José Serrano

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Reverend Dr. Adolfo Carrion, Superintendent of the Spanish Eastern District, Assemblies of God, who will be retiring in October of this year after over 33 years of service. Reverend Carrion has been an outstanding leader and a great role model, not only to the organization he served so well but also to the Hispanic community and other religious organizations. Before becoming a Pastor of the Assemblies of God, he served in several different capacities: President of the youth organization, Deacon, Trustee, President of the Knights, and Superintendent of the Sunday School. He first served as Secretary/Treasurer for the East Hispanic District of the Assemblies of God in Manhattan. Afterward, he was appointed Clergy and later on he became Assistant to the Superintendent for the District for two years. For the last 28, he served as the Superintendent. Under his leadership, two new districts were created: one in Puerto Rico and one in South-East Florida. Today, the Assemblies of God has a total of 13 well organized districts with more than 275 affiliated churches. In short, Reverend Dr. Adolfo Carrion lives to help other people. He has been diligent in providing spiritual guidance and support to the members of our community. As it is written in Hebrews 6:10, ``for God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them.'' the community, too, recognizes him and is honoring him. Born in Juncos, Puerto Rico in 1934, Reverend Carrion has been married to Elisa Diaz for 39 years. They have four children: Elizabeth, Adolfo 3rd, Damaris, and Lisette. Adolfo 3rd is the recently elected Councilman of the Bronx district 14. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Reverend Dr. Adolfo Carrion for his dedication to our community.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, July 22nd and Thursday, July 23rd, I was unavoidably absent and missed rollcall votes 316-334. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall 316--present (quorum call), rollcall 317--no, rollcall 318-- no, rollcall 319--no, rollcall 320--yes, rollcall 321--no, rollcall 322--yes, rollcall 323--yes, rollcall 324--present (quorum call), rollcall 325--no, rollcall 326--no, rollcall 327--yes, rollcall 328-- yes, rollcall 329--yes, rollcall 330--no, rollcall 331--no, rollcall 332--yes, rollcall 333--present (quorum call), and rollcall 334--yes.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I was recorded as voting in favor of agreeing to the conference report on H.R. 629, the Texas Low- Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact. As should be obvious from my vote against the rule providing for consideration of the conference report, I had intended to vote against the conference report itself. I am in complete agreement with my colleagues from Texas and elsewhere who have fought against the imposition of what could become the nation's major depository for low-level radioactive waste on the largely poor and minority community of Sierra Blanca, Texas. I understand and share the concerns of Sierra Blanca and other minority communities. The siting of a disproportionate number of New York City's waste transfer and waste processing facilities in the Hunts Point area of my South Bronx congressional district, and the related particulate-spewing diesel truck traffic, have led to disproportionate levels of asthma and other respiratory illnesses among my Hunts Point constituents, especially the children. Without attention to environmental justice, the more disenfranchised a community is, the likelier it is to find itself the depository for more powerful people's waste.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, once again it is with pride that I rise to pay tribute to the Bronx Puerto Rican Day Parade, on its tenth year of celebrating the culture and contributions of the Puerto Rican community to our nation. The Bronx Puerto Rican Day Parade will be held on Sunday in my South Bronx Congressional District. The event is the culmination of a series of activities surrounding Puerto Rican Week in the Bronx. Under the leadership of its founder, Mr. Angel L. Rosario, and its president, Mr. Francisco Gonzalez, the Parade has grown into one of the most colorful and important festivals of Puerto Rican culture in the five Boroughs of New York City and beyond. The Parade brings together people from all ethnic backgrounds, including Puerto Ricans from the island and all across the nation. It is an honor for me to join once again the hundreds of thousands of people who will march with pride from Mount Eden to 161st Street and the Grand Concourse in celebration of our Puerto Rican heritage. The Puerto Rican flag and other ornaments in the flag's red, white, and blue will decorate the festival. As one who has participated in the parade in the past, I can attest that the excitement it generates brings the entire City together. It is a celebration and an affirmation of life. It feels wonderful that so many people can have this experience, which will change the lives of many of them. There's no better way to see our Bronx community. The event will feature a wide variety of entertainment for all age groups. The Parade ends at 161st and the Grand Concourse, where live music, Puerto Rican food, crafts, and other entertainments await partakers. It is expected that this year's Parade will surpass last year's half-million visitors. In addition to the Parade, President Gonzalez and the many organizers will provide the community with nearly a week of activities to commemorate the contributions of the Puerto Rican community, its culture and history. Mr. Speaker, it is with enthusiasm that I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to this wonderful celebration of Puerto Rican culture, which has brought much pride to the Bronx community.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise both with grief and with pride in support of House Concurrent Resolution 311. Like all of my colleagues and, indeed, like all Ameicans, I am grieving over the tragic, violent deaths on Friday of two valiant U.S. Capitol Police Officers, Private First Class Jacob Joseph Chestnut and Detective John Michael Gibson. And I am proud of these two heroes, members of our Capitol Hill family, who made the paramount sacrifice by giving their lives to protect the Members, staff, and guests of this Congress. Mr. Speaker, J.J. Chestnut and John Gibson were special men every day. They loved their families and their jobs. They were courteous and friendly, generous and professional. On Friday, they did what they had to do, what they were trained to do, and became heroes. Their deaths leave tremendous holes in the fabric of our lives. These crimes were particularly alarming because they took place inside the Capitol building, the People's House, which is and must always remain open to the public, and where people expect to be safe. Witness after witness, tourist after tourist told the press that they had never imagined they would hear gunfire here. But, Mr. Speaker, the heroism of J.J. Chestnut and John Gibson demonstrate that the Capitol is safe. It may not be challenged very often, but on this terrible Friday the security system worked. Two officers gave their lives and many others responded swiftly and capably to protect the public and apprehend the gunman, but only one visitor was wounded. Without our Capitol Police Officers' professionalism, readiness, and training, and their heroic responses to a terrible threat, the harm would undoubtedly have been much greater. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my condolences to the wives and children, other family members, neighbors, and friends of J.J. Chestnut and John Gibson and to assure them that we share their sorrow over their loss, and that they are in our thoughts and our prayers. They, too, are heroes, who every day sent their loved ones to work, never certain they would return. They, too, have paid an enormous price for the safety of Members, staff, and visitors to the Capitol. Mr. Speaker, this resolution, like House Concurrent Resolution 310 passed yesterday, is necessary and appropriate, and I urge all my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about a subject which is of great importance to many of us in my community, and certainly should be of great importance to all Americans. Tomorrow we will observe, July 25, 1998, the 100th anniversary of the relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico. One hundred years ago, the United States troops, during the Spanish-American War, invaded Puerto Rico, and since then Puerto Rico for these 100 years has been a territory of the United States. Tomorrow, throughout the 50 states and on the island of Puerto Rico, there will be different groups involved in different forms of observances or celebrations. Some will celebrate the day claiming that, in their belief, this relationship has been the best thing that ever happened to the Island of Puerto Rico. Others, on the other hand, will lament the relationship and feel that it has been totally unfair. Some groups on one side, as I said, will claim that nothing has gone wrong for these 100 years, and some folks on the other side will say that nothing has gone right for these 100 years. I believe that somewhere in between is the truth. But in order to really speak about this subject and how we got here and where we are and where all Americans should begin to deal with this issue, I think it is important to take just a couple of minutes to talk a little bit about the history of how we got here. Puerto Rico, as so many of you may know, was discovered in 1493 by Christopher Columbus, and from then to 1898 it was a colony of Spain. In 1508, the first Governor in Puerto Rico was assigned, and his name was Juan Ponce de Leon, or, as he is better known within the 50 states, as Ponce de Leon. The years went on, and Puerto Rico remained no better than a full colony of Spain. But by 1865, nearly 400 years later, there was already discussion between the Spanish government and the Island of Puerto Rico in terms of creating a new arrangement. Therefore in 1865, a royal decree was issued convoking delegates from Cuba and Puerto Rico to Madrid to discuss possible reforms to the colonial regime. The Puerto Rican delegates go there and they speak about decentralizing the municipal government, having more powers as people, taking some of the powers from the Governor, who was appointed by Spain, and abolishing slavery. No accord is reached, and the delegates who speak out for such reforms are in fact persecuted. Meanwhile, back in New York, the Republican Society of Cuba and Puerto Rico is established to promote the cause of independence for both islands. In 1895 the Puerto Rican section of the governing body of the Cuban Revolutionary Party is established in New York, and Puerto Ricans at that time adopt their own flag, which is the same as the Cuban flag, with the colors reversed. Jose Marti is the leader of the party, and it is right here within the 50 states, in New York, that the movement against Spain for independence for Puerto Rico comes into play. However, something happens on the way to 1898. Spain, for whatever reason, begins to realize that times have to change, and so Spain begins to discuss the possibility of granting autonomy to the Island of Puerto Rico. On February 9, 1898, Puerto Rico's autonomous government is inaugurated with a provisional cabinet. It provided a high degree of administrative autonomy for Puerto Rico, and, under the charter, the Island was governed by the local parliament, composed of two chambers and a Governor general. The chambers were the Administrative Council, which were elected, and a version of the House of Representatives, popularly elected. These chambers had full legislative authority except over such matters that the Spanish government wanted to keep, and these folks were then allowed to go to Spain and represent the Puerto Rican community, the Island of Puerto Rico, in Spain. It is interesting to note that in this agreement the people representing Puerto Rico in Spain had actually reached more autonomy and more powers than the current delegate from Puerto Rico enjoys as a Member of the U.S. Congress. But that could not take place, because, in the meantime, on February 15, the sinking of the American ship the Maine provided an immediate reason for the Spanish-American war. During that war, elections are held in Puerto Rico and this government, which then will represent Puerto Rico in Spain with many more powers, is elected. On July 25, after the defeat of the Spanish in Cuba, General Nelson Miles leads an American landing in Guanica on the southern coast of Puerto Rico. On October 18th of that year, San Juan surrenders, and a U.S. military government is established in Puerto Rico. On December 10, the treaty of Paris is signed and the Spanish- American War ends, and Puerto Rico is given to the United States, the political and civil rights of its inhabitants to be determined by the U.S. Congress. From then on, Puerto Rico and the United States for a couple of years try to figure out what that relationship will be. But through 1899, in a few years, a military government continues. Nothing really changes until 1900, when a new act is passed here which ended the military administration and set up a civil government. Very little self-government, however, was granted. The President would appoint a Governor, the members of the upper legislative house in Puerto Rico, and the executive council, where no Puerto Rican was allowed to serve, and the judges of the Supreme Court. Only the House of Representatives on the island was wholly elected by the people in Puerto Rico, and then it was determined that Puerto Rico would have a commissioner who would serve in the House of Representatives with no voting status. In 1904, Puerto Ricans at that time are not granted U.S. citizenship. They become in fact citizens of Puerto Rico. An argument, by the way, that continues to be dealt with today, because many people still wonder if in imposing American citizenship later, that Puerto Rican citizenship in fact was done away with. Everything then is run by the United States Congress. In 1917, a very important day in the history, on March 2, the Jones Act comes into effect, and by it, Congress determines that all Puerto Ricans born in Puerto Rico will be American citizens. Since that date, everybody born on the island of Puerto Rico is an American citizen. The only difference and the most important difference, and perhaps the tragic difference, is that if you are born in Puerto Rico you are an American citizen and you move to any of the 50 States, you enjoy the same rights as any citizen within those 50 States, but if you remain on the island of Puerto Rico, still an American citizen, you do not enjoy the same rights as the other 50 States. That puts into play then the question, what kind of American citizenship is it? Is it possible for us to actually have granted different kinds of American citizenship, one for those who live within the 50 States, and one for those who live outside? To this day, there are very bright people arguing that it is impossible to have granted 2 different kinds, but the effect is that there are 2 different kinds of citizenship, and they express themselves differently. Nothing then really changes in Puerto Rico until 1950. What happens in those years is that a governor is appointed, and there are different situations that are created. But during that period of time, an independence movement grows, which continues to demand, as it did during the period with Spain, that Puerto Rico be liberated and in fact be given its independence. That independence movement is persecuted heavily, to the point where its leader, Pedro Albizu Campos, is a man who is jailed for over 27 years for advocating for independence of Puerto Rico during that time. Also, there are incidents where violent acts are committed and force is used both by the government and by citizens. At that time also a party grows, various parties grow in Puerto Rico, one of them being the Republican Party, a statehood party, an independence party, a party that wants to take the present status in the 1930s and 1940s and bring it to a new relationship, one that is not statehood or independence. Finally in the early 1950s it is decided that Congress will offer the Puerto Rico community in Puerto Rico something called commonwealth status. Commonwealth allows for certain rights to be carried out on the island, but commonwealth still does not provide for the ability to vote for President, for the ability to vote for 6 or 7 Members of Congress as Puerto Rico would be entitled to, or for the ability to vote for 2 Senators. On the other hand, commonwealth also does not allow for Puerto Rico's independence. So I think we have to fully understand, and I think the problem that we face these days when we discuss this issue and as we celebrate, commemorate, observe or lament over the 100-year relationship, tomorrow, July 25, is the fact that such a large number of Americans, if not the vast majority, have no idea what the relationship is between the United States and Puerto Rico. If one goes through any neighborhood in this country and you ask people, are you aware that all people who live on the island of Puerto Rico are citizens like you, you would be shocked to find a large number of people do not have the slightest idea. If you then ask them, do you know that Puerto Ricans served in our wars and participated in our wars and were drafted just like all other Americans when we had a draft, the answer would be no, I did not know that. If you then tell them that they were and that they are citizens and they still do not vote for President, that would shock anywhere, I would say, from 75, 80, 90 percent of the American people who are not aware of the relationship. I think what will happen tomorrow and throughout the rest of this year is more and more people will become aware of the relationship and become aware of the need to speak about where the future of that relationship should take us. Now, let me digress for a second and just set myself up as an example of the uniqueness or the embarrassment of that relationship. I was born in Puerto Rico. I came to New York, as so many Puerto Ricans did, when I was a very young child. I studied in New York, I became involved in politics, I served in the State assembly; I then came here in 1990. I am a Member of Congress. One cannot really express better fulfillment of one's citizenship than what I have accomplished personally, yet my cousins who live on the island of Puerto Rico do not have the same rights I have, the difference being that I moved and they did not. That is almost to suggest that if one stays in Texas or one stays in New York, one would have less rights than if one came to California. Well, I am sure there are probably some Californians who would like Texans and New Yorkers to have less rights, but that is just the way we behave in this country. The fact of life is that these folks are there with a totally different system of government overseeing them. So the commonwealth came in and the commonwealth was set up basically to tell the United Nations, I believe, look, we are obeying the rules, we are doing what you wanted us to do; we do not have a situation that can create a problem for anybody. Puerto Rico is not a colony. Now, in order to fully understand how people feel about the different status options, one has to understand that in the early 1950s there was a strong, and in the 1940s and 1930s, a strong nationalist movement, a movement that wanted independence for Puerto Rico, and that movement in history will speak to this more and more every day, was discredited, both by people here in Washington and people who lent themselves to that in Puerto Rico. It was suggested somehow that if one wanted independence for Puerto Rico, one wanted the worst for the island, one was not a good American, one was not a good Puerto Rican, and that was the way people were treated. So many of its leadership was jailed. Within a democracy, Puerto Rico being an arm of the United States, if you will, is supposed to behave in a democratic fashion, and yet to the folks who supported independence, they were, many of them were just discredited and many of them were jailed. In 1952, after the commonwealth issue came in, and by the way, the way commonwealth came in was the United States gave the people of Puerto Rico a choice: Commonwealth, yes or no. There has never been, and we should note this at this moment, there has never been a congressionally, federally sponsored vote on the island of Puerto Rico which has asked the people of Puerto Rico, do you support independence, do you support Statehood, or do you support remaining the way you are now, or making changes? There have been different kinds of votes to speak to that, but never the full question asked. So in the early 1950s, the question was, do you want to become a commonwealth, or do you want to remain the kind of territory you are now? Yes or no. So, of course, most of the people voted yes to better the conditions, because as my friend from Guam, Bob Underwood has said at times, there are bad colonies and there are slightly better off colonies, and people at that time opted to become I guess a better off colony, but still did not have the rights of an independent nation or a State. They were allowed to pick their own Constitution, write their own Constitution. But get this: Anything in the Constitution had to be approved by the Federal Government, and Puerto Rico cannot pass any laws that will not be accepted by Congress. If so, then they just cannot continue to be as laws in Puerto Rico. So for all of these 40 years, 50 years, Puerto Rico has been a commonwealth of the United States, and during that time, on many occasions, there have been attempts to solve the present status dilemma. On July 23, 1967, based on the recommendation of the Commission on the Status of Puerto Rico, a plebiscite, an election was held, to determine which status Puerto Ricans want among commonwealth, Statehood or independence. Little more than 66 percent of all registered voters participated. Now, for us in the States 66 percent is a large turnout, but Puerto Rico is a place where 85, 90 percent of the people vote, so when 66 percent turns out, it means there was kind of dissent on the issue on the ballot. The popular Democratic Party which defends commonwealth defended commonwealth in the campaign. A problem developed in the Republican Party which supported statehood with the old guard saying we will not participate and the younger guard saying we will, and then the Independence Party abstained from the election at all. So basically we had half of the Statehood Party saying we will not participate, all of the independence movement saying, it is not a fair plebiscite, and only the Commonwealth Party participating, and the results indicated just that: Commonwealth received 60 percent of the vote, statehood nearly 39, and independence less than 1 percent. The statehooders who participated in the plebiscite and went on and formed their own party, the new Progressive Party which got the governor reelected, and it was the first defeat for the Democratic Party in 28 years. By the way, just for clarification, the fact that they call themselves Popular Democrats has really nothing to do with the Democratic Party in this country, it is just a title. In 1970, President Nixon said it is time to do something, let us talk about statehood or independence for Puerto Rico, but nothing happened. Again, in 1971 the same thing. In 1977, and every year since then there has been a discussion as to what the future of Puerto Rico will be. Then, finally, this year, for the first time in a long time, and a bill was passed here by one of our colleagues, sponsored by one of our colleagues on the Republican side, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), which would allow the choice between the present commonwealth, statehood or independence. The bill was supported and is supported by those who support statehood; it is supported by those who support independence; it is not supported by the Commonwealth Party, because they feel that in no way does it really speak to what they wish to be. What the bill does is speak to what we are, to what Puerto Rico is, to what the relationship is, and therein lies the problem. The United States has spent, our country has spent a lot of time and a lot of energy basically suggesting to the world what democratic principles they should follow, and I think that there is not a single person listening or watching us that does not agree that we have a role to play in promoting democracy throughout the world. I think the big question we have to ask ourselves, and especially the younger people in this country who will be around for a long, long time have to ask is, is it right for this country on one hand to preach democracy throughout the world and on the other hand hold for 100 years tomorrow a colony, a territory in the Caribbean. For the Puerto Rican community, the pain goes deeper. Before these 100 years which will be culminated tomorrow, we spent 405 years with Spain. That is 505 years of a colonial status, the longest running colony in the world. Now, understand that our government, for the first time in passing the bill on the House floor, admitted in legislation, in writing that Puerto Rico, in fact, was a territory of the United States. For years we have been telling the U.N. that we were something else. No, Puerto Rico is a commonwealth that has a special understanding. Look, it is very simple. If you do not have the same rights other American citizens have, you can call it what you want, it is not a state, it is not an independent nation, it is a colony. Why should this be important to all Americans? Why should all Americans be concerned with this issue? Well, because we have invaded Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico did not invade us, so we have to eventually come to a conclusion on this subject. Secondly, one cannot have nearly 4 million, 3.8 American citizens living in Puerto Rico not enjoying the same rights that other Americans have. So I think the time has come, and perhaps that is what this observance will begin tomorrow. For this Congress, for this Senate, for the American people, for the American media to become aware of the issue and begin to discuss the possibility of finding a solution. For this Congressman, the solution is very simple. Either we take Puerto Rico in as the 51st State of the Union, or we grant them, work with them on attaining full independence. I believe, unlike some of my colleagues and unlike some people on the island or in the Puerto Rican communities in the United States, I believe that the Puerto Rican people on the island are fully equipped, talented enough, and intelligent enough to be the 51st State of the Union. I also believe that those folks are talented enough, educated enough, to be a successful independent Nation. What they should not continue to be is a people in limbo. And we should not continue to profess to be the safekeepers of democracy and democratic principles and allow that situation to exist. On many occasions on this House Floor I mix, to the dismay of some of my colleagues, I relate the issues of Cuba and Puerto Rico. People say what is the relationship? Well, the relationship is very simple. We spend a lot of time and energy demanding, quote-unquote, democratic changes in Cuba. How will those democratic changes satisfy us? If they become the kind of changes which allow for people to vote and deal with the issues. That is what we claim. Well, the same thing has to happen in Puerto Rico. And tomorrow as people observe, lament, or celebrate this relationship, I think it is important that we Americans take a step back and analyze what role, if any, we want to play in this issue. I do not think, in all honesty, that the American educational system on this issue has done the job it should do. I know for a fact that not enough time is taken, not enough energy is expended, not enough resources, if any, are spent on dealing with this issue in our school system. To educate young people to the fact that we have this situation. There are, of course, concerns. Most people in this Congress are concentrating on the issue of statehood and they will not move on the issue of Puerto Rico because they are dealing with the issue of statehood. Mr. Speaker, I said a few seconds ago that the issue could be independence. It does not have to be statehood. Either way, it has to be solved and the problem is that too many people spend too much time determining what kind of a state Puerto Rico would be. I have two things to say about that. One is if we do not want a state that looks and sounds and acts like Puerto Rico, independence is the solution. Just do that. But if we are now going to question Puerto Ricans to see what kind of good American citizens they would make, it might be 100 years too late. After all, not a single Puerto Rican was question on the issue of language when he was sent off to World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War. That was never a question. Now that has become a question. Do Puerto Ricans speak English? Should we have a state where the majority of the people do not speak English? I hate to tell my colleagues, but there are states in this country where a majority of people who do not speak English. They speak an English, but the English that they have been speaking for a while now has been badly put together. We could easily suggest that the time for the relationship has come to a point where it is time that we solve it simply by taking an up-or- down vote, independence or statehood, and not play with anything in between, and I mean that. This present status is neither here nor there, neither for us or for the people who live in Puerto Rico. It is an unfair status for us, because we should not have a colony in the Caribbean. And it is an unfair status for the people in Puerto Rico, because they should take their place in the world as a free Nation or take the place as a State of the Union. And so I am hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that as we continue to deliberate on this issue, and as the news media covers the fact that tomorrow there will be everything, as I said, from laments to celebration, from joy to sadness, from demonstrations to joyous exuberant demonstrations that we will see on TV and in the newspapers. We will see pictures and video of people celebrating their citizenship and people questioning what kind of citizenship they have. We will see people in Puerto Rico and in the New York community and other Puerto Rican communities throughout the Nation showing glee at the fact that we have reached 100 years with the U.S., and we will also see people lamenting the fact that we have spent these 100 years in this kind of a condition. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for all Americans to try to reach a point. So I would hope that all Americans begin to speak to their representatives and to tell them that we have to solve this situation. I would hope that within the next few years, Puerto Rico and the United States can reach an agreement. An agreement to either bring it in as the 51st state, or to grant it independence. Nothing else is acceptable. The present status is embarrassing to us. It is embarrassing to the Puerto Rican people. It is wrong. It is unfair. I can think back, and I will close with this, Mr. Speaker. I can think back to my father and to my mother. They came to New York from Puerto Rico. He, with 2 years of school, and my mother with 6 years of school. They came in 1950, and they brought up my brother and me, my brother Eli and me. They always told us to do everything that good families do. To work hard, obey the law, to study, and to be good citizens. But those two folks, as much lacking formal education as they were, were always very much aware of the fact that there was something wrong with the relationship and that they would always tell us that that relationship some day had to come to a conclusion. They are no longer with me. They were not here on March 28, 1990, 38 years exactly to the date when they came from Puerto Rico, when I was elected to Congress and got sworn in. And, in fact, I held my swearing in. I asked then Speaker Foley to swear me in a day after I was supposed to, so that I could pay tribute to their arrival in New York and their fight to create a community and create a family and to celebrate my accomplishment in their honor. They always told us that this had to be settled somehow. Tomorrow, as we commemorate the 100th year anniversary, I think it behooves the United States Congress to move ahead and create a better situation for itself and for Puerto Rico. To do anything else would be a shame. To do anything else would be an undemocratic act.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3605, the Dingell-Ganske Patients' Bill of Rights, and in equally strong opposition to H.R. 4250, the pale shadow of reform offered by the Republican leadership. The American people have called on us to rein in the managed care companies that are putting profits ahead of people, denying and delaying care and causing real harm. We have heard from patients with terrible stories of injury and death caused by the decisions of arrogant, unfeeling insurance company bureaucrats intent on their corporate bottom line. We have heard from doctors who have been forced to beg for permission to treat their patients according to their professional judgment. We have heard from nurses who daily see and deal with the results of denial and delay. We have even heard from former HMO employees about what they had to do--until they couldn't stomach it any more--to keep their jobs. While it is gratifying that Republican leaders have finally listened to the American people and scheduled floor debate on managed care reform, this is a holly exercise. Their useless bill, which is likely to pass, will be vetoed. We know that already. So this is not serious attempt to accomplish meaningful reform, it is an attempt to give Republican candidates cover on an issue that is critical to millions of Americans, to permit Republicans to claim they have done something about health care. In stark contrast, the Dingell-Ganske bill would provide meaningful, enforceable patient protections and quality health care. It would let doctors and patients make medical decisions and end financial incentives to limit medical care. It would guarantee access to specialists outside the HMO, to emergency services, to the full range of prescription drugs, and to clinical trials. It would end excessive use of cost-cutting devices such as outpatient mastectomies and drive- by deliveries. Most important, it would be enforceable. The Interreligious Health Care Working Group supports legislation that includes ``patient access to information; choice of providers and plans; access to emergency services; participation in treatment decisions; respect and nondiscrimination; confidentiality of health information; and complaint and appeal procedures'' as well as credible means of enforcing those rights. H.R. 3605 meets this standard. H.R. 4250 does not. The Consumer Federation of America supports legislation that includes ``holding managed care companies accountable; requiring an external grievance and appeals system; comprehensive information disclosure; quality assurance programs; and protection of the doctor-patient relationship in a manner that allows advocacy on behalf of patients and prohibits improper physician incentive plans.'' H.R. 3605 meets this standard. H.R. 4205 does not. Similarly, the American Federation of Teachers, Families USA, the Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs, Consumers Union, and others that have outlined principles for addressing problems in the managed care industry find H.R. 4250 sadly lacking in both protections and enforcement. They all support H.R. 3605. The American Medical Association--the AMA, Mr. Speaker--lists 10 reasons to vote against the Republican leadership's bill and for the Patients' Bill of Rights. I won't list them all, but I should mention a couple of key issues. AMA Reason No. 9 is ``H.R. 4250 would allow health insurance companies to decide what is medically necessary * * *'' AMA Reasion No. 7 is ``H.R. 4250 would require patients to pay for the privilege of an external review of treatment denial; H.R. 3605 imposes on such fees * * *'' AMA Reason No. 4 is ``H.R. 4250 would delay the effective date of patient protection for up to 2 years * * * H.R. 3605 would peovide for nearly immediate implementation * * *''. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, AMA Reason No. 1 is ``H.R. 4250 does not hold health plans properly accountable for making medical treatment decisions that result in patient injury or death.'' Of course, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership doesn't stop at offending the American people by offering only a hollow promise of reform, it throws in posion pills that have been considered and rejected before. Exempting Association Health Plans (AHAs) and Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements (MEWAs) from state law would deny millions of Americans coverage under many of the patient protection laws already enacted by 43 states. That includes my own state of New York, which has been a pioneer in establishing patient protections. Expanding the availability of medical savings accounts (MSAs) would give tax breaks to the healthy and wealthy while increasing costs of health insurance for the sicker and poorer. It is obvious that this is a political exercise. The Republican leadership's bill was introduced only last week and has not been examined in a single hearing or subjected to amendment by any committee. It hasn't been scored by the Congressional Budget Office. As the AMA writes, ``In fact, Members of Congress have not had time to fully understand critical differences in the two bills since last Friday's introduction of the House Republican bill''. Not surprisingly, then, the bill has been a work in progress, subjected to numerous changes--changes that sound like improvements but are largely cosmetic--in attempts to attract enough votes to pass the bill without actually accomplishing anything that would annoy the Republicans' friends in the insurance industry. I urge my colleagues to support meaningful, enforceable reform, not posturing. Support the Dingell-Ganske Patients' Bill of Rights and reject the Republican leadership's Managed Care Reform Lite.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Betances Cadets, an invaluable Bronx institution, which celebrated its First Graduation Ceremony on Saturday, July 18, 1998. Six months ago, under the leadership of ``General'' Carlos Quintana and his staff, the Betances Cadets was established. The program takes kids off the street and prepares them for real-life experience through a military-style program. It gives them the opportunity to apply academic lessons as they experience real-life situations, bring real- life lessons back to the classroom, become problem solvers, understand the need for responsibility, and develop leadership ability. Today, the program has 64 students and 9 staff members. Three cadets, Amanda Perez, Jose Barreto and Tanairis Noriega were recognized for academic achievement during the graduation. Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing the 16th district of New York where the Betances Cadets is located and I am delighted by its early success. I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the Betances Cadets, to the staff and parents, and to the students, whose ambition and hard work will make this great institution a tremendous source of pride and success for years to come.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Jack and Jill of America, Inc. for 60 years of service to the African-American community and the Nation. Jack and Jill America, Inc. will hold its Thirty-Third Biennial National Convention in New York City on July 19-26, 1998. The theme for this convention is ``Building Bridges to the New Millennium.'' Mr. Speaker, Jack and Jill of America, Inc. was founded in 1938 by Marion Stubbs Thomas, who understood the need to create a social club for African-American children who were precluded, under Jim Crow laws, from participating in the social and recreational activities available to children during those times. It all began when she invited 20 women to a meeting in her Philadelphia home. From the initial 20 families, today the organization has expanded into a national and international force with 40,000 mothers, fathers, and children in 220 chapters across the United States and in the Republic of Germany. With the expansion of the organization, the focus has broadened from simply addressing socialization to support for children's rights issues, education and community service. Each chapter annually undertakes to design and implement a meaningful project which will meet the needs of the community in which they reside. This support is given both through economic funding, as a result of fundraisers and through direct service projects such as tutoring, adopting foster homes and hospices and sending care packages to African nations. Mr. Speaker, Jack and Jill's National President, Sheryl Benning Thomas, strongly believes that it must continue to expand and she has worked with fervor during her tenure to open the door to new interest groups and to take on the challenge of raising the level of consciousness of the membership on issues of children's rights and needs for building awareness of the health needs among African- Americans. Jack and Jill's advocacy for children is being supported by Walt Disney World through the presence of Tom Flewelyn, Director of Minority Diversity, who will attend the convention on Thursday, July 25, 1998 accompanied by Mickey and Minnie Mouse dressed in Kente Cloth to acknowledge the legacy and pride of this African-American organization. The keynote speaker for Saturday night's banquet will be John H. Johnson, President and CEO of Johnson Publishing Co. of Chicago. The Distinguished Fathers award recipients are: John H. Johnson, Thomas Flewelyn and the late Reginald Lewis, founder and CEO of TLC Beatrice Company. The award is given for the first time ever to recognize the outstanding contribution and support of the fathers in Jack and Jill of America, Inc. This organization is truly about the vision, past, present and future of the African-American community. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to honor the families and friends of Jack and Jill of America, Inc. I ask my colleagues to join in celebrating this milestone and acknowledging this outstanding organization for 60 years of accomplishment and service for the African-American community and the Nation.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, once again it is an honor for me to recognize the Great Dominican Parade and Festival of the Bronx on its eighth year of celebrating Dominican culture in my South Bronx Congressional District. Under its Founder and President, Felipe Febles, the parade has grown in size and splendor. It now brings together an increasing number of participants from all five New York City boroughs and beyond. On Sunday, July 19, thousands of members and friends of the Dominican community will march from Mt. Eden and 172nd Street to East 161st Street and the Grand Concourse in honor of Juan Pablo Duarte, the father of the independence of the Dominican Republic. As one who has participated in the parade in the past, I can attest that the excitement it generates brings the entire City together. It is a celebration and an affirmation of life. It feels wonderful to enable so many people to have this experience--one that will change the lives of many of them. It is an honor for me to join once again the hundreds of joyful people who will march from Mt. Eden and 172nd Street to East 161st Street, and to savor the variety of their celebrations. There's no better way to see our Bronx community. The event will feature a wide variety of entertainment for all age groups. This year's festival includes the performance of Merengue and Salsa bands, crafts exhibitions, and food typical of the Dominican Republic. In addition to the parade, President Febles and many organizers have provided the community with nearly two weeks of activities to commemorate the contributions of the Dominican community, its culture and history. Mr. Speaker, it is with enthusiasm that I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to this wonderful celebration of Dominican culture, which has brought much pride to the Bronx community.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, on July 7, 1998 while the House was in recess, I had the privilege of receiving, in my district office, a group of thirteen students from Middle School 45 who won first place in the K-8th grade category in the National Chess Tournament held in Phoenix, Arizona from April 30 to May 2. I am submitting for the Record some remarks I made during their visit. It gives me great pleasure to be with such a wonderful group of gifted and talented South Bronx students from Middle School 45. Oscar Bedoya, Ariel Uriarte, Bianey Morillo, Rafael Ortiz, Eliexer De Jesus, Joel Nolasco, Juan De Jesus, Jorge Perez, Trung Nguyen, Sarun Sin, Trung Bui, Granit Gjonbalaj and Reasy Suon, under the leadership of coach Felix Lopez, you won first place in the K-8th grade category among 62 teams who participated in the National Chess Tournament held in Phoenix, Arizona from April 30 to May 2. You have demonstrated an outstanding skill, for which you have become role models in our community. We are proud of your accomplishments and I hope that you will continue succeeding in chess and also in academics. I also encourage you to take full advantage of the possible opportunity that some universities offer to chess champions to earn scholarships for their higher education. You are terrific examples for future chess players. I would like to applaud teachers Cesar Solis and Georgina Pierre for being with us today but, more important, for their tireless work in helping these students reach their potential. I also would like to commend the National Scholastic Chess Foundation for sponsoring the chess program at Middle School 45, which includes weekly chess classes for 500 students. Their teaching and support were invaluable for what you have achieved. I have the privilege of representing the 16th district of New York where Middle School 45 is located, and I am delighted by your chess team's success. All of us here congratulate Middle School 45, the administration and faculty, and you, the students whose ambition and hard work will make this great institution a tremendous source of price and success for years to come. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Middle School 45, to the administration and faculty, and to the students whose ambition and hard work will make this great institution a tremendous source of pride and success for years to come.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my support for the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill that we are voting on today on the House floor. With limited resources, this bill funds a diverse array of programs, everything from flood control projects to renewable energy technologies, in a truly bipartisan way. I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize the outstanding contributions of two statesmen, Chairman McDade and the Ranking Member Vic Fazio. Both of these Members have served this institution with distinction and have managed to once again carefully balance the diverse needs of our nation in a carefully crafted bill. Vic Fazio and Joe McDade have been my friends, as well as colleagues, and their sense of fairness and ability to listen will be missed. The people in the South Bronx are particularly grateful that funding was provided in this bill for the Corps of Engineers to initiate and complete a reconnaissance report for flood control, environmental restoration and other related purposes of the Bronx River. The restoration of the Bronx River is very important to the community that I represent, and this reconnaissance study will give the community the valuable information that it needs as it proceeds with its numerous efforts on behalf of the Bronx River. Secondly, the Bronx community is deeply appreciative of the funding that was provided for the Corps of Engineers to continue design and construction activities at Orchard Beach in New York. More than two million people, many low-income and minority, visit Orchard Beach every year. Unfortunately, the beach is suffering from severe erosion and the sand needs to be replenished. In their March 1992 report, the Corps of Engineers New York District referred to this project as ``environmentally acceptable with the potential to serve as a demonstration for tidal wetland restoration, provide direct environmental benefits and indirect educational value to the local population.'' In conclusion, I would like to reaffirm my strong support for this legislation and for the way in which it both carefully balances the needs of our nation and takes into account the very specific needs of the residents of the South Bronx. Also, I would like to again express my deep appreciation for the fine work and many contributions of Vic Fazio and Joe McDade. They will both be missed, and I wish them success in their future endeavors.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) as presented, in my opinion, is a good amendment. It certainly speaks about a very important issue, and one we should be dealing with in this House. He has very properly presented his arguments, and we certainly have no problems with it on this side. I would hope that the gentleman's side would accept the amendment today.

Mr. SERRANO. I thank the gentleman from New York, Mr. Chairman. In spite of the fact that I was not invited to lunch to discuss this amendment, I do think it is a great amendment. I think it speaks to a very important issue, certainly one that the gentleman from California has been working on very diligently. I support it wholeheartedly, and hope that we can accept it today.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4112. To repeat what I said at the full committee and before the committee, it has been a great personal pleasure for me to work on this bill with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), our chairman. The gentleman from New York is a friend of mine and I am a longtime fan of his. In fact, the sad part of this week's baseball game, congressional baseball game, was that since he and I retired for one year, no one wore that illustrious uniform of the New York Yankees at this game, something we will take care of when he gets back in shape and plays next year. The other: The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has been very kind to all the Members. He has been very fair, bipartisan. He is a very knowledgeable chairman, Mr. Chairman, and he is just the kind of person that I am glad to work with, and one of the main reasons why I support this bill the way I do was because whatever shortcomings the bill may have, I know that there are issues that he wanted to deal with and perhaps fell short in trying to make the perfect bill that he would have wanted. The other members of the subcommittee, too, have worked well together: the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) on our side, whose combined knowledge of the legislative branch is staggering, along with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), and the chairman and ranking Democrat of the full committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). Once again I will do what so many people have done, but I think it merits mentioning every so often, and that is the fact that this institution and all of us are going to miss the gentleman from California (Vic Fazio) very much. Other Members have talked about his many talents and qualities, his experience, his insight, his wisdom, his fairness. Let me add that no one has been more consistently devoted to this place or had more knowledge of its inner workings than the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio). His retirement will leave an enormous gap that we must struggle to fill. And of course we could not have this bill here before us today if it was not for the very able staff that we all have. Few can match Ed Lombard's experience and knowledge or Greg Dahlberg's skill and expertise. Tom Martin has provided valuable service to the subcommittee and each Member's own staff, and I would like to take this opportunity to commend my own staff member, Lucy Hand, for the work that she always does for the committee. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the other Members and I share a belief and commitment to the House as an institution. This is the People's House where we carry out the governmental roles of enacting the Nation's laws, overseeing and investigating Federal programs, and, yes, checking and balancing the executive and judicial branches. In these historic surroundings and in the presence of the public, people come to us to petition their government and to see how their laws are made. Tourists visit the inspiring Capitol building which is a symbol of our democracy as well as our own workplace. Mr. Chairman, the congressional complex has been compared to a small city. It has an infrastructure of buildings and roads, water and sewer, phones and cables. It offers amenities such as visitors' tours, health care and public safety. A huge number and variety of people work here or come to visit. We all want to ensure that the House operates efficiently to protect and enhance the Capitol and the other buildings and grounds and to protect the health, safety and security of all. We must in this bill provide resources sufficient to run an enterprise of this size and complexity. Mr. Chairman, this is on balance a good bill, given the constraints the committee is working under this year and for the last couple of years. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has explained the bill in detail, but I will add a couple of comments: First of all, the increase of 1.7 is really above last year, is really less than the expected rate of inflation and less than the likely 3.1 percent cost of living adjustment. I think that this merits the respect of the House because it is not easy to come up with this kind of a bill and still only increase it by the amount we have. This covers the operations of the House Member and committee offices, administrative offices and the legislative support activities of the Congressional Budget Office, Congressional Research Service and the Architect of the Capitol. The bill also includes dollars for the Library of Congress, the General Accounting Office and the Government Printing Office. And while the bill continues to reduce staffing levels, it provides buyout authority to the Architect and the GPO so they can manage staff reductions and restructuring. Buyouts are less expensive, less disruptive and less harmful to the affected workers than the alternative reductions in work force. I repeat that this is a good bill, and I will continue to speak for the bill, Mr. Chairman, during this debate. I hope that at the end of it, it will have bipartisan support and that the work that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and our committee has done will be appreciated by all Members. This covers the operations of House Member and Committee offices, administrative offices, and the legislative support activities of the Congressional Budget Office, Congressional Research Service, and the Architect of the Capitol. The bill also includes $691 for other agencies such as the Library of Congress, General Accounting Office, and Government Printing Office. While the bill continues to reduce staffing levels, it provides buyout authority to the Architect and the GPO so they can manage staff reductions and restructuring. Buyouts are less expensive, less disruptive, and less harmful to the affected workers than the alternative, reductions-in-force. Mr. Speaker, I repeat that this is a good bill. However, there are concerns on our side that must be expressed. First, however modest the increase in total spending over last year is--and I believe 1.7% is modest--it is still an increase. Other appropriations bills contain drastic cuts and even terminations in programs of great importance to the American people, especially the most vulnerable Americans. Second, the bill provides funding for only one quarter for the Joint Committee on Printing. This was at the request of the Chairmen of the House Oversight and Senate Rules Committees and assumes that Title 44 reform, including disposition of JCP's functions, will be completed by the end of 1998. However, there are not many legislative days left in this session and no legislation has been introduced, so completing reform seems unlikely. Third, spending in the 105th Congress out of the Speaker's ``reserve fund for unanticipated expenses of committees'' was included in the base used to calculate the fiscal year 1999 ``Committee Employees'' appropriation. We understand that whether there is a slush fund in the 106th Congress will be decided when the new Congress adopts its rules and its Committee Funding Resolution. And that is the way funds should be allocated among Committees--by a vote of the House. They should not be held in reserve to be distributed at the whim of one party's leadership through a Committee strongly weighted toward that party. I supported Mr. Hoyer's attempt to have an amendment made in order that would limit funds available for the disbursements from the reserve fund. Sadly, the amendment was not made in order under the rule, and the House is denied the opportunity to vote on how Committee funds should be allocated. I am also sorry that Rules did not waive points of order against Section 108, as it did for every other provision subject to a point of order. Section 108 was a Hoyer amendment adopted in Committee, based on a resolution by Mr. Blumenauer. The amendment would have required the Oversight Committee to institute a program through which employing offices, including Members, could offer transit subsidies to employees who do not have parking spaces or belong to car pools. It is past time for the House to join the Senate, the Architect's office, the executive branch, and much of the private sector. More than half the Members of the House, of the Appropriations Committee, even of the House Oversight Committee, are cosponsors of Mr. Blumenauer's bill, so I would have thought a clean vote on whether or not to strike the provision would have been fair, but as it is, the provision can be stricken on a point of order. Other problems facing the bill are not due to the bill itself but to the atmosphere in the House. There are numerous ongoing, duplicative, highly partisan investigations. The Democratic Leader recently released a report that found that more than $17 million in taxpayers' dollars has been spent to date on more than 50 investigations involving 15 of the 20 standing committees of the House. This is just too much. Congress is wasting time and money on witch hunts when the business the people expect us to do is undone. There is also a general disregard for the rights of the minority. While some of the more egregious offenses I mentioned last year--like denying Ranking Democrats the right to offer amendments to their bills--have subsided, there are constant irritations, such as the uneven division of suspensions between the parties. And overall, there is a general lack of civility and respect. Still, Mr. Speaker, Chairman Walsh has done a good job and this is a good bill. I will vote for it and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to reassure the gentleman, both the chairman and the ranking member and members of the committee want to do everything possible to make sure that we do take care of the Capitol Police. That is our intent. We obviously recognize that there are contractual obligations and proceedings that have to take place, but the gentleman can rest assured that it is our intent that they get the best and the fairest deal possible.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to offer my thanks both to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), ranking member, as well as the leadership of the committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) on the work that has been done on this bill. These days it is not easy to put a bill like this together with all of the cuts that we are facing in this Congress and throughout our government. So when, in fact, we set out to try to help the very people who need help, and we move on the road to accomplishing that, it is something that we have to be commended for. While it is a difficult bill to put together, I think the final result, with yet some minor changes, may, in fact, address the needs of so many people in this country. Most importantly, I would like to thank the leadership on both sides for accepting into the rule an amendment that I worked on for many months this year and which many people were working on which would deal with the issue of African American and minority farmers. This action was necessary because the Justice Department had determined that the statute of limitations prevents the USDA from providing compensatory damages to individuals who allege discrimination in USDA programs if those individuals did not file a complaint in Federal district court within 2 years of the alleged discrimination, even if they had filed a complaint in USDA's administrative process. In fact, a Civil Rights Action Team report, issued in February, 1997, concluded that USDA had not been effectively resolving civil rights complaints from 1993 to 1996. Since then, USDA has new civil rights leadership and, with the help of Congress, has rebuilt the civil rights investigatory and settlement infrastructure. USDA now has in place a process where each case is investigated, compensation claims are subjected to independent economic analysis, and officials from the office of civil rights and the office of the new associate general counsel for civil rights issue written findings of investigations and prepare and review settlements. But without addressing the issue that is addressed in this bill, USDA would not be able to effectively resolve discrimination complaints filed against it by a group of farmers who deserve our attention. So it is important to understand what we have accomplished here today. I think it is also most important to understand that it was done on a bipartisan fashion. We have for so many years wanted very much to move in the direction of being fair with everyone. These farmers had been treated unfairly, and, yet, there was no way to deal with this issue. So today I think we have accomplished a lot, and it is a great day. We have solved, and we are on the road to a very serious solution of this problem. I know that this issue will come up again in conference, but I wanted to thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), and the leadership of the committee for allowing this amendment to be part of the final product.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Bronx- Lebanon Hospital Center and the AIDS Research Community Advisory Board for their commitment to fighting AIDS and preventing the spreading of the deadly HIV. On Saturday, June 20, they will hold a prevention fair, Safety Jam, for adolescents and adults at the Claremont Neighborhood Center in the South Bronx. Safety Jam will feature informative educational presentations and workshops on issues related to health and HIV prevention. Fun, food, live multicultural entertainment, and free raffles will be provided throughout the day, helping to draw people to the fair. It is a privilege for me to represent the 16th district of New York, where the Bronx-Lebanon Hospital Center is located. I have witnessed first-hand the exemplary work they are doing for our community and I am deeply impressed. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring the physicians, nurses, caseworkers, administrators, clerical workers, and all of the other caregivers and support staff of the Bronx-Lebanon Hospital Center and the AIDS Research Community Advisory Board for their outstanding efforts at this important milestone, and in wishing them continued success.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Mechler Hall Senior Center for a decade of success working for senior citizens in the South Bronx. On Wednesday, June 24, the Mechler Hall Senior Center will celebrate as a Tenth Anniversary Party at the Holy Family Church on Watson Avenue, where the Center is located. The Mechler Hall Senior Center was established in 1988 as a non- profit, all-volunteer community-based organization to serve the needs of senior citizens in our community. During the past ten years, the dynamic Mechler Hall Senior Center has been instrumental in providing the services that senior citizens need. It serves meals to 115 people daily and organizes activities for about 150 people. Its wide range of programs and services to the community include: counseling, seminars, workshops, dancing lessons, trips, aerobics, nutritional programs, knitting, and drawing lessons, among other activities. It is a privilege for me to represent the 16th district of New York, where Mechler Hall Senior Center is located. I have witnessed first- hand the exemplary work they are doing for our community, and I am deeply impressed. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the Mechler Hall Senior Center for a decade of achievements in the Bronx and in wishing them continued success.