Xavier Becerra

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I would like to discuss something of grave concern to me, because although I do not have a child who is of college age yet, in about 6 years I will, and in about 18 years, God willing, I will also have another child that will be preparing to go to college. Today I would like to address the whole issue of what is happening in this Congress, and to me what is happening and what will happen perhaps next week is the devastation of the opportunity of young people to become professionals and become productive members of our society. The Republican Contract With America calls for cuts. It calls for tax cuts that will go to those privileged few in our society that are very wealthy. And it calls for cuts, cuts to programs that help seniors, cuts to programs that help children, and cuts to people who are preparing to go on to college. Whether you are 5 years of age or whether you are 22 years of age, it does not matter; the Contract With America is bad news for you. Last week we passed in this House welfare proposals that were contained within the Contract With America. Unfortunately, what this proposal did was cut school lunch programs, it cut child care, it cut aid to disabled students, all for the purpose of trying not just as we were told to try to reform welfare, but also to provide billions of dollars to pay for these tax cuts that we will see next week on the floor of this House for discussion, which will ultimately go mostly as I said before to the privileged few. Within the next weeks we will also see something that will be of interest not to just to those that are 5 years of age, not just to those who have children 5 years of age, but to those who wish to go on to college, and that is, of course, what we see written, for example, in U.S. News and World Report where they say that ``Every major Federal college aid program is considered a target in one form or another by the new Republican majority in Congress.'' What does that mean? Financial aid for middle-class students today is in jeopardy. In fact, it is not only in jeopardy, it may become a thing of the past. Why? The Contract With America calls for the Congress to pay for these tax cuts. And one of the ways they plan to do that, as we understand so far from the majority, is they plan to eliminate four major student aid programs. The first is subsidized Stafford student loans; the second is work study programs; the third is supplemental education opportunity grants for very low income and disadvantaged students; and fourth is a Perkins loan program, which also provides loans to low- and middle-income students. These four programs constitute about 75 percent of all the student aid that we see given out in this Nation. Why are the Republicans in this Contract on America doing this? As I said before, they have to pay for their tax cuts, which amount to about $200 billion over 5 years, and I believe over $800 billion over 10 years. Somewhere they need to find the money, and they are doing it going after not just the kids and school lunch, but we now see college students will have to pay the price. What we find is that on November 8 people said they wanted to vote for change, but what we are finding is people are beginning to realize this is not the kind of change that they wish to have. When you talk to people, they say that along with things like Social Security, we wish to preserve programs that help people become professionals, to become productive citizens. We do not wish to deny them the opportunity to become full-fledged members of our society. These cuts to student aid programs will be devastating. Millions of individuals may very well see their economic futures go down the drain. This in turn, country. Getting rid of these four student aid programs will cost about $20 billion over the next 5 years for middle-income families. Now, let us look at it this way. It is not just the cost, it is a tax. Because these are middle-income families that otherwise would have been able to help their children go on to college. But because they are being taxed in higher fees, less money for student loans, they will now be paying the cost of these tax cuts that will be going mostly to the privileged few in their Contract With America. This is the worst time, by the way, to be cutting back on student aid. Tuition is rising rapidly throughout the country. Without any assistance, the cost of attending college will go up even more. Some will be forced to forgo school altogether. In California, tuition rates have skyrocketed. The goal of California's master plan of giving every young person the chance to go to college, whether it is community college, State university or the University of California campuses, is evaporating rapidly. Those students who represent the first generation of college students in their family just might come home without a degree, a devastating blow for parents, students and siblings alike. I can give an example: I myself am the first in my family to get an education. My parents were immigrants. I would not have been able to go, but I took advantage of work study and student aid and student loans. I hope we will understand this is not the way to go, and we will not support the Contract With America's attempt to go after our college students.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, let me try to respond a bit to the colloquy that has occurred in the last few minutes and say that it does not make any difference what CRS says or what we say. Ultimately, it is what the principals in our schools say about their School Lunch Programs that matters. And what they will tell you is that each time they get more children. The point I wish to make is, ultimately, what matters is what the principal says about how much money she will have to feed those kids through a School Lunch Program, given the growing number of children and the growing cost of feeding those children. That is what counts most. What is worse about this bill, H.R. 4, that you have in the Contract on America is that when you say you are going to increase funding 4.5%, that is just talk. Because, quite honestly, what you have done in H.R. 4 in the Contract on America is you have changed the game. No longer do you guarantee a child that lunch. Because, see, you may want to give 4.5 percent increases. I may want to decision. The appropriators do in this House of Congress. And if the appropriators do not allocate your 4.5 percent increase, if they do not allocate a dime, those children do not get a dime. That is not current law. Current law does not leave itself at the whims of politicians to decide what children will get. Current law says, we do not want to put this in the political realm. Let us leave it for the children, and let us make sure they are guaranteed an opportunity to have a decent lunch or breakfast. Your bill, the Contract on America bill, does not do that, and that is perhaps the most important point. You can claim you are increasing funding by billions of dollars. You can claim percentage increases over what we have this year. It is all just a claim because you cannot guarantee you are going to do one thing or the other. In fact, you are already making changes to your own Contract on America welfare proposal from what was in writing and what you promised people in November 1994. So why should anyone believe that what you promised in November, which has already changed, is what you are going to do in 1997? Let me go on to something further I prefer to discuss because it is getting very little attention. For children who are disabled right now, we should beware. If you are a parent of a child who is disabled, it is tough enough right now to raise a family. But if you have disabled kids, I suspect you can tell just about anybody in this room, in this floor right now, that it is an even more daunting challenge, regardless of your income level. But if you are a parent trying to raise a family and if you are a parent trying to raise a family with a disabled child, beware because H.R. 4, the Newt Gingrich Contract on America welfare proposal, will tell your children you are no longer going to get supplemental security income which helps you supplement your family income to provide services to your disabled child. Beware because about 225,000 children in America are going to be dumped from a program where families are assisted in aiding their disabled child. And over the next 5 years, around 700,000 disabled children will be denied SSI as a result of the Contract on America welfare proposal. In Los Angeles, roughly 20,000 disabled children and also blind children receive SSI. H.R. 4 changes all of that. Now, we hear claims by the supporters of H.R. 4 that we have parents who are abusing SSI. The supporters of H.R. 4 say that the caseload in SSI for disabled children is growing because parents are teaching their kids to pretend that they are retarded in order for them to qualify for SSI. Are there parents abusing SSI? Are there 225,000 disabled children faking their disability? Well if there is fraud, then let us deal with that aspect within the eligibility process for SSI for disabled kids. But the political Contract on America goes too far. It is overkill. Let me give two or three quick examples. Six-year-old Jennifer suffers from congenital bowel malformation which requires a colostomy. She also suffers from eye problems and lacks peripheral vision which causes her to run into walls. At age 6 she was not yet toilet trained. Kendra, 2 years old, suffers from a rare growth condition in which one arm is twice as long as the other, causing loss of balance, motor impairment and spinal curvature and a loss of lung volume. Both of these two young children probably will not qualify for SSI. So here we see it. Cuts to kids. Cuts to school lunch. And what else do we have? Cuts to taxes for the rich and wealthy. $66 billion is saved under H.R. 4. What is it for? Tax cuts for the wealthy. This is not the way to go.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding again. I think the gentleman from Vermont is hitting on a very important point. I think a lot of us take our time at 11:30 at night to be here to discuss this because obviously we are not just trying to talk to our colleagues but we are also trying to communicate to the American people. We have to make sure we let folks understand what is going on. This Contract that was a political contract lobbied and campaigned upon back in November, what did it mean, and what is happening with that because really when you take a look at what is being done, there really is an inconsistency with trying to be American and promote America, and what is being done in contracts that say things and when you read those find details of the contract, you find something different. The gentleman from Vermont raised an interesting point. We are talking right now over the last week or so about cuts to children's programs, school lunches, other nutrition programs, child care for kids. You have to say what is next. Then all of a sudden you find on the horizon that the next thing is not just on kids, but now it is on our young people that are getting ready to go to college with student loans and student grants where we are going to cut a lot of the moneys that we provide for our young people to afford a college education. I have got to say one thing here. I have a 22-month-old daughter. I sat down with a financial planner, my wife and I about 3 months ago, 4 months ago, and we asked that financial planner what will it cost us to get our child through college when she grows up. We were told, well, it depends. Public school, you can probably count on something approaching $150,000. Private school, and I was very fortunate to go to Stanford University, they said Stanford University, you can expect to spend about $400,000 for your child to get educated. What is next? Student loans. My goodness.

Mr. BECERRA. There is something really strange and perverse about a society when we can have people fly from across the country, if they are wealthy enough to come lobby Members of Congress, go out and have lunch. Deduct it because it is a business expense of coming down here, deduct that $50 dollar lunch that they may have, deduct it and come over here and tell us that we should be cutting school lunch programs for kids while they are writing off as a tax deduction a business tax deduction, the cost of a lunch they may have at a very expensive restaurant. What we are doing is, a lot of us are standing up and saying, what is going on here. We want to reform welfare. We just voted on a Democratic alternative by some Members, more conservative Members of the Democratic Caucus, that would have reformed welfare but what it would have said is, let us make you work. If you are on welfare, it is a transition to get you to work. And let us understand that we have to be realistic. If you have got a daughter or a son and you need to go to work, well, you are going to probably need some day care. So we are going to help you so you can keep that job by providing you with some day care, making sure you do not lose your medical benefits because, obviously, as soon as you lose those medical benefits and you have some problems with the child getting sick, you are going to drop your job and you are going to get back on welfare. So let us be realistic. Let us reform, but let us make sure in the process of reforming what we are saying is, get to work.

Mr. BECERRA. Let me tell you, I have a chart here that I would like to go through a bit with all of my colleagues here, because I think it makes a very interesting point. We find that in the contract with America, we have those who gain, and those who lose. And although I think the writing may be a little bit difficult to read from a distance, what we are talking about is in terms of those who gain, $200 billion, well, if you happen to earn more than $75,000 a year, $94 billion of the 200 billion you can expect to go to you. That group of people. Of course, if you earn over $200,000 a year, you find you get the lion's share of that money. Those between $50,000 and 75,000 in income get 51 billion. You start to go to those of $40- to 50,000 income, 24 billion. Income of 30- to 40,000 dollars, you get 22 billion of the 200 billion. Incomes of 20,000 to 30,000, you are going to get about 13 billion out of an entire 200 billion pot. If you earn less than 20,000, you will get about 5 billion. So when you look at the average American family, incomes probably below 50,000, you see that you get less than a third of all the benefits of these tax cuts that are being proposed in the Contract on America. That is not bad enough. Let us take a look at who pays: 24 billion is paid for by poor families with children, mostly through the cuts that we are hearing about in the welfare bill that we have, H.R. 4; 2 billion is being taken from abused and neglected children programs; 19 billion is being taken from food stamp recipients, 12 billion is being taken from kinds who lose school lunches, child care and WIC; 21 billion taken from legal aliens. I want to mention something here. These are individuals who have every night to be in this country. Ultimately will become U.S. citizens once they achieve 5 years in this country. They are law abiding. They pay every single tax that a citizen must pay. They even serve in our armed services defending this country in time of war. So they are law abiding. They provide every single kind of tax that is a citizen does, yet they are bearing the brunt of the cost in the so-called reform of welfare under the Republican welfare reform bill. We are taking $10 billion from Medicare. We are taking 12 billion from Civil Service pensions, people who have worked, a lot of them, in our military. And we are taking $100 billion in spending cuts yet to be identified. That means, in other words, that those who sponsor the Contract on America have not yet told us where they are getting 100 billion. So clearly those who gain, if you earn over $100,000, you gain. Those who lose, well, usually if you are middle income or low income, you will pay for those tax cuts that are going to go to top, that earn over $100,000 or $200,000.

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman from Vermont for not only yielding, but also for scheduling this special order and giving us all an opportunity to discuss further some of the aspects of this whole debate we are going through on the contract on America. I am glad I can join my colleagues. Ms. Kaptur and Mr. Fields on this particular debate, because it is very interesting. We are now at a point where we are discussing so-called welfare reform, and what we find in the bill before us, H.R. 4 on the floor, it is the version, sort of a pseudo-version of what was in the contract on America. What we find is that the Republicans claim that they are going to save about $66 billion through this welfare reform package, yet they are not going to cut school lunches, day-care. Somehow they are going to save without making cuts they say, but we know in fact they will cut. But perhaps the most egregious aspect of these cuts is not just that they go after kids, not just that some of these cuts they are making overall go after elderly, not that they go after the disabled, but the use of these cuts. We had yesterday debated on the floor of this House a particular amendment that was supposed to be technical. It was a change that was made, and I know the cameras can't pick this up for our colleagues to see, but what I want to read what that amendment said. This is what we had to spot. It said page 393, strike line 4 and all that follows through line 7. Page 393, strike line 5, strike ``technical amendment.'' What that line did was it changed what the bill said which required that monies that would be cut and therefore would be available for deficit reduction would no longer be earmarked for deficit reduction, but instead could be used for things like financing tax cuts. Which tax cuts? Well, we know the capital gains tax cut is being proposed under the Republican's contract on America, and they need about $200 billion to pay for these tax cuts. So all of a sudden we are finding that welfare reform, which is being used by the Republicans to save monies by cutting children's programs, school lunch, by cutting the disabled programs, by cutting programs for the elderly, are going to be used no longer for deficit reduction, as much as you may not have liked all the cuts, but now they are available to be used for tax cults. As the gentleman from Vermont has indicated, most of these tax cuts will $200,000.

Mr. BECERRA. I think we should point out one particular aspect of that third fundraising event that you mentioned. That is the event where Speaker Newt Gingrich helped raise money for his television network that has a political slant to it. That $50,000 a plate dinner was tax deductible. So about a third of the cost of that $50,000 that is contributed for what will ultimately be fairly political activities, is being written off by those wealthy individuals. And who pays? Obviously, the rest of us middle- and low- income taxpayers, because somebody has to make up the cost of that subsidy that we are paying the wealthy individuals to take.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for yielding the 1\1/2\ minutes. particular amendment. The problem is that on a lot of these small amendments that we see, when you take a look at the entire bill, what we have is a beast. And whether you put lipstick on it or not, it is still an ugly beast. It is difficult to talk just about one little aspect of this entire debate when the beast is out there hovering over your shoulders. What we find in this entire debate is the fact that we are talking about cuts, cuts to kids, cuts to school lunch programs. And for what? We found out very clearly in an amendment that passed yesterday. These are cuts on kids, cuts on school lunch programs so that we could pay for cuts for tax breaks, cuts for the wealthy. That is what we are driving toward. Billions of dollars will be saved, saved by cutting from kids and cutting from school lunch so we can send it over to give tax breaks for the wealthy. That is what this is all about. That is our concern. But we have to talk about this entire legislation, not just about one particular amendment, because this is going to affect the entire country, not one individual. So let us remember, when we start voting on these particular amendments, whether you are voting to pass it or not, you cannot improve the looks of a beast by putting some lipstick on it. I hope that we understand that, ultimately, the folks who are going to suffer at the hands of this beast are not the folks in this room, not the people that got elected, but the people who voted to elect us to office. That is, the children and the families who will suffer because school lunch programs will not be there and day care will not be there--all because Republicans wanted to give tax cuts to the rich.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding a moment of time. I also support this amendment. I think she is trying to do the right thing. We should not be denying people who do their darndest to work hard in this country and do the best they can ultimately to become U.S. citizens. They should have that opportunity. I urge Members to support this amendment.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. I would be more than willing to yield if I have some time at the end of my remarks, and I probably will have. If I do, I would be more than happy to yield. I think the gentleman from Illinois a while back stated it best, Mr. Durbin, when he said folks probably watching this do not understand what is going on. Is there a cut? Is there not a cut? Are the Republicans providing less? The answer is yes. I visited some elementary schools and high schools recently, and I was talking to those that do provide school lunch programs, and the principals will tell you the price of food is going up. The number of kids in schools is growing. When you tell that principal that today the dollar that that principal has to provide a school lunch to a child is the same dollar or just a slight bit more than the principal will have to feed that same child or the child's younger brother or sister coming up, that principal will tell you, ``If the school population has grown and inflation is cut into the value of my dollar, there is no way that I as a principal will be able to feed the number of students that need free or subsidized school lunches.'' Let us not make any mistake about that. The Republican proposal cuts the amount of moneys that would be available for child nutrition programs in this Nation. It cuts them because it does not square the fact that we have inflation in this country and we have growing student populations. If they kept pace, then we would be okay. And the problem that a number of us have as Democrats is that the current law says that whether or not we in Congress play political games with the moneys for our school kids, it makes no difference because the law protects child to be able to pay a subsidized price for that school lunch or, if the child is very poor, then to get the lunch free because the law provides that right now. But under the new Republican proposal, not only would there not be a keeping of the pace with inflation and the growth of school population but at the same time the Republican bill guts that protection for children under the law that says you will get fed. Because we understand and have recognized under the law that it is important to make sure that you have the nutrition you need to be able to learn. The Republican bill says, no, you will get fed if the Committee on Appropriations in the House and if the Committee on Appropriations in the Senate agrees that they will fund certain levels. So when the Republicans talk about their funding levels of 4.5 percent increases, they are speculating because they haven't provided those moneys. Those aren't there, and they will not be there until the appropriating committees in each House each year decides that they will allocate the moneys. Let me tell you, I have very little faith that future Congresses will allocate the moneys that are authorized to be spent. Why do I say that? Well, last week we just finished, and I voted against this, proposing and adopting a bill that cut moneys. Where did it cut? Well, it did not do much to defense. It did not do anything to programs that are out there to subsidize the wealthy. What it did do was it cut from students, from the elderly, from veterans. And if I look at how they were able to make cuts in those programs, I have very little faith that a program like school nutrition, which will no longer be protected under the law, will be protected from cuts in the future, especially if anyone in this Congress is serious about trying to balance the budget. So whether we want to say we are providing more money or not, the reality is that under current law our kids are protected from the shenanigans and politics of Members of Congress under the Republican proposal that is gone, and we have to hope that not only will they provide the money they say but they will see the light and provide the actual dollars needed for that principal to provide not just the same meal but provide it to the growing number of kids in the school. What does all this do to a place like Los Angeles, CA, a place that I represent? Well, if in fact we are going to lose the $2.3 billion over the next 5 years that the Republican bill will cost us, which is about a 6 percent cut, then I know in Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Unified School District, which is the second largest school district in the Nation with something over 600 and some odd thousand students in it, close to 550,000 of those children who receive subsidized or free lunches will not be able to eat, will not be able to eat the same amount, or will be told to wait until tomorrow. That is a lot of meals. That is a lot of kids. I think we have to start doing something differently.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained this morning and was not on the floor when rollcall vote 247 was taken. This was the motion offered by Mr. Obey to strike the enacting clause. Had I been here, I would have voted ``aye.'' amendment offered by mr. shays

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to explain my absence from the House on Monday, March 5, and Tuesday, March 14, 1995. As I have stated previously, my wife and I are faced with a trying family medical situation which has required my presence at home in Los Angeles as often as possible and, unfortunately, at times when the House is in session. We are expecting our second child this May, and under doctor's orders, my wife has been limited to bed rest until she has completed her pregnancy. Regretfully, I missed a number of recorded floor votes on March 5 and 14. For the record, I would like to indicate my position on each vote: Accountability Act (rollcall 200)--``No.'' Berman amendment to McHale amendment to H.R. 988 (rollcall 201)-- ``Aye.'' McHale amendment to H.R. 988 (rollcall 202)--``No.'' Hoke amendment to H.R. 988 (rollcall 203)--``No.'' On final passage of H.R. 531, Great Western Scenic Trail Designation (rollcall 230)--``Aye.'' On final passage of H.R. 694, Minor Boundary Adjustments and Miscellaneous Park Amendments Act (rollcall 231)--``Aye.'' On final passage of H.R. 562, Walnut Canyon National Monument Modification Act (rollcall 232)--``Aye.'' On final passage of H.R. 536, Delaware Water Gap Recreation Area Vehicle Operation Fees (rollcall 233)--``Aye.'' On final passage of H.R. 517, Chacoan Outliers Protection Act (rollcall 234)--``Aye.''

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. So in other words, the Republican proposals do increase from this current fiscal year what will be allotted next year, but they do not cover the true costs because they do not take into account the growth in the number of kids in the schools or the inflation rate.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to come tonight and speak to my colleagues about something that will be coming before us next week. That is the Republican majority's rescission package, which, in essence, is the cuts that were made in the Committee on Appropriations in the last week or two to the tune of about $18 billion, cuts that are going to be used, we first were told, for purposes of trying to finance the disaster relief efforts in places like California, as a result of the Northridge earthquake; in be done to take care of the hurricane disasters they suffered from; northern California, earthquake; the Midwest, floods; a number of different disasters that this country has experienced over the last couple of years. Unfortunately, if you take a closer look at this rescission package, you see something very, very disturbing. I would like to go into that a bit. Again, the rescission package, what it really means in plain English is that we have wiped out funding for certain programs which have already been approved for such funding. In other words, Mr. Chairman, last year's budget, which may have allocated $1 for a program, this past week the Committee on Appropriations went in and decided to make cuts in particular programs under which it has discretion to do so. It cannot touch things like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, because those are entitlement programs, and they are not discretionary. The discretionary programs include things like the Department of Defense, Department of Education, job training, veterans' benefits, and so forth. If you are concerned about the quality of public education in this country, teen drug use, the increasing potential of today's youth being involved in gang violence, in crime, if you are concerned about veterans, if you are concerned about housing for seniors that are on a limited budget, then you have good reason to be very concerned, if not outraged, about what the majority party has done with regard to this rescission package. The majority party's main target, as it turns out, happens to be kids and senior citizens. The GOP's main beneficiaries in this rescission package happen to be the very wealthy. Let us take a look at a few things done through this rescission package. I have put together a chart here to give us an idea of what happened with all the cuts that came out of the Committee on Appropriations recently. Who takes the hit? Of all the cuts, the close to $18 billion in cuts, 63 percent of those cuts will hit low-income individuals. Close to two-thirds of all the moneys cut come from programs that help veterans who are low-income, the elderly who are low-income, children, $17 billion. It will be interesting, because we will talk about where that money goes, and it is going to be interesting to find out why we had to cut $17.5 or so billion. Mr. Speaker, let me focus a little bit more on where those cuts are that we see here listed as having hit mostly the low income. Where did the money come from? For the most part you can see the biggest hit was taken by housing, housing for seniors, housing for low-income individuals, housing to help supplement those who are having a tough time making a living, that are working poor; job training, job experience. Of all the cuts 14 percent come from job training programs to help young people and those who are trying to get off of welfare, and those who are trying to get back on a job because the recession has caused them to lose their job as a result of downsizing in areas like the aerospace industry. Health care, health cuts, 10 percent. Education, 9 percent. Within the other 25 percent, I should mention that we list veterans benefits programs. Let me give some quick details on some of those areas in cuts. Housing, $7.2 billion comes from housing; $2.7 billion comes in rental assistance for low-income families. That is about 62,000 vouchers down the drain, 62,000 families that will not be able to qualify for some assistance to try to make sure they are able to rent a place to stay; $186 million comes from housing for persons with AIDS. In Los Angeles, I can tell you that thousands of people with AIDS will now probably find as a result that they will be denied certain housing because that assistance that was being provided for this population of needy individuals is now being cut. Job training cuts, $2.35 billion. Included in that is the complete elimination, not a cut, complete elimination of summer youth employment programs, $1.7 billion. That is money that has been used in a lot of different areas, including places like New York, in rural States, in places like Los Angeles, to try to help youth who otherwise might just hang around the street corner at night. The impact on Los Angeles of that cut, well, we can expect about 23,000 kids to be denied job training and classroom instruction over the next year. Impact nationwide, probably about 600,000 children, not children, young adults, will be deprived of a chance to do some good work and learn something as they prepare themselves to become working adults. Education, $1.7 billion in cuts. What do we do? Well, eliminate the drug-free schools program. That is a program to try to make sure kids don't start using drugs and as we know, most folks who are arrested these days, it is as a result of using drugs, selling drugs or somehow drugs are related. Yet we are eliminating the drug-free schools program that tries to keep drugs out of the school and tries to make sure kids don't start using or selling drugs. What else? We eliminate also school construction programs. How many of our neighborhood schools need some type of refurbishing, how many of our neighborhoods just need schools? Well, we have eliminated a program for that. We have got massive reductions in grants to reform schools, so we finally get caught up in technology. We use money for homeless youth, to educate homeless youth, that is eliminated. We have a cut in national service. That is the program that ``Says young man, young woman, you are interested in going to college, you want to serve your community, we will give you a little money, pay you low wage, minimum wage, at the same time we'll also tell you that after a year you'll have a grant of about $4,700 that can be used for your education, only for your education. If you go on to college, we'll give you $4,700 to help offset some of the cost of that education.'' Huge cut in national service. Health cuts, $10 million cut in the Healthy Start Program. That is a program to help working women, poor women who have very little access to health care. It provides them with prenatal care so that they can make sure that they do not end up costing the local government and the community and its taxpayers additional dollars because they end up having a child that is born with low birthweight or some abnormality and has to go to the approximate intensive care units and costs us 10 times as much as it would have cost to have given decent prenatal care. A $25 million hit on the WIC Program, Women, Infants, and Children Program; 100,000 women and kids are going to probably be denied proper nutrition. What else? Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. That is the program that helps low-income seniors, others who have a very difficult time during winter months in places where it is cold, to survive those chilling winter months. We are cutting $1.3 billion from that program. Other cuts, I will mention veterans' benefits, take a hit of about $206 million. That is a real slap in the face of our veterans who certainly do not believe they get enough as it is in the types of programs available under the Veterans' Administration. Yet they are going to take another hit. Corporation for Public Broadcasting, $47 million hit, a $94 million hit is projected for the next fiscal year. What we are doing with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in Congress is the Republican majority is trying to get us to a glide path in about 3 or 4 years where we actually eliminate all funding for public broadcasting. The EPA--That is the Environmental Protection Agency, lots of cleanups to do, all the toxic dumps we know that are in our communities. Well, $1.3 billion mostly for Clean Water Infrastructure Program is being gutted. Where does all of this money go from this $17.5 billion or so bill that cuts from these programs? Let's take a look. We were told first that since the President sent a bill over requesting that we provide some additional moneys to help provide for disaster relief, as I mentioned earlier, that was one of the reasons the Committee on Appropriations had to find some way to fund it. We have never done it before where pay for a disaster, we have always said this is a disaster, we have always said this is a disaster, we have to pull together as Americans and find a way to help people. But this time we did it differently. But not only did we do it differently, let's take a look at what happened. The committee, the Republican majority, decided to give about $5.3 billion for disaster relief. Yet they cut about $17.5 billion in programs. So where did the other two-thirds of the money go if only $5.3 billion went to disaster relief? Well, you see, the Republicans ran a campaign last year saying in their Contract on America that they were going to provide tax relief. The problem is the tax relief they are providing goes to the wealthy. So two-thirds of all the moneys cut, from veterans, from our schools, from programs that help children stay away from drugs and out of gangs and away from crime, from health care programs, from housing programs for seniors, for moneys that go to help AIDS victims, all of that is being packaged in the $17, $18 billion package. Less than one-third is going to go for actual disaster relief to help people who are still suffering from natural disasters, and two-thirds is going to go to tax cuts. I know I have a colleague who is going to join me in a few moments, I want to talk soon about to join me in few moments, I want to talk soon about what those tax cuts are going to do. But let me just make a couple of quick comments more. Why tax cuts now? But more importantly, when we looked at the programs that were being cut, why did we not see anything that hit the military? Are we so convinced that there is no fat in the Department of Defense? Is this not the same department that gave us $500 toilet seats and that gave us billion dollar cost overruns on military projects in the last few years? But why is it that we do not see a single cut there? But more importantly, why is it that about 2 weeks ago, this same House with majority Republican support passed out a bill that increased spending for the military, including moneys for star wars? Increasing money for the military spending, giving tax cuts to the wealthy, paying for it through cuts to low income and middle income people. That is what we see. If you do not believe it, let's take a look at one last chart. That tax cut that is in that Contract on America, where does it go? Part of it is for a a capital gains tax cut. It is important to understand that when you give a capital gains tax cut, that does not go to every American, and especially not to most working Americans who earn a wage. Most of that goes to people who are fairly wealthy, who have a lot of assets and who get to deduct some of the profits on those assets when they sell them. So much so that let's take a look at who benefits from that capital gains tax cult that the Republican majority is proposing in the House of Representatives. That tax cut, by the way, will cost over the next 10 years when it is implemented, should it ever get implemented, about $208 billion. That is $208 billion to our deficit over the next 10 years. Who gets the majority of the benefits of that? As you can see in this chart, and if it may be kind of small for people to see some of the type, this is broken down into different income levels. Less than $10,000 incomes, well, you're going to get about half of a percent of the benefits. If you earn between $10,000 and $20,000, well, your benefits will be about 0.8 percent of the entire cut. Well, 20 to $30,000, you get about 1.7 percent. So all the families in America that earn $20,000 to $30,000 can expect to get as a group 1.7 percent of the tax cuts under the capital gains tax cut; $30,000 to $40,000 income range, you'll get, as a group, about 2.6 percent of all that; $40,000 to $50,000, you'll get about 3.2 percent of the benefits of that. If you make between $50,000 to $75,000, that whole group of Americans within the $50,000 to $75,000 income range will get about 9 percent of all the $208 billion in benefits. If you make between $75,000 and $100,000, you are going to get about 9.4 percent of that $208 billion in capital gains tax cut benefits. And If you happen to make more than $100,000, which represents about 9 percent of all taxes-filing, tax- paying Americans, you get about 72.6 percent of all the benefits. These are the folks that are going to make out like bandits from the capital gains tax cut. And who is getting cut to finance this capital gains tax cut? As I said in that rescission package, if only 5.3 billion is being used for disaster relief, the other $12 billion or so, which is coming out of low-income and middle-income individuals, families and children and seniors, is being used to finance this. Let me at this stage ask my colleague from Vermont to join me. I want to first thank him for taking the time at this late hour to come and chat with me a bit about this. Maybe he has a few comments he would like to make as well about what I have just had a chance to discuss.

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for his eloquent words to make it clear it is not just an issue of substance when it comes to this issue of cuts and our priorities, but it is also an issue of mechanics, how we actually get to the point in the House of the people of making decisions for the people of America. And when it becomes clear to the people of America that their voice, through their Representatives, is not allowed to express itself because we cannot offer amendments, because we cannot try to sell the idea of where our priorities should be and instead must accept what is force fed to us, then clearly we are not doing the jobs as Representatives and clearly that frustrates the American people even more, as the gentleman so eloquently said with regard to why we had a change in November 1994. Clearly the change that. Let me point out a couple of things that disturb me most about this direction that we are heading, the fact that we have closed debates, the fact that we have these cuts that go after middle-income and lower- income people, but yet will benefit the wealthy. I cannot understand why we are seeing proposals for a capital gains tax cut that, as you can see, will benefit the most wealthy. But when you take a look at how much the average annual tax cut will be received by the income groups, it is astonishing. If you earn $20,000 or below, you know how much you are going to get in tax cut relief over the year? About $7.63. That is what a family that earns $20,000 or below can expect to get from the capital gains tax cut proposal that the Republican majority in the House has proposed. How much tax relief will you get if you have earned between $20,000 and $50,000 for the vast majority of American families? About $33 in the entire year. That is what a family will receive in tax relief from this Republican proposal. Now, if you are $50,000 to $100,000, what will you get back in extra income? About $124. Now, what happens if you earn between $100,000 and $200,000? Well, now you are going to get about 100 times what a person or a family earning $20,000 gets. You are going to get about $636 in that year. But what will 2 percent of America's tax filers get? The 2 percent wealthiest filers of tax forms in this country, the 2 percent wealthiest Americans, what will they get, those earning $200,000 and above? Four-thousand-three-hundred and fifty-seven dollars in a year. The folks that need it least get the most, and that, I think tells us a bit about the priorities of this new Congress, where we are heading. It seems anomalous to think that we are going to head in that direction but that is what it looks like.

Mr. BECERRA. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia for taking the time to come here and present a cappella testimony about why we should fear these cuts that are being proposed at this particular time. Let me at this time recognize another distinguished colleague and friend, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Andrews], and ask him if he has a few things would he like to say. And I thank my friend from California for giving me this time and organizing this discussion. Mr. Becerra in particular is to be commended for leading on this floor tonight a discussion of priorities in our country and where the taxpayer's money ought to go. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Becerra deserves particular praise because this may be the only discussion we have an opportunity to have about priorities under the way this bill is going to be brought to the floor, and I want to speak for just a few minutes about what is wrong with that and how that cuts off a real debate about where the public's money ought to go and what the Federal Government's priorities ought to be. Myself and Mr. Scott and Mr. Sanders and Mr. Becerra may have different priorities as to how this bill ought to come down. Frankly, I think it is an urgent priority to cut the size of the Federal budget and to make this government leaner and smaller and more efficient. I think it is a demanding priority that we find a way to lessen the burden of taxes on the American people, and perhaps there would be some agreement or disagreement among the four of us as Democrats on that point. The point is, this is the place where we are supposed to thrash out those differences over priorities and have our say. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, when a bill is brought to this floor, it is brought to the floor under something called a rule and the rule sets forth which amendments may be debated and voted upon and which amendments may not be debated and voted upon. This afternoon, March 9, the chairman of the Rules Committee, the distinguished Gerald Solomon of the State of New York circulated a letter, which I will make part of the record at the appropriate time, which outlines his proposals to what the rules should be under which this bill is brought to the floor, in other words, the rules of debate, what we can vote on and what we can't vote on. The rules of debate are totally closed, totally unfair, and will totally shut off the kind of priorities debate, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Becerra has launched tonight. Let me give you some examples. The Republican bill that will be before us will cut a net $12 billion from this year's budget. Now, one could take one of three different positions on that--four, I guess. You could say that we should cut $12 billion and these are the right $12 billion to cut, and you will have that chance because you will have a chance to vote for this bill. You can say that we shouldn't cut any of it, that we should add to the budget. You won't have that chance because you won't be permitted to add to the budget under this bill. You will only be permitted to subtract from it. Frankly, I find that OK but I don't think that others that don't find it OK should be denied the chance to add if they so desire. You might say we should cut less than $12 billion from the budget. You won't have that chance because the number that is fixed in this bill must be going forward and you may say, as I would, we should cut $12 billion but we should cut a different $12 billion than the Republican have proposed. I will not get that chance. Mr. Sanders will not get that chance. Mr. Becerra will not get that chance. Mr. Scott will not get that chance, nor will any of our colleagues under the rules being brought to the floor. Let me tell you what I want to do. I am working on and tomorrow will complete a proposal as a substitute for this rescission bill that doesn't cut the budget by $12 billion as our Republican friends would, but cuts it by $13 billion, but cuts it in different places. The Republican proposal says to an 82-year-old woman who has a fixed income of $9,000 a year and heating bills of $1,500 a year, that the little bit of help that she gets right now, the little bit of help, the couple hundred dollars she gets to pay her electric bill, her heating bill, will be eliminated next winter. I say instead we should cut research contracts that benefit Exxon and Mobil and Fortune 500 corporations that sell her the energy for that heat. Let's give this House a choice between cutting her heating subsidy and the research subsidy of the Fortune 500 energy companies that brought her her energy. We won't have that choice under this rule. I would say this, to a 17-year-old who is trying to work a summer job from a low-income family so he or she can earn money to get a college education. The Republican bill would say there will be no federally sponsored summer jobs anywhere in America starting this summer. So, Mr. Speaker, a young person who is listening to us tonight, 16 years old, planned on getting a job this summer, maybe saving $500 or $600 or $1,000 toward their school tuition, no job, nothing this summer. I say, why don't we cut out some of the bureaucratic jobs in the Department of Agriculture, the press secretaries, the statistics gatherers, the people who compile information about the American agriculture system. I would say give us a choice between cutting summer jobs for young people around this country and bureaucratic jobs in the Department of Agriculture. we will not have that choice under this bill, and I will yield to Mr. Sanders for a moment.

Mr. BECERRA. Of course.

Mr. BECERRA. I would say that the majority is not just denying the four of us, the majority of this House is now denying the American people the chance to express itself and that must change. I thank all of my colleagues for being here

Mr. BECERRA. I know that we are running short of time. I want to make sure that any of my colleagues have a chance to express themselves. I want to quote something that was said by the new chairman of the Committee on the Budget, Mr. John Kasich, who said this about deficit reduction. ``I do not think that Republican special interest programs ought to be spared. I think we ought to look at corporate welfare before this process is over.'' That is a quote in the Washington Post of yesterday. Well, I think those of us who are here, the four of us who are here, along with a number of my colleagues, I suspect both Democrat and Republican, are going to keep the chairman of the Budget Committee to his word. We want to see those cuts, because quite honestly, we have not seen them in this particular $15.5 billion recision package, but certainly we must see those. So I would say that in this new ``Newt'' world that we face, that the needs of hard-working, middle-class families should not take a back seat to the needs of the very affluent. But quite honestly, I cannot see anything that says that we are not going in that direction, when everything points to capital gains tax cuts. Cuts to the poor, cuts to the middle income in their programs. Not tax cuts, but spending cuts that would help them. Child Nutrition Program cuts, all of this, yet we are going to increase spending for the military. And somehow we get into this whole idea about a balanced budget amendment that was up here a couple of weeks ago for debater where we had the Republican majority saying we are going to balance the budget. And they are talking about balancing the budget, which is going to cost us over the the tax cuts that the Republicans are proposing, that adds another $200 billion or so. And if you add the defense billions of dollars in military increases, that adds another $100 billion. You end up with $1.5 trillion deficit that you have to make up in about 7 years. And I take a look at that and find that they are saying they want to balance the budget and I take a look at where they are cutting now. It makes it clear to me what they are going to do to try to balance this budget, on whose backs they are going to do it, and it scares me. And I offer my colleagues the final chance to speak.

Mr. BECERRA. The gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. BECERRA. So the schools will have to do with a little bit more money, but with more kids and inflation on top of that.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield back the time for just a moment, we should give some detail because the gentleman who spoke earlier about this and said we are actually increasing the budgets over the next several years for those school, those child nutrition programs wants to leave the impression that actually we are giving more under this Republican proposal than was allocated under current law.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis]. I say to the gentleman first that it is with great honor that I stand next to him today with the opportunity to participate in this special order that he has organized because he is one whose footsteps I hope I have a chance to follow in the future, as well as someone who has distinguished himself in the past as one of those who marched way back when, in the 1960's, and made it possible for some of us to be here today. I consider myself someone who is the fruits of much of the work of people like the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis], and I think it is only a tribute to the folks like him that we have a chance to come before here, and speak and say how things really are. So to the gentleman from Georgia and those like him who have fought and continue to fight, Mr. Speaker, I say, ``Thank you for giving me the opportunity to stand here today and speak on behalf of voting rights for all Americans.'' Clearly the Voting Rights Act was a landmark piece of legislation for our country and for our history. The Voting Rights Act made it possible for people for the first time to truly participate in America's democracy, and of course now that we see the 30th year of the Voting Rights Act, it is only fitting that we have a chance to discuss its many successes, especially in light of the fact that there are so many obstacles and so many deterrents to its successful implementation that are being placed before us these days. I think it is clear that there have been benefits to the African- American community throughout this Nation. It is unquestionable that it opened doors for many people who for years have been closed out of the process. But let me focus a little bit of my time on two emerging communities that, too, have benefited from the Voting Rights Act and who have struggled as well to try to make sure that America truly is a place for all. Let me focus a few minutes, if I may, on the Asian-Pacific Americans in this country and the Latinos of this country who, as the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis] mentioned, are part of America and make up that fabric which makes America so great. The Asian-Pacific American community is really coming of age. It is a community in California which represents about 10 percent of the State's population. That is a dramatic increase over the last decade or two decades, yet the Asian-Pacific population is woefully underrepresented in office and in other signficant places of importance. The participation rates are very low right now for Asian- Pacific Americans when it comes to voting, and the biggest barrier, of course, is language. Right now what we find is that without some assistance and an opportunity to learn the language, it becomes very difficult for people to fully participate and understand the process, but fortunately the Voting Rights Act has made it possible for a number of Asian-Pacific Americans to become fully participant members of democracy. Just in California alone in the last few elections 25,000 additional voters, citizens, Asian-Pacific Americans, have gone to the polls, voted and become participants because the Voting Rights Act made it possible for them to participate through bilingual ballots. Now that is an example of how the Voting Rights Act has helped the Asian-Pacific American community. In the Latino community, Mr. Speaker, it is much the same. I should note that the Latino community has a long history, especially in the Southwest, where there were settlements in this country long before the Pilgrims made it to the shores of the east coast. But Latinos have also suffered from poll taxes, white primaries and intimidation. Throughout the history of the Southwest it was very difficult for Latinos to participate in the process because literacy tests or language barriers were imposed, but the Voting Rights Act has made it possible for real progress to be achieved. I think it is clear to say that the doubling of Latino elected officials over the last 10 to 15 years, the increase in voter participation by Latinos, oh, say from 1975 from about 1.5 million to over 3 million are marked increases that deserve recognition especially for the Voting Rights Act. I can go on and on and talk about how things are improving not just in the southwest, but in New York City where there has been a 17- percent increase in the number of Latinos who are registered to vote. But what we find from this is once they begin to participate in the process, they become full Americans, and I think that is what we hope to achieve through the Voting Rights Act, is full Americans, and I want to say to people like the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis] to those who will participate in this special order, that it gives me great pride to say that back in the 1960's, when the march and the struggle came to a head and we had a chance to really televise it, that there was a chance to tell the American people that people have struggled, struggled not just for decades, but for centuries, to provide true, true rights, true representation to all people, not just a particular minority, not just to those that have been disenfranchised, but to all people, and I think, when you look at all the different communities that we have in this country that make up the fabric of America, you can truly say that the Voting Rights Act has worked. We should make it work more. We should preserve it. In fact we should strengthen it. I would just like to say that it is time for us to stand together and do what was done 30 years ago, say that the Voting Rights Act must not only continue, but we must strengthen it. So I thank the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis] for the opportunity to be here today.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the topic of this special order, the Davis-Bacon Act.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to first begin by thanking several of my Democratic colleagues who came here tonight to speak in support of the Davis-Bacon Act, which now is in jeopardy of being repealed by the new Republican majority. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank them, because this is an issue which goes directly to my family situation and to my heart. My father is someone who had the chance to benefit from the Davis-Bacon Act. My father is a retired construction worker, a road construction worker. Many of the roads that people use in California, from Highway 5 and other highways that were constructed in the big days of the sixties and seventies, those roads were constructed in part by men like my father. My father never earned a lucrative wage, but he did earn a decent wage. This is, in my opinion, an Act, the Davis-Bacon Act, which made it possible for my family to have some security and some decency in its living standards. I know when I speak on behalf of those who support the Davis-Bacon Act that I speak not just for them, but also for my father. Mr. Speaker, to repeat what some of the Members have said before, the Davis-Bacon Act is an act that passed in 1931. It was an act that passed through the sponsorship of Republican legislators and was signed by a Republican President. The law merely mandates that taxpayer dollars go to contractors who offer the greatest quality craftsmanship, the highest productivity, the quickest turnaround, and the best management. The primary purpose of the law is to assure that by requiring the payment of locally prevailing wages, that Federal spending practices do not undercut the wages of hard-working people, and that they do not put local contractors and their employees in an unfair competitive situation. Individual and industry contractors benefit, because in discouraging competition that would be based on the payment of substandard wages, the act promotes a greater availability of skilled construction workers. The act, by enduring more stable and predictable wages, facilitates the recruitment, the training, and the retention of skilled construction workers. Mr. Speaker, let us talk about who loses if the Davis-Bacon Act is repealed. More than a half a million construction workers would suffer reduced earnings and a lower standard of living if the act were to be repealed. Individual construction firms and the construction industry as a whole may also lose if conscientious contractors are forced to compete with the fly-by-night and low-balling contractors who pay depressed wages and offer workers no benefits. Taxpayers would lose if the act is repealed. Given the way labor markets operate, savings to be achieved through lower wages would be offset by the lower productivity of less skilled and less experienced workers. Their work product, roads, bridges, building, then become the public's responsibility. If the work product is of low quality, then that is a consequence that taxpayers will be forced to live with. Mr. Speaker, repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act is not a money saver. Contrary to what the Republican majority is saying these days, repeal of Davis-Bacon would not automatically save the Government money, because well educated, well-trained, and fairly paid workers are more productive than their poorly-trained low paid counterparts. They often bring in projects at less cost than those using low-wage workers. Repeal of Davis-Bacon also threatens worker safety. When productive, skilled, properly-trained labor is hired at a Davis-Bacon wage, safety and health are also hired. The use of untrained, poorly-skilled workers results in a higher occurrence of injuries and fatalities on the Nation's job sites. Repeal may also threaten public safety, as poorly trained workers are more likely to make dangerous mistakes. Mr. Speaker, what would happen if Davis-Bacon were repealed? Each construction worker would see his or her annual income fall by about $1,477. That may not seem like a lot to some people, Mr. Speaker, but think of it this way. $1,477 pays for about half a year's worth of groceries for an average American family. For my family when I was growing up, and my father and my mother were working hard, that was a tremendous amount of money. It would have affected the way we lived and the standard of living that we were able to have, which was very meager. It would have affected it greatly. Members of Congress have supported the Davis-Bacon Act in the past on a bipartisan basis. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we have that same bipartisan support for this particular act, because quite honestly, it helps American because it helps America's workers and American's contractors. I would hope at this time, Mr. Speaker, that we would see the value in maintaining the act and move forward from there.