José Serrano

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment. I am very strong on dealing with China and trading with China, but I think this particular incident was very unfortunate. It is pretty much an arrogant statement to try to charge us and to create more out of what clearly was a mistake on their part. I support the gentleman's amendment, and I hope there is bipartisan support for the amendment.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in full support of the amendment offered by the gentlewomen from New York, Ms. Velazquez and Mrs. Kelly. Mr. Chairman, I have said on many occasions and will continue to say throughout further debate on this bill that my chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), has done a wonderful job on this bill. That is why I say we will support this bill, and I will be asking both sides to vote for it in large numbers, if not unanimously. However, I also said, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) knows that, that if there is a weakness in this bill, it is what was not done for the SBA, and in fact what was the harm we did to SBA. So while I myself am not crazy about cuts to the Department of Commerce or the Department of State, I realize the importance, one, of trying to pass this amendment here today, and at the minimum, to try to bring forth the understanding that this is an issue that we are not finished with; that in conference and as we move this bill on, we have to try to do something about the Small Business Administration. So I think that what should be noted here is that we have people on this side who support this bill, but who feel that something should be done to remedy that one part of the bill that is very weak. I am a prime example of that. So I would hope that the chairman does not see this in any way as an attack on the bill, but certainly an understanding that there is work yet that needs to be done. In addition, I think it would be proper at this point to accept this amendment and then, as we go to conference, we can make the changes necessary in that State and Commerce situation. Now, we have been very good to the Commerce Department in this bill. We are very good to the State Department. There is no reason why we cannot be good to SBA, and then find a way to take care of these two cuts that we would be making, or this shifting of dollars that we would be making by this amendment. So I would hope, again, that the chairman would take this amendment in the spirit that it is intended, and that is to remedy that one part of the bill that is week and one that I know he wants to strengthen. Secondly, I would hope that we use it, again, as a unifying situation to bring us together even further on the bill as we move along.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, let us me first open my comments by saying that I do not have to repeat, the record will show I have been totally supportive of full funding the Census Bureau for the last few years; that I have gotten as the ranking member up on this floor and supported not only full funding, but supported the professionals who work at the Census Bureau. So I am clear on that, that this amendment and this conversation and this debate should in no way be seen as an attack. There is no need to defend the professionals at the bureau, because we all respect the work that they do. However, the point here is that in trying to do the best job possible and in taking into consideration what they had to do, there were a couple of mistakes made this year. One of them is this issue that the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) so aptly bring up in this amendment that I support, and that is the whole issue that in areas throughout the country, but you take especially an area like New York City, of not giving an opportunity for a Hispanic subgroup to identify themselves, is in fact not gathering the proper information. I want to make that point clear. This is not about who is pleased with this information. This is not about who we make happy by providing this information. This is about the fact that we funded the census, full force, in the hope that they would get out the best accurate information. Well, you cannot get the best accurate information if people who would like to identify themselves, again, if you will, a second time, do not get an opportunity to do so. There is the discussion in New York City that there might be up to 150,000 missing Dominican Americans. They are not missing from the Hispanic count as much, although there is an undercount, we know. They are not missing from the New York City or New York State or the national count; but they are missing for purposes of identifying who they are. While it is true that on this House floor there are many Members who always speak about we are one Nation and should not divide ourselves along certain lines, and we can all agree on that, the census happens to be the one constitutional institution that is supposed to do exactly what some people may not like, which is to go identify you at the national level, at the block level, ethnically, racially, to try to find out who it is living in this country and how we provide services and how we celebrate who we are as a country. So I support this amendment, in the hope that the Census Bureau, within their large massive funding operation, within the support that they receive from us, they can understand that there was a slight error made here and that they have to be able to deal with that. I will give you an example: when the first numbers came in, some of the articles in New York said ``Puerto Rican community losing ground as other Hispanic community grows in leaps and bounds.'' I looked at it and said, who is this ``other'' that is growing so much? Then it dawned on me that ``other'' was everybody else, and perhaps it may be that those articles were not accurate, because when you break the ``others'' up, none of them reach the amount that the Puerto Ricans have in New York City. Yet the information given out is that ``others'' has become this incredible new number that, one, we do not know how to service; two, we do not know where they come from; and, three, we do not know how best to deal with all of their needs. So if you look at this, you are really not asking for anything that should not have been put forth in the first instance. I would hope that we would realize that in supporting the Maloney-Rangel amendment, we in fact get to the full truth, and that is what the census was supposed to give us in the first place.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I also appreciate and applaud the good work that the gentleman from Florida has been doing to assist the small communities in his district. I assure him that I want to help him find the appropriate way to assist this community. I will join the gentleman from Virginia and him in accomplishing this.

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

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman should rest assured it is not our intent to hold up the process. As I said, it is just that we are 2 hours and 15 minutes ahead of schedule, which is the good news, but we are trying to get just two folks over here, so we appreciate the gentleman's understanding.

Mr. SERRANO. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). So it is my understanding that in these two cases, as soon as they come, we can go back and deal with those amendments, within reason?

Mr. SERRANO. I understand.

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

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of an exchange with the chairman. As the chairman knows, last night we had made an effort to make sure we had informed all Members to be here when their amendment came up. However, as the gentleman knows, we anticipated coming to the floor at sometime around 3 or 3:30, and we are ahead of schedule, which is the good news. The bad news is that there are some Members whose amendments are coming up pretty soon who are on their way to the Chamber now, so we are trying to find out first of all how the gentleman is doing, how the chairman is feeling this morning, and at the same time give them an opportunity to come. I am sure that the gentleman could join me in this repartee, and as soon as I find out what that means, I will use it more often.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I will not object, but I just want to clarify something from the chairman. It is clear to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member and I the content of the unanimous consent. However, I want to make clear that there is an understanding that whatever discussions will take place on limitation on times are in no way referred to in this unanimous consent.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. SERRANO

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

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. There is a way that the gentleman could get a lot of support on this side for his amendment; and that is, if he directs the cut to broadcasting to Cuba. So my question to him is, would he be willing to take the full amount out of broadcasting to Cuba?

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I understand we have come to the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), and I know he is on the House floor somewhere. I take that back. He is on the House floor, but his amendment is not.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I will yield myself whatever time I may consume in closing. Notwithstanding the fact that there are some things, mechanics, that we have to work out as to the debate and how we handle amendments and everything else, I just wanted to close on this side by saying, as I said before, that this is a good bill, that Chairman Wolf has done a great job with both staffs in putting together a bill that we can support, as we heard from our ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey. As I said, notwithstanding whatever other problems we have, he intends to support the bill. I am hoping after all is said and done no harmful amendments have hurt the bill in any way. In that case, at this moment I would ask for all Members in bipartisan fashion to support the bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. I just wanted to tell the chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), that the comments of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) are well taken by this ranking member. We want to work out the best possible situation to work in the proper manner and in the way that we will do justice to the bill and to the amendments and to the Members. I will agree also to a time limit on amendments. However, I must say once again, as I did last year, and in a loud voice, that I cannot understand why it is that we put a rule on the floor that is open-ended and then we immediately move to curtail. So next year, if I am still around in this situation, I assure my colleague that I will oppose any rule that is open-ended, because it is really not an open-ended rule. But I will support time limitations to make the process move forward. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our ranking member.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my long-time colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley). (Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Committee on Small Business.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy). (Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2500. I must begin by expressing my appreciation to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the chairman of the subcommittee, and his great staff for the fair and bipartisan way they have handled this bill, with full consultation with our side. While we do not agree with every recommendation in the bill, we believe that, on balance, it is worthy of wide support on both sides of the aisle. I have sat in hearings and markups with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for the last 3 years, but this is my first with him at the helm of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary. Having similarly landed at the top of the subcommittee with no prior service on it, I know how hard he has had to work to master the many and varied agencies and issues now under his jurisdiction, and I admire how well he has done. Staff on both sides of the aisle have made tremendous contributions to this process. They are Gail and Mike, Christine, Leslie, Julie and Carrie for the majority, as well as Jeff from the personal staff of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf); on our side, Sally, Rob, Christine; and from my own staff, Lucy and Nadine. These are folks who are professionals, who do their job well and who make us look good all the time and, therefore, serve our country and its citizens very well. Mr. Speaker, the budget request was troubling, with deep cuts to important programs and questionable assumptions about congressional actions on fees and program changes. This bill is a great improvement on that budget request. Perhaps most important, the bill restores many of the unreasonable cuts proposed in the President's budget for State and local law enforcement and COPS. The budget request was almost $1 billion below fiscal year 2001 levels for these programs, but the bill restores $661 million, including $150 million for COPS hiring. We are not all the way back, but we are moving in the right direction. The bill supports the Secretary of State's initiatives to invest in diplomatic readiness as well as the security, technology and infrastructure requirements of the State Department. The bill includes $7.4 billion for the State Department, an increase of $802 million, or 12 percent above the current year. For core diplomatic activities under the Administration of Foreign Affairs account, the bill is 17 percent above fiscal year 2001. A significant investment is needed to ensure that the Secretary has adequate resources, both people and technology, to carry out our foreign policy and national security objectives and to ensure that our employees overseas work in the most secure environment. In contrast to bills in past years from this subcommittee, the bill fully funds the request for international peacekeeping. Peacekeeping, as we all know, can advance U.S. policy goals at a fraction of the cost of sending U.S. forces into trouble spots. While the funding provided for assessed contributions to the U.N. and other international organizations is close to the amount requested, there are no funds for rejoining UNESCO as proposed in the House-passed State Department authorization bill, which could create a problem down the line. The fence around $100 million of U.N. dues, pending certification that the U.N. is not exceeding its budget, has raised administration concern. But, unlike similar provisions in past House bills, it draws attention to the need for budget discipline but should not lead to any new arrears. Our side, Mr. Chairman, is quite pleased with the overall level of funding for NOAA whose activities in coastal and ocean conservation, the management and preservation of our Nation's fisheries, the weather forecasting activities, as well as the satellites and data systems that support them, plus critical research into global climate change and other oceanic and atmospheric phenomena are so important to our economy and environment as well as to the health and safety of our people. Within NOAA, Conservation Trust Fund activities are fully funded. We are also delighted to see the Legal Services Corporation funded at the requested level, avoiding the exercise on the House floor we have had to go through for the last 6 years to restore cuts made in committee that are not supported by a majority in Congress. I want to take special occasion to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the chairman of the subcommittee, for the ability to get this program funded this way. We always put an amendment on the floor, and it passes with bipartisan support and a lot of votes, and I have always wondered why we had to do it this way. Well, this bills speaks to that issue right away, without having to go through that exercise. The full requests for the EEOC and the Civil Rights Commission are included, and the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division is funded above current services, supporting not only the administration's initiatives on voting rights and the rights of the disabled but also an initiative to investigate and prosecute civil rights abuses against inmates in prisons or other institutions. The largest concern we have, however, with this bill is with the Small Business Administration, SBA. The administration sent up a budget based on unrealistic assumptions about Congress's willingness to increase fees for important loan programs and to shift disaster funding to a new government-wide emergency fund, neither of which is going to happen. The chairman of the subcommittee has done a good job in partially restoring these funds, but more needs to be done, and we will work with him to be sure the smallest and neediest small businesses are not left behind. Again, Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. If our colleagues read the minority views in the report, which every subcommittee Democrat signed, they will see that we all believe that as long as no harmful floor amendments are adopted this bill deserves to pass with a strong bipartisan vote. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.