José Serrano

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. It is amazing. Like President Reagan once said to President Carter in debate, here you go again. I rise to oppose the amendment. We often hear people running for office rail against politicians who have gone Washington. This amendment is an interesting representation of that phenomenon. We are part of a group of folks here who would like to treat Washington, D.C., as their own little colony. Back home, they tell the world they want no part of Washington, but over here, they not only want part of it, they want to tell her how to act. This amendment would limit commonsense gun regulation put in place by the elected representatives of the District of Columbia. Under our Constitution, States and localities, including D.C., have the ability to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens. Even the Supreme Court has recognized that some level of regulation is necessary in order to uphold those goals. The Republican Party usually stands for states' rights, but not when it comes to the District of Columbia. Our former colleague, the great David Obey, used to say that if Members of Congress wanted to get involved in the District of Columbia's affairs, then perhaps they should run for the D.C. City Council. That may be an option that the gentleman from Kentucky would like to consider. I strongly oppose the amendment. I think it continues to be more than just a gun amendment. It is an anti-D.C. amendment, and we should stop this behavior once and for all. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SERRANO. I would like to first say that we only oppose certain regulations about voting issues when they are meant to suppress the vote. I would like now to yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) who--get this--is the only elected Member from Washington, D.C., who is in this Congress at this time.

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

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The gentleman may not remember the financial meltdown of 2007-2008, but one of the causes was lax oversight by the previous administration's financial regulators. Dodd-Frank has addressed many of these issues and restored safety and security in the marketplace. It has increased oversight over the financial sector in order to protect those on Main Street from abuses on Wall Street. This is not the time or place to change that landmark legislation. Any attempt to do so will create greater uncertainty in the marketplace and among many Americans, including retirees, who depend upon Federal regulators to protect them. We should not undermine the much-needed reforms of Dodd-Frank, let alone in an appropriations bill. This is yet another example of the other side attempting to add legislative riders to must-pass legislation that they could not pass through their regular legislative process. I oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I would remind everyone that we continue to find ways to try to undo either the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare, which is already law and approved by the Supreme Court, or Dodd-Frank, which is the law of the land. The sad part of it all is that we seem to have very short memories. We seem to forget that we are still suffering from the effects of 2007 and 2008 and what happened in my city on Wall Street and how it had the effect throughout the Nation. We have to regulate, whether we like it or not. We don't have to overburden industry; we don't have to harm anyone; but we can't allow people to do what they did before, which is hurt the economy and put us in the bind we are still in. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Meehan of Pennsylvania to the end that the amendment stand disposed of by the voice vote thereon.

Mr. SERRANO

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

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman form Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Mr. Frelinghuysen

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, very briefly, this is one of those issues that really gets you angry. Both sides believe that people should play by the rules, and what you have are people not playing by the rules. People in my district, people in Ms. DeLauro's district and people in Mr. Crenshaw's district have to pay their taxes and pay their taxes where they live. They don't have the option of doing these kinds of things. For me, it is not only a legislative issue but a personal issue--the fact that these folks continue to get away with this kind of a situation. This is an issue that Ms. DeLauro has been working on for years. It is one that she deserves a lot of credit for, and that is why we have to thank her for it. I would like to take this opportunity to yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

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

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Maffei) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. SERRANO. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman is seeking to bring the salaries and expense of the courts of appeals, district courts, and other judicial services up to an appropriate level in part, as he mentioned, to address a tragic incident that took place in his district. It highlights the problems the judiciary suffered while under sequestration and with the lower funding levels that agencies in the executive branch have also had to face. We will work with the gentleman, the majority, and with the judiciary, as we do every year, to ensure that we can meet their funding needs and address the gentleman's concerns. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, this has very little to do with a bowling alley. This is not even about the picture of Richard Nixon fully dressed, bowling at the White House. This is about this desire of Republicans and the Tea Party segment of Republicans, in some cases, to make Barack Obama seem like an illegitimate President. The legitimacy of his Presidency has been questioned on and on. There were questions about his birthplace. There were questions about what he said his religion was. There were questions about whether he was old enough to be President. There have been questions about everything. So now, these petty attacks continue. This is a nonissue. This is a nonstarter. First of all, this was about fixing up a bowling alley that has been there forever. I don't think the American public, with all due respect to the people in the gentleman's district, really spend a lot of time concerned about the fact that all Presidents--and I mean all Presidents--are not allowed just to pick up and go to a local place to have a beer or bowl a game of bowling or whatever. So this is not an issue that we should be dealing with. But what is important about it is that GSA, furthermore, has canceled the project. The Federal contractor posting was pulled on July 9. So I am sure that the other side knows that this no longer is an issue, but it continues to be something that sounds good. I am sure people will be writing about it tonight, that the bowling alley was going to be built at the White House. No. This was an existing one that was going to be refurbished. That contract has been pulled back. That idea has been pulled back. There just continues to be more and more and more of this petty attack on a President. And I think it is not so much that he was elected President, which caused a lot of pain for a lot of people, but the fact that he was reelected. That really has turned a lot of people to a point where they will come up with anything. So by tonight, we may see even the plumbing at the White House attacked, as we did a couple of years ago. And at that time, I remarked that there hadn't been any plumbers at the White House since the Nixon administration, and that was the truth. We have leaks. We have a White House that needs fixing, and this Congress wastes time on these kinds of issues. So I would just hope that the gentleman would pull his amendment. If he doesn't, then I would hope we could defeat the amendment because it is just silly and not necessary at all. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, just in closing, it is silly. And I am not suggesting the gentleman is silly. We spend money, large amounts of money on the military and on other things that we never, ever, ever attack. We send money overseas in misguided military situations, and we don't complain about that. But it makes good headlines to say that today we stopped the bowling alley from being built at the White House. ``Refurbished'' was the question at hand, and it has been pulled back since July 9. There is no plan whatsoever to do anything with the existing old, decrepit bowling alley at the White House. So this is not a gutter ball. This is not a strike for anyone. This is just more of their silliness that we will see for the next 24 hours. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of other speakers, so I will be very brief. This really has very little to do with the substance that we are talking about, or that appears to be marijuana. It is about the fact that, whether we like it or not, there are States that have already legalized either recreational use, in two cases, or medical use in 22 States, and those situations require banking decisions and banking abilities. Jack Lew, Secretary of the Treasury, said at our hearing: Without any guidance there will be a proliferation of cash- only businesses, and that would make it impossible to see when there are actions going on that violate both Federal and State law. So an attack on the use of marijuana may be misleading here because what we are doing is really ignoring the banking aspect of this and the fact that there have to be some regulations and some issues put in place to do the right thing and to uphold the law, the banking laws and other laws. With that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

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

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