José Serrano

Mr. SERRANO

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

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.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. It's clear, it should be clear to Members what this amendment does and what this program does. This, in fact, has local law enforcement enforcing immigration law. This is the most unpopular and rejected program within law enforcement in this country when it comes to these types of programs. Department after department, police department after police department, sheriff's department after sheriff's department has said we don't want this responsibility, we don't want this job. In fact, that is the reason why the number of communities that have participated in this program is not anywhere where the proponents would want it to be, because the mainstay, the strength of local law enforcement is the ability to fight crime, to protect the community, and, yes, even to flush out possible terrorist acts by getting information from the community. Granted, there is an immigration issue. But the police departments, the local law enforcement do not want to play the role of immigration officers because they want the ability to be able to speak to members of the community and get information. Now, that information may be who did you see near that car that is now missing from that corner. But that information can also be, where did you see and who did you see going into that building where we later found equipment to make bombs that could in fact be involved in a terrorist attack. Local law enforcement have told us, in big cities and in small cities throughout this country and the rural communities, that they want the ability to work with their communities, and they don't want to be hampered by being asked to enforce immigration law. And how it works is very simply this. There are people who are in this country without proper documentation. You call them illegal aliens; some of us call them undocumented. But they still live in the community. They still have information and law enforcement needs to work with them. If they now know that the local police officer, if they now know that the local sheriff's deputy is going to be dealing with them in terms of an immigration situation, they will not open up to that person and give them any information. And in the long run, we will suffer as a Nation. That's why I think that this is a bad program. I'm sorry it has even a penny assigned to it. But to add more money to it would be a total waste of time.

Mr. SERRANO. To you, always.

Mr. SERRANO. I have a problem if we set in motion a wave of desire and push to force local people to do it. And what we hear from local law enforcement is that they're under incredible pressure, political pressure, from elected officials to join a program that they know is not a good program.

Mr. SERRANO. It may be voluntary, but what happens is that local elected officials who sound like some of us here begin to put pressure on the police department to get into the program when, indeed, just about every law enforcement agency, local law enforcement in the Nation has gone public to say we don't want it. And in this case, we don't even want people to ask us to join it.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, we have been down this road before in this discussion, and it's easily something that the other party wants to do in spite of the fact that their local governments tell them they don't want this done. I think the public and all Members really need to understand what this is about. This is about the fact that there are people in this country who are undocumented. That's a fact. How do you remove them out of the country is another issue. What happens while they're living in this country is the issue at hand. Now, throughout the discussion on immigration, we've had questions like, if a person is here, undocumented, and they have a child, do you say to that child, you can't go to a public school because your parents are here undocumented? Well, if you think they're leaving tomorrow or next year, that might work. But if you think that eventually whatever plan we come up with allows X number of children to stay in the country, then you can't deny them education because you're just creating a generation of Americans who won't get education. Then you move on to step two. At times, we have said that if a person is here undocumented, they should not get any kind of emergency medical care. Well, besides the humaneness of that, that we should never deny medical care to anyone, there is the issue of, so do you want the person working at a local hamburger place serving you food while they are ill and not able to treat their disease and the germs they may spread around. That is an issue. This one is really a classic one. This is where you say to your local police department, we want you to enforce immigration law. And just about a unanimous cry throughout the Nation has been from police departments saying, Don't give us that responsibility. We don't want it. We don't need it. The reason they don't want it and they don't need it is for a very proper crime-fighting purpose. A local police department, a local law enforcement department, makes contacts in the community, finds out who's committing crime in the community by talking to folks. Traditionally, undocumented folks have known and have felt secure in that they can tell a police officer that a crime has been committed and point a finger at the person who's committed the crime, knowing very well that their conversation is about crime and not about documentation or about their status as a citizen or a noncitizen, an illegal or undocumented person within the country. That is the reason why just about every police department in the Nation, sheriff's, whatever they are called in different communities, have said, don't give us that responsibility; we don't want it because we want to keep this relationship going with this community, knowing well that we can get information out of them. And they are not dealing with us on an immigration law issue. That's why we have ICE. That's why we have all other people in the country that enforce immigration law. But now we bring it, since September 11, to a new point, and that is, what if in the gathering of information that could lead to the prevention of a terrorist attack, you can't get information from some folks because they're afraid that while speaking to you, their immigration issue comes to light rather than their information on the fact that there could be a terrorist plot being planned somewhere. This is a classic case of the old line throwing the baby out with the bath water. Yes, there is an immigration issue, and we are trying to deal with it, all of us. And, yes, I know that there are some people that are very upset about the fact that there are people here who are not legally in the country. But now to go and say that you're the party for law and order, Mr. Chairman, and at the same time say, but we want to tie the hands of our local law enforcement in gathering information, is a terrible mistake. You will continue to do what you want. Eventually more and more police departments will tell you that they don't want this job; they don't want this responsibility. And somehow we will continue to get it wrong. Don't tie the hands of our law enforcement folks. Let them continue to gather the information they need.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I was doing some math, and I am sure my colleagues are aware of this. If you are not, you might be shocked. We spent 10 hours on a debate to cut $8 million from the general counsel. Now, you talk about waste. This place runs, the electricity runs, the people are on salary, and that side made us spend 10 hours just to cut $ 8 million, with eight motions to rise to stop the work. Now, nowhere does anyone get up and discuss the issues in this bill. The bill continues to be a good bill. No matter how much you attack it, no matter how much you avoid dealing with the true issue, the center issue, it continues to be a good bill. I think what is happening here is, as time goes on and different folks and different Members pay attention, we have to continue to repeat some of the things that we have said before, because you put us in that situation. So, with that in mind, let me remind you that this is the Homeland Security bill. This is the bill and this is the issue that, according to a lot of folks on talk radio, the Republican Party is supposed to be very strong on. Democrats are supposed to be strong on some issues and Republicans are supposed to be strong on some issues, but according to what you tell the world, you are stronger on this. Mr. Chairman, they claim to be stronger than anyone else in the universe on homeland security, yet you have spent all night, all night, trying to destroy this Homeland Security bill which protects the homeland. As I said before, I represent New York City. I was in New York on the day of September 11 and we personally, as the rest of the Nation well knows, suffered the pain of having a terrorist attack. Immediately thereafter, we came to the House floor and we created the Department of Homeland Security. That's what this bill is. This is not a bill that talks about earmarks. Let's try it again. Now, as you know, I speak two languages, but out of respect to the stenographer, I won't use Spanish, so I will remind you in English, there are no earmarks in this bill. I would say it in Spanish, but I don't know how to say ``earmarks'' in Spanish. As soon as I do, I'll find a way to say it. But I'll say it in English again: There are no earmarks in this bill. There's only security for the homeland. There's port security. There is work for border agents. There is strengthening of cargo shipments, of our airlines, of finding ways to protect ourselves from the possible next terrorist attack. That's what this bill does. And you spend hour after hour after hour with procedural motions to adjourn to go home, to stop working and telling us that there are somehow earmarks in here that have to come to the light of day and telling us that a new process and a new system has been invented. Yes, a new one is in place. It's one that is going to tell us who, which Member of Congress, asked for money to go to a certain program in his or her district and throughout the Nation. And let me tell you something. I don't have a problem with that. I don't think that the administration or the bureaucrats are the only people who know how to spend money. I think I know how to spend some dollars in my district. And all an earmark is, is that we tell the agency, spend so much money, usually a very small amount in that particular group, to help that particular group of students, or that particular environmental issue, or to clean up that particular toxic waste. There's not a problem with that. But when you stand here and tell us that this is what this bill does and that somehow there is a system that has been set up that is horrible, you're kidding yourselves. And so I must do something that I didn't want to do, and I'm not going to mention names because that's not proper. But do you know, my fellow Republicans, that 65 of you have written letters to me, chairman of a subcommittee, asking for 137 projects totaling close to $350 million? Now, I didn't get a chance to ask my chairman, Mr. Obey, but the committee that I chair, Financial Services and General Government, is not one of the larger budgets. I shouldn't admit that in public, but it isn't one of the largest budgets, and it doesn't have that many areas where you can earmark even if you wanted to. But 65 of you have asked for 137 programs for $340 million. Some of you have spoken on the floor. Announcement by the Acting Chairman

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, last night and most of yesterday we saw a very unfortunate situation take place on the House floor: discussions, anger, tempers, and very little on the substance or the bill or the work of the committee. I rise today to remind us of the work this committee has done in a bipartisan fashion before we came to the floor. I have been a member of the Homeland Security Committee since it was formed. So has Mr. Price, Mr. Edwards, and Ms. Roybal-Allard. I know for certain that on the other side the former chairman and ranking member, Mr. Rogers, has been a member since the creation of the committee. From day one, the committee has taken its work very seriously. This year, under new leadership, the committee continued to take its work seriously. We held 20 hearings plus a couple of field hearings, over 50 hours of public hearings. Decisions, information was not gathered in private. These were public hearings. Over 70 witnesses came before us both from government and those who have the knowledge to advise us on these issues. During those hearings, every member was treated fairly. In fact, one of the highlights, I think, was the way in which Mr. Price worked with Mr. Rogers and the way that Mr. Rogers continued to play such an important role in these hearings in presenting his views, his knowledge and his expertise. That kind of bipartisanship, that kind of presentation, that kind of work led to the bill that we have before us. It is one of the few bills in this House where those of us who are part of the committee know well how serious the issue is and how much we have to do to try to assign the proper dollars. When the bill left committee, there were, of course, a few disagreements. But there was a bipartisan belief that we were doing that which we were challenged to do, that we were asked to do, which was to put forth a bill that secured the homeland, that protected the homeland. Yet, what we saw yesterday did not speak to that at all. What we saw yesterday was personal attacks. It was discussions about issues that were not involved in this bill. Interestingly enough, the number one decision yesterday was to attack earmarks. Yet Mr. Rogers set a precedent, which was followed by Mr. Price, that if there is a bill that does not deal with earmarks, it is this bill. Now, that needs to be repeated. Of all the bills to pick on to deal with the issue of earmarks, this is the wrong bill. This was something instituted by Chairman Rogers and continued by Chairman Price on a bipartisan level. This is so serious, this issue at hand, and these dollars are so serious and so dedicated in the way they are appropriated that the earmarking process perhaps should not play a role at all. And it hasn't, up to now, I assure you. Otherwise I would have gone to Chairman Rogers and gotten something in the last few years. I didn't because it just did not exist. So now we find ourselves with a decision to make today: Will we continue to behave on the floor as if we were discussing the reelection for Congress in 2008, or do we really want to send to the President's desk a bill that speaks to the needs of our community in securing our homeland? I represent the Bronx, New York City. I was in New York City on September 11. I was not here with my colleagues. As I have said often, my son was running for the New York City Council on that day, and the election was cut off at 11 o'clock in the morning because of the terrorist attack. That is something no one writes about, that the terrorists were able to stop our electoral process in the biggest city in the Nation around 11 a.m. The elections were run 2 weeks later. So I was there helping my son on election day. I remember the pain and the horror that you all know about of seeing my city attacked. I take this bill personally very seriously. I take the bill as a Member of Congress personally very seriously. This committee has taken this bill very seriously. This committee, on a bipartisan basis, takes protection and the safety of the homeland very seriously. Let's make sure that all Members take it seriously. Let's pass the bill.

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

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill and would like to commend Chairman Price, Ranking Member Rogers, and their wonderful staff for their hard work in bringing this bill to the floor. The bill provides adequate funding for programs that are crucial to the Nation's security, many of which the President chose to underfund or eliminate in his request. Although we have not suffered a terrorist attack since the morning of 9/11, the threat remains real. Therefore, it is crucial that we provide sufficient resources to support those who represent our first line of defense. I am pleased that the bill acknowledges this reality and restores proposed cuts to grant programs such as the Metropolitan Medical Response System and the SAFER program, which helps our struggling local fire departments fulfill ever-increasing homeland security missions. I know that my own City of New York is making good use of all of these grants, including those provided to the Urban Areas Security Initiative grant program. Beyond helping our States and municipalities, I would also like to express my support for the way the committee handles the balance between the different demands in the different departments and their ongoing missions. These critical missions, such as stopping the flow of illegal drugs and approving visas, have not gone away since 9/11. This bill properly recognizes this reality and provides support. Finally, I am pleased that the chairman and ranking member chose to address issues related to the treatment and deportation of immigrants. As we work to secure our borders, it is important that we never lose touch with America's enduring spirit as a nation that stands ready to welcome all who come in search of a better life. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I believe the bill does a good job of providing adequate funds for programs crucial to the security of the homeland and strengthens the partnership between the Federal, State and local governments and all the local communities. I truly believe it includes all the ingredients necessary for success. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I would ask for their vote.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I join Chairman Price in his comments. I think that we come to the floor with two kinds of amendments, one that really tries to do something, that we believe in, and another just for grandstanding and for publicity. The gentleman speaks about a deficit and speaks about his side wanting to reduce the deficit. Let me just do a few seconds of history. When the last President left, we didn't have a deficit. We have a deficit now. Why? Because we were involved in a war and we were sent off to war when we should not be at all, and so we spend billions and billions and billions of dollars every week on a war that was built on lies and bad information, and now we try to get out of that war. And instead of getting out of it, we keep spending more, billions and billions and billions. And if you think this war deficit is a problem, wait till the boys and girls come home and we have to provide them the medical services that some people will want to cut. The deficit would only grow. Secondly, to be brief, the gentleman speaks about giving somebody a 17 percent pay raise. Yet it was that side that refused to give some people a couple of pennies' increase in a minimum wage. So all of the sudden that side is very concerned about raising people's salaries to keep up with the needed expenses of surviving in this society, but they were not for giving some folks a minimum wage increase. So let's get it clear. Yes, there is a deficit, but this bill doesn't cause a deficit. The war is causing the deficit. The war on terror is causing the deficit. That's what this is about. This bill, in a very smart way, deals with some issues that we have to deal with. And, lastly, it is always easy to attack the bureaucrats. Everybody wants services, everybody wants something done, but nobody wants anybody in charge of providing those services. Somehow we expect a computer to run the agency and not have people actually doing the work. Let's be fair. Let's be honest when we come to the House floor. If we have an amendment that really has a message, present it. If we're just grandstanding, then we should have a disclaimer that says, and by the way, this is the reason that I'm on the House floor today.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. You know, I tried listening to this debate and coming to a conclusion that we were discussing something important. But here's my feelings: If I was a highly paid Republican consultant, although that's redundant, but if that's what I was, I would say to you guys you are making a terrible mistake; somebody misinformed you on what bill this is. This is not the Labor-H bill, where you would go after labor unions, which you always do, where you would not care about funding programs for education, which you always do, where you would leave children behind for a long, long time. I could understand if you did it there. If this was the VA-HUD bill, I could understand all these desires to cut because, what the heck, you send people to war, and then you don't want to fund the Veterans Hospital Administration. I understand that. You don't want to do housing. I understand that. If this was any other bill, I would understand the strategy. But this is the bill that every right-winged radio talk show host says you're the best on, homeland security, protecting the homeland, making sure that there is never another terrorist attack. And this gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) gives you a well-thought-out bill that takes care of the needs for protecting the homeland, and you spend the last X amount of hours trying to tear it apart because we are spending too much time, and it is driving up the deficit. Now, I don't know how many people were around when I spoke the last time, and I reminded you that there is a deficit; a deficit created by going into a war that was built on lies and bad information; a deficit created by refusing to bring the troops home now, or soon, like we had suggested, but keeping this war going and spending a lot more money; a deficit created by reducing the taxes of the richest people in the country, while squabbling over giving the little guy a minimum-wage increase. So, all I want to tell you today, as a friendly person and kind, gentle-hearted person that I am, is that someone has given you some bad information. This is not any of those other bills that you are known for bashing. This is not the one that will leave children behind. This is the one that is supposed to be the hallmark of your existence as a party. This is national security. This is protecting the homeland. How could you cut this bill? But you know something? Mr. Price is right. If you are not going to protect your administration's programs, then we are certainly not going to waste a lot of time over here trying to debate you on it. So, go ahead and destroy protecting the Homeland Security Department. Go ahead and turn your back on securing the motherland. Go ahead and do it all. We will just stand here and wait it out. It may take days, but there's where you're heading. Point of Order

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 278, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Hirono

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today in support of this bill, probably the most difficult decision I have made in my 33 year political career. But I do it because I want this war to end. I did not support this war. I did not vote for it. I still believe that we were lied to, that we were given at the minimum bad information, but I believe we were lied to, the link to al Qaeda, the weapons of mass destruction. We have been over that, but it can't be forgotten. We were not told the truth. But here we are now, and most of us want the war to end now. What does ``now'' mean? There is no real now. Even if there was a vote ``called out now,'' it would mean for 6, 7, 9, 10 months the military would, in a properly and orderly way, get the troops out. But there would be no end date, so ``now'' could be extended. This bill, however, does speak to ``now,'' because it sets a timetable so that ``now'' becomes the desire to end the war and ``now'' becomes the mechanism in process to end the war. In the next few minutes, the e-mails will start to come in from some friends on my left, who think they are on my left, who tell me that I sold out. Well, you know something? Not to end the war is to sell out. To get dramatic and emotional about something without the reality of ending the war might be to sell out. I will take this vote tomorrow fully understanding that my vote was a vote to end the war; fully understanding that I didn't pull the rug from under the troops, but I told them that I didn't want them there any longer; fully understanding that when there was a vote that spoke about immediate withdrawal, we all remember how the Republicans took Mr. Murtha's desire to end the war and turned it into a resolution that said get out immediately. Interestingly enough, a lot of people who want to end the war now didn't vote for that. I was one of only three that voted to get out immediately. So I have been there, and I have done that. This is the best vehicle for ending the war. That is why I support it. That is why we have to vote for it.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Madam Speaker, it is both an honor and a privilege to rise in recognition of Dr. Hugo M. Morales, an illustrious member of the proud Dominican community here in the United States. During this month as we reflect on and commemorate the contributions that Dominicans have--and continue to make--to our great nation, we can take heart that as the years pass and the landscape of the United States undergoes further transformation, we have pillars in our community like Dr. Morales, whose accomplished medical career and selfless ethic can serve to show others the way. Earning his medical degree in the Dominican Republic at the University of Santo Domingo in 1956, and later doing post graduate work at the New York Polyclinic Medical School and Hospital from 1961 until 1963, Dr. Morales is a specialist in the field of Psychiatry. From 1957 through 1961, Dr. Morales underwent residency training beginning at Morrisania Hospital in the Bronx, and later at both Harlem Valley State Hospital and Grasslands Hospital, where he was named Chief Medical Resident. From 1962 until 1999, Dr. Morales practiced medicine at several medical facilities, spending the majority of his career however at Bronx Mental Health Center, where he attained the position of Medical Director. Over the years, Dr. Morales has been licensed to practice medicine in four different U.S. states, and holds numerous board certified licenses. In addition, Dr. Morales has held a teaching appointment as Instructor of Psychiatry at Harlem Hospital, and has been the Attending Psychiatrist at both Grace Hospital Center and Bronx Lebanon Hospital's Fulton Division. Belonging to more than a dozen professional medical societies, and having been appointed to an even greater number of consultation assignments over the years, Dr. Morales' extensive medical background and expertise has been called upon repeatedly by learning institutions throughout the U.S. and by government agencies on the city, state, and federal level. He has grappled with issues from repairing the foster care system to addressing post-traumatic stress disorder in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks. Moreover, Dr. Morales has received over a dozen honors for his work, including the Christopher Columbus Award--presented to him by the President of the Dominican Republic in 1992--and the Ellis Island Medal of Honor, which he received in 1996. In 2002, Dr. Morales was appointed to the Board of Trustees of the City University of New York (CUNY) by then Governor George Pataki--making Dr. Morales the first and only Dominican to ever hold this position. Through his work with CUNY, Dr. Morales has spearheaded an initiative very close to my heart--that of archiving the migration experience of Hispanic populations to this country. His historical study focuses on the Dominican community, and documents the resilient, inventive, and dignified manner through which Dominicans have bridged our two great countries. Madam Speaker, on occasions like today, when I have the opportunity to honor such a venerated member of the Dominican community as Dr. Morales, I realize that words alone are incapable of truly conveying all that this individual means--not only to Dominicans in the United States--but also to the larger Hispanic community, as well. That being said, this is also a deeply touching moment for me, as I have had the pleasure of calling Dr. Morales a personal friend of mine for over thirty years. Madam Speaker, the constellation of Hispanics living in this country continues to bring light and richness to the American experience. That constellation undoubtedly shines brighter today because of individuals like Dr. Hugo Morales.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Madam Speaker, as we give pause to commemorate the innumerable contributions that African Americans have--and continue to make--to our Nation, it gives me great pleasure to rise in honor of a Bronx activist, organizer and impassioned voice for community empowerment, Ms. Desiree Pilgrim-Hunter. Born in London, England, by the age of twenty, Ms. Pilgrim-Hunter had lived in six countries across Europe, Africa and North America. The roots of Ms. Pilgrim-Hunter's activism in the Bronx date back to 1995, when she first attended community meetings surrounding the redevelopment of the Kingsbridge Armory in the Bronx. In the twelve years since first taking an interest in this project, Ms. Pilgrim- Hunter's passion for the Armory has resulted in her emergence as a local leader on the issue. In January of 2006, Ms. Pilgrim-Hunter began to lead Community Action Meetings in her Fordham Hill neighborhood regarding the redevelopment plans, and later that year she participated in the Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance's Community Forum. Ms. Pilgrim-Hunter was present when New York City Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff announced the formation of the Kingsbridge Armory Task Force, and not long after this announcement, Ms. Pilgrim-Hunter was invited to serve on the Task Force as my Community Representative. In addition to her work around the Armory, over the years, Ms. Pilgrim-Hunter has also been an advocate for issues ranging from fair labor standards to improving Bronx public schools; she has even founded a group known as Concerned Shareholders of Fordham Hill--a coalition of area residents organized around the idea of ensuring that their building management company acts in the best interest of its tenants. Madam Speaker, the esteemed author Alice Walker writes, ``The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any.'' On behalf of the many individuals in the Bronx who look to Ms. Pilgrim-Hunter to provide leadership, I am very proud to be able to acknowledge and honor the power, conviction, and selflessness behind Ms. Pilgrim-Hunter's continuing efforts to advance meaningful social change in the Bronx. I am therefore pleased to recognize Ms. Desiree Pilgrim-Hunter.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Madam Speaker, as we celebrate the legacies of greatness of so many African Americans throughout our country's history, I rise today to pay tribute to a local hero and true people's champion in the Bronx, Mr. Anthony Ronald Jordan. Born and raised in the South Bronx, the ethic of selflessness and compassion which guides so many of Mr. Jordan's professional endeavors today was instilled in him at an early age by his mother--the late Ruby Lee Jordan. Educated as a young man in the New York City public school system, Mr. Jordan continued his education at Monroe College, and later earned an advanced degree from Hunter College, part of the City University of New York. Mr. Jordan currently serves as the president and CEO of St. Benedict the Moor Neighborhood Center, as well as the founder and president of the Moor House Gardens HDFC. During his tenure as president of St. Benedict the Moor Neighborhood Center, the organization has thrived; for example, in 2006 alone the center proudly served over 84,000 individuals, families and children. Highly regarded throughout New York City for offering courteous and heartfelt support to people battling substance abuse, homelessness, and hunger, St. Benedict the Moor Neighborhood Center serves as a beacon of light for many in the South Bronx. In addition to his work at St. Benedict the Moor Neighborhood Center, Mr. Jordan also holds the distinction of being president of the Congregational Council at the Evangelical Lutheran Church of St. Peter's in the Bronx--a place of worship for him and his family for more than 25 years. Madam Speaker, what fills me with hope as I reflect on Mr. Jordan's service to the Bronx to date, is the fact that his journey as a community leader is far from over. Residents of the South Bronx, myself included, are proud of this enormously talented individual; and we take heart in the belief that he will be able to continue to provide hope and work for change in our community for years and years to come. I am therefore pleased to recognize Mr. Anthony Ronald Jordan.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Madam Speaker, as the nation reflects and commemorates the myriad of ways in which African Americans have shaped the social, economic, cultural and political landscape of our nation, I rise today in honor of Mr. David Gibson--a distinguished human service professional whose daily stewardship of people's health related needs reminds us of the impact a single individual can have in improving the lives of many. Presently, Mr. Gibson serves as the Director of the Highbridge Facility at Samaritan Village, a leading substance abuse center in the Bronx. Educated at the Hunter College School of Social Work, Mr. Gibson graduated with honors and was later accepted into Hunter's prestigious Doctoral Program. A New York State Licensed Clinical Social Worker and a Credited Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Counselor, Mr. Gibson brings to Samaritan Village more than twenty-five years of experience within the social and human services field. In addition to his daily work as an administrator, Mr. Gibson's extensive involvement in the community and civic life of both the Bronx and New York City is reflected in his numerous educational and organizational affiliations. Mr. Gibson acts as an adjunct professor at both the City and State University of New York, the College of New Rochelle, and the Metropolitan College of New York City. Moreover, he is presently affiliated with: the Health and Human Services Committee of Community Board 4 (Member); the Morrisania Revitalization Corporation (Member, Board of Directors); and the Association of Substance Abuse Providers of New York State (Executive Board Member, former Chair of the Cultural Diversity Committee). Madam Speaker, Frederick Douglass is quoted as saying, ``Man's greatness consists in his ability to do and the proper application of his powers to things needed to be done.'' This statement, seemingly so self-evident, nevertheless reminds us that those who act righteously in support of others face the prospect of one day realizing their own greatness. Madam Speaker, for a life dedicated to honorably serving people in need, I am pleased to recognize Mr. David Gibson.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Madam Speaker, in memory of so many distinguished Black leaders in our nation's history who migrated to the United States from the islands of the Caribbean, I rise today in recognition of Sister Alicia Florence Allick-Goudie--a selfless individual of unwavering faith in the importance of community, education and family. Born and raised in St. Thomas of the U.S. Virgin Islands, Sister Goudie came to New York City as a fifteen-year-old in 1965. Attending Louis D. Brandeis High School and later Medgar Evers College, Sister Goudie's early academic pursuits gave rise to a lifelong commitment to fostering intellectual growth in others--evidenced by her work as an educator in the New York City public school system, local Head Start Programs, and her church's Vocational Bible and Sunday Schools. In addition to Sister Goudie's teaching work, she has also demonstrated an abiding dedication to civic participation. A member of both Community Board 11 and the New York City Police Department's 25th Precinct since 1996, Sister Goudie has received numerous accolades and held several positions of responsibility--currently she is the Sergeant-of-Arms for the 25th Police Precinct through 2008. One constant theme throughout Sister Goudie's life has been her deep spiritual conviction. After joining the Third Moravian Church, which later became United Moravian Church, Sister Goudie became an active member of the Usher Board, the Intermediate Choir, the Liturgical Dance Group and the Moravian Community Center. Madam Speaker, for her deeply rooted devotion to improving the lives of those around her, it gives me great pleasure to recognize Sister Alicia Florence Allick-Goudie.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Madam Speaker, I am honored to rise in recognition of a giant in the Dominican community of New York--and, I am proud to say--a close personal friend of many years, Dr. Rafael A. Lantigua. Both admired for the brilliance he has demonstrated as a medical professional, and deeply respected for his lasting dedication to empowering minority communities, Dr. Lantigua's career exemplifies the manner in which members of the Dominican community are strengthening the social fabric of our Nation. Dr. Lantigua emigrated to the U.S. in 1972, upon graduation from the Medical School of Santo Domingo's Universidad Autonoma. Arriving in New York, Dr. Lantigua trained in Internal Medicine and Endocrinology from 1973 to 1979, first at Lincoln Hospital in the Bronx--where he was named Chief Medical Resident in 1976--and later, at the School of Medicine at the University of Rochester. Returning to New York City in 1980, Dr. Lantigua accepted appointments as Assistant Professor of Clinical Medicine at the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University, as well as Assistant Attending Physician at Columbia- Presbyterian Hospital. In 1993, Dr. Lantigua became Director of the General Medicine Outpatient Services division of New York Presbyterian Hospital; and in 1994, he rose to the rank of Professor of Clinical Medicine at Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons--appointments Dr. Lantigua has retained to this day. In all, Dr. Lantigua has held nearly three dozen academic, hospital and committee appointments since 1975, and has been the recipient of well over a dozen honors from medical institutions, universities, community organizations and elected officials both here in the United States as well as in the Dominican Republic. Frequently invited to speak on health topics affecting minority communities, and able to claim both publication and research resumes that are quite extensive, Dr. Lantigua has struck a remarkable balance between his professional and civic life--this perhaps best evidenced by the numerous board memberships he has maintained over the years. Dr. Lantigua is cofounder and board chair of Alianza Dominicana, Inc., as well as board chair of the Northern Manhattan Coalition for Immigrant Rights. In addition, he has served on the boards of such organizations as the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, the Latino Commission on AIDS, the Puerto Rican/ Hispanic Institute for the Elderly, the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda, and The Dorothy Blumberg Community Fund--just to name a few. Madam Speaker, I stand before you in recognition of a coalition builder in our community; a man whom I have known and held in high regard for over three decades. In asking that my colleagues join me in paying tribute to a true humanitarian in Dr. Rafael A. Lantigua, I do so not only on behalf of myself, but also on behalf of countless Latinos both in New York and in the Dominican Republic--women, men, and children whose lives Dr. Lantigua has in some way touched--and who look upon his career as a shining illustration of the myriad ways that Dominicans have enriched us all and become integral to American society.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. This is, indeed, a very solemn occasion; and anyone watching this debate, either on television or in the gallery, should understand that we take very seriously what we say here today. We may disagree on what the final outcome should be, but we do take it very seriously. And I take it seriously as I recall a funeral I attended, it seems a long time ago, for a member of the Armed Forces, Luis Moreno, who was killed in Iraq. I remember that rainy morning, leaving the church on the way to the cemetery, the pain and the sadness that took place in the whole community, the pain and the sadness that engulfed a family and everyone who was there. We took seriously the loss of that life, and we honor every day the fact that he was sent to that battlefield and he gave his life for that particular cause, which we discuss today. We are here in his honor to say that we have to make sure that we no longer continue to escalate this war which was presented to us, it seems again, a long time ago based on, at the minimum, false information, and at most, sadly, lies presented to this Congress. We have to make sure that no further loss of life takes place. So much has been said today about supporting our troops. Well, I know of no greater support than to bring them home tomorrow morning. I know a lot of people will say, if you bring them home, Iraq will become a mess. Well, has anyone noticed that Iraq is a mess? Well, if you bring them home now, Iraq will become a country in a civil war. Has anyone noticed that Iraq is involved in a civil war? The question is, will we wait for more Americans to lose their lives and more to be wounded? When I say that we were given bad information or possibly lied to, we were told at that time, I remember, how the weapons of mass destruction were stored in Iraq and that we had to get them before they got us, and how there was a link between al Qaeda and September 11 and Saddam Hussein. And now, even the administration and its ardent supporters agree that there was no link between Saddam Hussein and September 11, there was no link between al Qaeda, there was no link between any of that that we were told; and we still haven't found the weapons of mass destruction. It was simply a desire to take us to where we shouldn't be. And in the process, we really blew it. I was in New York City on September 11; I was not with my colleagues here. It was election day in New York, primary day, and I was there in New York on that day for some local elections. I lived through that moment, and I know how painful that was. But beginning with September 12, the world was with us. Every country was supportive of what we were going through. It always amazed me that countries that live with terrorism on a daily basis thought that, for some reason, the attack on us was in many ways even bigger than the attacks on their own country, and they supported us. We could have taken that goodwill and used it for positive things throughout the world. What did we do? We totally lost the goodwill by going and invading a country that had nothing to do with September 11. And so now, the same people who supported us no longer support us. What we are doing here today is exerting a constitutional right. This is not a political exercise, this is not a legislative exercise, this is Members of Congress saying that it is our right to oversee the President and to stop him whenever we can when we know that any President, any administration is making a mistake. Now, how has this administration been able to keep us supportive in some ways up to now? By doing something which is really sad, by questioning our patriotism. And so tonight and tomorrow and for the next couple of days more will question our patriotism. But I ask you, isn't a true patriot he or she who is not holding back to question the actions of his country even during wartime? Isn't that the true patriot who is willing to say, even during wartime, stop it now, stop the madness before it goes any further and before we lose more of our young people? And so we gather here after 3,109 losses, after 23,000 wounded soldiers saying we have to stop it now, and we have to vote for this resolution.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker. I rise today to express my support for the final passage of H.J. Res. 20, a joint funding resolution to provide continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2007. Let me be clear, although we have been able to take care of some of the most significant shortfalls, this is not a perfect funding resolution. This is also not the process that we would have preferred, because, as we all know, the funding for fiscal year 2007 should have been completed during the 109th session of Congress under the Republican majority. With respect to the agencies included within the jurisdiction of the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee, a bi-partisan attempt was made to address the most pressing needs. For example: SBA disaster loans will receive $114 million for administrative costs. SBA Salaries and expenses will receive an additional $17.7 million. The District of Columbia will receive additional funds for public safety programs and $20 million for public transportation. Treasury will receive an additional $26.6 million for high-priority anti-terror and financial intelligence analyst activities. Judiciary will receive an additional $179.1 million to avoid furloughs and support critical functions. OPM Retirement Systems Modernization will receive $13 million. National Archives will receive $7.7 million in additional funding for the Electronic Records Archive and $3 million for repairs relating to the flooding of Archives headquarters. Many important language provisions were also included in this resolution such as a continuation of resources to help rural communities, schools, and libraries afford telecommunications and information services. Without this language, funding would have to be cut or Universal Service fees would have to increase. I was disappointed that we were unable to address the serious issue of privatized debt collection by the Internal Revenue Service, a practice that many Members have raised objections to continuing. I had also hoped to be able to address the HAVA funding that some states, including New York, may lose because of their inability to secure voting machines within the designated time frame. In addition, language provisions enacted in previous appropriations bills placing restrictions on how the District of Columbia is able to spend its own budget are, unfortunately, continued in this resolution. However, I do intend to vote in favor of this Continuing Resolution. As I stated earlier, it is not perfect, but it is the best that we could do with the funds that we had. Beyond the immediate Financial Services agency issues, there was an attempt to write a resolution that addressed our nation's highest priority needs. Veterans Healthcare will receive $32.3 billion, which is an increase of $3.6 billion above the 2006 funding level. Defense Health Programs will receive $21.2 billion, an increase of $1.2 billion to provide care for our service members and their families. Providing health care for our veterans and military personnel is the right thing to do. Significant numbers of our veterans are now returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and we have an obligation to provide funding for their health care needs. I was pleased that additional funding was provided for Pell grants. This increased funding will help over 5.3 million of our students help to pay for ever increasing college costs. This Continuing Resolution also provided additional dollars for Head Start, a program that has proven its effectiveness. The National Institutes of Health received additional funds to support 500 more research project grants. Our community health centers were allocated an increase of $206.9 million to allow for the expansion or creation of over 300 health centers. These centers provide important health care services throughout the United States, and this funding will be utilized for priority health care needs. Ryan White CARE grants were increased to bring them to the authorized level. Finally, this resolution addresses important section 8 and public housing needs in our communities. All of these budget increases are a part of a carefully crafted resolution that attempts to address some of our nation's greatest needs. I would urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.J. Res 20 so that it can go to the Senate and we can complete our work before our current resolution expires on February 15th. We will be receiving the President's 2008 budget next week, and as a Congress it is time to move forward and work on the 2008 funding needs for our government.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Reclaiming my time, that is a great suggestion. I am sorry that you didn't do it for the last 12 years.

Mr. SERRANO. I thank the gentleman. You are right. Perhaps it is that example that I present to you that shows why the system is broken. Because my parents chose to move in 1950 to New York, I am able to be a Member of Congress with full voting rights. Had I stayed in Puerto Rico, I could only aspire to be a Resident Commissioner, which is fine enough, but without full voting rights. So, question: Since when does residency overpower and overtake citizenship? The 4 million people who live in Puerto Rico, the citizens, American citizens who live in all of the territories, have no way to represent themselves in Congress, have no way to vote for the President of the United States. At this very moment, dozens of Puerto Ricans are mourned as they have died in the war in Iraq. Yet, their colleagues who will come back will not be able to express themselves in Congress, or express themselves through a Presidential vote in terms of how they feel about that war or about that service. And so the issue today is simply this: Do you believe that American citizens, American citizens, that has to be repeated, American citizens, who live in territories, not States, have certain rights? I believe they have full rights. If it was up to me they would have full voting representation. All we are saying today is that those Delegates, these representatives, will have a right to participate on the House floor. We don't even go far enough to say that if the vote makes a difference, it stays put; there is a revote. So what are we really giving them? An opportunity to participate in democracy. How can we be trying to spread democracy throughout the world when we are not willing to spread it right here at home? Four million citizens live in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Those 4 million could have six or seven Members of Congress if they were a State. The gentleman, rightfully so, says, well, if they want to be a State, they should be a State. There is only one problem with that: The group holding the colony, the American Government, has to initiate that progress, that system, to bring people into the Union. You can't hold a colony for 108 years, in the case of Puerto Rico, and expect them to tell you at what time they want to be whatever they want to be, because for 108 years you have divided them into three different movements: independence, Commonwealth, statehood. If we are holding the territory of Puerto Rico, it is our responsibility to say, we are ready to invite you to come in.