José Serrano

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), my brother, his comments. We understand his frustration, but his last comments were correct. As this bill goes along and continues to go into conference, it is the intention of both the chairman and I to continue to work on those areas that are deficient in the hope that they could grow as they should.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to make one technical request, and that is at certain times when the chairman speaks, someone should turn up the mike so we can hear ourselves. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I just want to clarify something that the gentleman, my brother from New York, said. It was not that a majority wanted something and a small group stopped it. It was that we had a unanimous consent. And by virtue of its being unanimous consent, one could argue that it was the majority that made that decision, fair or unfair as it was. And it was not the attempt of anyone here, not the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), not I, to shut anyone down.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me just add to the statement of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), this staff that we see around us, and this is not buttering anybody up, works 24-7, especially during the appropriations period, which for us starts in January with over 20-odd hearings. All I am asking as a ranking member, for both sides, is to give us the specifics a few days before. That is what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) asked for and that is all that we need so that we can be supportive to Members' needs.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, we would agree with the chairman and be committed to doing that.

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

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member, the gentleman that I said gives us the kind of support that we need on our side to function.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to start off where the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) left off, and that is thanking both staffs for the work they have done. This is a difficult bill. It is a bill that at times is loved by many and at times either disliked or feared by some. So the staff, as we all know, day after day and night after night, put together the work that they do. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has mentioned some names, and I want to just reinforce those names and thank both the majority staff and the minority staff for the work they do. On my staff I would like to pay special tribute to Rob and David for the fact that they just, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) said, in a relentless way never give up in making sure that things are done properly; and on my staff, Lucy, Nadine, Pete, and everyone else who is back in the office and works towards making this the product that it is to date. I would also like to join my chairman in thanking the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) for his leadership and his understanding and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), my ranking member, for the support he gives us in allowing us to go forward with this particular bill. But this could not be done, none of this, if we did not have the kind of support that we have from the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who is such a shy guy that he actually left the floor so he would not hear me praise him, but he is back. When we look at the way that we handle politics in this country, when we look at the way we legislate in this country, it is assumed by many people, especially in the media, that if we come from different parts of the country and if we have different political philosophies that we will never get along and never work together. The gentleman from Virginia and I may be living proof that if we believe in fairness and honesty in dealing with each other, we can in fact work together; and I am here to thank him publicly for taking a very difficult, I believe and our side believes, allocation and meeting to a large extent the needs that our side had and the concerns that we had. He was able to reallocate dollars, to move dollars around, and to do it understanding that in order to have a bill that has bipartisan support, as I am sure this one will be at the end of the day, we do that by understanding the needs that he has and the needs that I have, which are representative of both sides of the aisle. So I want to thank the gentleman for understanding that and for working with us on this. The process, as I say, was fair and a fair distribution of very limited resources. I have to compliment the chairman especially for some of the work that we did such as the fully funded Federal Bureau of Investigations, FBI, which has been involved in a great part of our war against terrorism and has needed our support and has received our support. On the other hand, because the FBI is engaged in the war on terrorism, it has unfortunately, unfortunately and I hope only temporarily, turned away from some of its other duties in the past, such as the fight on drugs. It is not fighting the drug war the way it used to in the past. And for that reason, I am also happy with the fact that we were able to fully fund and go $43 million above the President's request for the Drug Enforcement Administration, the DEA, to make up for the FBI's deemphasizing on illegal drugs. The Office of Justice Programs, OJP, this bill restores $1.2 billion for key State and local law enforcement grant programs including Byrne grants, $650 million dollars; the local law enforcement block grant, $400 million; State Criminal Alien Assistance program, $400 million. In addition, those cultural and science and education organizations such as UNESCO and others that we deal with in the international community have been fully funded; and we, in fact, in some of these can once again join these organizations to play our role in the international community. The international organizations, also, that handle peacekeeping and that are involved in peacekeeping efforts throughout the world, that has been fully funded at the request of $1 billion and $550 million respectively. Worldwide security programs, full funding of the request at $1.5 billion. The Legal Services Corporation, I want once again to thank the chairman for caring for some of the issues that so many Members care for, and the Legal Services Corporation, LSC, is one of them. In the past, we were forced to come to the House to try to amend the bill to bring it back to last year's funding. The chairman has chosen in his tenure as chairman of the committee to make sure that we do not do that, that the bill is dealt with in committee, the agency is dealt with in committee, and in fact, this year with $10 million above the President's request; and I thank him for that. Obviously, as we have said before, it has been a difficult allocation, and therefore there are some issues that are still pending and that are difficult. The most important one is the Community Oriented Policing Service, the COPS hiring program, which is underfunded this year. It has been funded properly in the past. It continues to be an important program, and part, Mr. Chairman, of what we are doing here today is hoping that with our support of this bill and our continuing working together with the chairman in a bipartisan fashion that as this bill goes to conference, some of the issues that are still not properly addressed will be addressed. I am confident that the COPS program enjoys a bipartisan constituency both here and in the Senate that will allow it to get the kind of dollars that it needs. There are, and I can go on, some other issues that still need to be addressed, but on the whole, this bill, I believe, merits our support and this approach merits our support. I am also happy at the fact that a key amendment that was important to all of us is in the bill, is protected by the rule and, I think, makes a serious statement about the bipartisan effort in our committee. As I said before, I fully support this bill, and I would hope that at the end of the day, both sides of the aisle see it as the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and I do and give it their full support. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to do something that I have not done in 29\1/2\ years. And I know that got everybody's attention. What could I possibly have not done in 29\1/2\ years? Well, 29\1/2\ years is how long I have known the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey). We were elected to the State assembly as so-called ``Watergate Babies'' in 1974. And I can still recall that that December when we first went up to Albany, nearly froze to death in typical Albany weather, I think I just lost a few Albany votes, and began a friendship that has lasted all this time. Of that 29\1/2\ years I have never either privately nor in a public forum spoken in disagreement with anything he has said or proposed. And technically, at the expense of sounding like a politician, technically I do not disagree with him. I do not disagree with the intent of his amendment. If it was up to me, the Obey amendment would have been far-reaching. But I disagree with his amendment today for the reasons that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and others have expressed. Because it is my understanding now, as I understand this issue and the politics of this issue, that his desire to do the right thing would jeopardize that which is in the bill already and that which we have accomplished. Now, I told you a couple of seconds ago that it is the first time I have disagreed with him. So I hope that he, as my brother, that he understands that this is not the easiest statement for me to make. But I know how much he believes in this issue. I know how much the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) believes in this issue. I know how much I believe in this issue. And I know how much we have accomplished. I have to tell you that I was in shock at the bipartisan vote in committee for the Obey amendment. I was pleased. I was joyous. But I was shocked. I know that people who oppose this language, people out there in the industry who are opposed to what we are about to do in this bill, are trying to figure out how to undo it. And I am convinced, as so many have said today, that the Hinchey amendment will allow many to get off supporting what we have done and, in fact, find a reason or an excuse to back off. And so it is for that reason that I risk his slight wrath momentarily as I look over those 29\1/2\ years and promise the gentleman that I probably will never disagree with him again, but I have to rise in opposition to this amendment at this time; and I would hope that Members see it that way and vote against it.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise in opposition to the amendment. I think it is one of those issues where, instead of removing ourselves from involvement, we should be doing just the opposite and, that is, involving ourselves even more. UNESCO aims to promote peace and security through facilitating collaboration among member states in the areas of education, science, and culture. The following is a list of UNESCO's areas of activity and an example of its work in each area: In the area of education, for instance. UNESCO promotes literacy and in post-Taliban Afghanistan by providing schooling materials and assisting with the reconstruction of institutions. In communication and information, it promotes press freedom and independent media in Afghanistan and Bosnia-Herzegovina. In the area of culture, it has encouraged countries to sign the World Heritage Convention to protect sites of cultural significance within their borders. In natural sciences, it provides assessment of ocean conditions and resources for preservation. In social and human sciences, it promotes research and developing educational materials on HIV/AIDS. So many different organizations throughout the world, from the arts, to scholars, to religious organizations support our involvement in UNESCO again. The President has made a crucial first step toward U.S. reentry to UNESCO by including $71 million for U.S. dues in his 2004 budget request. The State Department authorization bill currently authorizes this request and ``such sums as may be necessary'' to pay U.S. dues to UNESCO. Not only will this allow us this involvement but my understanding is that by doing it now, we get a seat on the board which then would allow us to move programs and behavior in UNESCO to our liking and to our needs. I rise in support of the gentleman from Virginia's comments of the President's request and desire to reenter UNESCO and in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I just want to say to my friend and gentleman from Vermont that I do not think anyone here is discussing the merits of the issue. At the risk of using an old phrase since September 11, perhaps since September 12, everybody on the Committee on Appropriations knows that I have made a career, if you will, of denouncing the abuses on civil liberties in this country. I think the gentleman knows that. I think all Members who have come in contact with me know that. I have become a broken record on the issue of what is happening to us as a Nation in terms of our civil liberties. We are not discussing that at this very moment. We have a problem. We are charged with the responsibility of getting a bill through the House that, in addition to dealing with this particular issue that the gentleman speaks to, also deals with the security of our embassies overseas; that pays the salaries of the men and women who do the fighting against drugs in this country; and that goes across the way in putting together the kind of legislation that we call the Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary and related agencies bill. If nothing else is accomplished today, and it does look, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member, has said, like we are heading towards a very difficult rule coming out of the committee, if nothing else happens today, I think it is important for the gentleman from Vermont to know that nothing on this side, and I do not believe anything in the gentleman from Virginia's (Mr. Wolf) behavior had anything to do with the desire to shut down the discussion of civil liberties. I will never be part of that. On the contrary, I would fight for time to be involved in that fight. This is about a process, a process that some people, somehow, did not become part of, did not alert us about, did not ask us to be involved in, to be of assistance; and now we have come to this point. I understand that. In the past, I have engaged in behavior that says we have to get things done; but just for the record, this ranking member, this Member from New York, would never participate in an action to shut down a discussion on civil liberties because that, to me, is the strongest issue as ranking member of this committee; and I will not rest till I undo the harm that has been done to the people in this country. This was about a process, not about a shutting down of discussion.

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

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. For my part, I would like to comment on what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said. We take our responsibilities seriously. We have a chairman, we have a ranking member of a subcommittee, and we have a chairman and a ranking member of the full committee. Our intent at all times is to look out for our side, for our needs for the American people, and for the committee package and product in general. We run into situations like we had today where the schedule was changed, where time ran against us, and we try to do the best possible work that we can do. But I think it would be unfair and perhaps improper to suggest that everyone somehow was involved in trying to keep one amendment or one change or one person from speaking, because that is not true and that is not the case. What we have here today is the fact that we have a bill that deals with a lot of issues that we need to get out of the House. We have a bill that has a time in terms of making sure that these issues are spoken about prior to the August recess, so we can send the proper message to the State Department and the Justice Department and the embassy security people and the FBI and DEA and all the other people that we deal with. We are trying to accommodate everyone. Members have to understand that there is one request that I make, and, listen, I get as angry as everybody else about things that happen around here, but one request, and that is, as the ranking member of a subcommittee, and my colleagues know that I am working on a bill for the last 6, 7, 8, 9 months, and this is from the beginning of the session, it is not too much to ask that 2 or 3 days before today to let me know what is going on so I can play my role in being protective, not giving me a general idea, but give me some specifics as to where we are going. We have a unanimous consent statement and we have to live by it. But, please, let us do one thing, and this is where I join the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) strongly today. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is a fair man, and nothing he does is done improperly, and I want to make that clear.

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

Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. SERRANO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman. We have an agreement on the floor, and we should live with that agreement.

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

Mr. SERRANO

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

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, as we get close to the end of this debate and the end of the evening, I just wanted to take this opportunity, first of all, to commend you, sir, for the work you have done today and for the professional and fair way in which you have treated all of us. It is always a pleasure to have you in the chair, and I know that I speak probably for both sides, but certainly for this side, in thanking you for the way in which you treat us, in your fair and honest way. Secondly, I take this opportunity once again to say to my chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), that it is a pleasure always to work with him. We have had some little lumps today, but I think when the final vote is taken tomorrow, everything will show that we did what was right and we did what was fair; and I just want to thank the gentleman for being a good partner in this endeavor of ours.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I think that my colleague from New York makes some very strong points. The problem with his amendment and the reason I rise in opposition to it is that I believe that while we may not be happy with some of the folks that make up some of the organizations that are part of the U.N. and other international organizations, for that matter, it is in the best interests of our country, it is in the best interests of our foreign policy to be engaged in these organizations, rather than withdraw from them and not support them. So while his points are well taken, and I am sure that if we sat down around a table we would not disagree on some of the makeup of these organizations, to withdraw from them, not to be supportive, not to pay our dues is, in fact, one, to turn our back on the ability to do some good work by those organizations and secondly, and most importantly, if we sort of take our marbles or take our basketball and go home, we do not get to participate and, therefore, we do not get to speak about the same issues that the gentleman from New York is concerned about. So for those reasons, I would join the chairman in opposing the amendment.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Very briefly, this amendment runs the risk, as others have, of breaking down local relationships that law enforcement has tried to build with some communities. Picture, if you will, the situation that a lot of police departments throughout this Nation have in large cities especially and in other communities where they are trying on a daily basis to build a relationship with folks that are just coming to the country. In many instances, and this we can attest to, whether you have been born here, whether you have just arrived here, whether you are a citizen or you are not, the whole idea of dealing with the Immigration Department is one that strikes fear in the hearts of many people and it is across the board. Police departments, local law enforcement are aware of this and part of their relationship building has been the fact that they have always been seen as something other than the Immigration Department. Now, to continue to try to force local law enforcement to, in fact, act as immigration officers just breaks down the ability of those relationships to be put together. So, therefore, if you take a situation where, and police have said this over and over again in other issues where they were asked to participate in these kinds of behavior where they said, look, if we need to know who committed a crime, if we need to know what is going on in a neighborhood, if we need to know how to go in and deal with issues of crime and other forms of abuse, we need the confidence of the community we are dealing with. If they think in any way, shape or form that we are only dealing with immigration issues or that we are, in fact, immigration officers, we lose the ability to deal with this community, we lose the ability to have them as supporters of what we do. Now, this amendment says, and if you choose to build those relationships and if you choose to act in that way and we find out, we will withhold from you dollars, very valuable dollars, that go to all the issues we have discussed here in the fight against crime and all the issues that we need to take care of locally. So I really think that this is an ill-conceived notion. It was defeated before. As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said, Members can come and look at their vote. It was defeated strongly in this House and it should be defeated again.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I would refer the gentleman to my earlier comments about civil liberties and the issues which are contained within the PATRIOT Act. I may not totally end up on the side of disagreeing with the gentleman once some more research is done. My problem with the amendment is that lately we have been seeing a lot of amendments on this bill, both in committee and on the floor, where we fully do not know the full impact. That may sound to some people as a contradiction to the fact that I would want to be the leader in changing and I would lead the charge in changing the PATRIOT Act. So I understand that, if there is concern, the gentleman has to be respected for that. But this is an issue that we really need to consult with many people on, and we just do not think it should be done on this particular bill. With that in mind, not only would I oppose it, but I would hope the gentleman would reconsider and withdraw his amendment.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask that the Record show that on Thursday, July 17, 2003, during consideration of the FY04 Appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior, I inadvertently voted ``no'' on the Gallegly-Moran ``Don't Feed the Bears'' Amendment, to stop the dangerous and unsporting practice of bear-baiting on federal lands, when it was my intention to support the amendment. This amendment, had it passed, would have banned the unsporting practice of using food to attract bears for slaughter on federal lands. I am a cosponsor of H.R. 1472 because of my strong opposition to the practice of bear-baiting. I will continue to actively support enactment of H.R. 1472.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time. I will be very, very brief. I am going to support this rule. I am going to support it because the rule speaks to a bill that the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and I worked on very hard to make the best of a very difficult allotment to the committee. The gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) was very fair, as I will explain during general debate, about meeting certain needs. There were some shortcomings in the bill that hopefully will get better. But, most importantly, I support the rule because the rule supports some very difficult decisions that the committee made in terms of amendments; and the rule could have, as in past occurrences, played around and fooled around with those decisions by the committee. It did not. It supports the committee work; and, therefore, I stand in support of the rule.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, let me first simply say on a comment that we just heard on the House floor that it is related to taxes, because it is a simple mathematical equation. If we have less money to spend because we give it away to the rich, then we have less money for education, for housing, for senior citizens, and for homeland security; and this is a fact of life. However, having said that, I want to take this opportunity, first, to thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman, and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) for this historic moment in putting together this bill. This bill, in my opinion, has some deficiencies; but on the other hand, it is a historic bill. It is the first time we have attempted to put together a bill like this and to take care of a need. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant support of H.R. 2555. On September 11, everything changed in this country. The savage attacks on New York and Washington brought home to America that the threat of terrorism at home was terribly real. Among the responses by Congress were the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and the reorganization of the Committee on Appropriations to oversee and fund the new Department. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has ably taken up the challenge of chairing the new House Subcommittee on Homeland Security. However, the leadership of this House has failed to give him or our ranking member the resources they need to do the job. The bill would not even provide enough funding to keep up with inflation, never mind step up the pace of improvements to our security. As has been amply covered in other statements and is thoroughly demonstrated by the Obey amendment, which the Republican leadership through the Committee on Rules refused to make in order, there are gaping holes in our security, and at the rate we are going it will be many years before they can be filled. From ports to airport perimeters to our borders, we continue to face risk to our security that must be addressed, but cannot be, under this bill. On a somewhat more parochial level, I am disappointed that we were unable to do more for grants to high-density urban and high-threat areas. Secretary Ridge just yesterday stated that he believed $750 million would be ``a nice place to start,'' not the $500 million now in the bill. If I sound somewhat negative in my support of this bill, one needs to understand that I was there in New York on September 11. I saw the tragedy that took place. I saw the crime committed on our country, and the scene of the crime was New York; and so New York has had a tendency to know what it is that we need to deal with this issue because we saw it firsthand. That does not take away our respect for our chairman, our ranking member, the work of the committee. Mr. Chairman, once again, I reiterate my support for the bill in the hope that as it continues to go through the Senate, it becomes the bill it should be.