Xavier Becerra

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to give some examples about what the Contract With America's welfare reform proposal would do to certain individuals and families. Let me give some examples. A pregnant woman who is a legal immigrant would not be eligible for the Women, Infants, and Children's Program, called WIC, which gives, in some cases, infant formula--it helps a woman who just had a child, a U.S. citizen child, even though she is preparing to give birth or if she already gave birth, as I said, to what would be a U.S. citizen. A 7-year-old child would be denied foster care and adoption assistance if, by some accident, her parents happened to die. Because, solely because, she would be a legal immigrant and her parents had expired, she would not be eligible for any foster care or adoption services under the Contract With America. A 23-year-old woman, again, legally present in the United States, who may have been forced to flee her home from an abusive husband would be denied services coordinated by a battered woman's shelter under the Contract With America's welfare proposal. A 35-year-old man granted political asylum because the country he was fleeing might have tortured him or was intending to torture him, in some capacity this gentleman's life was in danger and that is why he was granted political asylum, it could have been because of religious beliefs, political beliefs, but he has now been granted by this country refuge because he has proven that he was in danger of losing his life, that person legally in this the food bank run by his local church under this welfare reform proposal by the Republican Contract With America. Two more examples: A legal immigrant, again, who served in the armed services and fought in the Persian Gulf War could be ineligible to receive Social Security, excuse me, Supplemental Social Security income benefits, even if he was disabled during the line of duty. Finally, let us take a 60-year-old woman who may have emigrated to this country legally when she was 15 years of age. She worked in this country, say, all her life, and somehow was rendered incapable of continuing to work because of, say, a heart condition. She would not qualify for any Medicaid under the welfare proposal that the Republicans have in their Contract on America. Those are the types of things that we face in this particular proposal which make no sense, because we are not talking about people who are somehow sloughing off, taking advantage of this country, not paying taxes, breaking the laws. They are in every respect abiding by the laws of this country and contributing, yet we are now telling them that they will be excluded simply because of the distinction between citizenship and not yet getting there.

Mr. BECERRA. If we can engage in a colloquy, Mr. Speaker, I think that is an important point. One, we have to stress again that what we are talking about here is people who have a legal right now to be in this country, and eventually will become U.S. citizens. We are not talking about folks who have come across this country clandestinely or without permission of this government. They are people who have been told by the people of the United States, ``You are here, you are allowed to stay here permanently and become U.S. citizens.'' We are not talking about visitors on a visa, or about students who come on a visa to stay and then have to go back. We are talking about people who have been told by this country, ``Yes, you can come now and make this your permanent home and become U.S. citizens.'' They are people who are saying, ``We are coming with the intention of coming permanently. That is why we have waited,'' in some cases, ``10 or 15 years, because we are asking for a visa to stay here permanently, not for a visa to visit as a student or tourist.'' Then the point about taxes. In every respect, a legal immigrant is like any U.S. citizen except in perhaps two or three situations. Obviously, they cannot yet vote because they are not citizens. They cannot hold certain classified Government jobs, for example, with the CIA. They cannot, obviously, be Members of Congress. But except for a few things like that, they do everything that citizens do. They have every obligation that citizens have. They have to conduct themselves and comport themselves under the laws the way every citizen must, so that if they own a home they pay the same property taxes. If they have a business, they must pay the same business taxes. If they work, they must pay the same payroll, social security, all the different taxes, FICA, everything we see in a pay stub deduction they must have deducted, as well; unemployment insurance, they pay that as well. In every respect they do that. They pay the local taxes, States taxes for schools, et cetera, so in every respect, they are the same. In fact, there is no way to distinguish between a citizen and a legal immigrant unless somehow you can ask them for some verification of their status to try to prove citizenship.

Mr. BECERRA. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I would like to talk tonight about a subject which has gotten some attention in this country, and these days we see it perhaps grabbing more and more of the attention not just of this Congress and of legislators, but of the American people, and it is a subject which is dear to my heart and which I believe needs more clarity and more discussion, because it affects human beings and it affects Americans. The subject is that of immigrants. Not immigrants who come into this country without permission, without documents to be here, not so-called illegal immigrants, but legal immigrants, those who have come in through application, waited, in some cases 10 or 15 years, to come to this country, and have now received the permission of this country to come and reside and make this their home and ultimately become U.S. citizens. These are the lawful permanent residents in this country, and we have approximately 9 million residing in this country, some who just got here and are waiting the 5 years before they can become U.S. citizens, others who have been here for decades and working and doing what most people in this country do, and that is paying their taxes and abiding by the laws and raising their families. I would like to discuss legal immigrants because it happens that in this process here in Congress of discussing reforms and in discussing the Republican contract on America, one of the proposals, a welfare reform proposal, proposes to use legal immigrants to fund the cost of this reform proposal within welfare. I think it is important not only that my colleagues have a chance to hear and understand more about legal immigrants, but quite honestly, the greater public should have a chance as well. So I would like to do a little bit here by discussing legal immigrants and perhaps do some personal discussions as well as some factual discussions and providing some data as well. Let me begin by giving a couple of examples of people who I happen to know in some cases, others that I know of and have been told about, and I think are worth sharing with you today. Mr. King Tam and Mrs. Tsui Kung Tam are two legal permanent residents in this country. Both came into the United States back in the 1960's. Mr. Tam and Mrs. Tam came from China, Mrs. Tam actually from Hong Kong, and as they arrived in this country they found right away they had to retrain themselves for jobs here in the United States. Mr. Tam went from a cabinetmaker to a cook, Mrs. Tam from a salesperson to a seamstress. They have lived their entire life and they still do in Chinatown in Los Angeles, CA. They have raised three children. All three have graduated from college; David from UCLA as an engineer, Linda from Cal State University of Los Angeles with a business degree, and Mai Li from Cal State, Los Angeles, with a degree in finance. Each one of them had a chance to undertake the opportunity to go to college, they had a chance to receive some student loans and some grants, and they worked every year while they Never has the Tam family been on welfare. This is a family that in some cases, like son David, is providing volunteer services outside of his job with Habitat For Humanity, helping to build homes for people who cannot afford them on their own, and tutoring students. They have done in many ways what we all would love to be able to say at the end of our lives, that we have contributed to society. I should give a story about Mrs. Tam, who is very active in the community. Mrs. Tam quite some time ago found that there was quite a bit of traffic in one busy intersection in the Chinatown area, so busy in fact that at one point a child was killed. She became very active and pushed and pushed until finally she was able to get a four-way stop sign installed in that intersection. Now, let me tell you a little bit more about the Tams. The Tams were never rich, as you can tell from their jobs. They had to work very hard to do what they did for their children and also to raise children that were able to go on to college. The Tams mentioned, actually I should say that in discussions with a gentleman, a dear friend by the name of Don Toi, who is an activist and been a community organizer and a businessman in the Chinatown area for years and is sort of the person people turn to in Chinatown in Los Angeles for so much. He mentioned that these are kids who he knows who made use of school lunch programs because, again, their parents worked very hard, but were never rich. They were able to take advantage of the Chinatown teen post center the Chinatown area which provided recreational and diversion activities for the kids. They were each, all three kids were participants in the summer youth employment program, so they had a job. That was their first time learning how to fill out an employment application. And they were able, of course, to earn a little bit of money to help pay for their education. Now, the Tams never had enough money to buy health insurance to provide themselves with adequate health care, but they were able to make use of county hospitals and clinics and pay a small fee for the services. David at one point when he was about 13 broke his arm, but his family did not have enough money to go to a private doctor, so they had to use the county clinic. He was fortunate to have his arm reset. I mention this because Mr. Toi mentioned a very interesting story to me. Right around the time that David broke his arm, there was another young man in the Chinatown area who also had a broken limb, a broken leg. His family, however, perhaps did not make use or know how to make use of those facilities that were available, and they did not do a very good job, the family did not, of making sure their son was treated. It turned out that he ended up with a limp. This is significant because Don tells me that this young man, young boy at the time, he was about 14, he was a straight A student, he was doing very well, and after that, he developed a nickname, and in Chinese the nickname is Bai. That means crip. That is a short version of ``cripple.'' And quickly things started deteriorating for this young man, to the point where he became involved in a gang. Not just any gang, but the Wa Ching Gang, which is notorious, not just in the Los Angeles Chinatown area, but throughout the western region of the United States, because it is a very sophisticated gang. He has been in trouble in the past, and much of this Don says occurred after he had this problem with the limp. Unfortunate, because he was apparently a very bright student. I mention that because here you have an example of a young man who was able to take care of his broken limb, and another who didn't, and the path that their two lives took. Mai Li, the Tam's daughter, had a hearing problem a while back. Now, at one point the schools and teachers were classifying her as a slow learner, perhaps mentally retarded, and certainly mentally regressed. So what the Tams did, because they knew about the clinic, they were able to take her to get some preventive health services, and they found out she had a hearing problem. As I mentioned to you before, Mai Li now is a graduate from Cal State Los Angeles University, she has a degree in finance and is now an auditor, by the way, for the State Board of Equalization in California, which is the equivalent of the IRS here in the Federal Government. She clearly has no, we are hoping, we are certain now she has no particular mental impairment, because obviously she has a very important job. But clearly she had a chance to take advantage of services made available to her, and for which the Tams were paying, if not directly for the full price of the medical care, clearly through their taxes they were paying as workers through payroll taxes, the many property taxes, business taxes if they had a business. They were paying their taxes. Now, let me move on and tell you a little bit about another family. This family is the Rodriguez family. Juan and Delores Rodriguez came to the United States in 1956 from Mexico. Mr. Rodriguez served in the U.S. Army from 1956 until 1960. In fact, he was drafted into the Army 6 months after entering this country. After an honorable discharge, he worked as a stockbroker clerk. Later he went on to earn his MBA and he opened his own stockbroker firm. He now works as an internal auditor. Mr. Rodriguez became a U.S. citizen in 1984. Mrs. Rodriguez is still a legal resident and she has been a homemaker raising five children and doing a very good job at it and working very hard at that. She has been a PTA volunteer. She has been a schoolroom mother, a Cub Scout den mother and a church volunteer. This family, the Rodriquez family, has never been on welfare either. As I mentioned, they have five kids. Four are U.S. citizens. One is a legal resident. Ed, the child Edward, is a transportation planner who I know very well. Juan is a college professor at California State University. Victor is an investment banker as well, and Carol is an environmental specialist with the California Coastal Conservancy. And Miriam is a homemaker, five children, five law-abiding individuals, four of them U.S. citizens. Finally, let me tell you about one other individual. This individual is named Claudia. Claudia actually happens to live in Washington, DC. She came to this country when she was 14 with her parents. She enrolled in a community youth center shortly after coming. And before long, she was developing tutoring programs for other young people in this area. She work very hard in school, and she was encouraged to go on to apply to college. At the age of 17, she did so, and she applied for student loans. Now, until Claudia turns 18, she is ineligible, like any other person under the age of 18, to become a U.S. citizen. But she is now someone who not only wishes to become a U.S. citizen but also intends to go on and further her career. I mention these folks because they are important to us. These people in every respect to what they all consider to be the right thing by anyone in this country, citizen or not, law-abiding, pay taxes, they serve in the military defending this country in time of war. They do everything we would want any upstanding person to do, but there is a difference here, because the fact that they may not be U.S. citizens means that under the welfare reform proposal under the contract for America, these individuals would not qualify for benefits for which they have paid taxes. That, to me, seems to be a contradiction of the American dream and the American work ethic. Let me do this. Let me talk about immigrants a bit more and give some summary and some background on what we mean by the population of immigrants. People often ask, how many immigrants, legal immigrants are thee in this country? If you take a look, in our country of about 260 million people, about 3.8 percent are lawful permanent residents, legal immigrants. That amounts to about 9 million people in this country who at some point after about 5 years are eligible to become U.S. citizens. Now, I will mention later, if I have a chance, that when we talk about folks that this population of legal immigrants actually has a lower usage rate of welfare than the U.S. citizen population. U.S. citizens, there are about 3.7 percent of the entire U.S. citizen population which is on welfare. That is about twice as much, almost twice as much as for legal immigrants being on welfare. So clearly, even though they are eligible to receive welfare benefits, they are less likely than U.S. citizens to use them. Now, let me move on and talk a little bit about what others have said about immigrants, because I do not want to just tell you what I think about immigrants. We have had a lot of folks tell us that we should take these services away from legal immigrants because they happen to not be U.S. citizens. They are not eligible to vote. These are people, let me show you a chart, these are people who have been recognized as contributors by not just one individual or a group of individuals but by a lot of very important individuals. Even the Council of Economic Advisors for President Bush in 1990 recognized that when they said that immigrants are more likely than the native population citizen to be self-employed and start new businesses. I am sorry. That was said by Commissioner Doris Meissner, who at the time in 1990 was with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. What the President's advisors in 1990 said was that the long-term benefits of immigrants, as you can see here, greatly exceed any short run costs. What we are saying really, in these two quotes, is very consistent with what we have found. That is, that for the most part you have able- bodied people coming in as legal immigrants, ready to work. They do so. And they start contributing right away. And because you are talking about folks who are, for the most part, had to go through quite a bit to get in this country, whether it was waiting 15 years or trying to make the trek by themselves or with family, they are ready to be industrious. And that is reflected in both the quotes that you see from the Council of Economic Advisors, that President Bush had, and also from Miss Doris Meissner and Mr. Robert Bach. As I said, Miss Meissner happens to be the INS Commissioner, the Immigration and Naturalization Service Commissioner. Other things that have been said, the Urban Institute, which is known for doing extensive studies and did an extensive study for the administration recently to determine the effects of immigration and the numbers of immigrants, found in its study that for every increase of 100 people in the native population, in the citizen population, employment grew by 26 jobs. For every increase of 100 in the immigrant population, employment grew by 46 jobs. The Urban Institute further reports that immigrants actually complement native workers rather than substitute or displace native workers. That is important, because people say they are taking all our jobs. Most studies find that that is not the case. Immigrants make it possible for industry to survive here in the United States. Without their manpower, many businesses would have no choice but to shut down or perhaps move overseas. Do immigrants, as I said before, really pay taxes? Of course, they do. A lot of analysis has been done on this particular subject as well. Let me show you a chart that quotes a report by the periodical Business Week back in 1992. As you can see, Business Week, in this report, cited the fact that immigrants, while they earn in this country about $240 billion and they pay taxes to the tune of about $90 billion, their use of welfare is about $5 billion. Again, that is consistent with what President Bush's Council of Economic Advisors found to be the case, and it is consistent with what we have found in the past history with immigrants, that they work very hard to produce. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas for coming down tonight at this late hour to participate in this special order. I appreciate his words. He has always been there to talk about families and people, and it is clear that he has a concern for people who are contributors to this society. I thank him for adding some very eloquent words to this particular discussion. Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss a little bit more about welfare, more of the specifics about welfare. What most of us know as welfare includes a number of different programs, from AFDC, which is Aid to Families with Dependent Children, to Supplemental Security Income to Medicaid and food stamps. AFDC costs the Federal Government about $16.5 million. SSI is about $26 billion. Medicaid is $82 billion. That is, of course, medical services to the aged, the blind, and the disabled. Food stamps is about $25.5 billion. If we add up those programs, they amount to about 1 percent of the Nation's budget, annual budget. Mr. Speaker, folks think of that as welfare, when we talk about welfare, but most people do not recognize other things as welfare. Welfare is really government assistance of some form or another, whether it is AFDC to a woman with a child who is poor, or in many cases, most of us do not think of it this way, but I know I own property. I own a home. I am able before April 15 of every year to deduct the interest I pay on my mortgage from my taxes. I am also able to deduct the property taxes I pay on that home from my taxes, and I get to reduce the tax load that I have by that particular deduction. In essence, I have reduced the amount of taxes the government collects, which makes it necessary, of course, to collect from some other source, or have that budget deficit. That in a sense is assistance that is offered to me, because I am subsidized by the Federal Government for the purchase of my home. Mr. Speaker, most folks do not think of the mortgage interest deduction or the property tax deduction as welfare. We think of them as incentives that we have to purchase property, to own property, and ways to make it possible for families to, obviously, buy a home. Most people would find it very difficult to purchase a home and actually maintain that residence if they found that they had to pay the full amount and actually pay it off in less than 30 years, so we have ways to try to encourage home ownership, which I hope most families growing these days and becoming participants in society have a chance to do, even though it is becoming tougher and tougher these days to do it. However, that is an example of something that could be considered public assistance or government assistance that most folks do not consider obviously welfare. We never classify that as welfare. However, let me say that the mortgage interest deduction by itself, without the property tax deduction, amounts to about $51 billion. that is what we will probably see deducted from tax forms from people's taxes just in 1955. By the way, Mr. Speaker, 44 percent of that deduction, 44 percent, about $23 or so billion of that $51 billion, goes to taxpayers with incomes in excess of $100,000 or more. Compare that, Mr. Speaker, $51 billion just in the mortgage interest rate deduction that I get to participate in, and anyone who owns a home gets to participate in, with some of the proposals in the majority party's Contract on America welfare reform proposal. They are talking about cutting school lunch programs, they are talking about cutting back student loan programs, and there you are talking about sums that are even less than what we are talking about for the mortgage interest rate deduction. We have subsidies for agricultural products and crops. In my mind, what concerns me greatest is this idea that we see floating around these days of cutting taxes at a time when we have a large deficit, where we are trying to balance the budget, and at the same time, we have discussions about a capital gains tax cut. The capital gains tax is something that is used by people who own capital, certain types of capital. If you happen to own a big tractor or a bulldozer and a construction company, that is capital. If you happen to sell it, you would be able to reduce your taxes on the capital gains, on the gain from that particular product or that equipment, by a certain amount if a capital gains tax cut were actually implemented. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are talking about a capital gains tax cut of about $200 billion over the next five years. That means that somewhere we are going to have to find the money to make up for the $200 billion. When we put that on top of the $1.2 or so trillion deficit that we have to make up over the next seven years or so, you see that the task is monumental, to try to balance the books. When you see proposals to cut capital gains taxes which will benefit mostly those who make over $100,000, about 70 percent of the benefits will go to those who make over $100,000, you will see that it is going to be difficult to swallow having to cut a program that would make a legal immigrant who has paid taxes ineligible for services that he has already paid for. That, I think, shows a contradiction that we are going through right now, the reason I wanted to have a chance in immigrants. What we have to do is come up with some reasonable approaches to fund welfare. We have to come up with things that will help us change the way we provide welfare assistance. We have to streamline, obviously, the process. We have to make it workable, so that ultimately, people will work and be off of welfare, but we have to attack the problem where the problem lies. Why go after legal immigrants who, as we can see from the studies, the empirical data, all of which show that immigrants by far contribute much more than they ever consume. Not only that, but if you are going to attack a population for purposes of welfare reform, why attack the group that is making least use of welfare? It does not make any sense. But that is the direction some of the Members of Congress would seem to want to head in, and I think that is unfortunate because what we find is that rather than have reform we are ending up with expediency, and to me that does not make the best sense; this is not the way to legislate. I believe when we have a chance to closely look at the issue, especially the issue with regard to legal immigrants, we are going to see that rather than try to dissuade or punish people who are showing industry and entrepreneurship, the American dream, that are trying to do the things that make us America, what we will see is there will be I hope a change of heart and a recognition that what we must do is tackle the problem, and with welfare that means of course making sure we put people on a program where we tell them here is the plan, you have to follow this plan. You may need some assistance now, so we are going to give you some assistance. You may need some education, you may need some training and we are going to give you that. And once that is done, we want you to work. And you are going to work, because that is why you are on welfare, to transition off of welfare back to being a productive, paying member of society. And when we do that, when we provide that training and the education, if the person happens to lack some skills and education is necessary, and if the person maybe has a child, maybe provide the child care to let the person get to school or get to work, and make some health care available so a person does not have to worry about the child getting sick or the individual getting sick, when we can transition them off and see them become productive, then we have true welfare reform. And in the process of coming up with that program we have to come up with the financing for it, and in coming up with the financing for it we should be addressing the issues that relate to welfare, not going after a population that is demonstrating in every respect the American dream. I think that is where we have to head and I hope that is where we will head, and perhaps by having full, open discussions on this we will head in that direction. That is my hope, and I hope to have a chance over the course of the next days and weeks as we discuss welfare reform to bring this issue closer to the fore so people can have an opportunity to understand it, recognize it, and then act based on full, complete and accurate information.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to explain my absence from the House on Friday, February 24 and Monday, February 27, 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 during this brief absence from Washington. For the record, I would like to indicate my position on each amendment and bill: Tate amendment to H.R. 450, the Regulatory Transition Act of 1995 (rollcall 167)--``No.'' Wise amendment to H.R. 450 (rollcall 168)--``Aye.'' Green amendment to H.R. 450 (rollcall 169)--``Aye.'' Waxman amendment to H.R. 450 (rollcall 170)--``Aye.'' Fattah amendment to H.R. 450 (rollcall 171)--``Aye.'' Volkmer amendment to H.R. 450 (rollcall 172)--``Aye.'' On motion to recommit with instructions (rollcall 173)--``Aye.'' On final passage of H.R. 450 (rollcall 174)--``No.'' On agreeing to the resolution (rollcall 175)--``No.'' Brown (CA) substitute to H.R. 1022, Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act (rollcall 176)--``Aye.''

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, as I stated on February 13, 1995, my wife and I were recently faced with a sudden and unexpected family emergency which has required my presence at home in Los Angeles. We are expecting our second child this May, and under doctor's orders, my wife has been confined to bed rest until she has completed her pregnancy. As a result, I regretfully missed a number of recorded floor votes during the past few days. For the record, I would like to take this opportunity to indicate my position on each amendment and bill: Watt amendment of H.R. 667, Violent Criminal Incarceration Act of 1995 (rollcall 112)--``aye.'' Cardin amendment to H.R. 667 (rollcall 113)--``aye.'' Chapman amendment to H.R. 667 (rollcall 114)--``aye.'' Scott amendment to H.R. 667 (rollcall 115)--``aye.'' On motion to recommit with instructions (rollcall 116)--``aye.'' On final passage of H.R. 667 (rollcall 117)--``no.'' On final passage of H.R. 668, Criminal Alien Deportation Improvements Act of 1995 (rollcall 118)--``no.'' Quorum call (rollcall 119)--``present.'' Watt amendment to H.R. 728, Local Government Law Enforcement Block Grants Act (rollcall 120)--``aye.'' Mfume amendment to H.R. 728 (rollcall 121)--``aye.'' On ordering the previous question (rollcall 122)--``no.'' On motion by Mr. Armey to allow committees to meet on February 14 and for the remainder of the week when the House is meeting under the 5- minute rule (rollcall 123)--``no.'' Schumer amendment to H.R. 728 (rollcall 124)--``aye.'' Schroeder amendment to H.R. 728 (rollcall 125)--``aye.'' Hoke amendment to H.R. 728 (rollcall 126)--``aye.'' On motion to agree to the committee substitute (rollcall 127)-- ``no.'' On motion to recommit with instructions (rollcall 128)--``aye.'' On final passage of H.R. 728 (rollcall 129)--``no.'' On motion by Mr. Wise to adjourn (rollcall 130)--``aye.'' Quorum call (rollcall 131)--``present.'' On ordering the previous question on H. Res. 83 (rollcall 132)-- ``no.'' On final passage of H. Res. 83 (rollcall 133)--``no.'' On motion by Mr. Volkmer to adjourn (rollcall 134)--``aye.'' Spence amendment to H.R. 7, National Security Revitalization Act (rollcall 135)--``no.'' Spratt amendment to H.R. 7 (rollcall 136)--``aye.'' Edwards amendment to the Spratt amendment, as modified (rollcall 137)--``aye.'' Skelton amendment, as amended by the Spence substitute amendment (rollcall 138)--``no.'' Montgomery substitute to the Skelton amendment, as amended by the Dellums amendment (rollcall 139)--``aye.'' Hefley amendment to H.R. 7 (rollcall 140)--``no.'' Herman amendment to H.R. 7 (rollcall 141)--``aye.'' Leach amendment to H.R. 7 (rollcall 142)--``aye.'' Torricelli amendment to H.R. 7 (rollcall 143)--``aye.'' On motion to recommit with instructions (rollcall 144)--``aye.'' On final passage of H.R. 7 (rollcall 145)--``no.''

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman for yielding some time and acknowledge to the rest of the Members what I think we all know: Most of the people that have taken to this well to speak are here to support the health insurance tax deduction for self-employed, something we all believe should be extended. But, unfortunately I do not believe a number of us could support H.R. 831 the way it is. That is why we wish to speak on behalf of the McDermott amendment. When you take a look at what we are doing here. We are cutting out opportunity for some to provide it to others. That is not the way to do it, to rob from Peter to give to Pauline. If you take a look at your radio stations and your television stations, if you turn on that radio and change that dial or change the channel on that TV, everywhere across the Nation you can count up every radio station and every TV station, and you can only count up 323 stations that are minority owned. You can virtually count 323 stations just on your radio dial in Los Angeles alone, but throughout the Nation we have 323 that are minority owned. And that is because we have this tax certification program that has helped raise that level of ownership five times. And now we are here to eliminate it without even having held a public hearing to discuss the merits of the program. Well, there are some in this House who would support the media magnate by the name of Rupert Murdoch and give him tax breaks but are not unwilling to support people who have been closed out from media altogether for far too long. I would say we take a look at what we are doing here, take a look at who we are trying to give opportunity to and say yes to the McDermott amendment and no to H.R. 831.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, due to a sudden emergency in my family, I left Washington for my home in Los Angeles on the evening of Tuesday, January 31, 1995. I spent the remainder of that week as well as the first day of the following week in Los Angeles. As a result, I missed a number of recorded votes on amendments to H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995, as well as H.R. 2, the Line-Item Veto Act. My constituents have a right to know how I would have voted on the various amendments and bills considered during this time. For the record, I would like to indicate my position on each missed vote: Mink amendment to H.R. 5 (rollcall 77)--``aye.'' Beilenson amendment to H.R. 5 (rollcall 78)--``aye.'' Moran amendment to H.R. 5 (rollcall 79)--``aye.'' Sanders amendment to H.R. 5 (rollcall 80)--``aye.'' Doggett amendment to H.R. 5 (rollcall 81)--``aye.'' Moran amendment to H.R. 5 in the nature of a substitute (rollcall 82)--``aye.'' On final passage of H.R. 5 (rollcall 83)--``no.'' On final passage of H.R. 400, the Anaktuvuk Pass Land Exchange and Wilderness Redesignation Act of 1995 (rollcall 84)--``aye.'' Moran amendment to H.R. 2 (rollcall 85)--``aye.'' Slaughter amendment to H.R. 2 (rollcall 86)--``aye.'' Skelton amendment to H.R. 2 (rollcall 87)--``no.'' Kanjorski amendment to H.R. 2 (rollcall 88)--``aye.'' Spratt amendment to H.R. 2 (rollcall 89)--``aye.'' Wise amendment to H.R. 2 in the nature of a substitute (rollcall 90)--``yes.'' Orton amendment to H.R. 2 (rollcall 91)--``no.'' Waters amendment to H.R. 2 (rollcall 92)--``aye.'' Stenholm amendment to H.R. 2 in the nature of a substitute (rollcall 93)--``aye.'' On motion to recommit with instructions (rollcall 94)--``aye.'' On final passage of H.R. 2 (rollcall 95)--``no.'' Mr. Speaker, I wish to also advise that over the next several weeks family circumstances may require my presence at home in Los Angeles more frequently than the current legislative calendar might otherwise permit. My wife Carolina and I are expecting our second child in 3 months. Under doctor's orders, Carolina has been confined to bed rest until she has completed her pregnancy. As committed as I am to fulfill my legislative responsibilities, I intend to do what I believe I must to tend to my responsibilities as a husband and father.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. There are estimates it might be over $250 billion over 5 years. The capital gains program alone will cost about $55 billion the first 5 years. There are some estimates that after 10 years that goes up to about $210 billion.

Mr. BECERRA. Seventy-five percent; the 10 percent of richest Americans in this country will receive 75 percent of the tax cuts in the capital gains proposal in the Contract with America, and you can take a look. If you happen to earn somewhere between $30,000 and $40,000, every American family that has income of about $30,000 to $40,000 stands to get about 2\1/2\ percent of those capital gains cuts. That is sharing the wealth under the Contract on America.

Mr. BECERRA. Drastically differently. Wages are fully taxed. Capital gains are not. The proposal that the Republicans have in their Contract with America says let us give them a further break in their capital gains, but the interesting thing about this is who benefits, and if you look at the charts, you see really who will benefit. As Laura D'Andrea Tyson said, and she is the President's Chief of the Council of Economic Advisers, fully 75 percent of those capital gains will go to the 10 percent richest Americans.

Mr. BECERRA. That is correct.

Mr. BECERRA. Not at all.

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I am glad I have a chance to engage in the conversation with the three gentlemen who have spoken eloquently on this issue. It seems to be absurd. We are talking so much these days about reforming welfare, and we always seem to forget that welfare comes in many shapes and in many sizes and in some cases big sizes. When you take a look at the fact that welfare, as most people think of it, welfare to a woman and her children who cannot afford to live without some assistance from the Government, we are talking about something in the order of about $16.5 billion is what we give out to people who are poor and who need some assistance. Contrast that to welfare that we do not think of very often, but welfare that we give to corporations, welfare to the tune of about $225 billion per year, money that we pay out as taxpayers by giving corporations tax breaks, letting them off from paying certain taxes. We have to make that up. So in this whole discussion that I hear going on about the minimum wage, about welfare reform, about trying to do something for the working man and the working woman, I think it is interesting to note a program that helps 10 million children that are in poverty is being discussed for radical, in many cases, reform, but programs that help corporations to the tune of $225 billion are not touched. In fact, Secretary Reich, from the Department of Labor, was criticized because he recently talked about reforming corporate welfare and the discussion about all of welfare reform. It seems to me even more difficult to comprehend this whole debate about reform when you look at the Republican Contract With America, and one of its proposals not only of reforming, so-called radical reforming, welfare, but also cutting the capital gains that will go mostly to wealthy Americans. And there I would refer my colleagues to chart. We want to find out what the Contract with America really does. Well, first, it guts welfare for the 10 million children who are in poverty, and at the same time, of course, the Contract with America says let us cut or let us give a tax break to those who have capital gains. In other words, if you own stock or if you happen to have a stamp collection or priceless art, and you want to sell that, you do not want to pay certain taxes on that capital gain, you want to be able to write some of that off.

Mr. BECERRA. The same ones that would probably cut veterans' benefits. Somehow we are going to have to balance the budget and give these tax cuts and still raise spending for defense, for military, and somehow with what is left in the budget to look at, not cut Social Security, not cut Medicare.

Mr. BECERRA. On the capital gains portion of the proposed tax cuts only.

Mr. BECERRA. That is correct. These are the same folks, too, who are saying we cannot afford to increase the minimum wage from $4.25 an hour.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I will be brief because I think my two colleagues preceding me did a very fine job of summarizing what we are trying to say. All I would like to say is that we should take a little bit of time and think about what we mean by reform regarding welfare. You know, what is it and who really gets it? Then, once we do that, once we think about it, let us reform welfare, let us reform it so that we get people and corporations off of welfare, and let us make sure that our policies reward working people and not continue to lavish very costly tax breaks on the rich, and we should remember that the rich are the only group of people who made off like bandits during the Reagan years when we had exorbitant spending, and now we should come back and look at 1995 and say, ``It's time to reform, but what is reformed, let's do it right.''

Mr. BECERRA. That is right; that is right. You know, we should look at something here. Right now, the capital gains that we have in law right now costs this country between now and the next 5 years about $94 billion. We are already paying $94 billion for that. That, if you think about it, amounts to about $362 for every man, woman, and child in this Nation, $362 that each American has to somehow make up for either through other taxes, personal income taxes or cuts in programs like Social Security, Medicare, Head Start, job training. Somehow we have to make up that $94 billion over 5 years. It does not just come freely. Either that or you increase the size of the deficit. So we have to take all of those things into consideration. Then you look at the minimum wage, and it is interesting, over the weekend on some of the TV talk shows, we heard a number of Republicans say that they opposed raising the minimum wage. They thought it was a job killer. They did not want to see it happen. But then all of a sudden you ask them, well, what happens if you get the capital gains tax cuts in exchange? All of a sudden they change their tune. All of a sudden, well, maybe they are willing to trade. Sure, would you not be willing to trade if you could get a $94 billion tax break and increase that to about $55 billion for the next 5 years, and up to $208 billion for the next 10 years, in exchange for 90 cents an hour more for people who are low income and barely surviving at the poverty level?

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. BECERRA. Let me then conclude my remarks by saying that I believe this particular rules change is compromise language where we will make sure that there is bipartisanship in the conduct of the committees and in structuring any notice that might be required for a committee, especially if we are going to curtail the amount of time that would be out there in terms of notice for the public, I think that is a wise move. I appreciate the new majority in this House has realized that it is essential. It goes a long way toward satisfying the rules that the majority first passed which required sufficient notice and deliberation by the entire body of the committee, not just the chairman. I think it goes a long way, but I do believe that we should have gone a little farther and dealt with the ban on lobbyists' gifts as well.

Mr. BECERRA. If a Member takes the floor to speak on the rules of the House and we are in the process of amending the rules of the House, is it appropriate to discuss the issue of amending rules of the House?

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the ranking member, for giving me some time to speak on this. I would like to applaud the gentleman from New York [Mr. Soloman], the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for making this compromise available to the entire House. The original language would have allowed only a chairman to make a decision to decrease the notice requirement and allow committees to meet to have hearings without sufficient notice not only to Members of the Congress but also to the public. I applaud the chairman in making sure that this compromise was reached. This will avoid the circumstances that occurred in my committee, the Committee on the Judiciary, wherein the chairman on his own initiative decided to reduce the amount of time necessary to give notice to not only Members of Congress, as I said, but also to the entire public about a very important matter, the balanced budget bill that we took up this past week. It was unfortunate that at that point, the committee actually violated its own rules and actually held hearings without providing sufficient notice to people that this would occur. Obviously, it makes it difficult for witnesses to be present and for people to prepare, so it is great to see that we are finally going to try to bring ourselves within the rules of this House. I think it is unfortunate while we are amending these rules, however, that right now while this window is open, that we do not take advantage of doing what I think the gentleman from Texas is trying to express, trying to make sure that we also clear up the rules to make sure that no one in their House can take freebies from lobbyists or take gifts. This is the time to do so. I would think right now a strong amendment-- -- point of order

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we have been debating for quite some time amendments that would try to protect children from all sorts of calamity that may result from this unfunded mandate legislation unless we exempt certain laws and regulations from this particular bill's enforcement. My amendments merely do the following: They would exempt laws that we currently have on our books that are there to protect our children who work right now. They are there to protect our labor laws that protect children from aggressive employers who would work them beyond the 8 hours. It is to protect them against employers who would have them working under conditions that would amount to what many would consider slave conditions. It is an effort to keep us from going back to the bad old days when we saw children doing the work of adults, not going to school, not having an opportunity to learn, and ultimately not being productive members of society once they became adults. This is an effort to make sure that in passing reasonable unfunded mandates legislation, that we do protect our children from enforcement of a law that I do not believe has the intention of denying children basic rights of protection. That unattended consequence of denying protections to our children in the workplace is something that we must fear in this legislation because as of now it does not provide those protections. So I would urge Members to consider this amendment closely and ultimately vote for it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.