José Serrano

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the chairman in a colloquy on a proposal by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to establish a national contact center. Hopefully, we can address the concerns of those Members who have expressed misgivings about this proposal. Recently, we observed the 40th anniversary of the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the years since the enactment of that landmark legislation, the EEOC has had a pivotal role in fighting discrimination in the workplace and ensuring that all Americans are treated fairly. However, despite the important role of the EEOC, it has experienced the same budget constraints as most other agencies in this bill. The EEOC sought the assistance of the National Academy of Public Administration in finding ways to streamline its organizational structure and use its personnel to continue meeting its missions in the 21st century. Among the NAPA recommendations was a proposal to create a National Contact Center using contract employees. The EEOC has proposed to enter into a contract to establish a call center as a 2-year pilot project at an estimated cost of $2 million. Of this amount, $1 million is available through a reprogramming of current-year funding. This bill will provide $1 million in fiscal year 2005. NAPA made a number of additional streamlining proposals, including possible office closures, which might result in personnel reductions. Although the administration requested funding for a reposition of EEOC resources, the bill does not provide any of the requested increased funding for repositioning because a spending plan has not been submitted to the committee. Many EEOC employees across the country have heard of these proposals and are worried about losing their jobs as a result of office closures or outsourcing of the call center. The commission's reorganization proposals, including specifically the National Contact Center, were discussed in detail at a subcommittee hearing earlier this year. At that time, both the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and I expressed concerns about the possible cause of this proposal. Accordingly, we advised the Chair, Cari Dominguez, that the subcommittee expected her to come back to us prior to entry into a contract to establish the call center. Ms. Dominguez made a commitment to us that she would do so. Both the Chair and her staff have continued to reiterate that commitment. Similarly, Ms. Dominguez has repeatedly reassured the subcommittee that EEOC is not planning to close any of its existing offices or cut jobs or current employees. This bill provides full funding for the commission's current base staffing level. So I ask the chairman of the subcommittee, is it his understanding that expenditure of any funding in 2005 for the proposed National Contact Center is contingent on the EEOC notifying this subcommittee, consistent with the long-standing requirement of section 605, prior to taking any formal action to obligate the funding?

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

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman, as always, for his support.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. First of all, let me go on the record, as I have before and will today and will tomorrow, and say that given an opportunity to have more dollars available to us, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and I would have done more to provide for the COPS program. I know that. That is not a statement on my part; that is an understanding of his philosophy and what he believes in. However, in spite of that problem, in spite of the fact that we do not have the dollars in this bill that we want to, because everyone could get up here and tell us what section of the bill should be increased and just about every section, except for a couple that I will mention in a second, could be increased. In spite of that, it is interesting to know that local law enforcement is $885 million above the President's request in this bill. So there has been a serious effort to deal with this issue. But here is my problem. My problem is that my colleague from New York (Mr. Weiner), whom I respect and admire, tells us that we can take the money from the census and he, in the process, will devastate not only the Census Bureau but the ability to conduct a census. If I was to carry this to an extreme, which I never would do, this may be unconstitutional because if there is an issue that is in the Constitution, it is to conduct a census every 10 years. So we do not make those decisions around here. The Census Bureau, those of us who understand the work, they do fully understand that this cut, which incidentally and we should know this, my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), my understanding is will come up with yet a second amendment which cuts more money from the census, so when it is all over today, he will have cut the census by over $225 million. Well, first of all, 1,000 people would have to be laid off. No one has made a decision in this Congress that those 1,000 people are no longer needed. No one in any of the two Houses has decided that those folks have to go. Yet, this amendment would immediately and arbitrarily decide that those folks have to go. In addition, we are gearing up for the 2010 census. We are already in 2005, as we speak here today. That means that half the gearing up has been done. One could argue that instead of saving money, this would waste money because all the money that has been spent up to now will be for naught, because obviously the census is not going to be able to function or be conducted the way it should for the next 5 years. There is a point, however, that is of great interest to me, and that is the census count in the inner cities and especially the census count in the minority communities. For Hispanics and African Americans and other minorities in this country, there is at times nothing more important than a proper count; and I have been in the past a critic of undercounts, and I continue with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) to work with the Census Bureau to get a better count. This would not discuss the issue of a better count. This would discuss the issue of no count at all. When we speak in the minority community, in the poor community of what we need to do to grow to become part of the American society, we always cite census figures. We say we have grown by this much, and yet our educational level has fallen back by this much. We say we have grown by this much, and yet our per capita income has gone down. Whatever the issue may be, we run to the Census Bureau to get the numbers to make our argument to build our case that we need help. I would carry this to a point where I say to destroy the Census Bureau, to destroy the next census is a frontal attack on the aspirations of people in my community who need an accurate count and hopefully a better count to make the arguments that we can make. Now, a lot of what is happening here today, when we say COPS, the program stands for different things, but the short name is COPS, the people right away think of a police officer. Well, my staff just spoke to the City of New York, which always comes up in these discussions. The city folks tell us that because crime is down and the matching funds for any new hires are not in place or not available in New York City's current economy they are not hiring any new cops. So any dollars that supposedly would go to New York would not be available to them at this point. They could not use them. On the other hand, they say that they look to the census, they look to the next count, they look to the American survey as the one chance that they have to really move ahead and be able to get the dollars necessary for the city in the future, because let us remember, and I will conclude with this, that the census also figures in what different localities get in Federal help based on the population they have. So for those reasons, and a million more that maybe I will get a chance to elaborate on, I wholeheartedly oppose this amendment and ask for its defeat.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, let me make a few brief comments here. We keep talking about full funding and an adjustment to the census count. We have all been in support of that. But let us remember that perhaps the largest reason why the Census Bureau did not adjust the count was for the tremendous congressional pressure that fell upon it when it was discussing that issue. Now, that is not going to satisfy the sponsor of the amendment. However, I would like just to alert the sponsor of the amendment that the biggest bump-up this year, or in years past, certainly since September 11 of 2001, has not been the Census Bureau. The Census Bureau is just an easy target because, supposedly, it does not have a constituency, except for poor minorities who want to get counted and do not get counted. The big bump-up has been the Department of Justice, the Department of State, and the FBI. But no one would dare take money from there to pay for cops in the city, because that has big congressional, Presidential, administration and local support. So if we are going to talk about who to take money from, let us sometimes be courageous enough to take it from where it exists, in bundles, and not where we could cripple the future count in our communities.

Mr. SERRANO. Just one last point, Mr. Chairman. I am, for the record, and continue to be a strong supporter of the COPS program. I will be working with the chairman to see how we can get better in conference and will be working with the chairman next year, hopefully, or should I say that next year the chairman will be working with me to make sure that we can bump up the COPS program. But just for the record, when President Clinton proposed to this Congress the COPS program, it was a temporary program to reach 100,000 new cops. We are at 119,000 cops. So while it is true that we want to do more, let us not paint it as a failure or a shortcoming. In fact, it has produced and accomplished quite a bit.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I also offer my strong support for an open, public rulemaking process that includes multiple public hearings, sufficient time for public comments, and any relevant independent studies. The more than 2 million people who contacted the FCC to register their opposition to the rules offers clear evidence that we cannot rewrite media ownership rules without including the American public in the process. I will be monitoring the FCC's activities closely as it begins this process, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Let me first say how I continue to be impressed by the gentleman's passion and ability to present this issue as he presents other issues. He speaks from the heart, and that is something that we always see. And he speaks for people who unfortunately in this society sometimes are totally forgotten. But he is speaking to the right two individuals. First, no one, no one, does more for the concerns of those inmates than the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf). The gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) has through different approaches been careful to make sure that there is not a punishment but a rehabilitation of people, not a forgetting but perhaps a forgiving and a desire to have people be part of the society. And, of course, as the gentleman knows, I represent an area of the Bronx that has always had an issue of crime and an issue of people wanting to come back into the community and at times being accepted and at times not being accepted. So I assure the gentleman that we will continue to pay attention to this matter, continue to pay attention to the dollars allocated in the hope that some day this society fully understands the need to rehabilitate and welcome back people in a way that says they did what they did, they paid for that crime, now we want them to be a productive member of society. And I thank the gentleman for his work.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I have a lot of respect for the gentleman, but I guess today is beat- up-on-the-census day. But a very short point: it would seem to me in saving dollars, as he wishes to do, the net effect is that we cannot have a census. We cannot take away that much money from the preparation and then conduct the census. So I am not going to repeat all of the comments I made about the importance of the census. Only one, and that is that the community that I represent in the Bronx, the only way that the poorer communities can get a piece of the pie, be counted properly, is to continue to improve the census in how it is conducted and not devastate it. And, again, I do not know and, in fact, I would venture to say that I do not think the gentleman's intent is to stop the census from taking place because that is a constitutional question; but the effect is that while there may be a census taking place, we do not know what kind of a census it would be because if we cut out all the moneys for the preparation and the setup, there is no way that we can conduct it properly.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, for instance, I just came across some information, just to give you an idea of what we are up against here. The Naomi Berrie Diabetes Center of New York Presbyterian Hospital plans to use the American Community Survey data to identify Bronx, that is my district, neighborhoods with demographic characteristics associated with the risk of Type II diabetes in children. I bring that up because I have been making the argument you have all day long that this information gathered by the census goes beyond what people think. It is vital information needed to provide incredible services to the community. Once they use those numbers based on the census data, they can make their argument before us at a public hearing, or at any kind of institutional hearing, saying we need this kind of help. Who would have thought that Type II diabetes would be an issue for the census to be helpful with? That is just one of the countless items that they cover. So I say that, and I thank the gentleman for granting me this time, in agreement and in support of the gentleman's comments and words.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I join the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) in strong support. This is an issue that the chairman has been very strong on. We all are. The whole situation, however, brings up a question, and I ask the gentleman not to take this as a sarcastic statement; I just need clarification. Does this include any ordering of torture used by a government near to us, like our own government, or is this just for foreign governments?

Mr. SERRANO. But it would be any foreign government official? I know this sounds like some sort of a sarcastic comment, but I am really trying to get to the bottom of this. Are you only applying this to foreign governments, or could this, in fact, be a question of our own government if, in fact, somebody ordered torture on some people in recent times?

Mr. SERRANO. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman does open up an issue which is greater perhaps than what he intended to do, but the possibility exists that if the State Department did its job properly, and in this case it probably will not, we will never get to the bottom of the issue of who ordered torture on some people that we may be dealing with in this country. But, nevertheless, I think it is a great thought and a great idea, and I support it.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, let me first clarify something. Am I correct in that there has been a mix-up here and I am no longer allowed to strike the last word on a pro forma basis?

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I should have read the small print.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the chairman for this amendment. This amendment is one that committee members and other Members had asked for, and it is important that we move ahead on it. We had a long discussion before on the 7(a) loan, and we passed an amendment. We needed to take care of this one which we already had agreed on in order to really move ahead the support that we put forth for the SBA and for the various loans, and so I am a full supporter, and I thank the chairman for bringing it forward.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell the gentleman from California that he left out in blaming immigrants the Chicago fire and the San Francisco earthquake, which they probably were also responsible for. It is amazing in 2004 we continue this immigrant-bashing situation. The fact of life is the gentleman read off a list of things that are falling apart in California somehow because people are not being reported or because local police departments are not engaging in activities that local police departments do not want to engage in. We had 24 discussion before, and it is a simple issue. Local law enforcement does not want to be involved in this issue. Regardless of what we like to see here and how much we would like to bash these folks, local law enforcement does not want to do it. Let me try to say once more why, because no one seems to be paying attention to this issue. Local law enforcement wants to be able to have a person, regardless of their immigration status, come to them and report a crime, come to them and participate in solving a crime. If they now feel that the local police officer, the local sheriff, has been deputized, if you will, as an immigration officer, we are never going to get any help from the local community. Now, one issue is the fact that we may have people in this country who are not here with documents. That is one issue. But since they are here, what are we going to do, ignore them, ignore their ability to help us and solve a local crime, ignore their ability to help us be involved in the community? My God, we talk so much here about how much we want to help local law enforcement and how we stand for them and how much money we want to give them, and now we want to burden them with a situation that they, I repeat for the last time, do not want to be involved with. This amendment should be defeated for what it is, a Latino outreach program that will fail miserably.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California knows me well and knows I was not being funny when I mentioned the fact that the gentleman left out the Chicago fire and the San Francisco earthquake. My point was that the gentleman is blaming immigrants for everything that is wrong in this country. The fact of life is that that is what we do, and the fact of life is that sometimes we look at people who bash immigrants on a daily basis, and then when an amendment comes before us, we cannot believe that it is anything else. But more of the same, which is immigrant bashing, that is what it is. That is what it looks like, that is what it smells like, and that is how I see it.

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

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat surprised at some of the supporters of this amendment and the way that they are supporting the amendment, as I will. They actually sound like this is on the level. They actually debate this like this is for real. Let me refresh Members' memories, those who support my position in favor of the Flake amendment on how this happened. A group of Florida legislators wrote the White House and said, if you do not tighten up on Cuba, you are going to lose votes in Florida. That is what happened. That is the truth. So I am surprised that some of my colleagues would actually debate this as if this was real and on the level. This is not on the level. If you arrived from the moon tomorrow and did not know this was an election year and Florida was in play, how would you have a hint that it was an election year and Florida was in play? Tighten up on Cuba to make Florida not in play, but fall into one column. That is why we bring up Elian Gonzalez, who is playing soccer in Cuba minding his own business. That is why we have decided that Castro stands at the gate and every single dollar and every single tampon and every single Kleenex that goes in Cuba he grabs for himself, and that is why he is the richest guy in the hemisphere, except there is no sign that he is going anywhere and he is nearing 80, so I do not know when he is going to spend all of this money he accumulated. In 1950, my family came from Puerto Rico. We were not coming from a foreign country, but we felt like we were, and in some cases, we were treated like we were. What do I remember the most? I remember the cold of New York. That was new to me. I arrived in short pants. My father dressed us for Puerto Rico and not for New York. And I remember my father made $40 a week, and every single Friday upon being paid, he ran to the post office and bought a green money order that he sent back to the folks that we left behind. So I grew up not understanding a policy that says, to bring about political change, you bring pain to the people you left behind. I do not understand that. That is not right and not correct. Now, I realize there are rules in the House about how one deals with other Members, and I am one of the most respectful Members when it comes to that, but it was nice to see the majority leader come to the floor and denounce this policy when he is always a leader on trade with China. So whenever he denounces policies like this towards Cuba, I try to see if he is crossing his fingers behind his back since he is such a strong supporter of trading with China. What are we saying here, that to bring down a government you will deny a family member the ability to visit but once every 3 years. What are we saying, that you are so intent on bringing down a government that has lasted, for whatever reason, for whatever reason, for over 40 years, because you will not allow a cousin toothpaste? Is that who we are as a people? Is that what we believe in? The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is like a brother to me, one of the most humane Members in this Congress, and I know the role he has to play on this amendment, just like he understands the role I play on other amendments. But he cannot really believe we are hurting people in the Government of Cuba by denying toothpaste to people in Cuba. That is not what we are doing. Mr. Chairman, what we are doing is looking for votes. And you know something? It might work. But there are hollow victories, and this may be one of those. This may be one of those victories where you say, Sure, I won, but the people lost, and I was supposed to be representing the people. And so in memory of my father, remembering that $10, $5 check that he sent back every week to help those who stayed behind, in respect to the Dominicans and so many people in my district and Mexican Americans who send money back every day, in respect for all of those folks and for what they stand for, I cannot be part of this policy. The only change now is that I am no longer alone here. There was a time when the Ron Dellums and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and I were totally alone. Now I am glad to say that all those ideas are now Republican ideas, and I welcome that. I love these Republican amendments that try to deal with Cuba in any way. But, Mr. Chairman, we cannot continue down this route. We are not going anywhere. We are just making enemies of everybody that we can find in Cuba, and that is not the way to do it. And one last point. Yes, I have seen TV, Spanish radio interviews with dissidents in Cuba who are saying if we want to help them do not do this, that we are just alienating them. And there is one good sign. And it is the hope; it is the future. A significant number in Florida of Cuban-Americans are saying this is wrong. This is not the way to win. This is not the way to help me. Let me talk to my cousin. Let me visit my grandmother. Let me close to the family I left behind because I am in this country, they are not, and I do not want them to miss out on some of the things I have.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill providing appropriations for the Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary and related agencies for fiscal year 2005. From the outset, I must say the 302(b) allocation given to the subcommittee, in our opinion, was too low. I am grateful to the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), however, for providing $226 million above the request; and I am impressed with how much the chairman of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), was able to accomplish within the allocation he was given. On the whole, I think the distribution of funds is quite fair and sensible and reflects priorities I believe most of us would share. I would be remiss if I did not say how much of a pleasure it is to work with Chairman Wolf on this bill. Our working relationship and our friendship are major factors in producing it. I must also say that I am very grateful for the openness and fairness with which the chairman's staff has treated mine. Much is said, Mr. Chairman, about the poisonous atmosphere in the House these days, but that is not the case on this subcommittee, and I credit the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for that. His attentiveness and that of his staff to the needs of our side have been terrific, even if they could not always do everything we would like. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Wolf and the staff, Mike and Christine, John, Anne-Marie, and Jonathan have served the committee well, as have on our side David, Linda, and Laura, and on my personal staff Lucy, Nadine, Diaraf, Sean and Jennifer. I wonder at times, Mr. Chairman, if the American people have a full understanding of the fact that behind the work that is seen on the House floor and in press conferences there is always such a large number of young, dedicated people who put together so much of the work that goes on in this House, and I think it is something we should always remember. Again, Chairman Wolf was able to accomplish much. To list just a few highlights, the bill includes full funding or better for the FBI, the DEA, international organizations, worldwide embassy security, and most of the related agencies. Also, much more than requested for MEP and SCAAP. Funding levels on which we can build for NOAA. Continuing support for the Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties Protection in Justice. I am also gratified that the bill and report direct the EEOC not to proceed with its workforce repositioning without complying with the committee's reprogramming procedures, which will give us essential oversight of potentially very disruptive changes proposed by that agency. I do worry that first responder funding shortfalls between the Homeland Security bill and this one, despite the efforts of Chairman Wolf and our previous chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), to improve on deeply flawed request levels, represent a one- two punch at our public safety agencies. I regret the inability to give the SBA the resources it needs, although there will be amendments today to restore funding for the 7(a) business loans program and microloans, or to fund programs such as TOP and PTFP, where real needs will go unmet. I also would have liked to address a serious problem that the restrictions on the use of non-Federal funds pose for the Legal Services Corporation grantees, which face administrative and financial burdens probably unmatched by any other class of Federal grantees, but that is a discussion for another day. One other issue I would like to mention is the census. Halfway between decennials, few Members pay much attention to the Census Bureau. But accurate statistics about the Nation's population and activities collected, analyzed, and published by the Bureau are crucial to both government and the economy. Not only is membership in this House apportioned according to census data, indeed the Constitution requires 10-year censuses for that purpose, but many important decisions and many Federal grant programs are based on accurate census information, both from the decennial and from other periodic censuses. Business, too, relies on census data for final decisions on marketing, locating facilities, and the like. The census is of extraordinary importance to minority communities because it is the basis for their ability to establish their identity and secure their rights. As the chairman knows, the Census Bureau is a bureau that I always feel plays a special role in the South Bronx and, indeed, throughout our society. Whenever anyone gets up and speaks about we have such a number of this and a number of that, and this happened and that is happening, those figures are always taken from the work of the Census Bureau, and so we not only tip our hats to them but show them our support. Again, Chairman Wolf has shown exceptional sensitivity to what the Census Bureau needs to continue its activities and prepare for the 2010 short-form-only decennial, and I thank him for that. Again, Mr. Chairman, I believe that this bill is a good one, and I will support it as it continues to move through the process. Once again, I thank Chairman Wolf for his support, for his kindness, for his friendship, and above all, for being a man of great conviction who sticks with issues that other people dare not bring up, as we will see during this debate. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr). (Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)