José Serrano

Mr. SERRANO

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 object.

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 object.

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

Mr. SERRANO. I object.

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

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. I would like to yield myself whatever time I may consume. You know, when we buy a car, the first thing they tell us is to make sure we service that car regularly, change the parts that are necessary, oil it and keep it in good shape. We have a democracy, and as the gentleman from New Jersey says, and as everyone knows, at the core of that democracy is the ability to vote and to have our votes counted properly. Yet what we are trying to do here today is to cut away, if you will, from that maintenance program, which is more than a maintenance program. What happened here in 2000 and in other places after 2000 was that the American people, regardless of the outcome of the election, were left with the understanding that something was wrong and that the greatest democracy on Earth was having a difficult time counting people's votes properly. And so HAVA was created. HAVA is still in operation. HAVA is having moneys go out to communities. This is not the time to cut HAVA funds. On the contrary, this is the time to reinforce the core of our democracy by allocating the necessary funds. Give the States the opportunity to deal with the issue. Let the States deal with the issues back home that they have to as they meet the Federal requirements. So I would oppose this amendment, and I would remind us that we don't pay that much attention to elections and how we run them because we have had this for so long in this society and this country that we take it for granted. But 2000 should tell us that we should never take it for granted again and that we should pay strict attention to it. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SERRANO. I object.

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 yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SERRANO. I object.

Mr. SERRANO. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. SERRANO. I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. SERRANO. It is very easy for folks on the other side to say, let's not talk about the past administration. I agree. That is not my intention. In fact, our President has said on many occasions the past is the past. But if we keep coming up and making it sound like something happened January 20 until today that brought us to our knees economically, then it is my role, and everybody else's role on this side, just to clarify and to discuss a little history. And the history is the fact that this economy is in bad shape not for anything that has happened this year, but what happened in the past. On this amendment, this is the wrong time to get rid of this. This is the wrong time to move against it. We need it more than ever. I hope that people will defeat this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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 yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) for the purpose of a colloquy.

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

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to rise in support of the Financial Services and General Government 2010 appropriations bill, which includes total funding of $24.150 billion. This is a bill that we worked on cooperatively with our ranking member, Jo Ann Emerson, and I want to thank her for her work that she has put into this bill, for her friendship and her all around goodwill. We had helpful input from our subcommittee members and a productive full committee markup where all members had an opportunity to offer amendments and to have them debated and considered. This is a bill that we, as a Congress, can be proud of. The agencies that this bill funds touch the lives of all of us, and the funding is directed to those programs where we believe the American people will derive the most benefit. You have had a chance to look at the bill and report and to see the specifics of how the money for the 2010 fiscal year have been allocated so, in the interest of time, I'm not going to present a lot of detail regarding each program and agency. Instead, I would like to briefly highlight the five important themes that were addressed throughout this bill. The first of these is rebuilding the regulatory agencies designed to protect investors, consumers and taxpayers. A significant increase of $76 million above 2009 is provided for the Securities and Exchange Commission. This is the agency that combats financial manipulation, fraud and deceptive practices. It has not been vigilant enough in executing these duties in the past few years. The increase provided will allow the SEC to hire approximately 140 new employees to strengthen their oversight capacity. In addition, the Federal Trade Commission, which protects consumers in financial matters, will receive $33 million more than in 2009. The Consumer Product Safety Commission, which plays an important safety role in our product decisions, will also receive increased funding. Funding is strengthened for several of the Inspector General offices included in our bill that are charged with making sure that regulatory and financial agencies are doing what they're supposed to do. With regard to the Troubled Assets Relief Program, TARP, the bill requires the Treasury Department to provide reports so that we know how Treasury is addressing those parts of the financial crisis over which it has been given oversight responsibilities. A second major theme of the bill is to make sure capital and other assistance gets to small businesses and low-income communities, not just to large businesses and the wealthy. Funding increases are directed to the two key agencies which play important roles in this area. The Small Business Administration receives $236 million more than last year, and the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund receives $137 million more than in 2009. Our third priority of supporting equitable and efficient administration of justice in the Federal courts is met by well-directed funding increases that allow our courts to keep up with the costs and growing workloads. The fourth theme is to provide for fair and effective collection of taxes. Full funding is provided for the President's request for the IRS, which includes a substantial increase for tax enforcement to close the gap between taxes owed and taxes paid. We also help our taxpayers meet their responsibility by including resources for the IRS to provide assistance in person, over the phone, and on the IRS Web site. Our final priority is to meet our obligations to the Nation's Capital City, Washington, D.C., by including payments to address high-priority needs. We reduce undue interference in local affairs by dropping numerous restrictions on the District that do not apply to other parts of the Nation. For example, we dropped the prohibition on use of local D.C. tax funds for abortion, thereby putting the District in the same position as the 50 States by leaving that decision up to the elected government of the District of Columbia. Beyond these five priority areas, our bill touches the lives of Americans in other ways as well. For example, we assist American farmers by clarifying language from last year's bill regarding trade with Cuba and the requirement for payment of ``cash in advance.'' We also provide increased funding for Drug-Free Communities coalitions who work to reduce problems of youth drug abuse in their neighborhoods and communities. Before I conclude, I would like to thank staff on both sides of the aisle who have made tremendous contributions to this process. All the staff, both majority and minority, have worked long hours with dedication, and I would like to extend my personal thanks. So let me end by saying that I believe this is a good bill that merits your support. It directs funding to improve the services that our government agencies provide to our constituents as they invest their savings, purchase products, start small businesses and pay taxes. It addresses the needs of our courts and our Nation's Capital City. I would ask for your vote in favor of its passage. I reserve the balance of my time.

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.