José Serrano

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment. This amendment is consistent with the trend in recent years to acknowledge that States, D.C., and the territories are taking charge of their marijuana policy. I urge that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. SERRANO. Madam Chair, I urge bipartisan support and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Madam Chair, I commend the gentleman and his cosponsors on this amendment, highlighting July 20, 1969, the 50th anniversary of the United States landing a man on the Moon. I have no opposition to the amendment. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wilson).

Mr. SERRANO. Madam Chairwoman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. SERRANO. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time the other side has remaining.

Mr. SERRANO. Madam Chair, the gentleman is correct: There is a campaign of fear, but it is not by what we are doing here. It is what Wilbur Ross wanted to do. The Constitution is clear. Count all the people: not the Whites, not the Blacks, not the Hispanics, not women, not men, Republicans or Democrats--all the people. And so it is really strange to me that people in many districts that do not support our position are not yelling. After all, you may not like undocumented people in your district, but they, if they get counted, bring more Federal dollars, allow for more redistricting properly. So why would you oppose that? Let us speak to the Constitution. Yes, there is a campaign of fear, and it was fear to try to put into people who were undocumented to say: We are going to ask you your citizenship. Although we are not supposed to ask you that, we are going to ask you that, and maybe that will turn you away from filling out the form, which is what will happen, and we will not get an accurate count. Lastly, it is in everyone's interest in this country to get an accurate count.

Mr. SERRANO. Madam Chair, the inclusion of the citizenship question was a unilateral decision by Secretary Ross last year. Secretary Ross chose to overrule recommendations from nonpartisan experts at the Census Bureau and ignore the potential impacts, including those the question would have on response rates to the Census, without rigorous testing and analysis. Even more recently, additional evidence on the other side's attempts to abuse the Census in an effort to gerrymander districts has come to light. Files recently discovered from a Republican redistricting specialist revealed that the citizenship question would result in a structural electoral advantage for Republicans and non-Hispanic Whites. The Voting Rights Act enforcement excuse the Republicans lean on is nothing more than a ruse and their solution in search of what they view as a problem. It is unfortunate that they have turned to the Census to play this political game to undermine the American people. Most changes to the Census undergo years of testing and analysis before being added to the decennial Census form. The reason we have that process is to better understand the impact a change can have on the response rate and accuracy of the Census. It allows for the Bureau to better plan and adjust its operational and outreach strategies. Census is only testing the impact of the question this summer with results anticipated in October, after critical milestones have passed. The administration leaves no time for the Census to mitigate the potential impact of what they may find. Wilbur Ross refused to listen to the expert advice of advocates and experts at the Bureau who did not recommend adding an untested question so late in the process. Additionally, there is no doubt that including this question will have a serious negative impact on the self-response rate of the Census. People would simply choose not to respond to the Census form, and the Bureau will be forced to engage in expensive, in-person follow-up that was not originally assumed in their cost estimate. This should not be an issue that divides us. It should not matter whether you live in a red or blue State or whether you represent an urban or rural district. The question will impact everyone. This amendment will reduce the accuracy and increase the undercount in places like Florida, Texas, Alabama, Michigan, California, and New York. This, in turn, will affect reapportionment and the distribution of Federal funds for the next decade in many of the communities we represent. We can and should do better. Our Constitution is clear. It requires that we count all persons every 10 years. In conclusion, the issue is very simple: If you represent a community that will be undercounted by this question, then you should oppose the amendment. If you support the strict interpretation of the Constitution, then you should also oppose this amendment. Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SERRANO. Madam Chair, I support the amendment and urge its adoption. I hope everyone votes for it, and I yield back the balance of my time

Mr. SERRANO. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).

Mr. SERRANO. Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. SERRANO. Madam Chair, the amendments included in the en bloc were made in order by the rule and have been agreed to by both sides. I support the amendments and urge its adoption. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Madam Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 445, I offer amendments en bloc, which are at the desk.

Mr. SERRANO. Madam Chair, I urge adoption of the amendments en bloc. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Madam Chair, the amendments included in the en bloc were made in order by the rule. I support the amendment and urge its adoption. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Madam Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 445, I offer amendments en bloc, which are at the desk.

Mr. SERRANO. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Scalise

Mr. SERRANO. Madam Chair, my primary objection with the gentleman's amendment is with the offset. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration, or NTIA, is not very well known by the American people, but it is quite important. The NTIA is critical to the deployment of 5G wireless network technology around the country, which is an expressed goal of the majority of Members on both sides of the aisle, as well as the White House. Additionally, NTIA is working to expand FirstNet, which ensures cell phone connectivity for our first responders in disaster scenarios. This amendment would cut NTIA's budget by 8 percent. For all these important programs to continue, NTIA's role as the policy leader in the area of cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, and data privacy, I cannot support a big cut to this budget. Madam Chair, I oppose the amendment and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, as the chairman of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, I would like to talk about the fiscal year 2020 Commerce, Justice, Science bill, which is contained in division A of the minibus. The budget proposed by the Trump administration for the agencies in this bill was totally inadequate. The President proposed eliminating a large number of programs that Members on both sides of the aisle strongly support. Thankfully, with an allocation of $73.895 billion, this subcommittee was able to address these problems and to invest in the future of our Nation. This legislation makes significant investments in justice reform, economic development, and the science agencies. We increased funding for programs and research focused on climate change, as well as for efforts to address gun violence and to implement the 2020 Census. Let me highlight a few issues. In order to address the ongoing challenges faced by the Census Bureau leading up to next year's decennial Census, this bill provides $8.45 billion for the Census Bureau, of which more than 90 percent directly funds the 2020 Census. This amount is $2.3 billion above the administration's very inadequate request. In addition, this legislation carries language that prevents funding from being used to include a citizenship question on the 2020 Census form. This bill also rejects the administration's proposed cuts to climate change programs. We provide over $2 billion for NASA Earth Science, a significant increase over fiscal year 2019, as well as a 17 percent increase for NOAA climate research activities. Significant increases are also included for NOAA programs that address the impacts of climate change. To address the epidemic of gun violence in our Nation, this bill increases funding for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives by $122 million over fiscal year 2019. We also provide $80 million for grants to help improve firearms background checks and $125 million for school safety grants authorized by the STOP School Violence Act. To ensure our Nation's science agencies have the resources needed to continue our leadership in research and innovation, this bill adds substantial funding to NASA, the National Science Foundation, and NIST. The bill also includes strong funding increases for economic development activities and infrastructure improvements in hard-hit rural and urban areas--in particular, for the Economic Development Administration and the Minority Business Development Agency. We also provide large increases for the Legal Services Corporation, the Violence Against Women Act, opioid reduction initiatives, and the First Step Act, among many others. In sum, there is a lot in this bill that both sides support, from science to economic development to justice reform. I thank the staff on both sides of the aisle who have worked so hard to put this bill together and to manage the amendments offered on the majority staff. I thank our clerk, Bob Bonner, as well as Jeff Ashford, B.G. Wright, Matt Smith, Shannon McCully, T.J. Lowdermilk, and Trisha Castaneda. And on the minority side, I thank Stephanie Gadbois and Kristin Richmond. I also thank, on my personal staff, Marcus Garza, Angel Nigaglioni, and Matt Alpert. I want to take a moment to say that, as you will hear, we don't always agree, Mr. Aderholt and I, but it has been a pleasure working with him in the tradition of the Appropriations Committee, which tries to find common ground. I know that even if he tells you that he doesn't like the bill, there is a lot in here that he likes. So I am looking for maybe a ``maybe'' vote from him. I also thank Chairwoman Lowey and Ms. Granger. It has been said before, but it hasn't been said by me, that we make history every day in this House, and what a historic moment it is that the ranking member and chairwoman are both women. That is the first time in history. I think this is a good bill that envisions the people and priorities of this Nation, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of my friend from Colorado's amendment which would increase funding to improve NOAA's weather forecasting abilities. This is an issue that we have to deal with. This is an issue that has to be dealt with in a proper way. This amendment does that. As chairman of the subcommittee that oversees this section of the bill, I approve of, and I hope my colleagues will vote for, the amendment.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to honor First Deputy Commissioner Benjamin B. Tucker of the New York Police Department for his years of public service and tireless work to improve the lives of our community and our city. He is a great example of the countless contributions that African Americans make every day to the Bronx and our Nation. First Deputy Commissioner Tucker began his career with the New York City Police Department (NYPD) in 1969 as a Police Trainee. In this role, he conducted an innovative school-based drug prevention education program. He became a Police Officer in 1972 and was promoted to Sergeant in 1987. During his 22 years of service with the NYPD, Mr. Tucker performed patrol, school task force, anti-crime, and community affairs assignments. In addition, he served as a Police Academy instructor, legal advisor in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Legal Matters; and as the Assistant Director of the Civilian Complaint Review Board. In 1995, President William Jefferson Clinton appointed Mr. Tucker as the Deputy Director for Operations in the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services at the U.S. Department of Justice. In 2009, Mr. Tucker was nominated by President Barack H. Obama, and confirmed by the United States Senate, as the Deputy Director for State, Local and Tribal Affairs within the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. His unique experiences in law enforcement, public service, and academia led in 2014 to Mr. Tucker's appointment as Deputy Commissioner for Training during NYPD Commissioner William J. Bratton's tenure. Proving to be a valued member of the executive staff, Mr. Tucker was promoted to First Deputy Commissioner and entrusted to direct design and implement a broad range of policy, programs, and training to strengthen community relations and improve the performance of the Department. First Deputy Commissioner Tucker holds a Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, a Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law, and is a tenured professor at Pace University. Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in honoring First Deputy Commissioner Benjamin B. Tucker for his distinguished public service and extensive contributions in ensuring the safety and well- being of the residents of New York City.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to Justice Elizabeth Audrey Taylor for her many years of compassionate service and tireless work to improve the lives of our Bronx residents. Justice Taylor is a great example of the countless contributions that African Americans make every day to the Bronx and our Nation. Justice Taylor was born and raised in the Highbridge Section of the Bronx and is a product of the public school system. She received a Bachelor of Arts in English from Binghamton University and her Juris Doctor from Ohio Northern University School of Law. She began her career as a legislative aide in the New York City Council and then went to work in private practice, where she specialized in landlord and tenant issues. Thereafter, Justice Taylor returned to the public sector as the Senior Court Attorney to Justice Edgar G. Walker, who at the time was serving in the Bronx Criminal Court. Until 2008, she continued her commitment to public service by serving as Principal Law Clerk to New York Supreme Court Justice Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr. , who is currently serving in the Civil Term of Bronx County Supreme Court. In addition, Justice Taylor was recently elected Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. She was first elected in 2008 to the Civil Court of the City of New York and has been honored as Judge of the Year by the Bronx County Bar Association and the Bronx Advocates for Justice. Justice Taylor is also a member of the Military Academy Review Committee for the 15th Congressional district. She has been a member of this committee since 2014 and has been instrumental in helping our office make military academy recommendations since then. This has allowed numerous students from the 15th Congressional District to attend these prestigious schools with full scholarships. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues join me in honoring Justice Elizabeth Audrey Taylor for her consistently remarkable dedication to the law and commitment to serving her community.