José Serrano

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. I am sorry?

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, in closing, the gentleman is correct. This is a very serious matter. This administration, this Vice President, whether on torture, whether on prisons, whether on their behavior in spying on Americans, has told us over and over that they are above the Constitution. What this says is that they are not above the Constitution. No one is. The Vice President certainly is not.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman starts off as we suspected by assuming that Members of Congress have no ability and no understanding and no knowledge, enough certainly to make an appropriation called an earmark. That assumes that only Federal agencies and the folks who work in those agencies know what a good program is. I think every so often we have to remind ourselves what a so-called earmark is. An earmark is when a Member of Congress determines that in his or her district there is a program worthy of Federal support. But on so many occasions, as certainly has been the occasion in my district in the Bronx, those Federal agencies, for one reason or another, don't pay the attention they should, so a Member gets involved in directing some dollars. And it is some dollars compared to the total budget. In this particular case, we're talking about an organization in the Youngstown area that was originally set up to deal with the fact that in the southwestern Pennsylvania region, there has been a mass exodus of people between 25 and 30 years of age. Furthermore, with the demise of the steel and coal industry, the region has seen very high levels of unemployment. New and small businesses are necessary to the economic well-being of the citizens of this area. Now, JARI's efforts have directly led to an increase in small businesses formed in the region and jobs created and retained in the region. There has been an increase in longevity and sustainable efforts for small businesses. Business folks have been given the ability to grow. And yes, while the gentleman seems to think that it is a bad thing to have Federal dollars go in and then assist in reaching other dollars, well, that just shows that they know how to work the system and work it properly. There is nothing wrong with that. But the whole notion that only people and Federal agencies know how to direct dollars, and that only they know what a good program is is really a misconception. Now, the gentleman from Arizona will be here for quite a while, we see he's setting up his presentation. And it will be a good, strong presentation, but it is only based on the belief that Members of Congress are not intelligent enough to know a good program, to know a good use of Federal dollars. Interestingly enough, the same folks who will get up today and attack earmarks will not attack the fact that there are large number of earmarks that come directly out of the White House directing Congress to spend money on something; and that most have voted for the largest earmark of them all, the war in Iraq, which has earmarked hundreds of billions of dollars with very little, incidentally, accountability in many, many cases. So, I stand in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. He knows that he and I have a friendship, a personal friendship and respect. But on this one, as last time, he is totally wrong. I stand in opposition to his amendment and in support of this particular earmark. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SERRANO. No, I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. SERRANO. It's somewhat a hesitant approach to being against it for the simple reason that we're not sure on this side if his amendment accomplishes anything. The way the amendment is written, some would argue that what the gentleman does is remove In God We Trust from the coin. But it doesn't say that it places it anywhere else. And I know that's not his intent, that surely would not be my intent, and that would be a terrible talk show topic.

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

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

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment. And under different circumstances, I would simply say I accept it and that would be the end of it, but that is not going to be the end of it. I rise in support because I think there are a couple of things we have to know and we have to remember. First of all, there is a law in place since 2000, the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act, which allowed agricultural products to be sold to Cuba. Now, here is where the irony comes in. In 2005 the Treasury Department issued regulations requiring that the payments for exports to Cuba must be either received by the U.S. exporter or by a third- country bank prior to the goods leaving the port in the United States rather than upon arrival in Cuba. Now, that is the only country we do that with. Now, what is the irony here? The part of the argument that has always been made is that we should work in this Congress to help or to force Cuba into a political change, a political change which would mirror our democratic system, our electoral process, and also, I am sure, our capitalist system. Well, the irony of this is that it is capitalism at its best to allow credit to take place between two nations. It is anti- capitalism to suggest that the only way that we can sell products to you is if you pay ahead of time prior to looking at the product. I mean, we wouldn't do that. Picture going into a store and their saying you can't look at the product, you can't test the product, you can't do anything: you have to pay ahead of time. So there is a contradiction here that doesn't make sense. What the gentleman wants to do is simply put Cuba on par with every other country. Now, if we were here for the first time, as we were in 2000, creating a new way to trade with Cuba, then all these arguments, I think, would be in place, whether we want to do that or not, what kind of government they have. But we already have that in place. We already have that in place. And we should note that the reason we have this in place is not because anti-embargo people like me ruled the day in 2000, it's because farmers in this country and business people in this country, but especially the farming community, felt that it was important for American business to be able to sell some products to Cuba. That has not changed our political stance on Cuba. Cuba still has an embargo imposed by the U.S. We still do not have relations with Cuba. Nothing has really changed since 2000 except the ability to sell products. Now the gentleman wants to put Cuba on an even keel with the rest of the world. I think it's a proper way to go. I think it's good for our business community. I think it's good for trade with Cuba. And I support the gentleman's amendment. I will be asking Members on this side and on both sides to vote for his amendment if it comes to a vote. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Reclaiming my time, the way the statute is written, it would not allow that to happen. And in this case, we're actually trying to help you. We're suggesting that what you are doing will in some if not all cases remove In God We Trust and does not make provisions to place it anywhere else. That's our interpretation. That's why I said reluctant opposition because otherwise I would not oppose it. Secondly, your bill speaks to an item put forth by the mint. Nowhere in this bill does the Mint come up. We don't deal with that. And so that also is an issue. But it's a kind of thing where opposing it will be misunderstood as badly as what you're proposing is totally misunderstood on this side. Your effect may be that you will go down in history as the gentleman who took In God We Trust off the coins and didn't put it on anywhere else. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. SERRANO. No, but I would like to speak myself. I have no other speakers.

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

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

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

Mr. SERRANO. I will be brief, but I think part of what you hear from the other side is an innovative way of using the English language. So they speak about cuts and increases and tax increases and in a way which doesn't necessarily speak to reality. So let me try the same thing then. I might as well. The President wanted $243 million more than this bill that comes to you today. Therefore, I would say, I cut the President. But I haven't seen one of you get up to say that was a good thing. The President wanted $243 million more in our bill than what we are presenting to you. Therefore, the President took a cut. Mr. Chairman, I know I am not supposed to speak to them, I want to see them do the same thing when the President proposes more money for Iraq and for that war that was based on lies and bad information, and see if you are willing to cut that. Secondly, you keep saying that this bill is 8, 9, 10 percent above last year. Again, a play on the English language, because this bill did not exist last year. This is a new subcommittee. This committee is composed of different agencies that were put together for this committee. Therefore, technically speaking, this is the first budget we give you. Next year, you can either say that I cut it or I increased it, but not this year, because this bill did not involve anything from last year. Now, you could say, now he is getting picky. But if you listen to their proposals for the last couple of weeks, that's what they have been doing. They have been discussing these issues that have nothing to do with anything. Again, you are going after a bill that came in very tight, a bill that came in below the President's request, a bill that funds basic services, a bill that has 80 percent of its funding for administrative operations in 25 different agencies. There is no fat here; there is no waste of money here. Do you want to discuss waste of money? Later on we can discuss the war in Iraq, and we can discuss the tax cuts for millionaires that we have in place. That is the real waste of money, but we won't touch that. We will continue to bash this poor little bill that came in under the President's request. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the right to close, so I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SERRANO

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

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