José Serrano

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. SERRANO. The Rules Committee made in order a certain amount of amendments. The Rules Committee is a body composed of Members from both sides. That's the rule that we're working under. And I think that out of respect for the House and the rules that we work under, we should accept that as the format for this debate today, and not to change it in any way just when we feel like it.

Mr. SERRANO. I object.

Mr. SERRANO. I object.

Mr. SERRANO. I object.

Mr. SERRANO. I object.

Mr. SERRANO. I object.

Mr. SERRANO. We always talk about the debt. The debt was as a result of the last administration. In fact, all of these bailout programs started while we had another President in office. The fact of life is that we have to protect the present. We have to make sure the past doesn't come back. And this 5 percent cut would hurt the very agencies in this bill that are supposed to assure us of a better present and a better future. I oppose the amendment and urge its defeat. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SERRANO. I would like to yield 2 minutes to one of our colleagues and subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. SERRANO. I yield myself 1 minute. It's amazing that we hear about oversight now. Yes, we do have oversight. It's funny how the other side never claimed oversight when the White House was having meetings determining what our energy policy should be between the White House and lobbyists and no Members of Congress were present, or when the White House and the administration knew that there was torture and other actions going on and nothing was being said. The problem here is this may rise to a new legislative low because on these committees we respect the White House. When President Bush was in and this committee was in function, we let basically the White House have the staff members it said it needed, and now what we're trying to do here legislatively is to fire people at the White House. That's the wrong thing to do, and we should oppose it. I yield the balance of my time to Chairman Rahall. He takes care of all Puerto Rico issues, so I'm very nice to him.

Mr. SERRANO. I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. It's interesting that when we speak about debt we never bring up the debt that the last administration rang up through the Iraq war. That's got to be at least half a trillion dollars, if not more. And I'm still waiting to find the weapons of mass destruction. Secondly, if I may brag for a second, I've got the gentlewoman beat. I have four grandchildren. And I don't want to saddle them with any debt in the future. But I think that this bill speaks to another issue that deals with them, and that is their present, so that they don't continue to be ripped off by crooks on Wall Street. And yet the gentlewoman's cut, for instance, would cut $51 million from the Securities and Exchange Commission, which would slash 120 staff members who have been placed here now to go after the crooks on Wall Street and all the other folks that created a problem for my four grandchildren now. And so, yes, it is important to talk about the future. But it's also important to talk about the present. And what I keep hearing from folks is that, in a desire to save money now, we should do nothing to go after those people who created, who created much of the problems that we are facing now. Let me give you another example. The IRS--new enforcement initiatives would go unfunded, resulting in over $600 million in lost tax revenues. In other words, your 5 percent cut, the gentlewoman's 5 percent cut, would take away funding that goes after my grandchildren? No. After their parents? No. They would go after the millionaires and the zillionaires who are parking money overseas and who are not paying their fair share of taxes. So you would cut, she would cut, the gentlewoman would cut people to go after this. If this amendment passes, the Small Business Administration would not be able to meet the borrowing needs of small businesses. SBA lending, in its popular 7(a) loan program, which both sides support, would be reduced by $875 million. Many small businesses, and we hear so often on that side about how much they love small business people, many small businesses have turned to the SBA or loans as the credit markets have tightened up, making less credit available to small businesses in this economic downturn. What this amendment proposes, is exactly the wrong thing to do. The Federal courts would be impacted with a 5 percent reduction across the board. One thousand full-time employees would be reduced from the Federal courts. On and on, absolutely, you were right. I have a list, but the list is not a list made up by staff or myself just for me to have something to say; it is the result of the impact of a 5 percent reduction. And so, it makes a lot of sense to say, in some cases, it scores a lot of points to say I want to cut the budget by 5 percent. But I think when you look at what we're talking about, you're hurting the very people we should protect. So let me once again say, I appreciate the fact that the gentlewoman has two grandchildren that she wants to protect in the future. I have four that I want to protect in the future, but I want to make sure that we protect them now by making sure they don't get ripped off again, or their parents, as we did the last couple of years. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SERRANO. I object, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. SERRANO. I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. And I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Holt from New Jersey.

Mr. SERRANO. How much time do we have on this side?

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the dean of the House, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SERRANO. I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) who by the way was the strongest leading voice in having us put language in this bill that says that any TARP money has to be explained to the Congress on its use and all kinds of reports come back to Congress.

Mr. SERRANO. Could I inquire as to how much time is available?

Mr. SERRANO. I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. SERRANO. I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman, and I want to thank all of the speakers who have participated today, but I think there is a clarification that needs to be made. Many speakers have come to the House floor and have spoken about the abortion issue and have said that the American taxpayer is being asked in this bill to foot the bill for abortions. That is not correct, and that has to be made clear. First of all, to me, the issue is whether or not the District of Columbia should be given the opportunity to govern its own affairs or whether Congress will continue to impose on D.C. its will. So, for many years, the folks in the District of Columbia have had to accept Congress' wishes for many test items and issues throughout the country. I believe that, in some cases--and with all due respect to my colleagues--they have imposed these provisions on the District of Columbia in many areas of gay marriage, of needle exchange programs, of abortion, and of gun issues so that they could go back home and say they had done something on that issue. Yes, they did, to the people of the District of Columbia--not to the people in their districts but to the people of the District of Columbia. What this bill simply says is that local funds raised locally by the taxpayers of the District of Columbia can be used to provide abortion services. The ban on the use of Federal funds for abortion remains in place. Let me repeat that. Federal funds going to the District of Columbia cannot be used to supply abortion services. What we've done is to say, local funds that you raise on your own from your own American citizen taxpayers can be used for those purposes. That should be clarified, and people should know the truth. This bill is a good bill; and I hope that at the end of the day, people will vote for it. It covers many areas. I thank all my colleagues.

Mr. SERRANO. How much time do I have left, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include tabular and extraneous material on H.R. 3170.