José Serrano

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) will agree to not offer his other amendment, which would call for deeper cuts to the account, if this one is agreed to. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SERRANO. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SERRANO. Well, with all due respect, and reclaiming my time, you may not feel that it's treated like a plantation, you may not feel that it's treated like a colony, but let me tell you, I don't know a plantation, but I know a colony, and we do treat it like a colony.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, this is one of those amendments that leaves you scratching your head. This really is an issue that has been visited for so many years and well understood by the medical profession and activists and citizens throughout this country. We are not promoting the use of drugs. In fact, every needle exchange program that I am familiar with, including the one that exists in my congressional district, encourages people to seek treatment, demands in many cases that you seek treatment. But all it says is that while you are a drug addict, while you are trying to get off that addiction, that you not spread the HIV virus by sharing needles. This is a very sensible medical approach to a very serious social issue and a medical issue. When you have folks who are addicted, the impression that some people get is that this is some sort of a party that people go to and they get drugs by getting needles. What you get is a medical procedure that says you're addicted, we want to help you, we want you to submit yourself to treatment, but in the meantime we will ask you to use this needle rather than one that you can share with someone else and either get the HIV virus or pass it on to someone else. Washington, DC, is number one in the Nation in AIDS cases right now. All this language says is that the local government will be able to use its local funds to put forth a needle exchange program. My God. To what extent will we continue in this House as we have in the past to take every social issue that we can't win in our local districts and bring it and put it on the people of the District of Columbia and say this is how we want you to behave, because this is what I believe in and back home I can't do this, so I'm going to do it on you and I'm going to do it to you. The mayor, city council, the leadership, has asked over and over again, give us the opportunity to deal with this issue on our own, in our own way, and in our own terms. We are not, if I had my way, I would have said that Federal funds could be used for a needle exchange program. That's who I am. But that's not what this says. This simply says that those dollars that are raised locally by the people in the District of Columbia, that they can use it for a program that can save lives, that can stop the spread of AIDS, that can deal with an issue in the most proper and humane way. This is one of those issues where you have to go deep into your soul, into your heart and not deal with the rhetoric of what sounds right in a 30-second sound bite, but what is proper for public safety, for public health, and for the human dignity of a person that already has a major problem. I have dealt with a lot of people who are addicted for a long time in my district. I know the pain they go through. At the expense of perhaps making light of it, when they show up at a needle exchange program, they are not dressed in tuxedos with martinis in their hands having a ball. They are people who are hurting, hurting and trying to survive somehow. This may just give them a chance not to get sick, but perhaps just as important, or most importantly, not to make someone else sick. I would hope that the gentleman fully understands what this is. One, it's local control over the destiny of the District of Columbia; and, secondly, it is a proper medical way for this society to deal with an issue. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. Absolutely.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, in anticipation of the possibility that we would allow them to use their local dollars, the District of Columbia already has put together a plan, a very comprehensive plan to deal with this issue. That is the plan presented to the committee by Dr. Greg Payne, the Director of the Department of Health. In it, they speak about the dollars they want to spend and the agencies they want to deal with at the local level. They are very serious about the fact that they want this done, and we should be supportive of it. I did not, in my comments, intend, nor do I now, to question the gentleman's commitment to his belief that this is not a good program. I respect that. I disagree with you, but that was never my intent, if that's what you got out of it. But I know that you would not be able to present this kind of an approach anywhere else except when it comes to dealing with the District of Columbia because it is, for all intents and purposes, a territory or a colony. And I take that very seriously because I was born there, an America colony. And I'll be darned if I'm going to be the Governor, now in charge by the Congress of a colony. I don't want to do to D.C. what I feel has been done to my birthplace for 109 years. I fight every day to make that a better situation. And I think what's happened is somewhere along the way we discovered in Congress, and at times it's been done by everybody, we discovered in Congress that there was a playground, there was a place where we could put forth issues that we thought were important issues. And so if you look at the provisions that prohibit local and/or Federal funds from being used in D.C., you see everything from the abortion issue to the gay issue, to the domestic partners issue, to the needle exchange issue; just about every issue that we have ever decided is important in this country, we've used D.C. as the example. And why? Because they can't fight back because they're powerless because they are, indeed, a colony. Well, I don't know how long I'm going to be chairman of this committee, but as long as I'm chairman of this committee, I will work hard on many issues, and one of them is to alleviate the burden of the District of Columbia to have to be treated like a colony of the U.S. Congress. Let us do this locally. Let us all decide that if you really believe in something like this, do it locally. Let me read to you something that Mayor Fenty wrote to us. And I always mention the fact, and I don't want to put my ranking member in a difficult situation, although, you know, he's tough enough to handle it, but he and I are big fans of this Mayor. We're big fans of the vision he presents. We're big fans of giving the District every opportunity to succeed. He says it more than I do. In every opening statement, at every committee hearing, he brings up D.C. as something, a group of people he wants to help. The Mayor says, statistics in 2005 show that D.C. has the highest rate of AIDS cases in the country, a rate that is over six times the national average. An estimated 1 in 20 D.C. residents is infected with HIV. Nearly 1 in 50 has full-blown AIDS. My God, if this is true, and it is, then why wouldn't we let them at least use their local funds to deal with this issue? You know, I don't know 50 years from now how we're going to be judged, but I think that an issue that may not get the importance it gets now, like this one, will be one of the ones that will judge all of us as to what we did when we had an opportunity to do something.

Mr. SERRANO. Would the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. The gentleman has raised some very serious issues that need addressing, and I would accept the amendment and support it.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back 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. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment imposes additional duties. Therefore, I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. SERRANO. I will continue to work with you on this issue. I know how important it is to you and to our country. You have that commitment from us.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I am ready to accept the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. SERRANO

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

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield to our distinguished chairman.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, it is amazing. If folks on the other side keep saying tax increase, they are actually going to believe that there is a tax increase. What I notice is that they very rarely mention deficit because when they do, they leave themselves open for discussion on the deficit. Yes, there is a deficit and the American people are quickly finding that out. The deficit was not created in the last less than 6 months that Democrats have had control of this House. The deficit was created by taking us into a war that we shouldn't have been involved in where close to $600 billion has been spent, not to mention the loss of life, not to mention the fact that when our troops come home over the next 10, 15, 20 years, we will be paying in deficit spending to make up for medical care and all the needs that I certainly will be supporting for them. Now, it's interesting, Mr. Chairman, how the other side mentions that this bill spends money. Well, in a way that's redundant because that's what the Constitution says the Appropriations Committee is supposed to do. It is supposed to come to the Congress every year and spend dollars. How much we spend, that's a discussion. But if there was ever a place where you can justify a modest increase, it would be when you deal with the energy issues in our country. There are dollars here, no one is mentioning, for research. There are dollars here to deal with the energy issue. Now, every American knows that probably at the center of issues in this country is the high cost of fuel in this country, whether for driving or heating our homes. So when you take some of those tax dollars and you spend them, a very modest amount, on research to see if there is a way that in the future we can cut out our dependency on foreign oil, that is a great investment. That is no different than investing in a college or education for the children. It is the same kind. But again, we are not going to hear that. What we are going to hear is this repetition about how money is being spent, and that there is a tax increase. I don't remember a tax increase in the 6 months that we have been here as Democrats. What I do remember that caused a deficit was, one, the war; and two, that we did have a tax decrease in this country, a tax cut, we did. But it wasn't for anybody that we know, certainly no one I know. It was for millionaires and zillionaires, including some of them who told us that they didn't even want a tax cut. Those are the people. So if indeed those tax cuts reach their sunset and die, I guess you could play with words and say that taxes will go up. Yeah, for somebody who has $100 million, he or she might pay more taxes later on. But the working class, the people who are getting help for their education, the folks that are getting a better deal on energy propositions in the future, those are the facts, the people that we are looking for. Now, you want to cut the deficit down? You want to create a situation where we will spend less money in this country? Stop the war now. Stop spending another dollar on the war in Iraq. But it has been forgotten. It's all about tax-and-spend Democrats. My God, when you hear this, Mr. Chairman, you would think we were in control for the last 14 years. No, it's 12, 14 years against less than 6 months. And in those 6 months we have spoken to parents about their kids' education. In those 6 months we've made attempts to bring down the cost of gasoline. In those 6 months, yes, we gave a minimum wage increase to the lowest earners in this country. That's what we've done. And we will be proud of that. You want to cut the deficit that you created over 12 years? Stop the war now. That's the best way to do it.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, this may be one of those classic moments where we are dealing with something that really isn't broken. The fact of life is that everybody at every local government and in every locality throughout this country knows what the law is and knows how to react to that law. People are not withholding information from the Federal Government. What happens, however, on many occasions, is that local communities will make a statement, and basically it is a statement in many cases, in most cases, saying that that area is a sanctuary, meaning that they look at the immigration issue differently than you may in other parts of the country. But it doesn't mean that they flaunt the law, that they laugh at the law, that they will not participate. I assure you that in the case of New York City, where the scene of the crime took place on September 11, no one in that city government, no one in that State government, is interested in doing anything else but complying with every law that will help us secure our borders and protect our city. But we in that city look at immigration different than other people in other parts of the country, perhaps. We don't see immigrants as a problem to society that we have to somehow create a problem for them. So sanctuary movements, which incidentally are growing throughout churches of all denominations throughout the country in very conservative and in very liberal areas, those movements are simply statements by communities saying we see the immigration issue from a humane point of view. We see it differently than other people. We don't think these people are problems for the country. Let's work to resolve the problem in a proper way. This, again, is a classic case of coming to the House floor and saying, one, we are going to tell local governments what to do, something that side does not usually like to do, and in this case freedom of speech. Simply a statement by many communities that they see immigration in a different way and we should not be badgering them and creating issues where issues do not exist. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I'm opposed to the amendment, and I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this may go down as the meanest and most misguided amendment of the evening. TPS has been known and worked as a proper legal statement by the U.S. government to give protection to people who are in situations where they cannot go back home. These people did not come into the country illegally. In fact, in many cases, our actions being involved in those countries invited them to come here, and this is why we offer that protection. The countries that would be affected are countries where we either have had a standing tradition of being involved in trying to resolve some difficulties in those countries and participated militarily and otherwise in those countries and, as a result, gave them this protection. And secondly, there are also a set of countries which are going through very difficult situations. I'm thinking, as I hear the gentleman speak, if Mr. Frank Wolf was here now he would be up on our side talking to you about the Sudan and talking to you about other places where we should continue to give the temporary protection status. But here's the main point which I've already mentioned and needs to be mentioned again. This is a situation where these folks should not be looked at as people who are here illegally. They're here legally. They're here because this Congress, this administration and other administrations, have seen fit to give them this protection. They're here because they can't go back home. And again, we may disagree on this, and frankly, there might be people on this side that disagree with me, but in some of those countries our policies have played a role in creating a situation where they can't go back home. So to lump them in with the undocumented immigrant situation of the country is totally unfair because it's two different issues. This one is sanctioned. Interestingly enough, I notice that there's always a little bit of politics involved in this because the gentleman doesn't suggest that all Cubans go back to Cuba and that they should not get special treatment as they do under the Cuban Adjustment Act. We never touch that one. We touch this one. Well, that's sad. It shouldn't be, and we should continue to protect these folks and try to make situations back home bearable for them. In the meantime, we should not be throwing them out of the country. And lastly, we're not talking about 12 million people. We're not talking about 15 or 20 million people. We're talking about a much smaller number of people who need our protection. There's a lady in the harbor to the city where I live and where I've grown up. That lady, known as the Statue of Liberty, tells us to bring to these shores the people that are hurting. This is a fine example of America at its best. Don't lump it in with any other problem. That's not fair and that's not right. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Reclaiming my time, it's just, with all due respect to my brother, Mr. Rogers, it's just bad policy. It is not the way to get at an issue. We are now dealing with the Senate, and we will be dealing in the House with an immigration reform bill. We will eventually deal with that issue. In the meantime, we have other business to take care of in this country, other protections to offer to our citizens. To have the local police officer, on top of the fact that they're busy already, now you're going to give them another assignment. But to have them enforce immigration law, I can't tell you how much all the people I speak to say they don't want that. They want the freedom to get information at all levels of the community and not be seen as an immigration officer. There used to be a bad joke about somebody would come into a restaurant and yell out ``immigration'' and a lot of people would leave and jump out the window. And that's funny, and it's sad at the same time. But if you adjust that to a police department in a neighborhood looking for information and having people run away from them because they see them as immigration enforcement agents, then we lose the opportunity to really protect our communities.