Xavier Becerra

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. It is my understanding, and it has been a while since I was in college as a graduate student as well, that these graduate students, we are talking not about so much the business school and law school and medical school graduates, but the folks studying science and chemistry and mathematics, that they average about $10,000 to $15,000 in income. How much of a tax does this bill impose on those types of students?

Mr. BECERRA. We are talking about higher education here. Graduate education, which is postsecondary education at the highest level, where we have our chemists, our scientists, our teachers coming out of our schools, that is extremely important as well. I am concerned that there are some provisions in this bill that would detrimentally affect graduate students, those who have already got the undergraduate degree and now are trying to get that graduate degree to be the scientists and chemists and inventors of the future. Can the gentleman explain it? There is a particular provision that is harmful to those graduate students. Can the gentleman explain that to us?

Mr. BECERRA. The President's education proposal, supported by the Democrats, would have provided tax benefits for working families paying those tuition costs out of salary or wage income, but do not those proposals have income limitations?

Mr. BECERRA. That is correct, Mr. Speaker. If the gentleman looks at it closely, for a student who attends a low-cost public college with tuition somewhere around $1,000, under our plan, under the Democratic plan presented by the President, that HOPE credit would be $1,500. But under the Republican plan we have passed out of the House, the credit would only be $750. This change would particularly hurt students from low- and moderate-income families, those working class families that typically attend those junior colleges that do not cost all that much. I am as concerned, as anyone else on this floor should be concerned, about helping working families pay for all 4 years of college. Is the gentleman aware of any tax incentives that the Republican proposal has for families paying tuition expenses for the last 2 years of college out of their salary or wage incomes?

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Jefferson].

Mr. BECERRA. Reclaiming my time, they are taxing graduate students and they are collecting $430 million in taxes as a result of doing that, and at the same time they are giving corporations a tax windfall and not asking them to pay any taxes. Does that seem fair?

Mr. BECERRA. I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan to make some remarks.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding the time, and if I could, just in taking in all this debate, and we are now discussing the Democratic alternative, it strikes me that there are two provisions that really make it clear why the Democratic alternative is so much better than the bill we have before us from the Republican majority. First, when my colleagues talk about the child tax credit, when any working American comes home with that pay stub and that American looks down the list of taxes paid, I do not think the American says, well, that was excise tax, that was payroll tax, that was income tax. She knows she paid taxes. And for those here in this Chamber to say that those taxes paid by that individual making $20,000, $23,000, $28,000 do not count verges on being un-American to me because that is a tax paid to provide for the operation of this government and the programs that we all use. Second, the average cost of a community college education, a public community college education, is about $1,200. Under the Republican tax bill, they will get a credit, but only half of that, $600. In our bill we try to reflect what the President agreed or thought he agreed to do with the Republicans when he negotiated a budget deal, and that was to give them a $1,200 tax credit for education. Two ways that the deal was broken. There are other ways the deal was broken. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] mentioned one, that we are going to be taxing graduate students. That seems to me to be so unfair, and I see the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Stabenow] here.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I know it is not fair to Robin. I am fortunate, I got myself a good education, I am making a decent salary. She is working just as hard as any one of us, and there is no reason why she should not be able to take advantage of that.

Mr. BECERRA. Paying taxes. Has one child in college.

Mr. BECERRA. Not a nickel of it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, certainly we are going to do away with $135 billion worth of money.

Mr. BECERRA. Yes, Mr. Chairman, just like the policeman there. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, to know that 70,000 or so families, working families in my district are probably at risk of not being able to participate in something that is being touted as something for all families with children is unconscionable, but that is where we are heading. If we could put a name to some of those faces. This individual does not live in my district, she happens to live in Missouri. Her name is Robin Acree. She earns about $21,000. She is divorced, she has three kids, age 14, 17, and 19. Now, it is interesting, under the 1995 bill that this Republican House passed, Robin would have qualified for a $500 tax credit, child tax credit. Under this year's bill, she does not get a cent. Even though she pays somewhere over $2,100 in taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, she will get zero out of this. Now, Robin lives in Missouri, she is not in my district in California, but she works just as hard, I imagine, as any of the folks and the families in my district that are also to be left out. I do not understand why under one bill this House was willing to give her a $500 tax credit, but now this year she gets zero, even though she pays more than $2,200 in taxes.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, what is more interesting, I have a district in Los Angeles where it is mostly working class. The median income is somewhere around $25,000.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, more than half of the kids, from what we have been able to determine, in this tax bill, they will not have an opportunity to take advantage of this child tax credit, even though they work full time.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, working families.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, listening to all of this, for those of us in a place like Los Angeles, a State as big as California is, to know that more than half of the children in California will not get a child tax credit through this bill.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BECERRA. Working full time.

Mr. BECERRA. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. BECERRA. I do not know what the gentlewoman from Michigan did but she is bringing out all her colleagues from Michigan.

Mr. BECERRA. I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan.

Mr. BECERRA. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, just in closing because I know we are going to run out of time, is just mention the reason there is a difference of 21 million children is because we do what we can to provide a tax break for those families that are earning $30,000 and under. The Republicans unfortunately say it is not worth it because they do not believe that that tax that we are imposing on those families is worth counting. So it is a difference of opinion. There is a difference in values here.

Mr. BECERRA. I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan.