José Serrano

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. I thank the gentleman. I have no voice, but I have a lot of joy. This is a great day. This is the first time that a package of this kind has included so many poor people and so many folks in the middle class, but I especially want to thank the leadership on both sides for including the Territories. This is the first time in the history of this country that the people who live in the Territories are treated as equal, as Americans as they are, living under the American flag. And where will they spend the money? At the same retail stores that we will be spending our money here in this country. It's the same economy; but for the first time, this Congress in a bipartisan way has accepted the fact that it is one economy and the Territories are as much a part of this Nation as any other part, and I thank you for that.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. I want to thank the gentlemen, both the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee and the ranking member of the full committee, for this very important legislation. My reason for speaking is simply to inform you of what you may already know has taken place on the bill that we voted on the other night. The commission had a budget of $62 million. The President's request was $63 million. During our hearing process, our subcommittee oversees the agency, we were shocked to hear from them that they didn't need any more money. In the middle of such a crisis, they were the only agency in the Federal Government saying, ``Don't give us any more money.'' Well, understanding the need and within the limited resources, we went from this year's $62 million to a full $80 million, and I wish it could have been $280 million. The purpose of my comments is to remind both sides that since we increased the dollars by $18 million, it was a message that we were all sending that we understand the need to take care of these issues and to react in a very positive way. And so it falls on us now to be very vigilant to make sure that they do the work that they are supposed to do. There is nothing more important in my opinion at this present moment than to ensure the American people that products that are coming into this country and products that are being produced in this country are safe and proper for their children, for their families. We can do it through this bill. We can do it through the appropriations that we had the other night. I thank all of you again for being very vigilant in this kind of work.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to take a moment to highlight some of the provisions that were included in the Financial Services and General Government section of the omnibus appropriations legislation that we are considering this evening. Despite a limited allocation, and multiple cuts subsequent to the House passed bill, the Financial Services and General Government portion reflects the commitment that I made when I became chairman to work on behalf of our consumers and to bring the priorities of the agencies that this bill funds closer to the needs of our citizens, especially the most disadvantaged. The Consumer Product Safety Commission will receive a more than 27 percent increase over 2007 to help keep dangerous products out of the hands of our children. This is especially poignant this holiday season as we shop for safe gifts for our children. Funding for the Federal Trade Commission is increased by 15 percent over 2007 so that we can better address the problems of identity theft and deceptive lending practices, which impact more and more consumers. We have an obligation to assist our States as they struggle to make sure that our 2008 elections are accurate and reliable. There was included $125 million for grants to help States comply with the Help America Vote Act, including upgrading voting machines and voter registration databases. All citizens want to be sure that their vote will count. This important funding moves us closer to that goal. I am especially proud that we were able to fund the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund at $94 million, a 72-percent increase over 2007. This fund expands economic development and affordable financial services for underserved communities through housing loans, micro-business loans, and community development banks and credit unions. It is my firm belief that the Federal Government should not dictate to the District of Columbia how it should manage its own affairs or spend its own money. In this section we took some important steps in this direction by allowing the District of Columbia to use its own local funds for needle exchange programs to help fight the spread of HIV/AIDS. This also removes longstanding restrictions on the use of local funds by District leaders in support of voting representation in the United States Congress. In addition, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the territories will, with the passage of this omnibus, have quarters with designs they help select issued in 2009 to honor them and raise awareness of the diverse places that fly the American flag. The consumers of today and tomorrow must have financial education programs that help them to better understand the complicated financial world in which we operate. The current subprime lending crisis is just one example of how important this funding is in our society today. The Office of Financial Education at the Department of the Treasury will receive $1.1 million, with $200,000 targeted at our future consumers currently in our elementary and high schools, and $200,000 aimed at efforts to protect all consumers against predatory lending. There is also an increase in the Securities and Exchange Commission's budget specifically for investor education and protection. As our tax forms and obligations become more complicated, we as a government should provide additional taxpayer assistance. In order to address this need, $31.2 million is included above the President's request to increase IRS outreach and education services for taxpayers and small businesses, and tax return preparation services at Taxpayer Assistance Centers. There is an additional $6.7 million above the President's request to improve the services of the Taxpayer Advocate Service and its oversight of the IRS. Eight million is included for a new pilot grant program for Community Volunteer Income Assistance sites and $1 million over the President's request for Low-Income Taxpayer Clinics. Recognizing the importance of our small businesses, there is an 11 percent increase over 2007 for Small Business Development Centers. The Microloan program is funded at $17 million, which includes the $15 million for technical assistance that had been eliminated in the President's request. Our Federal workforce will be receiving a 3.5 percent cost-of-living adjustment. In addition, there are provisions to make sure that Federal workers whose jobs are threatened by privatization will have protections to ensure that the competitions against contractors are fair and unbiased. This bill also includes an important provision to improve congressional oversight of the practice of service contracting in Federal agencies. With contracting government-wide having grown to over $400 billion, Congress needs to ensure that it has necessary information on the size and scope of contracting in each agency. The bill will establish a pilot program that will require the Office of Management and Budget, OMB to track the cost and size of service contracts in three Cabinet-level departments. The program will give particular attention to contracts that have been performed poorly by a contractor because of excessive costs or inferior quality. It is also our intent that agencies other than the Department of Defense participate in this program, since the Department of Defense will already be subject to contract inventory requirements included in section 807 of the National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, for fiscal year 2008. I also want to clarify our intent with respect to section 739(b) of the Financial Services bill, regarding the use of public-private competition to evaluate the benefits of converting work from contract performance to performance by Federal employees. The NDAA includes section 324 relating to insourcing new and contracted out functions, and the Department of Defense should follow the provisions included in section 324 of its authorization. There are also important provisions to address real national security needs. Treasury's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence receives $56.8 million to help coordinate with the rest of the U.S. intelligence community and with other countries to combat terrorist financing. The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network receives $85.8 million to increase the number of financial transaction analysts coordinating with intelligence agencies and law enforcement, and the number of staff working to ensure Bank Secrecy Act compliance by financial institutions. Funding is included for additional Treasury staff to improve the review process of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. I am also proud that this section of the bill recognizes, through real dollars, how we value and want to protect our national heritage. Operating expenses for the National Archives are funded at $315 million in order to restore the research hours that had been reduced and to expand the workforce of professional archivists. The Archives' grant program will receive $9.5 million to assist in the preservation of the historic documents of States, local governments, universities, local historical societies, and others. Our Financial Services portion will benefit Americans by bringing Government in the agencies funded in this section closer to the people and make it better able to fit its services to their needs. The American people expect and deserve the best services their Government can offer and this is reflected in this pro-consumer section. Let me conclude by thanking my friend, ranking member, and partner, Congressman Regula, for his hard work and collaboration throughout this process. We might not agree on everything, but we worked together to try and fashion the best possible financial services section. I also want to express my appreciation and thanks for the hard work of our staff, both the majority and the minority. They are dedicated and devoted countless hours to the final product that we are considering today. I will vote in favor of this omnibus legislation tonight as we move this process forward. Financial Services and General Government Appropriations, 2008 Supporting consumers, voters, taxpayers, small businesses, and all Americans Consumer Issues: The Consumer Product Safety Commission receives over a 27 percent increase over 2007 to help keep dangerous products out of children's hands. The Federal Trade Commission receives a 15 percent increase over 2007 to help fight identity theft and fraudulent or deceptive lending practices. Election integrity: $125 million is included to assist States in ensuring accurate and reliable elections as we approach the 2008 presidential election. Within this amount, $10 million is included for a new program to help states improve the collection of information relating to the administration of elections. $200 thousand is included to help students learn about elections through a mock election program. Community economic development: The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund receives $94 million, a 72 percent increase over 2007, to expand economic development and affordable financial services for distressed communities. Respect for the District of Columbia and for U.S. territories: For the first time in many years, the District of Columbia may use its local funds to support needle exchange programs that help fight the spread of HIV/AIDS. The bill removes longstanding restrictions on the use of local funds by District leaders in support of voting representation in the U. S. Congress. Quarters with designs from Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the District of Columbia will be issued in 2009 to honor and raise awareness of the diverse places that fly the American flag. Puerto Rico, for the first time, is eligible to receive the same proportionate share of election assistance grants that states receive. Financial education: Treasury's Office of Financial Education receives $1.1 million, including $200,000 for efforts aimed at elementary and high schools, and $200,000 aimed at efforts to protect consumers against predatory lending. The Securities and Exchange Commission's budget is increased to support investor education and protection. Taxpayer assistance: $31.2 million above the President's request is to increase IRS outreach and education services for taxpayers and small businesses, and tax return preparation services at Taxpayer Assistance Centers. $6.7 million above the President's request is to improve the services of the National Taxpayer Advocate and its oversight of the IRS. $8 million is for a new pilot grant program for Community Volunteer Income Tax Assistance sites. $1 million above the President's request is provided for Low-Income Taxpayer Clinics. Small business assistance: Small Business Development Centers receive an 11 percent increase over 2007. The Microloan program is funded at $17 million. This includes $15 million for technical assistance, which was eliminated in the President's request. Federal workforce: A 3.5 percent Federal employee pay raise is included. Federal workers whose jobs are threatened by privatization will have protections to ensure that competitions against contractors are fair and unbiased. Concerns over costly or poorly performed government contracts are addressed through report requirements that will enable Congress to exercise greater oversight. National security: Treasury's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence receives $56.8 million to help coordinate with the rest of the U.S. intelligence community and with other countries to combat terrorist financing. The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network receives $85.8 million to increase the number of financial transaction analysts coordinating with intelligence agencies and law enforcement, and the number of staff working to ensure Bank Secrecy Act compliance by financial institutions. Funding is included for additional Treasury staff to improve the review process of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. $250 million is included as part of a homeland security border initiative to accelerate Land Port of Entry design and construction and to assist the Federal Judiciary's immigration casework. Caring for our National heritage: $315 million is included for National Archives operating expenses to restore research hours and to expand the workforce of professional archivists. $9.5 million is included for the Archives' grant program to help preserve the historic documents of states, local governments, universities, local historical societies, and others. The Administration proposed to eliminate this program.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Hunts Point Multi Service Center as it celebrates its 40th anniversary of extraordinary work improving the quality of life in our South Bronx community. The Hunts Point Multi Service Center, HPMSC, was founded in 1967 by local leaders and South Bronx community members to address the scarcity of quality healthcare facilities in the area. With an initial $50,000 grant, a free health clinic was established to service the Hunts Point and Mott Haven sections of the South Bronx. This clinic quickly expanded its operations when the war on poverty was declared by the Johnson administration, and became what is today known as HPSMC. For the past four decades, HPMSC has provided services in direct response to the changing needs of the residents of the South Bronx community. This organization has also remained faithful to its commendable mission: the empowerment of the individual and the community. Its many programs are reflective of the organization's commitment to holistic community-oriented human services. Although HPMSC's primary focus has been on providing health and social services, this organization has also become a prominent advocate on behalf of constituents from my district, playing an important role in the development and revitalization of the South Bronx. During its long years of service, this organization has been acclaimed by the Federal Government and the South Bronx community. Today, HPMSC has expanded its services to the Soundview section of the Bronx and provides services addressing HIV/AIDS, hepatitis C, and the Women, Infants and Children, WIC, Federal program. Madam Speaker, the Hunts Point Multi Service Center is an effective and storied institution in my community, which has produced many great leaders for our borough and city. Its commitment and dedication to social justice in the South Bronx is commendable. I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the Hunts Point Multi Service Center on the occasion of its 40th anniversary.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about an issue that troubles me quite a bit and I think should trouble a lot of the American people. Certainly it should concern Members of Congress. A resolution was passed this afternoon by voice vote dealing with the alleged involvement and behavior of the President of Iran, therefore, the Government of Iran, in Latin America and supporting, according to this resolution, terrorist activities in Latin America. Let me briefly read the opening statement of this resolution, the title, if you will: expressing concern relating to the threatening behavior of the Iranian regime and the activities of terrorist organizations sponsored by that regime in Latin America. Well, just to deal with language itself, we know that when our government calls another government a regime, it is not saying anything positive about it. It is, in fact, confronting it in some way. But I think that as unnoticed as this went by, as I said it was passed on a voice vote, as unnoticed that this went by, this puts us in a situation, the Congress, the American people, our Nation, on a road, on a path to a very dangerous situation in the future, perhaps in the near future. We all know how concerned the administration is and how concerned some Members of Congress are about the possibility that Iran could be involved in activities that would be hurtful to us. I want to correct that. I think all Members of Congress are concerned about that possibility. But I think we are also concerned about the fact, many of us, that there seems to be a drumbeat towards war with Iran, a drumbeat that says, basically, some of the same things that were said when we were taken off to war against Iraq. Just about everything that was told to us at that time happened not to be true. History will tell whether, in fact, we were lied to, or whether the information was so bad that the administration had no choice but to pass that on to us thinking that it was correct. But there are many who feel that we were lied to. Again, history will have to deal with that. My concern is that this resolution today moves away from just a concern about the behavior of the Government in Iran and begins to suggest that there are neighbors of ours, and, yes, I say neighbors, because that's what the Latin American people are, neighbors of ours, that could be involved in this behavior, behavior which would be dangerous to the United States, behavior which we all should be concerned about, behavior that, perhaps, would lead us to get involved in Latin America in a way that we haven't been involved for a long, long time. But I think in order to understand where we are with this issue, we also have to have, I think, an understanding of how history repeats itself, how some things that we are hearing now we have heard before. For close to 50 years now, we have had a very strong lobbying effort in this country against a Cuban Government. The so-called anti-Castro lobby has been very strong, and that lobby has been very influential in getting many Members of Congress and Presidents, present and past, to feel that the only path towards changes in Cuba is to continuously attack and confront the Cuban Government. To the dismay of many people, I am sure, and with all due respect to many people, it is no secret that for the most part that lobby, this effort, has come out of anti- Castro groups who, for the most part, live in the State of Florida. Well, something very interesting has happened in the last few years. As Latin America has elected leftist-leaning leaders, people who propose to put forth a modern-day socialism, as they call it, 21st- century socialism, but people who have been elected and reelected as they have emerged, they have decided that it would not be improper for them as leaders of those countries to have a relationship with the Cuban Government. Well, that upsets the same people who have been upset with the Cuban Government. The fact that some new governments in Latin America would now be friendly to the Government in Cuba would upset these folks. Our policy towards Cuba has been heavily influenced by this anti- Castro movement. I can't tell you how many times in the 17 years that I have been in Congress and have tried to change that policy. I have been told by Members of Congress on both sides, Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, I have been told by them, I agree with you, you are right with this policy having to change. But I think we have to continue it, and most of them will tell you, because the lobbying effort, out of a couple of communities in this country is so strong, that I really don't want to face that. Right on the House floor they have told me, I don't want to face that, I will just go along with this policy, as outdated as this may be, as inefficient as that may be, because it hasn't changed anything in Cuba, not that we should necessarily be changing things in another country. But now we find that those same folks have now picked new targets. Chief among those targets, top of the list, is the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, who has over and over again shown his friendship to President Castro of Cuba, and that irritates the folks who support ending Mr. Castro's stay in Cuba. Those folks then have started to say the same things that they have said for years about Mr. Castro. Now, the fact of life is that the Cuban Government, the system in Cuba, and the system in Venezuela, for instance, are totally different, totally different. But not to those folks who simply would want to get rid of one. They now feel that they have a target which is the President of Venezuela. That target then, I think, leads us to situations like today, where a resolution presented here speaks of putting together all these groups who have one thing in common. They speak out against our government, they say things we don't like, and who happen to have been visited or received telephone calls or offers of help from Iran. Now, Communist China, and I use that title, that phrase, that word, so we understand what we are talking about, are involved in the economy of every country in Latin America; but you don't see a resolution on the House floor condemning Communist China for being involved in Latin America. Why? Because they're a big trading partner of ours. And secondly, let's be honest, because there is no Chinese American lobby in this country influencing how we behave in Congress. And so we could deal with China every day and they could do whatever they want in their country, and we will never say more than maybe say every so often, behave yourself. And there are countries in the Middle East who treat their folks in ways that you could spend every day in Congress condemning them, but we won't do that because we have a relationship with them. But nothing, and I say this with great admiration, nothing is as strong as the anti-Castro lobby, which has made it clear that the leadership in Latin America that is friendly to Mr. Castro must pay a price, and one of the prices you pay is to lump them together as this hate group that is now going to be involved in terrorist activities in Latin America. We have democratically elected leaders in Latin America that have these friendly relations with the Cuban Government. That doesn't matter to us that these folks were elected and re-elected. As long as they are friendly to Cuba, Miami hates them. And as long as Miami hates them, then Congress must hate them too. So when you hear comments about Chavez, when you hear comments about Evo Morales, the President of Bolivia, when you hear comments about President Correa in Ecuador, understand, when you hear these comments, or about any one of the other left-leaning presidents in Latin America, that you're basically hearing from the same playbook, the comments that you heard about Cuba for all these years. But please understand something, that you are not hearing direct attacks on those governments; you're still hearing an attack on the Cuban Government. It is just being played out in this new scenario called the other countries in Latin America. Now, it is true that we have, or they have elected leaders in Latin America that are not happy with the U.S. Government and that words have been strong at times towards us. But some of this rhetoric has a history behind it. While our country paid a great deal of attention to Asia, Europe and the Middle East, we neglected Latin America. That is a fact. That is not Congressman Serrano from the Bronx, New York, just making those comments to sound nice at this time of night. That's a fact. We neglected Latin America, and they suffered, and still do, through some very difficult periods. And during the Cold War, it was really interesting. We would go to Latin America and we would say, General So-and-So, Senor, do you support communism in the Soviet Union or do you support our style of government? And those generals would say, oh, no; we support your style. We would say, great, you're our friend. We'll see you in a couple of years. And meanwhile, they mistreated their folks; they ransacked the country. But it didn't matter to us because they were not for communism. They were not to the left of the political spectrum. They were not for socialism. During that time, however, we would say something very positive. Every so often we would kind of knock them on the shoulder and say democracy is the most important thing. Nothing is as important as democracy. Well, you know something? They've tried it all in Latin America. They tried military dictatorships. The people didn't try it. They were the victims of it, and it didn't work. Then they tried regular dictatorships, if there's such a thing different from a military dictatorship. But it didn't work either. The people suffered, but the ones who tried it didn't work. Then they tried something new for Latin America in many cases, new to some countries, new to many countries. They tried democracy. They elected folks. But they elected folks who were very much tied to international corporate interests, who got elected, many in questionable elections, and then neglected the people, neglected the people. And the people found out that they had elected people, they had done everything they were asked to do, and they were getting poorer and poorer every day. So what have they done in the last couple of years? They've elected left-of-center candidates in Chile, in Argentina, in Ecuador, in Bolivia, in Venezuela. And these folks have been, and are, revolutionaries. They, themselves, claim to be revolutionaries, and that, again, we hear that word, that upsets us. We forget that this great system we have here was created through a revolution against the British. But we were the last ones to use that word in a way that we liked it. Now anybody who calls himself a revolutionary we get upset about. But these people are revolutionaries. They're trying something new in Latin America. Embarrassing as it may seem, it is new to many countries in Latin America, this whole notion that the person at the bottom, the person who's been suffering for years, the indigenous people, the darker skinned people, that they would now have an opportunity to have something better. Now, and this is important what I just mentioned about the fact that in Latin America, the darker skinned folks are beginning to feel that they have a stake in their system. When Secretary of State Colin Powell, one of the greatest Americans, left the administration at the last, the end of the last term, he came before our Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and I was the ranking member at that time. And he said to us something very important when he was talking about Latin America. He said, the big change in Latin America, and what we Americans need to understand, now he didn't say it was good. He didn't say it was bad. He didn't say it was a problem for us. He just said it was something that was happening in Latin America, that we as Americans have to pay attention to. He said, those folks are beginning to elect people who look like themselves. Now, that's a heck of a statement by a very intelligent man who has a good understanding of the world. I don't know if that upsets some of us, but I think it does upset some folks in this country and throughout the hemisphere, that countries that are composed primarily mostly of indigenous people and people of color have now decided to elect people who look like themself, people who come from them. And when they decide to make changes that are very dramatic and, yes, very revolutionary, we get upset because it doesn't serve the corporate interests of a lot of American corporations. So Hugo Chavez in Venezuela decides that he's going to revolutionize the way Venezuela behaves. He came to the Bronx. He visited the Bronx. He spoke to us and he said something very interesting. He told us who he was. And you never hear about this in this country. He told us he was a kid, very poor, who didn't have shoes until he was a teenager, walked barefoot, who wanted only one dream in life, to become a major league baseball pitcher. And he was pretty good. But from where he lived, to be seen by major league scouts, he had to go to Caracas. And he was told that the only way to get to Caracas was to join the Army. So he joined the Army. He jokes that it was the worst mistake his country ever made, letting him join the Army, because when he began to travel with the Army he noticed something very interesting of Venezuela. He noticed that people who looked like him were very poor, and other folks who didn't look like him were living in a country with a lot of oil and a lot of money. He also noticed that not all neighborhoods were like his. He thought all of Venezuela was like his neighborhood, and it wasn't. It had serious pockets of serious money. So he began to grow a conscience about that; became a military leader, eventually led him into politics. He got elected. And when he got elected he immediately set out to change the way Venezuela behaves. And the opposition to him knows that. That's why they all admit that he's so popular within his country, by the folks who are at the bottom. But, you know, I get to watch Spanish television from Latin America on my cable system in the Bronx, and you know, as tough as we are in American politics, some of the stuff you hear about President Chavez from the owners of these stations who open up their morning programming by reminding people that their President has curly hair and is dark skinned, as if that was a sin, but it's such a revolutionary thing that has happened in Latin America that some people still can't get over it. So he's an idiot. He's crazy. He's corrupt. But even the opposition, at times, in attempting to say something against him, really says dumb things. I wish I had the name of the person, although I wouldn't use it on the House floor, but during the last elections in Venezuela when the polls indicated that President Chavez was at 62 percent of the vote, one of the New York Times reporters, I think it was, asked this leader of the opposition, Why do you think he's so popular? And the gentleman said, and this has to be the dumbest statement ever made by a politician in the history of the world, the gentleman said, You would be popular too if you were always building schools and hospitals for the poor. Well, to that I say, what American teenagers taught us to say, duh. I mean, isn't that the reason why you elect people to take care of those in the society who need help amongst others? Because you don't play class warfare. So they're saying that because he's building hospitals and because he's building schools, he's very popular. Well, yeah, Mr. Opposition. Why didn't you try that when you were in power for the last couple of hundred years to do some of that? Now, these leaders in Latin America that we attack, it's important to know how they got to that point of being the leaders of these countries. For instance, in this resolution, it says, whereas in January of 2007, the President of Iran made his second visit to Central and South America in 5 months to meet with Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela, to visit Daniel Ortega, President of Nicaragua, and to attend the inauguration of Rafael Correa, President of Ecuador. Well, if we're going to be technical about this, the fact is he went there for the President's inauguration, something we all did. I mean, every country in the world sent a representative. I imagine our Ambassador was there. If he wasn't, he should have been there because this was an elected President of Ecuador. When you make those visits, as our President does, and I commend him for it, you go and you take the time that you're in that country and you visit neighboring countries if you don't get a chance to meet with everybody. That's something you do. But we attack these people in this resolution that we passed today, this, in my opinion, dangerous resolution, and that's why we're here today. We're here today because Congress passed a resolution today condemning Iran's involvement in Latin America and suggesting that these progressive leftist semi, if you want to call them, socialists in Latin America have a bond going with the President of Iran to create havoc for us and to fund terrorist organizations. But there's something we forget. Let's look at Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua. He was elected in a free and fair election, recognized by world organizations. As part of the Central American peace plan, Ortega's Sandinista government agreed to internationally monitored democratic elections in 1990. Now, this guy we don't like submitted himself to elections in 1990 and he lost, and peacefully, after having won a revolution, peacefully turned his government over to Violetta Chamorro, who was the victor, with our support, heavily with our support, because all the arguments in those days about how much money we sent into her campaign. Now, can you imagine if somebody from another country sent money to one of our Presidential campaigns, another government, what we would do with that candidate in this country? But we do that. Ortega ran for President in 1996 and lost, ran for democratically provided elections in 2001 and lost. Because he came in second place both times, however, Nicaraguan law gave him a seat in the national assembly where he has served as an opposition leader. Then he ran for President again in 2006 and won. Now, shouldn't that alone make us want to go to Nicaragua or call him up and say, We asked you, we asked everybody in Latin America, to get elected. You ran four times and finally you got elected. Let's at least talk. No? We are on his case. In fact, we are linking him to terrorist organizations in this resolution. Rafael Correa, President of Ecuador, elected in free and fair elections January 15 of this year. He is a U.S.-trained economist. What does that mean? That he learned what he knows about what he wants to put in practice in Ecuador in American schools. So shouldn't we be applauding that? Shouldn't we be applauding the fact that he got elected democratically? He is Ecuador's eighth President in 10 years. The instability has been horrible. Maybe there could be stability now. We should be supportive of that. He defeated Alvaro Noboa, a wealthy banana magnate, in a run-off election held in 2006. Contrary to our predictions, he got 57 percent of the vote. Now, the one that we attack the most, of course, is President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Well, let's review this for a second. President Chavez has won elections in 1998, in 2000, and in 2006. In other words, he got elected in 1998. He then went out and had his coalition elect delegates to a constitutional convention. Those delegates wrote a new constitution that, and listen to this revolutionary idea, gave power to the poor and to the indigenous people. They changed the constitution to do that, and they put it before the people. The constitution was passed by the people. So I'd say that that is another referendum on Chavez. Then the new constitution said that he had to cut his 6-year term short and run right away. So he ran in 1998; then he had to run again in 2000. Then in 2006 in between the opposition again with support from outside forces, a lot of them based right in the State of Florida, they held a referendum. He submitted himself to that referendum to be recalled as the President. He wins in 1998. He doesn't finish his full term. He goes again in 2000. But by 2004 they were ready to kick him out, the opposition. They hold a referendum. And he wins it big. The recall, he wins it big. In 1999, as I said, he won a referendum for a new constitution. And in 2005 his coalition of parties won election for the Parliament, for the Congress. Now, here's the question I have: Didn't we tell Latin American countries to use the democratic process? Isn't that what we always said was the bottom line? Everything else could be negotiable, we said at times. But democracy was the bottom line. Even when we didn't practice it, as I said before, we did say this is what you must do. Now I just read you three examples of people who have used the democratic system to reach their positions. So why are we attacking them continuously on the House floor? Once a month we get a resolution here attacking somebody in Latin America instead of getting close. Now, what we don't understand is that this whole situation with Latin America's electing people who are left of center is because the people are tired of the poverty, tired of the pain, and they now have leaders who at least in what they have attempted to do up to now indicates that they want to balance off the wealth of those countries. Balance off. We don't celebrate the fact that Hugo Chavez comes from poverty, reaches the presidency, and has been elected three times himself and his government another five times totaling eight elections since 1998. We don't celebrate the fact that in over close to 500 years, the people of Bolivia, a country mostly made up of indigenous people, what we call Indians, elected for the first time an Indian, Evo Morales. We don't celebrate that. I felt so good when I saw this man take the oath of the presidency dressed in the native dress of his people. I thought it was a great day. Our comments right away were, what is he going to do with the gas industry? Well, he did what we expected. He told some of the gas companies this is a very poor country. We have a lot of natural resources here. We are going to start sharing some of those profits with the people. Oh, he's a communist. We have got to get rid of him. He's a problem. So now in this resolution we lump him together with the President of Iran. When you do that, you immediately make enemies of the American people and those people. But you also make a very serious mistake, and this is perhaps the most important thing that we have to pay attention to. When you reject the electoral victories of these folks; when you don't celebrate the fact that people from the lower class, economic class, that people of darker skin of indigenous people are being elected; when you as the American Government, the greatest and largest government in the world, don't celebrate that and, in fact, spend a lot of time trying to bring them down; when you don't do that, it is natural that you drive them to places where you don't want them to be. Now, when you are a Member of Congress and you stand up in front of the House and people may watch you on TV, you are supposed to speak as exactly that. My problem, or my strength, is that I so often remind people that I grew up in a public housing project. And in the projects you have certain rules of behavior. And one is that if somebody is trying to do you in and that person is stronger and bigger than you, you go find someone who can help you confront that person. That's a fact of life for survival. Most Members of Congress, most American elected officials don't talk about the rule of the projects because they didn't grow in the projects. I am not saying that makes them worse than me, just different. So I use that as a point of understanding. Again, I grew up in the South Bronx in a public housing project. If you came after me, if you came after my mother, my sister, my cousin, you were my enemy. Well, when President Chavez came to the U.N., our country was outraged. And I was not happy with what he said. He called President Bush the devil, and that was enough for us to go to war. But let's talk about a little history now. There was a coup attempt on President Chavez by members of the military and members of the elite. All of Latin America, most of Europe, some folks in the Middle East all got up and said you can't do that. You can't do that. That man was elected. He's got to serve his term. What did the United States say? Well, at the White House some folks said publicly he brought it on himself. No, you can't say that, he brought it on himself. You don't bring on a coup against your government. In Latin America they said that our fingerprints were all over that attempted coup; that if we actually did not participate in it, we gave aid to it through our comments and said it was okay. Now, when I met President Chavez when he came to visit the Bronx, he spoke to us for a couple of hours. He's famous for speaking a couple of hours. He told us about all the things I have mentioned here. But he said when they took him out of the presidential palace, the ``White House,'' if you will, took him up to the mountains, he knew he was going to die. He knew he was going to get killed. And you can imagine what is going through his head because he doesn't know what is happening in Washington. He found out later that what was happening to him and when he thought he was going to get killed, he thought the whole world was outraged. He found out later that Washington was basically saying we'll figure it out. And we didn't say anything when the guy who took over for him momentarily suspended the Congress, suspended the constitution, and that's when the people reacted to it. Of course, Chavez came back because two things happened. One was the folks from the mountain side, the poor folks, the dark-skin folks, the indigenous people found out and they started running to the city and demanding to have their President back. The people won, the power didn't. But we didn't say anything. And he tells us that when he goes there, a young soldier, he's sitting in a room and opens the door and he hears the rifle load up and he thinks he's going to get shot right there, and the soldier says, If our President is killed, we will all be killed here. And that did a turnaround where the young soldiers told the older soldiers, We're not going back to those days. This man was elected and he has to serve his term. Now, let's go back a second to my focal point of growing up in the projects. They tried to kill the man and he came back into power. He thinks a few people were involved in it. He calls our President the devil as a representative of the country that didn't help him during that time. We don't appreciate having our President called the devil. We don't encourage that and we all denounced it. But in the projects if you try to bump me off, the least I am going to call you is the devil. In fact, the ramifications may be even more dangerous. So I think it was really a light comment compared to what he felt was happening to him. Now, there is another issue here that has been discussed a lot. We all heard about how recently President Chavez closed a TV station in Venezuela, and we were outraged. Nobody likes to do that. But what we were not told here is the history behind that. I'm not suggesting it was a good move. If I had been his adviser, I would have said leave it alone. But do you know who was on in the middle of the attempted coup against President Chavez in the Venezuela equivalent of the White House? The owner of the TV station that lost its license a few months ago. He was there as part of the coup to overthrow this government. Now, listen to me. I don't support most of the policies of President Bush. But if I heard that CBS, ABC, CNN, anyone tomorrow was involved in a coup against President Bush, I would ask that their license not be renewed because that is not freedom of speech. That is violence against the government. And you can't treat them any differently than you would treat someone. I would say we have to seriously consider not allowing them to continue in that role because they just attempted to overthrow a government by force. Also, they refused to televise the coup. And when they did televise, they only televised the opposition; they never televised the people. The country never knew that Chavez was gone because they didn't want the people to know. And when he came back, they didn't know that either, although they had televised part in the middle of the coup because they were supposedly playing cartoons and movies on TV because they didn't want to support the government in any way. That is the truth behind that licensing situation. Now, what is the danger in what we've done today? Today, we committed the mistake of allowing our emotions on the issue of Cuba to blind us into attacks on Latin American countries, blanket attacks on many countries. And in this resolution we make claims on issues that in no way can be proven. We're suggesting that Iran is going to fund terrorist organizations in Latin America. These are some of the same folks that told us there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. How many of us have forgotten those words, ``weapons of mass destruction''? They also told us that Iraq was tied to al Qaeda. They also told us that Iraq helped al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks. Even the White House has now admitted that most of that, if not all, was not true. So, I can't understand this desire to lump this together with Iran, present bad information, if not outright lies, and begin to move us towards a confrontation with Latin America at the same time we have confrontation with Iran. But look at some of the silly things that the resolution says. It says, Whereas, at the Iranian Conference on Latin America, Iran announced that it would reopen embassies in Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Uruguay, and send a representative to Bolivia. And what is wrong with that? Don't we want people to talk to each other? Don't we have relations with most of the countries of the world? But when Iran does it, just to reopen relations they had before, re-establish, we get upset. Well, that's an acceptable action for a sovereign state. Now, I spoke about the various leaders, and I neglected to remind us that the President of Bolivia was elected on December 18, 2005, with a record 85 percent of the Bolivian people voting in the elections. They were deemed by world organizations to be free and fair. He won a convincing victory, getting 54 percent of the vote, compared to 29 percent for his opposition. Although a lot of people were predicting that he would win, no one thought that he could win this big. Now, here's another part of the resolution. And I leave it to the people watching or listening to this to try to figure out what this means, because I don't know what the crime is here. It says, Whereas, routine civilian airline flights have been established from Tehran, Iran directly into Caracas, Venezuela, and the Government of Venezuela has been found to be indiscriminate in the issuance of Venezuelan passports and other identifying documents to people coming on those flights. So, they're allowing people to fly directly to them, and they are allowing Iran to fly direct flights. Well, we have direct flights all over the world. What is the issue? Now, here is the most dangerous one: Whereas, Iran and Hezbollah were involved in the two deadliest terrorist attacks in Argentina, and we all know that this is true, now they claim that Hezbollah is setting up in Latin America with the support of Iran. Well, my God, if that is true, why are we waiting until this particular resolution, which passed in what one could call the quickness of the afternoon without a vote, to bring up such a serious situation? If it's true that Hezbollah is involved in Latin America setting up bases, recruiting people, shouldn't we be outraged and really consider how to address that rather than just as a throw-away line in a resolution? This is so much more of this attempt to link Iran to Latin America. And let me reach the last few minutes here by telling you why I think this is extremely dangerous. It is pretty clear around here that we are beating the drum towards war with Iran. That's no longer an alarmed behavior. I'm not trying to alarm people into feeling nervous, but I think most American people are hearing a lot of what they heard before we went to Iraq. And you know that Iraq has been a very, very difficult situation for us, and we don't know when we will be able to get out of Iraq. And now there is this drumbeat, both inside and outside the Congress, throughout the country, but coming from the government, from the White House, coming out of the President's office, coming out of the Vice President's office, that we have to somehow confront Iran. That's a problem all by itself. And it's a horrible problem that we could be discussing here for hours. But my concern, and my reason for speaking on a resolution today, a resolution which was introduced primarily by Democrats, and I know this is not something we usually do, speak against members of our own party, but we can all be nervous about a situation because on both sides of the aisle people are marching forward to war with Iran. So, now we link these other countries. What does that mean? Does that mean that we now have an excuse to go and try military action against Bolivia? against Argentina? against Ecuador? against Venezuela? Is it because, indeed, they've earned the right, if you will, of having us react that way, or is it because we're using Iran as an excuse to deal with other things we wanted to deal with in the first place, which is getting at these folks. And so, I go back to my initial statement, that the same lobby group that has been directing our policy towards Cuba and preventing us from making changes in that policy, that same group has been intelligent enough, enabled enough to now direct our attention towards Latin American leftist leaders because they're friendly to Cuba, and what best way to get at them? To link them to Iran, the ugly country for us right now. And I'm not suggesting, by the way, that we should not have some concerns, if not serious concerns, about the behavior of Iran. That's not the issue here. I don't want people tomorrow saying, oh, he was defending Iran. No. I'm defending no one. What I'm defending is the right of the Latin American people to make their own democratic choices, if you will, and that we will respect that. But by linking them, I have to ask the question, if we go after Iran, and we just finished saying this afternoon that these Latin American countries are tied into Iran's behavior, aren't we also giving ourselves the opportunity, the reason, the power to go after these countries, too? That's my concern. Let me conclude by speaking to a subject that I know well. You don't have to live in Latin America to know how Latin Americans feel about the United States or about American people. This may sound like a joke, it may even sound sarcastic, but it is honestly true. All you have to live is in southern Maryland, in northern Virginia, in D.C., in New York, in LA, in Houston, in Dallas, in any city, any suburb in this country that has the growing number of immigrants from Latin America, whether documented or not, they're here for a reason. And if we were discussing immigration, I would tell you that they're here because they like this country. They want to work. They want to feed their families. But that is no different than how people in Latin America feel about us. To link them with a group of folks in the Middle East who have openly said, not all of them, but some, who have openly said that they don't like us, to link them to that is to make two horrible mistakes. One is to have bad information again put forth about a people who actually like us, and also, the worst mistake of all, to drive them into the arms of people we don't like. Because as I told you before, when you pick on someone and you're the toughest guy on the block, that person is going to have to find someone to help them out. So, instead of reaching out to Latin America, we say to them, you're as bad as the other guy. And we hate the other guy, and we're going to eventually take action against the other guy, so you know what you can expect. And even if that's not our intent, it will only make them think that that is our intent, and they will have to try to drum up new relationships. Because they're not going to give into us, they're not going to leave office and say we'll go back to the days when the general ran the country. Latin Americans, my friends, can be found in any city, any suburb, any neighborhood. And so many of them have such a close relationship to the people back home that they want to do nothing in this country to jeopardize the ability to continue to deal with their family back home. And their family back home will never allow any behavior in those countries that can hurt us. They need us and we need them. And so, when you speak to Latin Americans in our communities, you never hear hatred of the United States as you do in some other countries. They are materially poor, yes, suspicious of America's intentions in their hemisphere, yes, but interested in making common cause with Hezbollah and other foreign movements to target American interests? Never. Let me repeat that. They would never team up with a terrorist organization against the United States. They don't have anything against us of that nature. They just don't like our rhetoric and our indifference to them, but they're not going to team up with anybody to hurt us, because most of those countries have so many of their people living here that it would be like attacking another part of your neighborhood. Because to hurt the American interests would almost certainly hurt their own. Money that flows from here to there would be cut off from relatives. Those family ties of people living and working in the United States would be gone. A broad cultural admiration for the U.S. have knit together places like Caracas, Quito, and New York. One of the ironies of the current immigration debate is how folks often evoke how immigration from Latin America is changing this country. What they forget is how that same phenomenon is changing Latin America, which, despite its general political rejection of this administration, is growing ever closer in its embrace of a Pan-American culture and a Pan-American economy. For many thousands of people in Venezuela, Ecuador and Nicaragua, Americans are their cousins, their siblings and their children. They can be our greatest allies in the world if we don't continue to push them into the embrace of hostile regimes with foolish resolutions like this one. Mr. Speaker, it wasn't easy for me to decide to speak on this today. As I said, this resolution was presented by many Democrats, well- intentioned folks. I just see us going down a dangerous road here, a very dangerous road. If we have a problem with Iran, deal with that problem. Don't link the poor people of Latin America who have nothing against us. We have tried to export democracy to Latin America, and I think finally it is working. But we don't like the results. We have tried to export capitalism, and in many ways what they do with each other by trading oil for doctors and oil for technology is capitalism at its best. I often joke, but profoundly so, I think, that we exported baseball to Latin America. I don't have to tell you how well that is doing in Latin America and doing right here. I am a Yankee fan. But just ask the Boston Red Sox how they feel about Latin American ballplayers and Latin American baseball. So these folks don't dislike us. But they are going to be troubled tomorrow morning when they find out what we did here in Congress today. They are going to be troubled that we are linking them with people we hate and they don't want to be hated by us. So I hope we can spend some time reviewing this, thinking about it, and perhaps understanding that in our desire to do what is right for us and to protect our great country, this country I love, this country in whose Army I served proudly, this country whose Congress I serve proudly, this country that I would give my life for, that as you love your country, you don't love it different from a child. When that child is not doing the right thing, you have to correct that child. And our country is wrong right now in its desire to treat Latin America with hate and disdain and to make of it something that it is not. They are our neighbors and our friends. We should treat them as such. We should extend our hand to them and tell them, you are our neighbor, you are our friends, you are, in fact, members of this family in more ways than one, and we are members of yours. Let's work together. Let's not show a lack of respect for each other.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, this has to be one of the worst ideas ever put forth. Just think of it: Instead of getting the IRS to collect the tax dollars, we go and tell someone else that they can collect 24 cents on the dollar, instead of hiring more folks to collect what they have been doing for so many years. So we lose 24 cents on every dollar, rather than have someone take care of this. Now, the IRS has spent $71 million in money we have given them on this program and have collected in return somewhere between $20 and $25 million. The IRS Taxpayer Advocate, as was mentioned by the gentleman, calculated that if this money had been spent by the IRS to collect, they would have collected $1.4 billion. Mr. Speaker, we have also heard here about the harassment tactics. Now, we can deny it as much as we would like, but when you give me an incentive of 24 cents on the dollar to collect from taxpayers, things can get out of hand. That is why senior citizens have been called 150 times in a month's time, looking for their son. My friends, these kind of tactics would make a great comeback episode for ``The Sopranos,'' and I think one might be in the works. Mr. Speaker, the IRS can do this work. We tried to do this, as you know, in our committee, and it was defeated, basically with the minority party saying on a point of order they would pull it out of the bill. But it was our intent to do that in our bill. In addition, we put in $400 million in fiscal year 2008. With this funding, the IRS should be able to start working on these cases themselves, without outsourcing. I know, as Mr. Rothman has said, that there is a madness in this House about taking everything that American workers do and sending it somewhere else, overseas usually, and then what government employees do, they send it to another agency or to somebody else. I can't wait for the day when you decide that the whole Congress should be outsourced overseas and we should have people doing our work. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad idea. We should pass this bill and stop this program immediately.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Alex Rodriguez, who, on August 4, 2007, made history by becoming the youngest baseball player to hit 500 home runs. Lovingly mown to baseball fans throughout the world as ``A- Rod,'' Mr. Rodriguez exemplifies the great contributions Dominican- Americans continue to make to this Nation. Born in New York, and raised in Miami, Mr. Rodriguez displayed his baseball talents early in life. He attended Miami's Westminster Christian High School, which went on to win the national baseball championship his junior year. During that time, he earned several prestigious awards, including USA Baseball Junior Player of the Year and Gatorade's National Student-Athlete of the Year. Mr. Rodriguez was also the first high-school player to try out for Team USA in 1993. Today, Mr. Rodriguez is considered one of the best baseball players of all time. Proudly wearing #13 for my beloved New York Yankees, Mr. Rodriguez has become a legend to all prospective baseball players and fans. He has earned two American League Most Valuable Player (MVP) awards and has accomplished several noteworthy feats. For example, among all baseball players at the age of 30, Mr. Rodriguez ranks first in both home runs and runs scored, third in runs batted in (RBIs) and fourth in hits compared to other players at that point in their careers. Mr. Rodriguez also shares the record for most home runs in one month, hitting fourteen in April 2007. Mr. Rodriguez is also the third member of the exclusive 40-40 Club, composed of baseball players who accumulate a total of both 40 home runs and 40 stolen bases in a single season. These are just a few of the many accomplishments of this legendary baseball player. Off the baseball field, Mr. Rodriguez is actively involved in his communities, from Miami to New York to the land of his parents, the Dominican Republic. For example, in 1998, he established the Alex Rodriguez Evening Benefit for the All Stars, which, up to this point, has raised more than half a million dollars for the Boys and Girls Club of Miami. In 2003, Mr. Rodriguez donated $3.9 million to the University of Miami to remodel the university's baseball stadium and to provide scholarships to deserving students. In 2005, Mr. Rodriguez donated $200,000 to the Children's Aid Society in New York and $50,000 to the Dominican Republic branch of UNICEF, which fully funded five day-care centers outside of Santo Domingo for 1 year. These are only a handful of the many ways in which Mr. Rodriguez contributes to the development and success of our communities. Madam Speaker, A-Rod is truly a shining star and a role model to us all both on and off the baseball field. I will continue to cheer him on as he breaks more records on his way to greatness. I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to this fine athlete on the occasion of his 500th home run.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

Mr. SERRANO. I realize that with a house full of colleagues, I should make a profound and eloquent statement, but here it goes. Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to the Members of the House that adoption of the motion to recommit offered by the gentleman from California will kill the bill. The motion instructs the committee to report the bill back promptly rather than forthwith. Madam Speaker, section 1002(b) of the House manual states, ``Unlike the case of the motion to recommit with instructions to report back forthwith, the adoption of which occasions an immediate report on the floor, the adoption of a motion to recommit with instructions to report back promptly sends the bill to committee, whose eventual report, if any, would not be immediately before the House.'' Madam Speaker, a vote for this motion to recommit kills the bill. A vote against the motion will allow the bill to go forward to final passage. I urge prompt defeat of the motion to recommit. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I still reserve.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I just want to, first of all, comment that I must have hit a nerve in telling the truth, because the gentleman from Georgia got so excited that he made some noise that I'm trying to figure out later what it means. Something, hee-haw or haw-hee or something. I'll try to figure it out later. But anyway, the point is that no one is lecturing anyone. The ones who've been doing lecturing, Mr. Chairman, have been people saying that these bills have to be cut. These bills are bare-bone bills. This one in particular came in under the President's request, cut the President's request by $245 million. We set out to help agencies to help people. We demand, we encourage them, actually, to come closer to the people. We do a lot to allow the District of Columbia to deal with some of its issues, something that Mr. Regula and I believe in strongly. That's what this bill does. But we still can't get away from the fact that when we deal with cuts, you could present it any way you want. There's only one cut where the American people will actually feel something happening, and that is if you cut this continued ability to allow only the richest people in the country, the millionaires and the zillionaires to get incredible tax cuts where they take home 160,000 more dollars than they took last year, or 220,000 more dollars than they took home last year; or if you ever get the courage to say to President Bush, this is your war, you started this war, we have to end the pain of the war, but in the process, we have to end the continuing waste. And I say waste, because it shouldn't have been there in the first place, of half a trillion dollars. That's a lot of money. Cutting the Consumer Product Safety Commission, cutting the FCC, cutting the SEC, cutting the Small Business Administration, that's not going to make a difference, and you know it. Let's have the courage to tell the President to get out of Iraq and save half a trillion dollars that he will now spend if we stay there, and then we're talking real dollars. I hope that everybody will oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Just to close.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI because it requires a new determination. And I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

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. 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. 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. Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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.