face a shortage of librarians that will be so difficult to surmount into the future if we do not act now. Within 5 years, fully one in every four of our librarians will retire. In the next 12 years after that, more than 50, close to 60 percent of all the librarians will have retired, and we are not doing anything to backfill, to bring in the librarians we need to fill those gaps. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is good. It could have been better had we included a number of amendments at a time when we so desperately need to help our schools. I believe that is why First Lady Laura Bush has taken such a prominent role in promoting our libraries because she understands what is going on. I wish that this Congress and this House would do the same thing. Mr. Speaker, that is why today I will introduce legislation to try to do exactly what my amendment would have done, and that is, to permit librarians to partake of the loan forgiveness program that is currently allowed to certain teachers and to make sure that we are promoting school librarians in our various public libraries and in our school libraries. It is the right thing to do. If we take a look at the cost of this legislation we have before us, it is about $340 million over 10 years, about $60 million for this current year. If we will all remember that we just passed legislation in this House no more than a month or so ago that cut taxes, principally for the wealthiest Americans in this country, to the tune of $500 billion over the next 10 years, $340 million, less than one- half of 1 percent or 5 percent of what we spent on that tax bill could have funded this entire bill, and the cost of adding librarians is probably somewhere between $2 million to maybe, if every individual and college decided to take advantage of this program, maybe about $10 million for the year. That seems a very clear choice to me. We have opportunities, but we all have to make choices on this floor. While this amendment will not have an opportunity to be heard today or incorporated in the legislation today, I hope in the future, working with both sides of the aisle, we are able to get good amendments through that will help all of our country's school children and make it clear that our libraries, both in our schools and in the public setting, are importance to us. I hope we move forward. We can, and I will vote for this legislation; but I have to vote against this particular rule.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, it is with the utmost pleasure and privilege that I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to a friend and educator, Mr. Bill Rumble, who will retire this Friday, June 27th, after 28 exceptional years of teaching in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Born November 5, 1946 in Long Beach, California, to Everett and Marion Rumble, Bill graduated from Millikan High School in 1964 and then attended the University of California, Los Angeles, where he earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science. Following college, Bill served in the United State Navy from June 1968 to July 1970. First commissioned as an Ensign in the U.S. Naval Reserve, he was quickly called up to active duty and served as Combat Information Center Officer on the Naval destroyers USS DuPont and USS Albert David. During his two-year Naval tenure, he earned the National Defense Medal, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, and he attained the rank of Lieutenant. Bill's service to his country did not end when he left the military, but instead evolved into a lifetime of service in the classroom. After completing his California Teaching Credential from California State University, Long Beach, in June 1974, Bill went to work for the Los Angeles Unified School District where he taught English as a Second Language, English, history, and Chicano Studies from 1974 to 1996. From 1996 to the present, he has served as the Bilingual Program Coordinator at Wilson High School, which is attended by many students who reside in my district. Though he has spent his career as a teacher, Bill somehow found the time to be a student earning his Master of Arts in Latin American Studies from California State University, Los Angeles in 1988. Bill Rumble has never pursued but has certainly earned recognition as a dedicated public servant, committed educator, and fighter for human dignity. But what sets him apart from many others, at least for me, is his devotion to and appreciation of his role as husband and father. Bill had the good sense to marry Carol Jacques in August of 1981. Together they have three children: Lawrence, Mateo, and Maya. In her own right, Carol is a tireless and beloved advocate in our community. Together they have mastered the art of advocacy, and together they have shared in the fruits of their progressive work. Together, they are a powerful team. Bill's 28 years with the schools of Los Angeles have been flush with positions of leadership, including Social Studies Department Chair during 1995-96, member of the Accreditations Committee during 1996-97, member of the Professional Development Committee during 2000-03, and member of the Academic Leadership Team during 2001-03. Furthermore, Bill played an active role with our local teachers union, the United Teachers of Los Angeles, in which he assumed several positions of leadership. Ultimately, however, Bill's first priority as a teacher was his genuine concern for the education, enrichment and well being of his students. As a tireless volunteer, Bill has supported many local community- based organizations, including Art in the Park, the Northeast branch of the Los Angeles YMCA, the Mount Washington Residents Association, and the Arroyo Seco Neighborhood Council. Bill's retirement marks the final chapter in a distinguished teaching career. But, if I know Bill, he's just getting started. I look forward to his continued service and devotion to our community. Just as his students needed him yesterday, we who believe in social activism and a commitment to social justice need him today. Mr. Speaker, as family, friends and colleagues gather to celebrate Bill's many accomplishments, it is with great admiration and pride that I ask my colleagues to join me today in saluting this exceptional man and brother to many. America certainly got the best end of the bargain when it opened the doors of education and public service to Bill Rumble.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, we, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Ms. Solis, and myself, rise today with emotions mixed with fond memories and profound sadness to pay tribute to a dear friend and people's champion, Mr. Lloyd Monserratt. Six months ago, on January 9, 2003, Lloyd unexpectedly passed away. His loss was a sudden and tragic one for all of us--we lost an inspirational leader. This upcoming Sunday, June 22, 2003, we will have an opportunity to remember Lloyd and honor his life when the community gathers to break ground for The Lloyd Monserratt Pleasant House, a transitional living program designed to prevent foster youth from becoming homeless by providing them with a stable and secure environment; a fitting tribute to a great man. After 36 short but accomplished years of life, Lloyd Monserratt is survived by his mother, Olga Monserratt; his brother, Ernie Monserratt; his grandmother Consuelo Recalde; and his fiancee, Michele Ramos. Lloyd was predeceased by his father, Carlos Monserratt. Those of us who are fortunate to have called Lloyd friend remember him as a man who had passion for life, as a gentle man, and as someone who was always there for you with an enormous smile and a warm embrace. He devoted his life to helping others in the greater Los Angeles area and across the country. By using politics as a vehicle for change, Lloyd labored tirelessly to empower poor and underrepresented individuals to work together and make a difference in their own communities. Lloyd treated everyone with respect and made it his personal mission to provide opportunities, training and jobs for youth. Through his work and boundless love, Lloyd gave life to countless people. The lessons Lloyd shared and example he set will continue to live on--through the many family members, friends, young people, community activists and elected officials whose lives Lloyd touched-- long after he has left us. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all who loved and respected him, we respectfully submit into the Congressional Record the following tribute to Lloyd Monserratt, shared by his family at his funeral on January 18, 2003 at All Souls Church in Alhambra, CA. Los Angeles has lost an angel--Lloyd Monserratt, altar boy, eagle scout, soccer coach, umpire, community organizer, chief of staff, and young political leader. Lloyd Monserratt, the child of Carlos and Olga Monserratt, was born on December 3, 1966 at California Hospital in Los Angeles, California. A love and respect for the community was instilled in Lloyd early in life. As a 9-year old, Lloyd attended his first protest alongside his father in his hometown of Alhambra. Lloyd was born to lead; he ran his first political campaign while in the seventh grade where he was successful in getting himself elected to be All Souls Elementary School Student Body President. As a boy scout, he reached the rank of Eagle Scout with Boy Scout Troop #203, and while in college Lloyd became one of the few Latino USAC Presidents at UCLA. An active member of the University of California Student Association, he organized students across the state. Lloyd was a role model. He was an altar boy at All Souls Church. He was a member of several of All Souls' sports teams. He played T-ball, little league, and West Valley AYSO soccer. Lloyd was the assistant coach of his brother Ernie's soccer team. He later became a little league umpire for several years for West Alhambra Little League. As an All Souls Panther, Lloyd earned MVP honors for ``B'' basketball and took his team to the city championship. Lloyd attended Saint Francis High School where he was an honor student. As a senior in high school, Lloyd applied to only one college--UCLA. Lloyd was proud to be a Bruin. He was a leader in the student movement, as a student commissioner and later student President, and as a MEChA leader and co- founder of MEChA class. Lloyd was the community. He created the Parents Institute while working for Los Angeles School Board Member Vicki Castro, and designed the National Association for Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) national program for newly elected and appointed officials. Widely respected and admired by all who met him, Lloyd gave people the tools to change their lives. He made a difference in the lives of youth, seniors, and residents across the state. A community organizer and political veteran, he managed and directed political campaigns from San Diego to San Francisco and beyond. As a Latino Campaign Director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, he led all six of his congressional candidates to victory simultaneously. As a chief of staff to Los Angeles City Councilman Nick Pacheco, he impacted countless people across the eastside and northeast Los Angeles. Lloyd can be remembered as a motivator, a peace keeper, a visionary, and a gentle man. Lloyd was the heart of the district, and the heart of Councilman Pacheco's office. He was the visionary, the mover, the motivator and the implementer. Lloyd made a lasting impact on everyone he met. Lloyd accomplished more in 36 years than many others accomplish in three lifetimes. Lloyd was a leader of his generation. We will miss him greatly. Mr. Speaker, the voice of family always speaks with conviction and from the heart. The sentiments expressed by Lloyd's family are also ours. We, too, know them to be true. We wish to thank Father Richard Estrada of Jovenes, Inc., for our newly named The Lloyd Monserratt Pleasant House. June 22 offers us another chance to commemorate the life of our friend Lloyd Monserratt. Mr. Speaker, we ask that all of our colleagues join with us today to salute Mr. Lloyd Monserratt and honor his life. He will forever remain in our thoughts.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. The original purpose behind H.R. 1528 was good. When we take a look at the title, the Taxpayer Protection and IRS Accountability Act of 2003 and we take a look at the provisions that relate to protections for our taxpayers and accountability for the IRS, it is good. In fact, it was bipartisan. There was full agreement on both sides of the aisle that these were measures that would help American taxpayers file their returns, do it right, and get back the money they deserve. But what has happened to the bill, now that it is on the floor, is that it is no longer just a bill about taxpayer protections and IRS accountability. Somehow, in a bill that is supposed to relate to taxpayer protection and IRS accountability, there is a provision that has been put in here that has nothing to do with any of those things, and that is what Members on this side of the aisle keep talking about; a provision that deals with health care. Not just any kind of health care; it is health care for working Americans who have lost their jobs as a result of trade adjustments that have occurred that have made them lose their jobs, in other words, companies that have left America to go elsewhere to do their production and American workers who are now out of work. Out of work means likely out of health care. Out of health care is something that no American wants to be without. So what we did a year ago was pass legislation that said, okay, for those folks under the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act, we are going to make some provisions to provide some help to those Americans who lost their jobs. It is also an addition for some people who are now retired on pensions. The provision in this bill takes that out. It denies protections, consumer protections that we are providing to unemployed workers and pensioners. Why? Apparently, to make it easier for certain States. Why are you making it easier for certain States to exclude American workers who lost their jobs because American companies went abroad? This is a bill that could pass with 435 votes if it dealt with the taxpayer protections and IRS accountability, period. But instead, here we go, a provision has been added, not through a voting committee, not through a voting of the full House of Representatives, but rather in the dark of night. All of those folks who are watching on C-SPAN today are saying, why do they not want to vote for this bill? It is about protecting us as taxpayers. Because the folks watching C-SPAN will never see the provision that was added to this bill that has nothing to do with taxpayer protection and that most folks on that side of the aisle will not talk about, because they only want to talk about the Taxpayer Protection Act, not about the fact that we are denying thousands of American workers who lost their jobs, through no fault of their own, and now they are going to be out of the health care that we told them a year ago that we could get them. And why? Because some States are saying they cannot come up with a program to deal with it. Most of the States have done it or are well on their way for providing a program that is necessary for those folks to qualify. A few States are lagging behind, and what we are doing is because there are a few States that say they cannot do it, we are going to deny it to everyone. That is why the substitute should get the vote and the full support of all Members of the House.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, anecdotes are indispensable when the facts speak to the contrary, and perhaps we have to remind Members what the facts are once again. These are not our figures, these are not made-up figures, these are figures provided by the Federal Government, the Bush administration. In 1999, roughly 2.3 million Americans died. Of those 2.3 million Americans who died, less than 1.3 percent, some 33,000 Americans, paid estate taxes. That is the 1.3 wealthiest Americans in our country who paid estate taxes. So 98.7 percent of the rest of Americans who passed away in 1999 paid zero estate taxes. So when we talk about repealing the estate tax, eliminating the estate tax, we are giving a tax break not for Americans but the 1.3 percent richest Americans in this country. It is easy with anecdotes to hide behind family farms and family businesses which constitute less than 1 percent of the estates that are paying estate taxes. And it is real easy to hide behind the fact that in legislation like this we are back-loading the costs. We are phasing in the repeal so slowly, so gradually that when we start to add up the real cost of the repeal of the estate tax to the wealthiest 1.3 percent of Americans, when we fully phase it in when it is gone completely, it totals about $80 billion a year starting in 2014 when this takes full effect. $80 billion a year in revenues will be lost to the Federal Treasury, more than $800 billion over the decade from 2014 to 2023. Now, perhaps it would not be so bad to give the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans a tax cut that 99 percent of Americans would not get at a cost of $800 billion over the next 10 years from 2014 to 2023 if not for the fact that today every Member knows that we have a budget deficit for the year of over $400 billion, the largest deficit this country has ever faced in any year; and we are told that it is probably going to rise to half a trillion dollars, $500 billion next year. And that is after 2 years ago when the President took office and he said we are going to have for the next 10 years surpluses totaling over $5.6 trillion. We have seen a reversal from surpluses of $5.6 trillion to now projections of a $3.6 trillion debt over the next 10 years. How can we talk about giving $800 billion to the 1.3 percent wealthiest Americans? We spend more in tax cuts than we spend in all our educational programs that the Federal Government spends on all our schools combined. Let us defeat this. Vote for the Pomeroy substitute.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to join with my colleagues and celebrate the life and mourn the untimely, tragic death Friday evening, May 30, of Albert J. Davis, Chief Democratic Economist of the House Ways and Means Committee. Let me express my deepest condolences to Al's longtime companion, Mary Beilefeld. While our words today cannot replace the loss felt by Mary, I hope it is somehow comforting that her loss is not only hers but is shared by the Members and staff of the House Committee on Ways and Means and by all inside and outside of this institution who had the privilege of working with Al. I never saw a day when Al did not possess an amiable and peaceful air about him. And when you got him talking, it was wonderful seeing this gentle man's passion for his work, for economic justice and fairness come pouring out, the passion that fueled his mind and body while he spent long hours in his Longworth office writing the reports and memos on which my colleagues and I on the House Ways and Means Committee relied. During the past several years, Al provided us with the most up-to- date, readable, and, dare I say, entertaining analyses of budget and tax information available in Washington. There were many flights back to Los Angeles where a stack of Al's most recent memos written late the night before or bright and early that morning helped me pass the time and prepare for the committee or floor debates ahead. I have many fond remembrances of Al. For instance, there were the times when the two of us and perhaps John Buckley, his colleague on the Ways and Means Committee Democratic staff and accomplice in such matters, would sit behind the committee dais in 1100 Longworth and in an effort to liven things up a bit, devise a spirited line of questioning for a witness before the committee. Or other times when with only moments to spare, Al would come through with a quote, note, number, or other factoid from his encyclopedic memory or his always- threatening-to-burst accordion file folder that was central to the argument I was preparing to make during a tax mark-up. But perhaps my fondest memories of Al will be the after-hours, informal banter in the hallways or whenever we would run into each other in which the thoughtful, comedic, and interesting character of this wonderful human being would shine. Mr. Speaker, Al Davis was a public servant in the best sense of the phrase. The work he did, whether it was writing memos, crunching numbers, or producing charts and graphs, was all with the goal of ensuring that the public was served well by its government. I will long remember Al and his contributions to the Ways and Means Committee and this House and I ask that my colleagues remember and honor his memory as well.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, for my colleagues and the American public that perhaps have not quite figured out what is going on here when we are trying to help working families through a child tax credit, H.R. 1308, I believe, boils down to two things, and probably the best way to describe it is to remind folks about the very common joke we hear about how many people does it take to screw in a light bulb, except in this case, we have to ask how many people and how much money does it take to correct the $3.5 billion omission for working families through a child tax credit. The punch line, as funny as it may sound, is $80 billion, is what we are being told by our colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle that it takes to correct the $3.5 billion omission: $80 billion. And if it is not a joke, then it is either a very smart, some might say sneaky, others might say sinister, ploy, to try to sneak in all of these other tax cuts for very wealthy American families into what is a good package for working families, and a lot of our men and women who work in uniform who were left out by this House in the tax cuts under the child tax credit. It has got to be one of the two. Either it is a real joke on the American people, or it is a very cleverly planned, intentional way of sneaking through $76.5 billion of additional tax cuts that have nothing to do with the working families that we are trying to help. Now, it would not be so sinister or such a joke if it were not for the fact that our Federal Government is running a $400 billion deficit this year; and next year, we are being told by the White House and by our own congressional budget estimators that we will probably have about a $500 billion deficit next year. And yet, somehow our colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe we can spend an additional $6.5 billion to correct the problem that costs $3.5 billion. I think it is clear what is going on, and I would urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, June 9, 2003, I was unable to cast my floor vote on roll call numbers 249, 250, and 251. The votes I missed include rollcall vote 249 on Suspending the Rules and Passing H.R. 1610, the Walt Disney Post Office Building Designation Act; rollcall vote 250 on Suspending the Rules and Agreeing to H. Con. Res. 162, Honoring the city of Dayton, Ohio for hosting ``Inventing Flight: the Centennial Celebration;'' and rollcall vote 251 on Suspending the Rules and Passing S. 763, the Birch Bayh Federal Building and U.S. Court House Designation Act. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 249, 250, and 251.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. I join with my colleague from California (Mr. Dreier) in recognizing that not only is he an able reverend but he is also a very important constituent. I thank the Speaker for this opportunity to express some thoughts for this 1 minute. I thank the reverend for making the trip to Washington, D.C., and bringing the sunshine with him.