José Serrano

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. I yield to our majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. SERRANO. 125, that's what you said; we should do it for everybody. So that's 125 languages. My other point, because I don't want to take up your time, is, it's interesting to note how the language changes. Now you're saying they're getting money back from the government, they should be happy to do that in English. Just a few minutes ago, for 3 days, for 3 weeks we heard how the government only holds the money from the taxpayer. So only this group is getting money back from the government, the rest of the Nation is just having the government hold their money.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. SERRANO. If you're willing to join me in a further amendment that says we should do 125 languages, I would be glad to join you because I believe in that. That's fine. That's because I don't know what you're really saying there.

Mr. SERRANO. May I inquire as to how much time I have left?

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of amendment that shows up every so often. It plays to our patriotic feelings and to our feelings of wanting to be good Americans. So what you tell Americans is that if a language other than English is used anywhere in the country for any purpose, somehow, as the gentleman says, it attacks our democracy and threatens our democracy. We are not saying that we want people to stay away from learning to speak English, and I think it is important to note that when people come into this country and what some folks go through to come into this country, that is a statement about how much they want to be in this country. Is it true that Mom and Dad may take a little longer to speak English? Absolutely. But the young man that comes in or the young woman that comes in at the age of 8, 9, 10, 12, whatever, I assure you that 10 months after they are here, they are acting very American and a year or two later they are speaking English. That's a fact of life. In fact, I know this for a fact as one who spoke Spanish before he spoke English. When Hispanics sit around the dinner table and the issue of language comes up, it has never been a plot against the English language. It is usually the lament by the grandmother that the grandchildren no longer speak Spanish. That is the reality of America. That is how it has been from day one. That is how it is always going to be. Now, what is it that we provide here? We are saying that if you still have not reached that point where you feel comfortable enough in English to deal with government services, you can go to a Web site, listen to this, and say, Where is my tax refund? That in itself makes a statement. It says you are working in this country, that you are paying taxes in the country, that you have a refund coming, and you want to know where your refund is. So to make it easier for you to communicate and get that service, the IRS has seen fit to put together that kind of a service. Now, folks who deal with the IRS on a regular basis like the IRS National Taxpayers Advocate, in the annual report earlier this year, commended the IRS for the efforts to establish a Spanish-language version of Where's My Refund? So if you don't like the fact that this service is provided, say that. That's fine. But don't make it sound like this is a threat to our democracy. This country is strong for what it is and who we are, not because we have a website that allows people, who speak Spanish and feel a little more comfortable as they transition into English, get this kind of information. What is ironic is that we come to the House floor and make all these comments about government agencies offering Spanish as a language, but, Mr. Chairman, none of our colleagues from the other side ever get up and criticize their friends in corporate America who on a daily basis advertise in Spanish. Do you know that there is an ESPN in Spanish, there is an ESPN Deportes in Spanish? There's a Fox, yes, a Fox News in Spanish. There's a Fox Sports, I said Fox, in Spanish. There's a People magazine in Spanish. Now, is that government doing that or is that corporate America, who at times hangs out more with that side than this side, doing what they know is correct to sell their products? All these folks are saying is to give a service to the people, we will do it in Spanish too. Trust me, this does not threaten the democracy at all. I am, on a personal level, kind of a little shocked at my friend, the only man who ever passed a ball to me in a congressional basketball game because he knows of my lack of talent, and he knows he's my friend, but you would think he comes from another State. He comes from Florida. I don't know how you are going to explain this back home. I am trying to help you here. Maybe you want to withdraw this amendment so you can save a lot of headaches back home. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SERRANO. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman from Massachusetts, my friend, makes the best point of all. If you can just imagine, and I think you do because Lou Dobbs and other people show you all the time, what some people go through to get to this country, not to mention others who enter here with documents. You don't go through all of that to decide later that you don't want to be part of this society and not speak English. That is a fallacy. That is not true. And I can tell you firsthand it doesn't happen. I can tell you that I go to community meetings now in my district where there is no need any longer to say a word in Spanish other than to sound cute at the beginning by saying, Hola. Como esta, Ustedes? This is not a problem. And I am trying to save you, once again, from all this wrath you're going to get back in Florida for proposing this. So I still give you a chance to withdraw this. I hope everybody will vote against this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO

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

Mr. SERRANO. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I was beginning to feel left out. We were moving along with this bill, and I had not seen the usual cast of very intelligent and proper folks come to the floor to attack the bill and to try to cut it. And I have to tell you, I'm a very sensitive guy, I was beginning to feel left out. But now I realize you care. Except that you care to an extreme. You want to cut this bill by 8.9 percent. And I noticed that you didn't say what you usually say, which is, that this is a small cut because you know that this is a devastating cut. It is part of a mantra that's been taking place every day, where a group of you come and say that these bills are way over budget and they have to be cut. Now, I've been on the Appropriations Committee many years now. And during the 12, 14 years that the Republican Party was in control, just about every single year that I can remember every appropriations bill went up by a certain amount. And it was easy to see Republicans would have President Bush come in with a certain amount, and they would add more to it. And that's before it got to the Republican Senate. I'm not allowed to talk about the Senate, but you know what happens over there. But now, all of a sudden, these bills are way over budget, and you folks are so concerned. Still, not a single one of you will vote for the real budget breaker, or against it, which is the war in Iraq. Yes, we have a deficit. But you know the truth, whether you like to admit it or not, when President Clinton left office, we had a surplus. That's not my comment, that's a fact. We had a surplus. We squandered that surplus. How? By going into a war built on lies and bad information, and now we're caught up to here in that war in many ways. The tragedy of lost life. But we're paying half a trillion dollars for it. No one on that side gets up to say that budget has to be cut. The budget that has to be cut is for the employees at the Treasury Department. It's for the FCC. It's for the Small Business Administration. It's for the agencies that help people in this country. Now, interestingly enough, I thought that you were going to spare me, and I don't want to contradict myself that I felt left out, but that you were going to spare me because we came in below the President's request. Let's make that clear. Your President, my President, but your party's President, came in at $243 million above what we have in this bill. In other words, had I done exactly what President Bush wanted, this bill would be $243 million more. I came in at $243 million below, and you still want to cut it. But you're not cutting it half a percent as some will do, or 1 percent, which is bad enough, but 8.9 percent. So what is this? Most of the funding in this bill, more than 80 percent, is for the administrative operations of about 25 Federal agencies. A cut of this magnitude called for in this amendment would devastate the Treasury Department, the judicial branch, and the Small Business Administration. Yes, the judicial branch. Our courts would be hurt. We are in a war against terror. Part of what the Treasury Department does is to follow the money to see where terrorists could be moving money around in this country and overseas, money that could hurt us. You are trying to cut this by 8.9 percent. Then what you will do is you will say, well, this is one cut. But then if you add all the amendments on cuts today, it will be close to 15 percent if we were to approve all of them. Just like if you add all the cuts on all the bills, we would just have to close up the government and go home. That may be a good idea for some of you. But right now, the Yankees are not winning as much as I want them to, so I may not want to go home for a while. But understand something. I may at times make light of some of this. It is not a desire to say that this is not important. It is a full understanding that what you are doing is just to score political points. Because you can't, on one hand, vote to continue to approve half a trillion for the war in Iraq and at the same time say that you want to cut money from the Treasury Department, the Small Business Administration, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. On the other hand, you can't continue to support tax cuts that went to the richest people in the country and at the same time say that you want to cut this. It doesn't make any sense. Just the same way that you support tax cuts for the rich, but resisted until we had to drag you, kicking and screaming, to approve a minimum wage increase of a couple of bucks for people who haven't had one in 40 years. So let's be honest. Let's be honest. You want to be serious? Let's be serious. Come to the floor and present some things that are serious in nature. You are devastating this bill. We are not going to stand for it. That is why we urge everyone to reject this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement by the Acting Chairman

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. SERRANO. First of all, if this is not a political stunt for the public and for those talk shows to carry in support, then why are we debating for 40 minutes an amendment that I accepted at the beginning and almost interrupted the gentleman in accepting it? Another thing that's very interesting, if you don't believe that you have great support in the electronic media right now, if you don't believe that those stations have gone out of their way to give the conservative point of view and leave out those of us who may be considered liberals and who consider themselves liberals, then why are you so afraid of something called the fairness doctrine? If there's nothing to get fixed because there's nothing broken, what's the concern? Well, obviously, you must know that there's something that you may stand to lose, otherwise you wouldn't make a big fuss about it. Now, let me tell you something. Probably any so-called liberal you would get on radio, if one was hired by any of those stations, would probably be a moderate. You have nothing to worry about. Mr. Kucinich and I are not leaving Congress. We will not have a radio or TV show any time soon, and therefore, it won't be what you think it is. It'll be pretty moderate. But, again, what is the problem with going against an issue where you claim that there's a problem and, in fact, we know no issue exists. Now, that seems to be a prevailing behavior here today. You have seen amendments and you will see more coming later that speak to something that's not an issue. It's not a problem. And this one, I'm actually accepting it. I'm saying let Rush and the other guys, you know, continue to be fair and balanced in their approach. That's fine with me. And here you want more and more and more of the same. But, again, not to be flippant in any way, I assure you that neither in Spanish or in English have I been offered a radio show that would make your skin crawl moving it to the left where the debate should be at times. Have no fear, I'm staying in Congress for as long as I can be in Congress, and you have nothing to fear but your fears itself. I yield back.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I was going to rise in opposition.

Mr. SERRANO. And I guess for all intents and purposes, I have to do that, except that when I read the amendment, I realized that, with all due respect to the gentleman, it doesn't change anything because it speaks to something that doesn't exist. There's nothing in this bill that says that anything can be done that he doesn't want done. I know that's confusing. I showed it to Chairman Obey because I wanted to make sure. He agrees with me. I showed it to staff and, to my amazement, I was right with everybody. This amendment speaks to an issue that is not an issue; therefore, he's asking to undo something that is not done. Nothing's broken that needs to be fixed. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. I am informed that the original law was sort of set aside when the law was passed for these particular sets of coins. In other words, these coins speak to In God We Trust on their own in that law, as I understand it. If you now remove that language here, then nothing kicks in from the previous law and you end up with the possibility of no In God We Trust on the coin. Please understand, we're not arguing against putting In God We Trust on the coin. We support it. We're suggesting that your amendment as written may accomplish just the opposite of what you want to accomplish. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. I thank the gentlelady from Ohio for her comments and for raising these important consumer protection issues. I totally agree with her that this Congress must place a new emphasis on consumers and ensuring that defective and dangerous products, particularly from overseas, are kept from the marketplace. I commend the gentlelady for raising these issues. I look forward to working with you. I may say that if you were to look at our bill and read through the language in the bill, the one thing you will see is a desire by this chairman and the subcommittee to begin anew to look at a whole new way of how consumers should be protected. I think that for too long in this country, we kind of pushed away consumerism as a true issue. We're coming back to that. This bill speaks strongly to that. I commend you for bringing up these issues.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to inform the gentleman that we will accept his amendment.

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

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

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Madam Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 179) and ask for its immediate consideration.