José Serrano

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Sister Isolina Ferre, an outstanding individual who has devoted her life to serving the poor. Sister Isolina, a Missionary Servant of the Most Blessed Trinity, received the nation's highest civilian honor during a White House ceremony on Wednesday, August 11, 1999. She was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Sister Isolina, known as the ``Angel of Ponce Beach,'' was born on September 5, 1914 to one of the most affluent families in Puerto Rico. Raised in a wealthy family, she decided early in life that she wanted to dedicate her life to the less fortunate. She joined the Missionary Servants of the Most Blessed Trinity at age 21 in Philadelphia. After she completed her training, she was assigned to the Appalachian coal mining region of West Virginia and then worked among Portuguese immigrants on Cape Cod, Massachusetts. In 1957 Sister Isolina went to work at the Doctor White Community Center in Brooklyn, where she offered to be a mediator between African- American and Puerto Rican gangs. For her efforts she received the key to the city of New York from Mayor John Lindsay and the John D. Rockefeller Award for Public Service and Community Revitalization. Mr. Speaker, Sister Isolina Ferre founded community service centers, clinics and programs to empower the poor in Puerto Rico, New York and Appalachia. She does this through the Centros Sor Isolina Ferre, a group of five community-service centers she has run for 30 years. One U.S. author who wrote about turning around poor, crime-ridden communities called her ``Mother Teresa of Puerto Rico.'' The Centros Sor Isolina Ferre has 350 employees, five offices throughout Puerto Rico, a postgraduate business and technical school and 40 programs aimed at stemming juvenile delinquency and strengthening families. With government and private funding, it serves more than 10,000 people a year. The operation is built on Ferre's main principle: Poor communities have many resources they can use to improve their condition, and they can be taught to seek their own solutions and take control of their lives. Staff members teach leadership and strategic planning to people in public-housing projects, in Ponce--skills used to start businesses and organize community improvements. Through counseling and other services for youth and families, Ferre's group has dramatically reduced the school dropout rate within a public housing project in the San Juan area. Mr. Speaker, Sister Isolina is the fourth Puerto Rican to receive the award. The others are former Puerto Rico Gov. Luis Munoz Marin, a founder of the Popular Democratic Party; Antonia Pantojas, founder of Aspira, an agency known for helping Hispanic youth; and Sister Isolina's brother, former Puerto Rico Gov. Luis A. Ferre, founder of the pro-statehood New Progressive Party. Sister Isolina attended Fordham University in New York where she earned a bachelor of arts and master's degree in psychology. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in commending Sister Isolina Ferre for her outstanding achievements and in wishing her continued success.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Isolina Ferre, an outstanding individual who has devoted her life to serving the poor. Sister Isolina, a Missionary Servant of the Most Blessed Trinity, received the nation's highest civilian honor during a White House ceremony on Wednesday, August 11, 1999. She was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Sister Isolina, known as the ``Angel of Ponce Beach,'' was born on September 5, 1914 to one of the most affluent families in Puerto Rico. Raised in a wealthy family, she decided early in life that she wanted to dedicate her life to the less fortunate. She joined the Missionary Servants of the Most Blessed Trinity at age 21 in Philadelphia. After she completed her training, she was assigned to the Appalachian coal mining region of West Virginia and then worked among Portuguese immigrants on Cape Cod, Massachusetts. In 1957 Sister Isolina went to work at the Doctor White Community Center in Brooklyn, where she offered to be a mediator between African- American and Puerto Rican gangs. For her efforts she received the key to the city of New York from Mayor John Lindsay and the John D. Rockefeller Award for Public Service and Community Revitalization. Mr. Speaker, Sister Isolina Ferre founded community service centers, clinics and programs to empower the poor in Puerto Rico, New York and Appalachia. She does this through the Centros Sor Isolina Ferre, a group of five community-service centers she has run for 30 years. One U.S. author who wrote about turning around poor, crime-ridden communities called her ``Mother Teresa of Puerto Rico.'' The Centros Sor Isolina Ferre has 350 employees, five offices throughout Puerto Rico, a postgraduate business and technical school and 40 programs aimed at stemming juvenile delinquency and strengthening families. With government and private funding, it serves more than 10,000 people a year. The operation is built on Ferre's main principle: Poor communities have many resources they can use to improve their condition, and they can be taught to seek their own solutions and take control of their lives. Staff members teach leadership and strategic planning to people in public-housing projects, in Ponce--skills used to start businesses and organize community improvements. Through counseling and other services for youth and families, Ferre's group has dramatically reduced the school dropout rate within a public housing project in the San Juan area. Mr. Speaker, Sister Isolina is the fourth Puerto Rican to receive the award. The others are former Puerto Rico Gov. Luis Munoz Marin, a founder of the Popular Democratic Party; Anotnia Pantojas, founder of Aspira, an agency known for helping Hispanic youth; and Sister Isolina's brother, former Puerto Rico Gov. Luis A. Ferre, founder of the pro-statehood New Progressive Party. Sister Isolina attended Fordham University in New York where she earned a bachelor of arts and master's degree in psychology. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in commending Sister Isolina Ferre for her outstanding achievements and in wishing her continued success.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I think the President did the right thing. As I said before during the rule debate, he did it, or he wanted to do it, actually, right before we had that horrible situation with the impeachment situation. He wanted to do it then as part of the observance, if you will, of the 100th anniversary of the invasion of Puerto Rico by the United States. He wanted to do it as a first step towards a national reconciliation, a national reconciliation which we support in other parts of the world but we do not support here. We may not like to hear it, but the fact is that Puerto Rico is a colony of the United States. The fact is that since 1898, the American government has held Puerto Rico as a possession. As long as Puerto Rico remains a colony of the United States, we will have demonstrations, we will have lobbying, we will have plebiscites, we will have discussions. I can almost assure that we will not have these kinds of discussions anymore because the people who came to Congress once and used violence here who were pardoned in 1979, with the support of Members who are still in this Chamber today, those people have renounced all forms of violence and now admit that the way to bring about the change in the political status in Puerto Rico is through the democratic process. There is no democratic process in Puerto Rico. The 4 million American citizens who live in Puerto Rico do not have the right as an independent Nation to set their tone in the world and find their place, and they cannot vote for the Commander in Chief who has sent them to every war in the past. The people in Puerto Rico cannot send a Member here who has a vote, as I do from New York, to be able to argue these points. We have to understand that what the President did he did at the request of Cardinal O'Conner from New York, notwithstanding what our local newspaper says. We have, and I tell the gentleman from New York this in case he brings it up, we have the letter from the Cardinal that says that he wants these people out of prison. He did it after people throughout the world said, for national reconciliation, do this. He did it after Members of Congress went to see him. I spent the last 6 years, a lot of hours, working on this issue. I am not celebrating anything. How can we celebrate when people get out after 20 years in prison? Not one of them, as has been said on this floor, not one were accused or convicted of any violent acts. So while Members condemn this action, in which I support the President, while Members use the word ``terrorism,'' which scares the American people, and should, why not look also at the larger picture? Is it not about time that we resolve the issue of the status of an island that we invaded in 1898, that we took from Spain; incidentally, an island Spain invaded in 1493? In closing, very shortly, as I said before, take some time to think about what we go through, we who are Americans and love this country and were born in Puerto Rico; we who serve in Congress and want to solve this problem soon. Think about that. Members might want to take some new action.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I am not even going to try to make an argument against some of the things I have heard here today, because I realize that one of the most difficult things to do here today or this week or this year or any time is to sound like we are speaking on behalf of terrorism. We are not. As has been stated over and over again, this is an issue of national reconciliation. The fact is that as Puerto Rico faces 101 years of a relationship with the United States, a relationship which started with an invasion in 1898, and has reached the point where Puerto Rico is still not an independent Nation, nor is it a State of the Union, that we will always have these kinds of discussions. Some people will demonstrate to change that status question. Some people will lobby to change that status question. Some people in the past chose to be part of organizations that chose other methods. Let me briefly just state the fact that these particular people that we are talking about were not charged with nor were they convicted of any acts of violence. That is a fact. When the President offered the clemency, he and the White House and the government understood that. What I would like to do today for a couple of minutes is make a plea with the American people, a plea to try for a second, for one moment in our lives, to look beyond the issue as we see it, the issue of violence, the issue of anti-American sentiment, if that is the case. I do not mind if Members disagree with us, if they are angry about it. That is fine. But I would like American teachers, I would like American parents, to try to teach our children and to ask ourselves, how did we get to this point? Where is Puerto Rico? What is the relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States? Are Puerto Ricans American citizens? Yes. Why are they American citizens on the island and not allowed to vote for the President? Why did they serve in all our wars and do not have a voting representative in Congress? What is the relationship? If we understand that relationship, if we understand that for 101 years Puerto Rico has been a colony in an unequal relationship with the United States, then we will understand that discussions like this one and many others related to this one, nonviolent, very political, in a lobbying form, will continue to take place. So I would like to take a second to remind us that at the center of this problem is the relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico. At the center of the solution is the status question. If Puerto Rico either becomes the 51st State of the Union or an independent Nation, and only Congress has the right to do that, then this problem will not continue to exist in this fashion, or exist at all. It is also interesting to note that some of the people who today support this resolution were here in 1979 when President Jimmy Carter gave clemency. President Carter in 1979, with the support of people who support this resolution today, gave unconditional clemency to Puerto Ricans who were in prison for attacking the House of Representatives. They came to the gallery and attacked the House of Representatives, and did not deny it. That group also attempted the assassination of President Truman, and they did not deny it. Those individuals supported that clemency at that time without conditions. It is also interesting to note that those individuals went back to Puerto Rico and today publicly state, years later, publicly state that the only way to solve the status issue is by lobbying Congress and using the political process to make the change. They saw a different way of doing things, and so will everyone else, I believe. I would like us also to try to understand something; to take a second, and this is not a plea, I am not complaining about my condition, but to understand what the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the gentleman from Chicago (Mr. Gutierrez), and I go through on a daily basis. I was born in Puerto Rico and raised in New York. I am a member of the United States Congress. I love my country. I served in the military. I would give my life to protect this country. But I also have great love for the place where I was born. I see that place as my mother. I see this place as my father. For a long time I have seen my father mistreat my mother. We have to bring that to a conclusion. I know some people will think that is awfully dramatic, but please understand, for a long time I have seen my father mistreating my mother. My mother is Puerto Rico. For 101 years she has been saying, either take me in or let me go. Either take me in or let me go. I have chosen Congress to make that argument. Some have chosen other ways. But also keep something in mind that history sometimes sees organizations in a different way. Nelson Mandela was seen by his government for 27 years as a terrorist. We saw him as somewhat of a terrorist, and now the world sees him as a hero. The Irish in Ireland, as part of the peace process, have suggested that so-called terrorists or people who used violence on either side of the issue should be released from prison as part of the peace process. So what is wrong in suggesting that as part of our peace process with the longest colony in the history of the world, 400 years under Spain and 100 years under the United States, the longest serving colony in the world, that as part of a reconciliation to reach a new relationship with that country, that we allow 11 people who are in prison and who were never convicted of a violent act to come home and to integrate themselves back into the society? Members can disagree with me, and I know I cannot win this argument. But for God's sake, just try to understand what this issue is all about. Try to understand what I go through. Try to understand what other people go through. Maybe we can solve this problem.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Manuel (Manny) Mendez, an outstanding individual who has devoted his life to his family and to serving the community. Mr. Mendez who left Phipps Community Development Corporation on Wednesday, August 4, 1999 after 10 brilliant years his post as executive director/chief executor officer. Mr. Mendez is a community builder to creating and sustaining enduring communities. He is the principal administrator of the Phipps Community Development Corporation which is an affiliate corporation of Phipps Houses, New York's oldest and largest nonprofit developer/owner of housing for low and moderate income families. Founded in 1905 Phipps Houses provides secure and well-designed housing for the working poor and other needy families. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Mendez's primary focus is on the management, design, implementation and community development of seven residential communities throughout New York City, providing homes to 14,000 individuals. The communities are West Farms and Crotona Park West in the South Bronx, Bellevue South in Manhattan and Sunnyside in Queens. Manny believes that shelter is not enough. Hence, Phipps CDC--a Human Services/Educational/Employment Training Corporation--is committed to the development of the human spirit. Through a variety of program offerings in the fields of education, human services, employment readiness and community development, the Corporation under his leadership has assisted thousands of families. In early 1992 Mr. Mendez initiated efforts to provide Phipps residents and community members with regular and preventive medical care necessary for long term health and well being. Additionally this effort would help in ending the need for community members to use hospital emergency rooms as their primary care physicians in two South Bronx neighborhoods. In June of 1993, in a joint effort with the Bronx Lebanon Hospital Center, the first family- based practice clinic was opened in Crotona Park West. In 1994, in concert with Montefiore Hospital, a second family-based practice was opened in West Farms. Mr. Speaker, the contributions and accomplishments of Mr. Mendez in the field of human services, social policy and community development have been widely cited in the New York Times, New York Magazine, the Amsterdam News, the Washington Post as well as many other publications. Before joining Phipps, Mr. Mendez held several senior executive level positions at the New York City Human Resources Administration, among them as Deputy Commissioner from 1988 to 1990. Mr. Mendez was responsible for the shelter of 12,000 homeless men and women, 4,000 prospective service for adults cases and 168 senior citizen centers. In 1995 he was appointed to a four-year term as commissioner of the New York City Equal Employment Practices Commission. He had served as special advisor to President Carter on the Atlanta Project and to the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops in Washington, D.C. and was an assistant professor at the Fordham University Graduate School of Social Services. He is a sponsor of the One Hundred Black Men's Youth Leadership Program and former president of the Puerto Rican Family Institute, a National Mental Health Organization. Mr. Mendez is presently a trustee and serves on the Executive Committee as assistant treasurer of Bronx Lebanon Hospital, a board member of the Association of Hispanic Arts, chairman of the New York City Human Resources Administration Advisory Board and a trustee of the Primary Care Development Corporation. Mr. Mendez is a graduate of City College of New York and the Fordham University Graduate School of Social Services. He is a native of the Bronx, he and his wife, Joan, presently reside in the upper Westside of Manhattan. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing best of luck to Mr. Manuel (Manny) A. Mendez in his new endeavors.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. But he is not about to tell me right now.

Mr. SERRANO. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, and I will not be objecting, I just wanted to ask two questions, one of whomever. Is it our intent on any votes that may be involved here to roll those votes or cluster those votes?

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to once again congratulate and to pay tribute to Mr. Isaac Darko, a constituent of mine and a distinguished student at Columbia University in New York. He will be recognized for his academic and scientific achievements as a participant in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Undergraduate Scholarship Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged Backgrounds (UGSP) on August 5, 1999 for the second year in a row. Isaac graduated from the Health Professions and Human Services High School in 1997 and has just completed his freshman year at Columbia University. This summer he has been working at the NIH Department of Molecular Biology under the supervision of Dr. Alfred Johnson. He has been working on the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), which is expressed in such cancers as breast and prostate cancer and in other cancer cell lines. Mr. Speaker, the UGSP scholars search is highly competitive and nationwide. Currently, the program has 24 scholars from all over the nation, from institutions such as Columbia University, MIT, Harvard, Georgetown, U.C. Davis, and Stanford. In order to participate in the program, a Scholar must either have a 3.5 Grade Point Average or be in the top 5 percent of his/her class. Candidates must also demonstrate a commitment to pursuing careers in biomedical research and must be from a disadvantaged background. The current group is composed of 32 percent Hispanics, 32 percent African Americans, 21 percent Asians, 10 percent Caucasians, and 5 percent Native American, with a balance between the genders of 52 percent female and 48 percent male. Mr. Speaker, being selected for this program for two consecutive years indicates that Isaac has demonstrated that he has the ability and the desire to be an asset and a role model in our community. We are proud of his accomplishments and I know he is taking full advantage of the opportunity presented to him. He is a terrific example for future participants in this program and others like it. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating once again Mr. Issac Darko for his outstanding accomplishments and also in commending the National Institutes of Health Undergraduate Scholarship Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged Backgrounds for offering opportunities to students like Isaac.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment of the gentleman. It is true that the Merchant Marine Academy has in so many ways been totally forgotten, and the description and presentation of the gentleman shows the problem. So I just want to, very briefly, be supportive of the amendment but at the same time remind us that we would accomplish helping the Merchant Marine Academy by cutting some funds from NOAA. So I would hope that, in the process that continues here as we go on to conference, we can find the monies to make up the changes that we have made. But I rise in strong support of the amendment and hope it can be approved.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I am trying just to find out what the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) is trying to accomplish.

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

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection, and I withdraw my reservation of objection .

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for the purpose of control.

Mr. SERRANO. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I ask the gentleman, when do we expect the gentleman to be here?

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentleman from Ohio's amendment. First of all let me say that I congratulated the gentleman from Kentucky, and I do once again, for taking serious steps to deal with this issue. I continue to ask him to do even more in conference and in the future to make sure that we pay our bills. But I do not want the gentleman to think that our support of this amendment does not salute and compliment the fact that he has tried to pay our bills. It is the fact that we are paying our bills in a very strange way, by dealing with issues that are not related to the fact that we have to pay our bills. That is the problem. The problem, as the gentleman from Ohio has well stated, is that we run the risk of losing our vote and our membership in the U.N., our vote in certain parts of the U.N. and our membership in certain world organizations related to the U.N., if we do not pay our dues. We should really be very careful here today to understand that those of us who rise in support, in strong support, of the Hall amendment are not doing it because we want to somehow stop our involvement in the U.N. On the contrary. It is those who attach riders to this issue who may want to find this as an excuse to tie up our involvement in the U.N. We want our involvement to continue. We want the U.N. to reform. Please understand that the moneys that we have approved in the past and that are pending now speak to reform at the U.N. But we cannot be asking for reform at the U.N. and then behaving in somewhat of a childish way in suggesting that whatever dollars go to pay our dues, not extra dollars we are giving them for something else but dollars that go to pay our dues, have to be based on whether or not they will do things that nobody else in the world agrees with us on. It is totally improper to do that. I would hope that as we look at the gentleman from Ohio's amendment, we fully realize what is at stake here. If the U.S. does not pay its arrears to the U.N. in the 106th Congress or approve payment of our fiscal year 2000 dues without strings and conditions in the U.N., we could lose our General Assembly vote by January of 2000. I do not think anyone has really paid attention to that. I mean, the thought of us losing our vote by January of 2000 at the U.N. is something that no one should be planning to do. We keep calling on the U.N. to participate with us in some missions, that not everybody, by the way, agrees with, but we keep calling on the U.N. to participate, to support us, to be a partner, and at the same time we continue to say that we will run the risk of not being a full- fledged member. I would hope, and I will close with this, I do not want to take too much time, that we separate the fact that the gentleman from Kentucky in my opinion has done a very good job at making sure that we move forward on this issue from the fact that as we move forward to pay up part, or all of it, it should never be linked to anything else.

Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky

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

Mr. SERRANO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I think that the gentleman's point has to be clear to everyone. That on which we agree on, the reforms stay in place under the Hall amendment. It is that which has been used as an excuse for us not to pay our dues and to get into areas we should not be involved in that he strikes, and that is important to note.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I understand what the three gentlemen who spoke are trying to accomplish, but I just want to say that this is a very serious situation. We spoke about it yesterday. We should speak about it again. First of all, this whole discussion we were having today is really unnecessary because there is at this point the office of special counsel which has been taking evidence from both sides and interviewing witnesses and expects to issue a decision in the near future. Now, what troubles me about the conversation I just heard and what we heard yesterday, while I am pleased that the gentleman has withdrawn the amendment, I am troubled by the fact that we continue to try to subvert the actions of the special counsel. We should allow those people that we set in law to do the work that they have to do and we should not try to undo that work. I would hope that the comments that were made yesterday by myself were taken fully for what they meant, and, that is, that I would hope the gentleman would just allow for the process to take its place. First of all, this young lady has not been determined a whistle- blower yet; that is part of the investigation. So why we are saying what we are saying I do not understand. And lastly, not to take too much time, I will be the first one to join if I know there has been discrimination or unfairness in any way, shape, or form. But we need for this process to take its due course.

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

Mr. SERRANO. I understand, and it is certainly not the kind of behavior that I would condone; and if that is the case, it is part of what we have to look at. That is why I respect the gentleman and I thank him for withdrawing the amendment, but I just want us to make sure that this is an issue that has other people involved and other situations going on, and we should pay attention to that as we pay attention to our intent here.

Mr. SERRANO. Yes, I do.

Mr. SERRANO. I seek the time in opposition, Mr. Chairman, and I yield that time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. SERRANO. No, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) controls the time.