Xavier Becerra

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, my father has never skied in his life, my father has never played tennis in his life. I doubt he even wore a pair of skis or touched a tennis racquet in his life. But for more than 50 years he did work with a pick and shovel, and now my father has tendons in his hands which are contracted and tendons in his hands which are hardened. Pick and shovel and constantly stooping down, that is what my father did in building the great Nation that we have in America. Now was it repetitive action that caused those tendons to contract and harden? I do not know, but we should have information to determine if in fact that is what caused my father's tendons to contract and harden. But this legislation does not even allow OSHA to collect the information to make that determination. Whether or not we should have standards now, I will not make that judgment, but we should at least be allowed to collect the information needed to make that judgment. This bill under the Republican leadership would not allow it to happen. I will go back and tell my father what the Republican Congress wishes to do on this particular issue.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, we hear in this debate that we are being told that some programs have to be trimmed, we have to trim this tree; Head Start, for example, is being penalized because some programs apparently did not run or were not managed as well as they should have been. Yet I remember $500 toilet seats. I remember $100 screw drivers. I remember the costly travel junkets, and I remember the heavy cost overruns in the Department of Defense, and I see that they do not get penalized. In fact, they are rewarded. They are rewarded with $8 billion more in funding than they even requested. Tree trimming? I call it butchering. When we go out there and tell our children in our schools that their programs will not be there, those are being hacked; when we tell our workers that safety for all of our middle-income workers has been axed; when we tell our senior citizens section 8 housing subsidies will not be there to help them pay for their high cost of living and their rent, that is being sacrificed, what we are telling people is that the dream Americans have for their children is just that, it is just a dream. Let us be serious. We are not putting money into deficit reduction when we make these cuts. You could save every single penny we are cutting out of education by just cutting a fraction of the tax cuts that are going to go to the wealthiest of Americans in this country in this House's tax bill. We do not come even close with all the cuts we have made in education in paying for those wealthy tax cuts. Let us be serious, let us let America know where we are heading in this Congress. It is not for the American family.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] for that assurance.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his time and his great efforts on this issue, because I think as most people will recognize in this Chamber, anyone who pays for a service is entitled to get it. What we are trying to do is accelerate the process. Mr. Chairman, I hope now we have as much cooperation with the administration as we have had from the committee on this particular matter.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] for his recognition of this problem, and for working with a number of us to try to resolve this. Mr. Chairman, we know that there are program accounts which are funded through fees, and those funds, with those fees, are subsequently allocated by the administration with the approval of Congress. Is it the chairman's intention that the next time we have reprogramming done by the INS, as they come to the Congress for approval of those reprogramming priorities, that we make it clear to the INS, and it may be our efforts in Congress, to assure as they reprogram those dollars, that it is the intention to eliminate the backlog of naturalization applications and stay current with those applications for naturalization that are coming in?

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

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I speak in some pain here because I do respect tremendously the ranking member on the committee, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], and especially with all the efforts he has undertaken to try to provide law enforcement with the resources it needs and given his efforts so far on the issue of immigration. Mr. Chairman, I see this as an issue where we are robbing from Peter to give to Paul. Both areas involve law enforcement; one is in the incarceration area, the other is with the Byrne grants. I am a strong supporter of the Bryne grants, but I must say we have a Federal commitment to provide States with reimbursement for criminal alien incarceration and, when we have a Federal commitment, we should live up to that commitment to provide the funds. Finally last year we took some action on the issue of providing reimbursement to States for the criminal incarceration of immigrants, and what we find now is that the President, having taken this first step, it should now be continued. We should continue with this effort to try to provide the funds to reimburse the States. Mr. Chairman, we have an obligation to follow our talk with our walk, and I would hope that what we will see is that, although we have two good programs, the Byrne grant program and the criminal incarceration of undocumented immigrants issue, we should try to meld the two and make sure that we are not taking from one to give to the other, because both are very good. In a tough time we should try to do the best we can, and I would hope that what we would find is that it is time for us to live up to our obligation of giving money to reimburse States for those obligations that really should be Federal obligations.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Let me say that I want to, with all fervor and heart, support the amendment by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings]. This is not a time for us to retract and say that this is not a time to defend civil rights. This is an opportunity for us to say to all of America that we understand the value of passage of the Civil Rights Act back in the 1960's, and this is a chance for us to tell all Americans, every American, regardless of their race, creed, or color, that it is time to increase pressure on all those who might discriminate. I do not know if it has been mentioned, but over 100,000 allegations of discrimination have been filed with the EEOC over the past several years, each year. This is a time to make sure we have a strong, a vibrant EEOC. This is a time for us to say that we understand that the Federal Government has a role in enforcing our laws against discrimination. I would hope that, along with the gentleman from Florida, what we do is understand that this is a time to recognize that all Americans should be treated equally. So I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting the Hastings amendment.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for their thoughtfulness as they approached this amendment, and try to address the body on this particular issue. The issue at hand is that of naturalization. Too often when we talk about the Immigration and Naturalization Service within the Department of Justice, we forget what the ``N'' in INS stands for. Naturalization is one of the principal components of the work of the INS. Unfortunately, too many people do not see the naturalization efforts of the INS. Mr. Chairman, by the end of this decade, before we reach the 21st century, there will be nearly 11.5 million people in this country who will be eligible for U.S. citizenship. Let me give some quick information on where we are right now. The INS approved during fiscal year 1994 roughly 420,000 applications for naturalization, people who wanted to become U.S. citizens. At the end of that fiscal year, they had a backlog of 300,000 people wishing to become U.S. citizens. This fiscal year, the INS estimates that it will have 900,000 people who will come through their doors applying for citizenship. They estimate that with the current funding they have, plus some reprogramming funds from fee accounts that they receive of about $22 million, they will be able to process about 700,000 people. Mr. Chairman, fully 200,000 people will be added to the 300,000 backlog, so we will end up with 500,000 people, half a million people, seeking citizenship who have gone through the entire process and are still not able to become citizens, after they paid their fees and waited their time. The amendment I have, Mr. Chairman, is an attempt to try to address that major backlog that we have. We are talking about people who in some cases have waited 12 to 15 years to enter this country, to get the permission to get to this country. People who, once in this country, pay every single tax that a citizen does, abide by every single law that a citizen does, and in many cases, like citizens, have defended this country in time of war, whether the Gulf War or any other theater of war. They are on their way to becoming full-fledged American citizens, and now we find at this time that we cannot accommodate them. This amendment is an effort to try to do just that and help relieve the backlog. I believe it is important for us to send a message to people who have gone through every step the correct way to come into this country, that they are entitled to get processed through because they have paid a fee to do so. It seems anomalous to me to consider the fact that we have hundreds of thousands of people who have said they are willing to relinquish their current citizenship and adopt this country fully and faithfully, yet we cannot get there because we are unable to get through the bureaucracy to get them sworn in. For some people to have to wait fully 2 years between submitting their fees and their application and actually getting to be sworn in, to say, ``I do become a U.S. citizen,'' is abysmal. We must change that. The money that I am requesting through this amendment, $8 million for the INS, would not resolve the whole problem, but it would get us part of the way there and help us stay more current with our applications and relieve, or at least eliminate a good portion of the backlog, if not all the backlog. Mr. Chairman, for that reason, I believe this amendment is very worthy of consideration.

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

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her words. Mr. Chairman, I will conclude by saying the following: We have actually increased the funding for the Immigration and Naturalization Service dramatically, and it is about time, because we know we need to do more to try to regulate our borders. We know we have to do a better job of verifying those who have come into this country with visas and ultimately overstay their visas and no longer have the permission to be here. We have the job to do to make sure that people who are entitled to work do work, and those that do not have the authority to work do not. We have a lot of things to do, and much of the money that we are providing to the INS goes to those areas. But, Mr. Chairman, we unfortunately do not do the job that we can, and certainly that the INS should do, to try to eliminate the backlog of people who say, ``We are ready to become full-fledged participants in this American society.'' Mr. Chairman, I believe it is consistent with a great Nation to say that we will be there with them to carry them through the process.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, with that assurance, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, this is an issue which undoubtedly has the passion of several Members, and I respect that passion and their desire to fulfill what they believe is the right course of action when it comes to Cuba and Mr. Castro. So I say this with deep respect for their views. But I must say that at a time when we are cutting back on so many different programs, to spend $90 million on TV Marti, when we know we are cutting back on some very, very essential programs, to me is difficult to swallow. Worse, when I realize that TV Marti does not even reach most of the Cuban people because it is blocked, it is something that cannot get through as much as we might desire, some people might desire, makes it a doubly more difficult thing to swallow. Mr. Chairman, I would urge Members to consider the fact that what we are trying to do with these budget bills, these spending bills, is to try to come up with ways to spend our money the best we can for Americans. I would hope that we would concentrate on those. As much as I respect a lot of the Members who are my good friends, who have a great deal of interest and, as I said before, passion on this issue, I would urge colleagues to vote for the Skaggs amendment.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to make a rollcall vote on the Transportation appropriations bill today, No. 567, the Coleman amendment. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I ask that that vote be reflected at the end of the rollcall vote for that particular amendment in the Record. personal explanation

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I must say, as another member of the advisory committee of Corrections Day, I am also very disturbed by this particular bill coming up. This is not the appropriate type of vehicle to do this. We are here to try to correct dumb legislation. This does not fit the bill. I must say that I must agree with Mayor Golding of San Diego, who said she does not want to get rid of the public comment period provided by this bill; H.R. 1943 would undo the ability of the local communities to have comment, to give comment on this particular waste disposal facility. It is essential, as the mayor has said. I believe it is, as well. This is not the way to go. We should not be trying to undo laws that protect the community. I would urge Members to oppose this particular Corrections Day bill because it does not fit the definition of a corrections day bill.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I, too, rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, let me join with the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] in urging Members to vote for this particular amendment. What we are trying to do with this amendment is provide $12 million that was already allocated for refugee and migration assistance and make sure it goes for that particular purpose, to fund program expenses, not to fund salaries and not to fund administrative costs out of monies that should be spent for programming. The biggest problem we have sometimes in Congress is making sure that the money we allocate is spent the way it was meant to be spent as it came out of committee. What we would have here, with the way that the bill currently is drafted, is money going not for programs, when it is earmarked for programs, but to pay for salaries and expenses. It may even be spent on salaries and expenses for people who do not even work on refugee and migration assistance issues. It is $12 million. The State Department has over $2.1 billion to pay for staff and administrative expenses already. This $12 million would be taken from the program accounts for refugee assistance and would do great damage to a program that is already underfunded to try to help the refugees throughout this world. There is no country that has been more generous when it comes to trying to help refugees in this entire world than the United States. We should not do it more harm by taking away $12 million to pay for things that do nothing to help the people that we are saying in the bill that we are going to try to do. The refugee assistance account needs the $12 million that would be cut so we can provide the assistance. We should not let a back door attempt to get money to pay for salaries and expenses be used to try to fund further State Department salaries. We should make sure that the monies go where they are supposed to go, program funding for programs, not for administrative salaries and expenses. Mr. Chairman, I would urge the Members to consider the Smith amendment as one that just repeats what we have said we want to do, not an authorization bill for foreign assistance. What we should be saying in our appropriations bill, that when we allocate money, do what we say we are going to do. If Members say they are going to give money to refugees and migration assistance, give it to refugees and migration assistance, they should not do a back door end around and give it to administration and salaries instead and say that they are giving it to refugees. I urge Members to support the Smith amendment.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I, like everyone else in this Congress, have a family, and I think we all do our utmost to make sure that, as we balance our family budgets, as we must do at the end of every year, we have planned for our future, not just for our present. I must tell the Members, when I take a look at what is before us today in terms of a budget for the family of America, I do not see this comporting to what the needs are for all the families of America. In my family, as my parents did, our parents did, I plan for the two children that I have right now to go on to college. I prepare for the illnesses that my spouse, my wife or my kids may face. We must plan for that day when it rains a little bit more than we expect, and we need that extra cash. Mr. Speaker, I do not see this in this budget. What I do see is $245 billion in tax breaks, mostly going to people who are wealthy in this country. I do see cuts of $10 billion, yes, $10 billion in cuts for education, for college, and I see $270 billion in cuts for Medicare, for our elderly, and $180 billion in Medicaid for our elderly and our poor. That is not planning the way my parents would do it, the way my family would do it, not any family in America would do it. I urge the Members to reject this budget proposal.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to also thank the ranking member of the Education Committee, the gentleman from Missouri, for putting together this special order and making it possible for some of us to express our concerns about this budget proposal that we see coming out of the new Republican majority. Let me focus first if I may for a few moments on some of the greater picture here that we have to deal with. First, we heard for several months that in this whole attempt to balance the budget and pass a balancing budget amendment, that no one would touch Social Security. Well, now we know that that was not true, because in the Republican budget proposal, there will be a cut of $24 billion between 1999 and the year 2002 that will cost the average Social Security recipient about $240 in the year 2002. We were told that all this was necessary and we had to go about this because it was necessary to balance our books. Yet we now know that the Republican majority wishes to have a $353 billion tax cut which goes mostly to wealthy people. The greatest amount will go to those who earn incomes above $100,000 and principally those earning over $200,000. You could expect to get back about $20,000 if you are wealthy. If you are middle income, well, you get about 1/40 of what that wealthy person would get. Yet somehow we have to pay for that $353 billion tax cut. How? We see it now in terms of education. About $20 billion now will be footed by new families that have kids that want to go to college because now when it comes to going to college, when it comes to getting that student loan, those students will be paying more money. It is a $20 billion tax cut for families with kids going on to college to pay for tax cuts mostly to wealthy people. What does that mean? If you are in college right now and you take out a loan after this budget should pass, get ready to pay more for the interest because you would have to start paying interest the day you take out your loan, not 6 months after you graduate. The way it is done now, we subsidize it at the Federal level so that we do not somehow encumber a student's ability to go to school by saying, ``You now have to start paying interest on that loan you have taken out. Get that education first, then you can do it.'' That is gone. We are also going to charge our schools, our public schools, K through 12, moneys because we are going to cut off all sorts of programs including innovative programs that make it possible for us to reform the way we teach and provide innovative programs. In Los Angeles, there is a program called LAMP, L.A. Metropolitan Project, which is a public-private partnership. We are getting $50 million in Los Angeles from the Annenberg Fund, a foundation which is giving $50 million for the L.A. Unified School District to come up with innovative ways to reform itself. It is a very large district. We are now seeking private dollars from the private sector to help match the $50 million grant and we are going to try to do what we can to get the local governments and the State and Federal governments to come in as well. But here in the cuts that are occurring to programs like Goals 2000 which we passed last year which is for the purpose of reforming and innovating, we cannot do it anymore because that money is gone. Perhaps most curious of all that we are seeing being done with the budget is that while we are cutting education, cutting student loan grants and moneys for people to go on to college, cutting back for people for Medicare to cost for Social Security recipients, we are increasing spending on defense. This is a department that obviously we need to provide moneys for because we want to have national defense. But I do recall at some point that we did have $500 toilet seats coming from the Department of Defense. I do recall the millions of cost overruns that we saw in the Department of Defense. Yet no cuts. In fact, a $69 billion increase over the next 5 years. That does not seem to me to be a fair way to allocate the heavy cuts. If we are going to cut programs like education 30 percent, or in some cases 100 percent, why are we not doing a thing to touch the Department of Defense, the largest single program outside of Social Security? Yet, we are going to touch Social Security, Medicare, our kids in school, our kids who wish to go to college. It makes no sense whatsoever. When I take a look at the cuts that are occurring and I say to myself, why is it that we made so much of an effort at the Federal level to try to help our schools reform, when we know that the Federal Government helps schools to the tune of about 6 percent of all that is spent in our schools nationwide. Most of the money comes from the local school districts and the State governments. The Federal Government quite honestly has a very small role relative to the States. But 6 percent can still be quite a bit. Two percent of our Federal budget outlays go for education, just 2 percent. That 2 percent when you think about the gross domestic product, the entire productive capacity of the Nation per year is less than .5 percent of our GDP, goes to education. That is our commitment right now at the Federal level. We are now being told that we should cut it out, if not entirely, by a dramatic and drastic amount. It makes no sense, because we would not have some of those gifted and talented student programs that we have now in schools, some of the bilingual education programs, the programs for the kids of Army personnel who are increasing the cost of those local school districts to run their schools, we would not have some of that support because those are programs that the States and local governments did not have. That is why the Federal Government is so important. Why do we see this happening now? Mostly because we have to pay for tax cuts, $353 billion worth of tax cuts. You can lump all the cuts to education, all the cuts to higher education to colleges, you can lump that together with all the cuts to Medicare and add the cuts to Social Security and you still don't pay for the tax cut that goes mostly to wealthy people. A scary proposition we are hearing but that is the way it is. I must say, Mr. Speaker, and to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay], the ranking member who has made available this time, that that is not the way this country wished to go, whether it was in the election of 1994 or in previous years or today. I think if the people of America knew the truth, they would say this is not the way you balance a budget. You don't cut off the head to try to save the body. You try to make sure that you reform and you do it in a very rational way. This is not rational in any sense of the word. Reason has been thrown out the door. I hope that what we do, I say to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] and the rest of the Members who are standing up here, is to somehow bring some sanity back to the debate. I thank the gentleman for the time.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in strong support of this en bloc amendment offered by my esteemed colleague from Michigan. It is true that at times we try to do our utmost to protect our societies and our communities from pollution, from hazards, from the environment when we create those hazards. But oftentimes we do not succeed. It is unfortunate that current law has not done the job of protecting certain communities, mostly low-income communities, minority communities, when it comes to things like environmental hazards. Let me give some very concrete examples. I represent a portion of the city of Los Angeles. I happen to represent, in portions of my district, some of the wealthiest individuals in Los Angeles, and at the same time in another portion of my district I represent individuals of very low income. On one end of my district I have no freeways crossing through the district. I have no problems with waste dumps. I have no problems with projects for incineration plants or for pipelines for oil to be passed through. But on the other side of my district, I do. I have a district that has within its 5-mile radius around seven prison facilities that have been housed there over the last 10 years as a result of a supposed need by the county to have a place to house prisoners. We have a toxic waste dump that is on the EPA site for cleanup, and it must be taken care of because it is emitting pollutants and hazardous emissions. I had, at one point nearby, a proposal to build a toxic waste incineration plant in the district or close to the district. It has not gone through, but clearly present law was not enough to protect this. Current legislation is not enough to protect, and we need the en bloc amendments by the gentlewoman from Michigan to make sure we do so, because there is a danger, it is clearly the case, the facts show it, that disproportionately minority communities, low-income communities share the exposure, the highest exposure and the burden of that exposure of those environmental hazards. there is equal treatment of all communities when it comes to hazardous wastes to make sure that they are all protected, but oftentimes we do not go far enough. This gives us an opportunity to ensure that the past wrongs can be righted and that we will never make those mistakes again, so that every community, whether they are very empowered, very enfranchised, or not, have the opportunity to say that they will benefit from the protections of our environment that we are trying to do here today.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, it is with great joy that I inform my colleagues that on April 25, 1995, my wife, Carolina, gave birth to Olivia Alexandra, our second daughter. Because she was born near the end of the Easter district work period, I elected to remain in Los Angeles during the week of May 1 to be with and help care for her during her first week home. As such, I missed a number of recorded votes when the House met on May 2. I would have voted on each amendment and bill: On motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 1158, Omnibus Rescissions and Supplemental Appropriations (rollcall 303)--Aye. On final passage of H. Con. Res. 53, visit by President of Taiwan (rollcall 304)--Aye. On final passage of H. Res. 135, condemnation of the Oklahoma City bombing (rollcall 305)--Aye. Olver amendment to H.R. 655, Hydrogen Future Act (rollcall 306)--Aye. Brown of California amendment to H.R. 655 (rollcall 307)--Aye.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, we now move on to the Senate to discuss what has happened here today in the House of Representatives, where we have just provided to the privileged few in this Nation, the opportunity to have massive tax cuts. I would like to have an opportunity to go through a few of the things that we have just heard discussed over the last several hours of debate on this tax bill. But I would like to do it under the context of what will happen in many situations that will, of course, not help at all with single Americans, especially middle-income Americans, but will in effect help some of the wealthiest, not so much individuals, but some of the wealthiest corporations in America. I have before me some headline news. Headline news not of 1995, although I must tell you that the headlines will be very appropriate in 1995 if this tax bill goes through, but these are headlines from 1984, 1985, and 1986, years when we did not have what we call the alternative minimum tax. The alternative minimum tax, for those who do not know, is a proposal that took effect in 1986 because we had situations, as you see here, declared in some of our major newspapers throughout the country. We had situations as Newsday reports where 50 major firms paid no U.S. taxes. We are talking about firms that made profits in the billions. We had corporations, as the headlines say, that paid less taxes then our families, in some cases families earning less than $20 to $30,000. We had headlines of firms misusing their tax breaks, as demonstrated in studies that were done. We see also that in a study that was done as well that 50 big firms paid the IRS zippo, nothing, not a single cent, when we had taxpayers earning perhaps $20 to $30,000 paying much, much more than the biggest corporations in America, the biggest corporations throughout the world. Because of situations like this, in 1986 Congress passed the alternative minimum tax. What we said is that at some point at the end of that year, a corporation that has made billions of dollars in profits has to pay some minimum tax. You cannot get off with no taxes, when even some of America's poorest families are paying even slight amounts of taxes. Well, in 1986 this went through. Now every corporation in America that shows some profits must pay some taxes. That seems pretty fair to me. Well, this bill that just passed this House floor by a very small margin will now eliminate the alternative minimum tax, which means we will revert to the days before 1986 where we saw banner headlines like this in our major newspapers. So let us not be surprised when we hear people say ``Why am I not receiving anything out of this supposed tax cut bill for America, and I hear that corporations no longer are having to pay any taxes, even though they have made billions in profits?'' That is, in my mind, very disturbing for America. But let me go through some of other aspects of this particular legislation that just went through that also should concern Americans, especially those who are middle-income taxpayers and those that are making perhaps less than that. Touted throughout the day by Members on the other side of the aisle was this tax break, $500 tax break for children. A family with children would be able to deduct $500 per child. That, of course, went for families with incomes up to $200,000, which includes the wealthest 2 percent of Americans in this Nation. But what they did not say was that if you happened to earn about $18,000 in your family income and you have a child, you are not going to benefit from that particular tax break for children, because although you have children, because your tax rates are going to be so low or your taxable income will be so low because you make so little that you will not be able to benefit. So you are lucky if you are very wealthy because you have a lot of things to deduct that $500 from, but if you happen to be a very hard- working American with a child, you will not have a chance to deduct a single cent because your income level is too low to make use of a $500 deduction. There are other things like the child care credit which will not go to those families that are lower income and when you take a close look, you will see that this is not a tax break for America. It is a tax break for the very privileged few.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing wrong with tax cuts. Obviously, it is great if we can give the American people a tax cut. Two questions we have to ask, though, are: Is it being done equitably and can we afford to pay for the tax cuts, because somewhere we will have to pay for the loss in revenue. We have heard Speaker Newt Gingrich describe within the contract on America this tax-cut proposal as the crown jewel of the contract. It is a crown jewel all right, but the only problem is you only get the jewels if you are privileged enough in society and can afford them. The plan gives away billions of dollars in tax breaks and other goodies to corporations and the well-to-do, those groups, the only groups, in fact, that in the 1980's benefited from the trickle-down economics we experienced in that decade. If you do not belong to this group of corporations or well-to-do, the plan not only does not help but you have to pay for it as well. How will you pay? We have seen a little already. Who takes the hit? School lunch programs, student loan programs, student grant programs for colleges, summer youth employment programs, home heating assistance for seniors. There will be more middle-class programs cut and dismantled over the next several months to pay for these expensive tax cuts. The capital gains tax cut that we will see by itself benefits, for the most part, those that have incomes in the six-fugure range. Seventy-five percent of the benefits will go to the top 12 percent of Americans in this country. Overall, 50 percent of the benefits go to those who earn over $100,000, 12 percent of the entire population. Let us take a quick look at a chart that we prepared here to show who benefits but who pays. If you happen to earn $200,000 or more, you are going to get about $11,266 from a tax cut from the Republican proposed legislation. If you earn under $30,000, you can expect to get, over the year, $124 in that tax cut. If you take a look here, you can see how many people in America earn those different ranges of income. How many people earn over $200,000 a year? Less than 1 percent of the population. Yet they are going to take the lion's share of those tax cuts. How many earn under $30,000 or between $30,000 and $75,000? About 45 percent of the American public. You can see from this chart how much, close to 50 percent of the American public will get out of these tax cuts. They are not going to the average middle-class family. They are not going to the average family period. They are going mostly to those who are well-to-do. Why? It is unclear. We have not specified where the cuts will come from, the money to pay for those cuts. We have not discussed how we will somehow make up for the loss in money to pay for school lunch programs, but we do know that those who earn over $200,000 will benefit tremendously from this. Is it just a Democrat or someone who happens to represent an area that has a lot of middle-class or working-class Democrat or Republican tax-cut bills? No. Let me give some quotes from people on the Republican side of the aisle on this tax-cut proposal. ``Most people in my district don't consider someone making over $200,000 middle class.'' Republican from Iowa. ``It's a message that we need to give. That we don't think $200,000 is middle class. Just because everyone signed the Contract With America does not mean that everyone agreed with every detail.'' Republican from Nevada said that. ``I want something that defends Democrats' charges that we are the party of the rich.'' Republican from Illinois. ``There's a lot of concern that if we were to enact all the tax cuts in the Contract With America that it would make it all but impossible to bring the deficit under control.'' The chairman of the Committee on Rules, Republican from New York, said that. Clearly, what we see here is not a tax-cut plan that will go to middle America. It is a tax-cut plan that removes the minimum protection that we have to make sure that corporations pay any minimum taxes that we passed about 10 years ago because we saw some mega- corporations, transnational corporations getting away without paying a cent of tax. The Republican proposal that we will have before us this week eliminates that law that requires corporations to pay at least a minimum tax. This is not a tax plan for average Americans. This is not a tax plan that the Congress should pass. This is not a tax plan that the President should sign. This is a tax plan that will go to a few and be paid by many. Mr. Speaker, I would urge all my colleagues as we debate this measure to take a close look at what we do here today and tell the American people that, before we start talking about tax cuts, let us start talking about deficit reduction.