José Serrano

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great joy that I rise today to pay tribute to the National Puerto Rican Parade on its 41 years of history. The parade, which was held on June 14 in New York City, is the largest celebration of Puerto Rican culture in the United States. Throughout its history, the parade has grown into a national event under the leadership of its President, Ramon S. Velez. The event attracts thousands of Puerto Ricans from across the nation and from Puerto Rico, as well as many other individuals, their families and children, from all ethnic backgrounds. As a Puerto Rican, a New Yorker, and a Member of Congress, every year it is an honor to participate in this national event, in which thousands of individuals march along Fifth Avenue, in Manhattan, in celebration of our Puerto Rican heritage and our achievements in this nation. This year I had the honor to march with members of the ``Sociedad Cultural Mayaguezana, Inc.'' and other representatives from my birth town of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. Mayaguez was founded in 1760 by Spaniards. Its first inhabitants, before Christopher Columbus arrived in 1492, were Indians known as the ``Tainos'', which means good or noble. Today Mayaguez has a population of 200,000 people. The town, which lies in the southwestern part of Puerto Rico, is also known as ``Sultana del Oeste''. This year's parade honored the life of Luis Munoz Marin, the first Governor of Puerto Rico elected by the people in 1947. Munoz Marin is credited with implementing the new economic reforms which resulted in raising the standard of living on the island to one of the highest in Latin America and the Caribbean. The parade has served as a national landmark in which people from all ethnic groups unite to commemorate our nation's glorious immigrant history. Among many other accomplishments, Puerto Ricans have been instrumental in transforming New York City into a great bilingual city. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Luis Munoz Marin and the National Puerto Rican Parade, in its celebration of our Puerto Rican legacy, and the many contributions made by the sons and daughters of Puerto Rico to the greatness of this nation.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great joy that I rise today to pay tribute to the ``Sociedad Cultural Mayaguezana, Inc.'' a non-profit civic and cultural organization dedicated to uniting the people from my birth town of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico in the United States and Puerto Rico. This year I had the honor to march with members of the ``Sociedad Cultural Mayaguezana, Inc.'' and other representatives from Mayaguez during the National Puerto Rican Parade, which was celebrated on June 14, in New York City. The Parade, on its 41st year of history, is the most popular event held in commemoration of the contributions of the Puerto Rican community in the United States. The ``Sociedad Cultural Mayaguezana, Inc.'' was established in 1965 in New York City by a group of people who saw the need to educate our community about Mayaguez's historic legacy. Under the leadership of its president, Mr. Andres Irizarry Falto, the organization has been at the forefront developing educational programs on Mayaguez's folklore, history and traditions. Among its many activities, the ``Sociedad Cultural Mayaguezana, Inc.'' has kept alive the tradition of the ``Three Kings Day'' in our community. The organization collected gifts which were distributed to low-income children on January 6, the ``Three Kings Day.'' In addition, young girls from the community are encouraged to learn about the traditional ``danza'' and how to dance this classical music from Puerto Rico. The organization also offers educational seminars. Among their many guest speakers, a descendant from the Indian people of Mayaguez, the Chief or ``Cacique Cibanacan'' talked to the community about our Indian roots. Mayaguez was founded in 1760 by Spaniards. Its first inhabitants, before Christopher Columbus arrived in 1492, were Indians known as the ``Tainos'', which means good or noble. Today Mayaguez has a population of 200,000 people. The town, which lies in the southwestern part of Puerto Rico, is also known as ``Sultana del Oeste''. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the ``Sociedad Cultural Mayaguezana, Inc.'' for their tireless efforts in educating our community and in bringing together the people from my birth city, Mayaguez.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 78, the Religious Freedom Constitutional Amendment. I reject this measure because it is intended to destroy the delicate balance of church-state relations in America. The so-called Religious Freedom Amendment is fraudulently labeled and it would obliterate the Founders' vision, expressed in the First Amendment, of a tolerant nation where religion can flourish in the absence of excessive government entanglement. There are few passages in the Constitution more central to the premises of this country's establishment than the 10 words that open the First Amendment: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion * * *'' Americans already enjoy the liberty to worship freely and of not having to participate in religious activities in which they do not believe. And, they have the liberty not to have their taxes pay for religious instruction with which they might disagree. These are the freedoms that would fall if the Istook amendment were passed. Clearly, a proposal to offer schools and governments a role in determining how Americans worship is dangerous and unnecessary. Perhaps, we should more appropriately label this the Religious Freedom Stripping Amendment! The Istook amendment is dangerous, because it aims to create a new right to practice religion in public institutions and on government property. It would permit inherently coercive programs of group prayer in public schools and mandate use of public funds to support private religious schools and other religious programs. It would also allow government officials, including teachers and judges, to display religious symbols in classrooms, courtrooms or other public spaces and communicate their personal religious beliefs while on the job, say by reciting a prayer at the beginning of a public school class or legal proceeding. The religious right in this country and, specifically, the Christian Coalition argue passionately about the need for prayer in school as a way to unite the nation in the face of racism, yet nothing currently bars students from praying voluntarily in school so long as they do not interfere with classes or commandeer a captive audience of other students. Moreover, it is hard to think of anything more divisive than putting the Federal and state governments in a position to favor one religion over another, as the amendment would do by granting officials the right to display religious material and channel tax dollars to religious programs. The amendment rests on the false premise that neither the Constitution nor current law adequately protects religious expression or permits religiously affiliated groups to play a role in delivering secular services with public funds. However, recent court decisions have reaffirmed the equal right of private citizens to erect religious symbols in public areas and to have access to public facilities for religious activities. Religion has not been shut out of the public square but is an active voice in American culture. Students already enjoy many opportunities for religious expression within the school environment, including the opportunity to pray and read the Bible privately, say grace at lunch, distribute religious materials to their friends and join voluntary religious clubs. Two documents outline students' rights to religious expression: Religion in the Public Schools: A Joint Statement of Current Law and the U.S. Department of Education's guidelines on religious expression. Under current law, organizations that are religiously affiliated, but not pervasively sectarian, can and do receive government grants for secular social programs as long as they do not advance religion or discriminate on the basis of religion. In short, Mr. Speaker the Istook amendment is dangerous and unnecessary. I urge my colleagues to reject the needless Istook amendment and preserve real religious freedom.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, last evening, I was inadvertently delayed in my office and missed the vote on H. Con. Res. 285, a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the President should reconsider his decision to be received in Tiananmen Square when he visits the People's Republic of China. Had I been present, I would have voted against the resolution. I fully believe that if the United States is to exercise leadership in the world and, particularly, to influence other governments to adopt policies we support on issues such as human rights, we must be engaged with those governments. This includes exchanging visits, but a resolution urging the President to insult his hosts by refusing to be received where all national leaders are received comes pretty close to telling the President not to go to China at all. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I would go a step farther. China is not the only nation with which we should be engaged. I look forward to the day when our policies toward Cuba will make possible an American President's visit there, and, when that day comes, I will be happy to support a resolution calling on the President to be received in the Plaza of the Revolution in Havana.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Mr. Juan Vene, one of the most knowledgeable and experienced sports reporters and writers about baseball in the history of this sport. Mr. Vene was honored for his achievements and dedication to writing about baseball by the organization Latino Sports. The banquet dinner in his honor was held at the Grand Hyatt, in New York City, on October 30. Mr. Jose Rafael Machado Yanes, better known by his pen name of Juan Vene, was born in Caracas, Venezuela in 1929. His career as a reporter started in 1947, and since then he has dedicated every single day of his life to his profession as a director, editor, investigative reporter, columnist, sports writer, radio and TV commentator. The Spanish newspaper El Diario/La Prensa in New York City has honored him for each of the past 11 years as the most distinguished reporter who writes about the Yankees and the Mets. Mr. Vene holds the record as the only sports reporter in the United States and Latin America who has covered every World Series for the past 37 years. He was born with the passion for writing and reporting about the sport of baseball. Mr. Vene went to Cuba in 1948 to study journalism at the School of Marques Sterling, University of Havana, because during those years Venezuela did not have an institution of higher education that taught this field. He graduated from the university in Cuba in 1952. His interest in learning more about journalism motivated him to attend specialized seminars in the field. He also obtained a designation as a historian of baseball and has taught 73 courses on this field. Mr. Vene writes a daily syndicated column on baseball for numerous newspaper in the United States, Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, Mexico and Venezuela. He was a sports commentator for the Voice of America. He is also credited with being the first to launch a Spanish- language radio network to provide detailed coverage of the history of baseball, the training of baseball players, and all the games of the Major Leagues. The program aired in 11 countries. He has produced many TV shows on baseball including, ``Play Ball'', ``El Mundo en su Marcha'', ``Los Cuadros del Pueblo'', ``La Historia del Beisbol'', ``Magazine'', ``Juan Vene en Accion''. He also belongs to the team of producers and writers of Major League Baseball Productions. Mr. Vene is a member of the Baseball Writer's Association of America and the Society for American Baseball Research. He is married and has four children and one grandchild. At age 68, Mr. Vene talks about covering baseball with the same excitement and passion that he has demonstrated throughout his life. According to an interview conducted by Bob Shannon, which was published in ``New World'' in London, when he was asked what he would do next in his life, Mr. Vene responded that he will probably write an encyclopedia on the history of baseball in Latin America and Spain. When he was asked what sports he likes other than baseball, he responded: ``As Babe Ruth once said, `Is there any other sport?' ''. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mr. Jose Rafael Machado Yanes, writing as Juan Vene, for his great contributions to reporting and recording the history of our beloved national sport-- baseball.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Hugo H. Morales, an outstanding individual who has devoted his life to his family and to serving the community. Dr. Morales celebrated his 65th birthday in the company of his family and friends this past Saturday, May 16, 1998. Born on May 14, 1933, Dr. Morales received a Medical Doctor (MD) degree from the University of Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic in 1956. He also attended New York Policlinic Medical School and Hospital Post-Graduate course in Medicine from September 1961 to June 1963. Dr. Morales founded the Bronx Mental Health Center in 1965. It consists of 35 employees who provide innovative, comprehensive ambulatory mental health care services to low-income minority patients from the Bronx and other boroughs. Dr. Morales' effective management helps to assure that quality mental health care is provided. He evaluates and comments upon the efficiency of various means of rendering therapeutic services. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the commitment and the efforts of Dr. Morales and his staff in the assistance they provide to the low- and moderate- income families in our community. The business and professional organizations to which he has belonged, like the honors and awards he has been given are almost beyond counting. It is a privilege for me to represent the 16th district of New York, where the Bronx Mental Health Center is located. I have witnessed first-hand the exemplary work they are doing for our community and I am deeply impressed. Dr. Morales is married to Gladys and they have two children, Nilda who is married to Richard and Hugo who is married to Serani. They have three grandchildren, Natasha, Conrad and Clifford. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me and the family of Dr. Hugo Morales in wishing him a Happy 65th Birthday.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I have a privileged motion to adjourn at the desk.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, it is with joy that I rise to pay tribute to the National Youth Sports Program at Bronx Community College, which is dedicated to improving the lives of young people in the Bronx. Under the leadership of Dr. Joyne Bloom, Administrator, and Mr. Guy Hughes, Activity Director, over four hundred boys and girls annually have benefited from their participation in this program, which assists economically disadvantaged young people through summer educational and sports experiences on the College's campus. The curriculum consists of comprehensive team and individual lifetime sports instruction as well as aquatics, dance and martial arts. There is an academic component of the instruction in drug and alcohol abuse prevention, nutrition and personal health, career goals and opportunities, and job responsibilities. A healthy meal and snack are offered on a daily basis. Students learn the values of teamwork, sharing group cohesion, respect and citizenship. Awards are given for exemplary achievement. Boys and girls ages ten through sixteen learn to become contributing members of their communities. In 1994 this program received a proclamation from the Bronx Borough President's office and in 1994 and 1995 the Office of the Mayor of the City of New York also presented the program with a proclamation. And, today, Mr. Speaker, it is an honor and a privilege for me to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Dr. Joyce Bloom, Mr. Guy Hughes and the National Youth Sports Program at Bronx Community College.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mrs. Lora Lucks, an outstanding individual who has dedicated her life to public service and education. She will be honored tomorrow evening for her outstanding contributions to the community at the Ninth Annual Scholarship Dinner Dance that will be hosted by the Association of Jewish Professionals, Inc. in New York. Born and raised in Brooklyn and a graduate of Brooklyn College, Lora Lucks started her teaching career at Mark Twain Junior High School. Thirty one years ago she joined P.S. 48 in the Bronx where she started her supervisory career. For the past 22 years she has served as Principal at P.S. 48 and played a prominent role as a true educational leader. In addition, Mrs. Lucks has been the Project Director of the Hunts Point Cultural Arts Center for the past 14 years. This after-school program nurtures the artistic talents and fosters a sense of pride and accomplishments in students within the South Bronx Community. Having forged a strong alliance with businesses, organizations, and foundations, Lora has been able to bring much-needed resources to the school and the children of Hunts Point. Through her years of service she has been given several awards. In 1992 she was honored as the District 8 Supervisor of the year and in 1993 she was the recipient of the Reliance Award for Excellence in Education. Mrs. Lucks is married and has two sons, Stuart and Robert, one grandson, Arie, and a daughter-in-law, Charlotte. Her husband, Solomon is a retired New York City educator and supervisor. He served as the chairman of the Technology Department at Bayside High School for 27 years. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mrs. Lora Lucks for her outstanding achievements in education and her enduring commitment to the community.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 111, proposing an amendment to the Constitution to require a two-thirds supermajority vote in both House and Senate for any legislation that would raise revenues through changes to the Tax Code. A supermajority requirement is a profoundly bad idea. Majority rule is a fundamental principle of our American government. To allow a minority in one Chamber to block urgently needed legislation for any reason--ideological, partisan, whatever--would stand that principle on its head. Today, with no supermajority requirements, Congress can do a great many things with only a simple majority in each Chamber. Many of us consider these just as important as raising taxes. Yet no supermajority requirement is proposed for them: Congress can declare war, surely one of the most significant powers granted us by the Constitution--by majority vote. Congress can pass appropriations to protect and enhance the well- being of our people, through education, biomedical research, law enforcement, public health, housing, food safety, national security--by majority vote. Congress can pass bills that invest in America's physical infrastructure, our highways and airways, transit systems, ports, and parks--by majority vote. Congress can balance tax and spending provisions to deal with pressing budgetary and economic situations--by majority vote. Congress can create or close tax loopholes for wealthy special interests or pass a steep hike in the federal tobacco tax--by majority vote. Congress can permit or deny access to federally-funded abortions--by majority vote. Congress can impose the death penalty for more crimes, and for ever- younger criminals--by majority vote. Surely these policies are as important and deserve as much deference as raising taxes does. Mr. Speaker, why are we wasting a day on this loser? The same amendment failed to pass in 1996 and actually lost support in 1997. There's no reason to believe it will do better this year. This is an exercise in empty rhetoric, nothing more. There are other bills we could have taken up today that might actually accomplish something. But no, Republicans must prove their devotion to tax cuts above all other priorities by engaging in 3 hours of unproductive bombast and then failing to pass anything. I urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided legislation.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, it is with joy that I rise to pay tribute to Bronx Community College, which will hold its 20th Anniversary Hall of Fame 10K Run on Saturday, May 2, 1998. The Hall of Fame 10K Run was founded in 1978 by Bronx Community College's third President, Dr. Roscoe C. Brown. Its mission is to highlight the Hall of Fame for Great Americans, a national institution dedicated to those who have helped make America great. The tradition continues, first under the leadership of Acting President, Dr. Leo A. Corbie and now under Dr. Carolyn G. Williams, the first woman President of Bronx Community College. Both Dr. Corbie and Dr. Williams have endorsed and follow the commitment made by Dr. Brown to promote physical well-being as well as higher education. As one who has run the Hall of Fame 10K Run, 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 more than 400 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 run along the Grand Concourse, University Avenue and West 181 Street and to savor the variety of their celebrations. There's no better way to see our Bronx community. For its entire 19 years, Professor Henry A. Skinner has coordinated the Bronx Community College Hall of Fame 10K race, a healthy competition which brings together runners of all ages from the five boroughs of New York City. He is also the President of Unity and Strength, the organization of minority faculty, staff and administrators of Bronx Community College. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the individuals and participants who are making the Bronx Community College's 20th annual Hall of Fame 10K Run possible.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my outrage at the manner in which the Republican leadership has decided to bring campaign reform to the House floor and my opposition to the bills we are considering tonight. Mr. Speaker, despite the well-remembered handshake with the President in New Hampshire, despite promises last fall that the House would have a full, fair debate this spring on reforming the way political campaigns are financed, the process your side has contrived goes in the opposite direction. Procedures that were designed to speed passage of non-controversial legislation are being bent to prevent passage of any meaningful reform. Under the suspension procedures the Republicans have decided to use, each of the four bills being presented today will receive only twenty minutes of debate on each side. None can be amended unless by the bill's manager. To pass, each must gain two-thirds of the votes, not the usual majority, making passage virtually impossible. Moreover, even though there is visible bipartisan interest in campaign finance reform, and even though several bipartisan bills have been introduced, the content of the four bills comes entirely from the Republican side. Democrats were simply not part of the process. H.R. 3582, the so-called ``Campaign Reform and Election Integrity Act'', is far and away the worst bill of the bunch because it contains so many outrages. It is appropriate that the Republicans call this ``Campaign Reform'' instead of ``Campaign Finance Reform'', because it would vastly increase--double or even triple--the amounts of money that wealthy special interests could pour into political campaigns and political parties. At the same time, its Worker Gag Rule provisions would silence working men and women by making union political activity subject to an expensive and cumbersome approval process. And political activity is defined so broadly that it would even keep unions from educating their members about legislation that could directly affect their health, safety, pensions, or bargaining rights. It would continue the Republicans' recent string of immigrant-bashing measures in two ways: It would prohibit non-citizen legal residents from contributing to federal campaigns--which, since they cannot vote, is the only way they can exercise their First Amendment rights and participate in the political system. I'm not aware of any legal barrier to felons contributing to candidates, although a candidate might think twice about accepting such a contribution. But legal permanent residents, who work, pay taxes, serve in the military, and spend their lives under our laws, would be silenced by this bill. Moreover, the bill would establish a voter citizenship verification pilot program in the five states with the largest immigrant populations--a provision explicitly designed to harass and intimidate Hispanic and other ethnic voters by threatening would-be voters who look or sound ``foreign'' with investigation. It certainly can't be intended to actually verify anyone's citizenship, because the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the Social Security Administration (SSA) have said their records and databases are not complete or up-to-date enough to be used for that purpose. it can only be meant to intimidate and suppress minority voters. Mr. Speaker, these are only a couple of the flaws in this bill, but the bottom line is that the process is outrageous. Members of this House, and the people we represent, have the right to full and open debate and votes on the range of proposals for reforming the campaign finance system. This is not that debate and the major reform proposals are left entirely out. I intend to vote against all of these bills tonight and I will work to win the 218 signatures needed to free the discharge petition that would bring the various campaign finance reform proposals to the floor. I urge my colleagues to vote against these bills and to sign the discharge petition so we can finally engage in fair and open debate, with votes, on meaningful campaign finance reform.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ms. Genevieve S. Brooks, an outstanding individual who has dedicated her life to public service. She will be honored on March 20, 1998 by parents, family, friends, and professionals for her outstanding contributions to the community at the Eastwood Manor in the Bronx during a dinner hosted by the New York State Bronx Chapter of the National Women's Political Caucus in conjunction with other Bronx-based civic organizations. A housing and community specialist, Genevieve Brooks took office as Deputy Bronx Borough President on April 16, 1990, the first woman to hold the post. She performed numerous tasks and functions that included overseeing policy implementation for the Office of the Chief Executive of a county of 1.2 million people and was the top administrative officer of the Borough President's agency. As such, Ms. Brooks managed the day-to-day operation for an agency staff of 120 individuals and coordinated agency professionals and community-based organizations in planning for and improving housing and municipal service delivery. Prior to her appointment as Deputy Borough President, Ms. Brooks served as Executive Director and President of the Mid-Bronx Desperadoes (MBD). During her tenure, with the collaboration of a qualified staff, MBD expanded its network to include services provided in conjunction with other local organizations and medical centers. Among these were: affordable housing development, marketing and management, the Mid Bronx Community Development Federal Credit Union, Family Practice Health Center, Head Start day care, community crime prevention, comprehensive case management, job training and placement, and community organizing. Through her years of service, she worked for several governmental agencies. She served as a member of the Board of Directors of the Bronx Health and Human Services Development Corporation. She also helped develop a comprehensive work plan for land use in the Borough and served as both the liaison for the Borough President to the Bronx Overall Economic Development Corporation (BOEDC) and as a member of the Board. Ms. Brooks has been sought as a panelist both nationally and internationally on numerous topics within the scope of her expertise, which is in urban revitalization. Most recently, Ms. Brooks led the Borough's victorious All America City delegation in the Kansas City competition in June 1997. The business, professional, religious and civic organizations to which she has belonged, like the honors and awards she has received, are almost beyond counting. Genevieve retired last year after a fruitful career in public service. Ms. Brooks leaves us with many lessons learned in community service, leadership, and wisdom. A talented leader and advocate, Ms. Brooks will continue sharing her knowledge and views with her family and friends. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Ms. Genevieve S. Brooks for her outstanding achievements in housing and her enduring commitment to the community.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, a lot has been said here almost in disagreement but yet speaking about statutory citizenship and constitutional citizenship. Make no mistake about it, I have no doubt that my citizenship is different than the one my son who was born in the Bronx has. I do not have a doubt about that. I do not have to be a constitutional lawyer to know that I became a citizen on the island of Puerto Rico when I was born there, because it was a law in 1917 that said so. That law was passed by Congress. The Constitution is not amended by Congress. There is a whole process to change that. And so I am clear on the fact that my son's citizenship is one that is protected by the Constitution of the United States and if I am not mistaken, there are only a few ways in which he can lose that citizenship. One, for instance, he could be found guilty of treason, but it has to be some extreme circumstance by which he would lose that citizenship. But I have no doubt that this Congress can pass a law to take away from me my citizenship and the citizenship of the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo), the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), and the people who live on the island of Puerto Rico. Would they do it? Probably not. Would a court uphold it? Possibly not. Can they do it? Absolutely. One thing is clear, this Congress has the right on this kind of citizenship to pass a law here saying that beginning next Monday, every person born in Puerto Rico is no longer a citizen, an American citizen. The outcome of this plebiscite does affect people like myself who were born on the island. I understand the concern of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez). I would have wanted to include in this amendment all Puerto Ricans regardless of where they were born, but I am also a practical person who understands that it is better to accomplish this tremendous victory that the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) has accepted than to go with something I could not get and would not be able to gather any support. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, it is my intention to offer amendment number 2 that was printed in the Record at this time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Christian-Green), a person who well understands what the discussion is about.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Puerto Rico says we are not effected. The fact of life is my 40 years in this country have been affected by the relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States. Secondly, the gentleman understands that his citizenship and mine are statutory. This vote may change that relationship. My child's citizenship is constitutional. I have a stake as to what decision is made on the island because I may be affected in the future. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), my leader on this issue. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me close by saying that I do not function out of fear, in terms of putting fear on anyone else. I function out of fact. The fact of life is that we would not be here dealing with this very good bill unless we understood that there is a unique relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States. If everything was fine and dandy, we would not be here passing this bill. Mr. Chairman, I do not try to bring fear into people, but I know what this country is capable of doing. We are a great Nation, but at times we are governed in a behavior that may make changes. I do not want to run the risk of finding out what kind of citizenship I have. I think I already know. Is that good? Is that bad? How do I live with it? I dealt with it. I worked my way up the system and became a member of the U.S. Congress. Sometimes I try to do a pretty good job at it. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to note that this amendment today speaks to the fact that so many of us who left the island did so as a result of a relationship between the U.S. and Puerto Rico, a relationship that started off with a military invasion and which, at this date, has not ended with anything which brings either independence or statehood. Puerto Rico remains in limbo, and, as Puerto Rico remains in limbo and we try to solve that situation by bringing forth this bill, then I continue to put before you that this vote belongs to all of the children of that colony, all of the children of that territory. Yes, I am affected by the results of that vote. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that everyone takes the lead of the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), and accepts this amendment without a vote. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, if I may, I would like to clarify this unique rule, where we debated my amendment before I officially presented it. Is that correct?

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate the fact that when the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) accepted my amendment, and as we heard, he spoke in favor of that amendment, he did it with the full understanding that what he was accepting was an amendment that he could not only explain but that both of us could actually argue in favor of, without anyone being able to raise any questions about it. Both the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and I have had concerns way before this about who constituted and what constituted the body of Puerto Ricans that should vote. I repeat once more, I personally would have wanted to include everyone that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) would like to include. But the fact of life is that that amendment, bringing it to that point, would have had very little support not only in committee, in negotiations, but on the House floor. I feel that my amendment accomplishes 95 percent of the mission that we set out years ago to accomplish, which was to enlarge the vote and bring in more Puerto Ricans into this decision-making process. I understand clearly my colleague, my brother, the gentleman from Chicago, my fellow Puerto Rican brother from Chicago's desire to include more people. I had to explain to my son why my amendment did not include him. But I feel confident that I can explain it, as I have here today, and I feel confident that if we move forward with the amendment as is, that we will in fact allow for a large body of people who would be affected directly to participate. What we need to do here today is to do whatever we have to do, but not put into jeopardy the underlying amendment which is accepted by Chairman Young. In other words, in proposing any other amendment to my amendment, please keep in mind that we could throw out everything that we have gained up to this moment. So I respect the amendment before us now, but I would hope that in no way this amendment takes away the importance of the underlying amendment, and I would hope that the gentleman from Chicago would actually consider retiring his amendment in favor of the one we have worked on for so long.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I present today, amendment number 2, would provide for American citizens born in Puerto Rico, who reside outside the island, to participate in this vote. Let me, as I begin, Mr. Chairman, note that this amendment has been agreed to by the chairman of the committee and chief sponsor of the bill, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and he will speak to this issue in a few minutes. The gentleman from Alaska supports our amendment because he feels that it is a fair amendment that speaks to a legitimate issue. Mr. Chairman, those of us born on the island of Puerto Rico, and indeed all Puerto Ricans, feel very much a part of the island of Puerto Rico regardless of where we are living. Regardless of where we find ourselves, we very much feel a part of the island and, therefore, we feel very much that any vote taken in Puerto Rico on the political status of the island should include us. Let me be clear that this bill does not say, nor do I believe, that I should be involved in electing the Governor of Puerto Rico or the mayor of my hometown of Mayaguez or anything like that. This bill comes about because many of us understand the fact that the relationship between the U.S. and Puerto Rico created certain situations throughout our history which made a lot of us, either through our parents or as adults, leave the island. We left the island physically but we never did leave the island in many other aspects. In addition, so many of us travel back and forth to the island that the union between the two places or the two communities has remained one. My original amendment, Mr. Chairman, included not only those born on the island, but included the children of at least one parent born on the island who were born anywhere outside the island. That amendment, in all honesty, had about six votes. And since I can count a little better than that, I began to deal with that issue. It was based on the fact that we removed that part from the amendment that the gentleman from Alaska, the author of the bill, agreed to the amendment. This then allows thousands of Puerto Ricans who live throughout the 50 States to vote in the plebiscite. Now, in addition, Mr. Chairman, there is precedence throughout the world, in different votes that have been taken, for this kind of involvement. This is not a new idea. What I do want my colleagues to understand is that if we face this vote, and I know this is going to sound funny, thinking in terms of States, the idea of one person living in one State voting in another State, we would never agree to this. But this is not about voting in another State, this is about the future of a territory, of a colony. And when that future is decided forever, and statehood is forever, and independence is forever, and an associated republic is forever, and those three could be the options that come in at the end, then all of the children of the territory, all of the children of the colony, should be allowed to vote. I want to close with this. I want to thank the chairman of this committee not only for the bill but for consenting to my amendment, and I would implore Members on both sides to take his lead in accepting an amendment that has been around 8 years. I may be the only Member of the House who had an amendment before there was a bill, and now there is a bill to attach the amendment to. This is a good amendment, it maximizes the number of people who will participate and, in my opinion, makes this plebiscite truly an American plebiscite because it includes more than just the people who live on the island. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I offer Amendment No. 2.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I would just clarify what my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), said. This is a different kind of vote. I would not propose on this floor to vote for Governor of Puerto Rico or mayor of Mayaguez, my hometown. This is a special and unique vote. In addition, the gentleman may be surprised to know there were constituents of yours who did set perhaps a precedent you do not want by voting in Polish elections. There is a bill in the Dominican Republic to allow Americans of Dominican descent to vote in those elections; Colombians; Peruvians. This is happening in other places. I am not proposing that. I am proposing a one-time vote on this very unique situation about a status question. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood), who understands what I am going through here today.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, let me first say that I rise in strong opposition to the Solomon amendment and in favor, strong support, of the substitute language. Let me say that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) is very courageous in taking this stance. He supports English only, but he knows it does not belong in this bill. That is what this issue is all about. Why not be fair? Why single Puerto Rico out? If it decides to become a State and if we allow it to become a State, it shall be governed by the law of the land. Everyone knows that. But why single it out now? Why try to make a statement that is unfair and a statement that is not necessary? The issue on the whole is one that is not necessary. Everyone knows that everyone learns to speak English both in Puerto Rico and here. As an Hispanic American, a Latino and Puerto Rican, I can tell you, we do not go around spending time figuring out how not to learn English. Do I not sound like a person who tries every day to improve on the language? I am going to get it right one of these days. This is a bad amendment, and it should not be here. Let me close with this: When Latinos or Hispanics sit around the dinner table and the issue of language comes up, it is never a plot against the English language. It is usually a lament about the fact that the children and the grandchildren no longer speak Spanish. So with that recognition, what is the fear? Let us go forward. Let us allow this bill to take place. Let us make this vote possible. Let us not muddy the waters any more. Let the people of Puerto Rico, the Puerto Rican people, have a vote on this issue. Let us not single them out for anything that you do not single other States out for.