José Serrano

Mr. SERRANO

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

Mr. SERRANO

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

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

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

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

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

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 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. And that states, ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' And it does impose additional duties. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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 the balance of my time. There will be more speakers on this side, but the gentleman has a wonderful cast over there. I am sure they could go for a while before we go over here.

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

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 yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.

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

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. Just to close.

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

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

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

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

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).

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. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment requires a determination. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment.