José Serrano

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and in strong support of the bill which we are dealing with today. This is indeed a historic moment because, make no mistake about it, this is the first time that a rule has come on this floor accompanying a bill of this nature that will, in my opinion, begin a process to end what I and many other people consider, and all should consider, the present colonial status of Puerto Rico. In order to do this, we have to put forth a process. This rule puts forth a process for the debate, and the bill puts forth the process for ending the colonial status. We have to immediately attack that which is being said either with a lack of information or viciously to defeat the bill, which is that this bill leads Puerto Rico towards statehood. How can it do that if this Congress is not committing itself at this point to any of the three options? What this Congress is saying is, we will allow you in consultation with us to take a vote, and then the results of that vote will become our consideration here on the House floor. Some may be afraid that the vote would come out against the option they favor. That is democracy. Some may be afraid that the option somebody favors will never be dealt with. We can only find out. But I assure my colleagues that nothing will happen unless we approve this rule and approve this bill. In fact, I often tell people, I have a 31-year-old daughter and a 4-year-old granddaughter. I suspect that if this bill fails today, my grandchildren, as adults, will still be discussing the colonial status of Puerto Rico. As we get close to the year 2000, and once in a while we listen to the U.N., the U.N. has suggested that all countries unload their territories and colonies before 2000. The greatest democracy on Earth still holds close to 4 million people in that kind of a situation. I do not care if statehood wins. I do not care if independence wins. I do care every day when I get up and I realize that the children of Puerto Rico are all members of a colony. It is good for the U.S. Government to change this. It is good for the Puerto Rican people to change it. So I congratulate the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for bringing this bill, and I congratulate my colleague the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) for this rule. I will not agree with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) on everything today, and I will not agree on many things during the session with the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), but we agree on this beyond anything else, and that is why I was proud to add my name as a co-prime sponsor early on. I do not move back from that commitment. I support the Young bill with every bit of strength in this body, because after 100 years with the U.S. and 405 years with Spain, it is time that Puerto Rico knew whether it can join the community of nations as an independent Nation or gain sovereignty by joining the Union. Either one is correct. The present is not. I support the rule. Vote for it. And I will support the bill strongly today. I am sure that if I am given time, you will hear from me a few times during the day today.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Dominican Heritage Celebration Committee of Hostos Community College in my South Bronx Congressional District on its celebration of the independence of the Dominican Republic during the week of February 27-March 5, 1998. On Friday, thousands of members and friends of the Dominican community gathered at the Hostos Center for the Arts & Culture Small Theater to open Dominican Heritage Celebration Week. The week-long celebration will feature a wide variety of entertainment for all age groups. A series of concerts, art exhibits, lectures and cultural performances will take place to commemorate the contributions of Dominicans to our community and our nation. Now numbering more than 600,000, Dominicans are the fastest growing Hispanic immigrant community in New York City. With the election of the first Dominican to the City Council, the Honorable Guillermo Linares, and that of New York State Assemblyman, the Honorable Adriano Espaillat, we are witnessing a new generation of Politicians with Dominican roots. That is an encouraging advance. Although the celebration is in the Bronx, the events bring people from all over New York City to celebrate. Organizations have encouraged different cultural and social organizations to take part in the festivities. The week-long celebration will have numerous activities for the community to enjoy. Folkloric bands will entertain the crowds and there will also be foods and crafts typical to the Dominican Republic. 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, next week the House will take up H.R. 856, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, better known in Puerto Rico and throughout the states as the Young bill. I think from the outset we should thank Mr. Young for the fact that the representative from Alaska has put forth a bill which, for the first time, provides for a congressionally sponsored plebescite in Puerto Rico, asking the crucial questions, and the questions which are fair, not only to the people of Puerto Rico, but to all of the people in the United States that have been engaged in this relationship for all of these years. For, you see, from November 19, 1493, to July of 1898, Puerto Rico was part of Spain. It was not an integral part of Spain; it belonged to Spain, it was a Spanish possession. It was not an independent Nation. From July of 1898 to the present Puerto Rico, after the Spanish- American war, became again a possession of the United States. Now, under the current arrangement, Puerto Rico is known as a Commonwealth of the United States. Now, what does that mean? Well, to people like myself who have studied these kinds of things for a while it means that Puerto Rico is, at best, a territory, but in reality a colony of the United States. It is very simple to analyze that. Does Puerto Rico have the right to establish its own relationship with other countries, its trading agreements, its political relationships? The answer is no. Does Puerto Rico share the same rights that the 50 States in the Union and their citizens share? The answer is no. Puerto Ricans on the island, since 1917, have been American citizens, yet their citizenship is different than the citizenship of people who live within the 50 states. If anyone in the House, anyone watching us on TV, was to move to Puerto Rico tomorrow, they would keep their American citizenship. They would be protected by the American Constitution. But by having legal residence in Puerto Rico, they could no longer vote for president. They could send one resident commissioner to the House, not a Congressman, not six Congressman, but one resident commissioner, who in turn is not allowed to vote on the House floor. So if you picture that, the fact that your citizenship which is in effect here, by simply moving to the island, your citizenship becomes a second or third rate citizenship, it can only lead you to the conclusion that this relationship is something other than what a statehood relationship provides, or an independent nation's relationship provides, or that of an associated republic with the U.S. Now, the Young bill proposes to deal with this head on. It says that sometime before the end of 1998 Puerto Rico will hold a plebiscite, with the options of separate sovereignty, independence, free association, of statehood, integration into the Union, or remaining a commonwealth. Those will be the three options. The bill further says, and this is where I really think the bill is very strong, it says that whatever the people of Puerto Rico choose for themselves we will take up within 180 days. The President shall present to the Congress a bill which will take in the wishes that came out of that vote. There are many people who feel that this bill therefore commits the Congress, and therefore all of the American citizens, to give the people of Puerto Rico what they wish. I wish that was the case. But I think the strength of the bill is that it commits to dealing with the results. Some may consider that a weakness, but it is the first time that the U.S. has said to Puerto Rico, give us your wishes and we will deal with them. The statehood option is very well understood. It becomes the 51st State. Some genius will have to figure out how to put 51 stars on the flag, and I am sure people have done that already. People will pay Federal taxes, they would send six Members to Congress, two U.S. Senators, and they would enjoy the full right of every other American. Independence is very clear. The United States would grant independence to Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico, I am sure, would become and continue to be a very close ally of the United States, and provision would be made for those individuals who were American citizens up to the date of independence, those who served in wars and are receiving benefits from war, people who have Federal pensions, all that would be taken into consideration. Under separate sovereignty there is also the possibility of discussing an associated republic status, which is somewhat like independence with some very close ties, actual structural ties to the U.S. Then there is the commonwealth status. Therein lies a lot of the opposition, if not most of the opposition, to the bill. In 1952, Congress set up something called, and I firsthand apologize to the stenographer, I will use Spanish every so often, and we will work on that later for the proper way to write down those words, it set up something called estado libre asociado, state, free and associated. But it was not any of the three. In 1952, it was presented to the people of Puerto Rico. The choice was, become a commonwealth or stay the same way. Well, commonwealth clearly at that point, in the history of Puerto Rico, was something better than what they had had, so commonwealth was accepted. But there were no other options presented at that time, such as independence or statehood. Now, in 1993, the Puerto Rican people, on their own, held a plebiscite, ``on their own,'' meaning that it was not sponsored by the U.S., with no commitment for the results to be dealt with. In that referendum statehood and independence were options, and then commonwealth, as it is envisioned by many people as a future alternative to the present commonwealth status. We have to be clear on that, because a lot of what will be said here next week is that we are being unfair to the commonwealth status by not including it. What the Young bill has done, it has for the first time in the history of this Congress said, this is what commonwealth is. That has upset a lot of people, because they were living under the impression that commonwealth was something else. In 1993 they proposed, in the referendum in Puerto Rico, what they envisioned commonwealth to be, and that won the plebiscite 48 percent to 46 percent for statehood. In all honesty, I am surprised it did not get 85 percent. What it was was a wish list of what folks wanted the commonwealth to be, so there is obviously a concern that whatever they wished for they could never get from Congress. So what this bill does is it outlines, it breaks down for the first time, it admits for the first time, that commonwealth is a unique relationship which does not either have the strength or the attributes of statehood, or the independence of being a free republic. Folks who support the commonwealth status will tell us next week that this is unfair. My suggestion has always been, why do you not then ask to bring commonwealth to the next step, which is an associated republic, free association with the U.S., and call it that. But there is a problem. There are some people who do not want to use the word ``republic'' in Puerto Rico because that would mean breaking off from the U.S., and therein lies a lot of problems. This has been going on for a long time. As I said before, in July of 1898 the U.S. comes into Puerto Rico. From 1898 to 1917 nothing is said about who we are, who they are or who we are as a people. In 1917 a vote is taken here saying that everyone who resides and in the future will be born in Puerto Rico is a U.S. citizen, but again I repeat, with all of those provisions that made that citizenship in some cases unique, but in my opinion less than what a citizenship should be. Now for the first time we have the opportunity to make a decision. This bill is supported by the statehood party in Puerto Rico, and supporters of statehood. What is interesting about it is that it is also supported by the independence movement in Puerto Rico. If Members know anything about Puerto Rico politics, if they know anything about world behavior in politics, they know that the people who want to integrate into the other nation are usually poles apart from the people who want to separate from the other nation. Yet, they agree on this bill. Why do they agree on this bill? Well, in all honesty, I think the independence leaders are extremely courageous and are probably the heroes of this whole debate, because even though, whenever there is a vote in Puerto Rico, they have not gone past 6, 7, 8 percent of the vote, they are willing to roll some dice, so to speak. They are willing to find out, if statehood wins, if this Congress is willing to give statehood to Puerto Rico. If it does not, then they feel they hold the upper hand, because they can go back to the island and say, you see, they are our friends, we have been together 100 years, but they really do not want us, so we must begin the process to separate; separate in a friendly way, but separate nevertheless. Why is next week's vote important? Why should it be important to people who are not Puerto Rican? Why should it be important to Americans throughout this country? Is it in our best interests as Americans to continue to tell the world that democracy is the ultimate goal, that there have to be free elections everywhere, and continue to hold a colony in the Caribbean for 100 years? Is it in the best interests of the United States to go into the Caribbean and demand that some island nations hold ``free elections'' while next door we do not allow an election to take place? How do we explain to some of the children in our country who, when faced in school with the issue of studying different parts of the world, have to ask questions as to what is Puerto Rico? I have found out in my years of working in the school system of New York that one of the toughest questions for teachers to deal with was to explain to them the relationship between Puerto Rico and the U.S., because if we were not citizens, then it would be simple. They are just people over there that we have control over, period. But it is different when we are talking about citizens. I told the Members what happened before, if we move from here to Puerto Rico. Well, it works in reverse. If the gentleman who represents Puerto Rico here, Mr. Barcelo, and who does not vote because he is not allowed to vote under our law, if he moves to any State of the Union, establishes residence within that State, he not only can vote for President and Congress, he can run for President and he can run for the Congress, and he can be elected to Congress. I was born in Puerto Rico. Why is he different than I am in terms of my congressional powers, if you will? Because I represent New York, where I grew up, and he represents Puerto Rico. Yet, we are American citizens. We went to serve in the military in the same way. Therein lies also part of what this debate is all about. Since citizenship came to Puerto Rico, over 300,000 Puerto Ricans have been called at wartime. In World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, and all of the other conflicts we have been involved in Puerto Ricans served, not only Puerto Ricans from the 50 States but Puerto Ricans from Puerto Rico. Now, picture this. You serve in the military, you go back, and for the next war you do not have a choice as to who your Commander in Chief will be because you cannot vote for him or her, but you also cannot stay out of the war as an independent nation, because you are told to be part of it. This is a question, more than anything else, of fairness. Part of what we are trying to do here next week is to suggest to ourselves that we in Congress every so often in this country deal with issues in neat, round numbers. Is 100 years not kind of a neat number to deal with? Actually, I think it is a tragic number to keep a whole nation of people in a status other than a fair status. But if we want to deal with neat numbers, then July, 100 years to the date when the United States entered Puerto Rico. By then this Congress and the other body should have spoken out on the issue of letting the people vote. Let me tell the Members how fair this bill is, and how it has set itself up so that there could be no controversy about the results. As I said before, a vote would be taken before the end of this year. That vote, the results would come back to the White House. The President would present to us in 6 months a bill to deal with the results. We would take a vote here. If they choose statehood or independence, we can reject it. If we approve what they request, then it goes back to the people of Puerto Rico for a yes or no vote. They can reject it. When we look at that, we also make an argument against those people who support commonwealth who claim that this bill excludes them. Let me remind the Members again, the reason many of them feel that exclusion is because it does not allow to put in the bill what they wish commonwealth to be. But it does not exclude the commonwealth status because, let us take it step-by-step, if the commonwealth status gets the majority, a majority of the votes, commonwealth wins. If none of the three options gets a majority of the votes, commonwealth stays. If statehood or independence wins and Congress rejects it, commonwealth stays. If independence or statehood wins, Congress accepts it, then it goes back to Puerto Rico, and if Puerto Rico rejects it the commonwealth stays. So commonwealth gets 5 shots at staying, while statehood and independence get one shot each at reaching that goal. Now, the problem is not with being fair to commonwealth, the problem is that commonwealth is unfair in itself. We cannot have, and I cannot overemphasize this, and I will until next Wednesday say it as many times as I can, we cannot have differing kinds of citizenship. We cannot have a citizenship that allows you all the rights under the Constitution and have another citizenship that does not allow you rights under the Constitution. We cannot. We cannot explain why my cousins in Puerto Rico, who chose, for whatever reason, not to migrate to New York or to the other 50 States, do not have the same protection under the Constitution that I have. It makes no sense that you would lose yours if you went to Puerto Rico and set up your life down there. So the big question, and I would hope--I am surprised, in all honesty, that the national media has not picked up on this issue yet. One could say it is because we have had other things taking attention away from us, but this is an issue that certainly belongs to the people in this country as much as it belongs to the people in Puerto Rico. A lot of Members have said to me, you know, ``That is a Puerto Rican issue.'' No, it is not just a Puerto Rican issue; it is a United States issue. It was not Puerto Rico that invaded the United States. It was the United States that invaded Puerto Rico. Therefore, it is our issue. It is not Puerto Rico's constitution that prevails over the U.S.; it is the opposite. It is not Puerto Rico's laws that prevail over the U.S., it is the opposite. The gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo), when he is here, he can be here as an observer. He can watch us pass laws that affect his constituents on a daily basis and he does not have anything to say about it. We do not always get our way here. When we are in the minority party, as my party is, we do not get our way most of the time, but at least we have the ability to negotiate, to move here and there, to speak out and every so often we get our way. That is what is beautiful about a democracy. But the whole fallacy, and I am not suggesting that the gentleman be removed but, the whole fallacy of having a person elected in Puerto Rico in a campaign to represent the island here and then saying, ``Just sit there and we will ask for your opinion, but you do not have a vote,'' that cannot continue to be. I think the question we have to ask ourselves by next Wednesday, and thereafter, is where do we want to go as a Nation in terms of this issue? What is it that we want to tell the world? Is it the statement that for 81 years we have had citizenship that is not worthy of the rest of the Nation of our Constitution? Is it to say that for 100 years, 100 years Puerto Rico has been a territorial colony of the U.S. and that does not trouble us? Now, I do not expect Americans, other than those who have a close relationship to Puerto Rico, as I said I do, to feel any great pain about the fact that before these 100 years we had 405 years with Spain. But I think if we look at the whole picture, we would say we add 100 years to the longest running colony in the history of mankind. We should try to do something about it. Now, there are people who are saying, wait a minute. We cannot pass this bill because somehow they will become a State and then we are going to have a State where people speak Spanish and people look different and people sound different. Well, first of all, we Americans on a daily basis are looking very different from each and other we are sounding very different from each other. In fact, the English we speak sounds different from each other in different places. But there is nothing to fear, because if for 100 years it worked somewhat, then certainly in the future it will work. If my colleagues come to me and give me arguments against statehood saying that statehood is not good for this reason or another, I ask that they please give me arguments that do not undo the relationship. Give me arguments that do not insult people by the way they speak or what language they speak. Give me arguments that do not undo of the things that happened in the past. Because when people were drafted from Puerto Rico to go to different wars or when they were allowed to join, I assure my colleagues, and I checked with my father, he was never asked what kind of English he spoke. They were never asked this question, and so many dying, never speaking a word of English in defense of this country. But that is another issue. Someone will bring to the House floor an amendment on this bill. It is an amendment that could create a major problem for this bill, and it is a friend of mine, a colleague of mine. So I hope to change his mind over the next few days. The amendment that this gentleman wants to present says that Puerto Rico shall have English as an official language if it becomes a State. There are a couple of problems with that. First of all, we are not dealing with a bill next week that says Puerto Rico will become a State. It just says they shall have a vote. And, secondly, we do not have an official language law in the country, so why would we single out a prospective State and say they shall be the only one to have it? It does not work that way. Now, we are who we are as a Nation. We are Hawaiians, we are Eskimos, we are Mexican-Americans, we are Puerto Ricans, we are a lot of people who make up this Nation. At no moment does our integration into this Nation cause a problem. Now that is one side of the coin. As far as independence goes, there are some people who may say we do not want to give independence to Puerto Rico because then it will be a problem and they will become a problem. What kind of a problem? If we have any faith in Puerto Ricans as a nation, if we have any faith in our involvement with them over 100 years, then we will know that that is okay, that they will be a very productive and free society taking their place in the world. What they cannot be, and what we cannot suggest that they become, is more of the same. What they cannot be is this lie, this lie called ``commonwealth,'' this lie called ``estado libra y associado,'' State, free and associated. They cannot be all three. So we have to move to solve this problem. Now I will be introducing an amendment to the bill, just one, to allow those of us who were born on the island and who reside outside the island to vote this one time on this plebiscite. The first thing I have to say is, and I know this sounds terrible, if my colleagues are going to look at my amendment, do not look at it with everything they have learned in this country about voting, because the first thing they will say is wait a minute. A guy who lives in California cannot vote in Boston. That is not right. He has got to vote in one place. But, Mr. Speaker, this is a different vote. This vote is not about a State, because Puerto Rico is not a State. This vote is about a people who were invaded in 1898 and who, even though they have become as Americanized as anyone can become, remain to a very large degree a Nation of people. That they can be integrated into the union. Hawaii was. That they can remain a separate Nation. That can happen. But they are a distinct people. We feel, so many of us who live outside the island, that the reason so many of us migrated from the island was due to economic conditions caused by that very same relationship. And so when a vote comes to determine once and forever the relationship and the status question, then in our opinion, all the children of that territory, all the children of the colony should be allowed to vote. I have to say that it is painful to me, and I know of all the things I mention around this bill, one that I get criticized the most for, is that it is painful to me to know that because the plebiscite would be conducted under American law, people who recently arrived in Puerto Rico and became American citizens, which is a contract with the Federal Government, not with the Island of Puerto Rico, would be allowed to vote in that plebiscite on the political future of Puerto Rico. People who came from other countries. While those of us who were born there and reside outside would not be allowed to vote. If we look at it, again, in terms of what American law says, of course my colleagues will never agree to my amendment. But if they look at it, as so many times we do in this House, some from here and some from here, you will realize that this vote is correct to allow all of us to vote. But it is going to be tough next Wednesday or next week on the floor. There will be many amendments. Some trying to help the bill become stronger; many trying to weaken the bill or put such controversy into it to defeat it. I do not know how many of my colleagues have notices, but there have been dozens of ads placed in area and in House newspapers speaking about the bill in favor or against. Let me tell my colleagues what worries me and troubles me about those ads. The ads against the bill are trying to instill fear in Americans and their representatives here in Congress as to what Puerto Rico as a State would mean. Again, I have to, until Wednesday, keep saying this: This bill is not about statehood; it is about finding out if they want to be a State. But the ads in the paper have been saying we cannot have these people as a State. Well, did I ever see an ad saying oh, no, it is World War II, we should not draft those people because they are not really good Americans. Do not draft them now. In Vietnam, the era that I served in, so many of the people from Puerto Rico that served there, did we ever see an ad that said: Do not draft them into Vietnam? No, that was not the case. All of a sudden these ads are flourishing all over. And I personally will try to get to the bottom of who paid for those ads. They have a right to put them, but I think we should have a right to know where they come from. And I suspect that some of the ads are paid for by groups who are working closely with folks who would like the status quo to remain. When we find out, we are going to have to let the world know that they took the opportunity during this debate to demean the presence of the Puerto Rican community and to suggest that we did not fit within the mold. Mr. Speaker, not that we ever pay much attention to the U.N., with all due respect to the latest Iraq situation, but we are not famous for paying too much attention to the U.N. That is a fact of life. We kind of set the tone and the U.N. sometimes follows. But the U.N. did suggest that by the year 2000, every country should do away with its colonies. How tragic it would be if the country that professes to be the strongest supporter of democracy refuses to step up to the plate next week and begin the process for ending the colonial status. Begin the process. Why am I so supportive of this bill? Am I looking at the fine print to see if it is true that it favors one option or the other? Not necessarily, because what it does do, which I think is highly important to me, is it begins the process to reach a final conclusion. If they ask for statehood and it is rejected, that will have created, in my opinion, what I have coined, a term I have coined which is a ``legislative confrontation'' with the Congress of the United States. Not any other kind of confrontation; a legislative confrontation which will eventually lead to a final solution. Everyone should be in favor of that. Everyone. We get a thousand letters a week here. Thousands, from groups throughout the Nation and citizens throughout the Nation writing their Members of Congress demanding action on legislation. Yet the letters are not coming in and the media is not reporting the fact that this is an issue that all Americans should be concerned about. Solve this issue and solve it now. Mr. Speaker, I tell my colleagues if they say to me we do not want them anymore, go free, or, yes, we want them and we want to take them in, that is fine. But let me just say something very interesting here. In Puerto Rico, where they play very hard ball politics, politicians are always supposed to be for something. They are either for independence, for statehood, or for commonwealth. I may have started a new movement in this country. I am not for anything; I am against something. I am against the colonial status that Puerto Rico has right now. If I wake up tomorrow and Puerto Rico is the 51st State, I will immediately greet those two Senators and six Members of Congress and begin to see how they can join me in bringing about the other things that I would like to see changed in this country. And if tomorrow I wake up and Puerto Rico is an independent nation, I will immediately come to the House floor and remind my colleagues that after 100 years of an association, we should maintain close ties with that nation. It does not bother me. Mr. Speaker, what bothers me every day is when I wake up and walk into this body and the pride that I feel, and I must say at the expense of getting a little dramatic, whenever I turn the corner and see the Capitol dome, I cannot believe that I, who grew up in a family where my father went to school for 2 years and my mother for 6, that I would be a Member of Congress. But I am immediately reminded, upon the minute I walk in here, that there are people in the place where I was born who, simply because all 4 million of them did not migrate to the United States. They do not enjoy the same rights I do. No matter how often I try to say to myself, I only represent the Bronx in Congress, I represent the Yankee Stadium area, I represent the Bronx Zoo, I represent that wonderful area of the Bronx. I cannot stop thinking at all that I, indeed, represent, indirectly, 4 million people on the island of Puerto Rico because their representative cannot vote. And this whole issue of how we are going to continue to do this for, what, another 50 years if we miss the opportunity next week to vote on this issue. If we go through 1998 without letting the people of Puerto Rico speak to us about their political future, I am heartbroken at the thought that my grandchildren will be discussing with your grandchildren and my colleagues' grandchildren this issue of the status of Puerto Rico. This comes at a dramatic time for me. We are almost in the month of March. In March, I came here in a special election, meaning that I replaced another Member of Congress not at election time. I remember that day, as I stood right here, and I spoke to my colleagues after being sworn in by then Speaker Foley. I said that on March 28, 1950, my mother had arrived from Puerto Rico to join my father who had come here a year before and that on March 28, 1990, while their youngest son sat in the gallery, their oldest son was sworn in as a Member of Congress. To the memory of my parents who are no longer with us and to a memory of all of those who were born on that island, how interesting it would be if, in March of this year, we in this House complete a process that will begin to give the people in Puerto Rico the opportunity to determine their political future. I once again want to tell you that I have to really congratulate the gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Young. What he has done has been courageous. What he has done has been an example for everyone to follow. What he has done is to give us the opportunity for the first time, and I say ``us'', give the people in Puerto Rico the opportunity, but give the United States the opportunity to deal with a very serious problem because this hangs over our head. You may not pay attention to it, but this hangs over our head. We cannot argue in some circles the way we used to, because France and England and everybody is getting rid of their colonies. The African nations can tell you that. The Asian nations can tell you that, Latin America, but not the United States. I just want people to have these thoughts. There are concerns about what the final status would be, but I really think that that is unfair at this juncture to be concerned about what Puerto Rico would mean as a state. That is what all people are concerned about. We tried this once before. In 1991, this House passed a bill and the Senate rejected it or did not act on it. The reason was, instead of discussing the bill, they began to discuss the possibility of statehood. It presents a problem for some people. But we should discuss that problem in terms of allowing them to speak to us. What is the problem? Well, some people say, if Puerto Rico was a state, it would be the 50th smallest state in size and the 24th largest congressional delegation populationwise. Well, right. Well, so? That was the same place where you took a percentage of people to go to war. That was the same place where you gave citizenship in 1917. So that should not be an issue. So the Young bill speaks to this. It speaks to this well. I will spend all weekend trying to gather support for this bill. I will spend all the beginning of next week trying to get support for this bill. I will be on the floor the day the vote comes up, and I will be lobbying. I will be doing what people in my profession do well, trying to convince people that my position is the correct one. But I think it really is. I am not asking this Congress to commit itself to anything, just to allow the people of Puerto Rico to tell us what they want to do. It is the least that we can do. So, in conclusion, my colleagues, my friends, I think you have to really try to put yourself in the position of the 3.8 million American citizens who live on the island of Puerto Rico, try to look at their situation, try to analyze their citizenship, try to walk in their shoes, try to understand how it must feel not to be part of a world of free nations and not to be part of a union of 50 sovereign states. Something has to give. I think that, as we speak in this country about family values and about morality and about what we teach our children, I think we, as a country, as a government, have to be careful that what we try to preach at home is not in total contradiction from what we preach in Congress. You cannot tell a child to be fair if our government is not fair. You cannot teach a child in school about democracy while we are not exercising everybody's right to self-determination. Next week, I hope that we get a resounding victory for this bill. Let the vote take place, let it come back to us, and then let us deal with the results. But let us leave here next week knowing that we stood up for democracy, that we stood up for self-determination, and that we honor those Puerto Ricans who lived their full lifetime as American citizens that were enjoying equality and, at the same time, at a point where we might be in the middle of averting military conflict with Iraq, let us honor the memory of all of those thousands of Puerto Ricans who died in American wars and who never got a chance to be equal citizens or free people in the world of free nations. So I close with my belief that next week will be a historic moment. Let us give this bill and Mr. Young the victory the bill and the gentleman deserve. More important, let us give the people of Puerto Rico the right to self-determination and the respect they deserve for having been loyal American citizens for all of these years.

Mr. SERRANO

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

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, for half a century our Nation has been committed to political freedom and self-determination around the world. In his special message to Congress on Puerto Rico on October 16, 1945, President Truman said, ``To this end I recommend that the Congress consider each of the proposals, and that legislation be enacted submitting various alternatives to the people of Puerto Rico. In that way, the Congress can ascertain what the people of the island themselves most desire for their political future.'' Since then, Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton all have supported self-determination for Puerto Rico. Moreover, both the Democratic and Republican Party platforms have supported self-determination by the people of Puerto Rico. But support is not enough. Therefore, I come before the House to remind Members that next week we will be taking up H.R. 856, a bill submitted by the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Don Young) and supported by yours truly and many Members on this side. In fact, it has bipartisan support. This bill would allow, for the first time ever, a federally-sponsored plebiscite in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico where people can choose to remain a Commonwealth, choose statehood, or choose independence or free association. What I think is most important as we look forward to this vote is to fully understand that unlike some opponents' comments, the bill does not commit this Congress to any one option. In other words, this is not, I repeat, this is not, a pro-statehood bill. If you have a problem with statehood, or if you have a problem with independence, or if you have a problem with the Commonwealth status, this bill would only allow, this November, for a vote to be taken in the Commonwealth. Then 180 days later we take up the result. Then you can bring up the issue of whether you support statehood or not based on their requests. So it is important as we look forward to next week that we do not allow some people to muddy the waters by suggesting that this bill favors statehood. But from 1493 to 1898, Puerto Rico was a colony of Spain. Now, from 1898 to this July 25th, 1998 will be another 100 years of colonial status. I know that the minute some of us mention the word ``colony'' some people react to it and say, well, it is truly not a colony. It is a self-governing commonwealth. But the fact of life is that the government and the people of Puerto Rico cannot establish relationships with another government at this point. They cannot trade ambassadors, they cannot trade on their own, they cannot set up foreign affairs offices. Therefore, they are not an independent nation. At the same time, they do not have six Members of Congress and two U.S. Senators who sit here, they have one Representative who does not have a vote in Congress representing 4 million people. So it is not a State. I ask the Members, if it is not a State and it is not an independent nation, call it whatever you want, it is a colony. Even though we do not pay much attention to the United Nations, the United Nations has suggested that by the year 2000 every country in the world do away with, get rid of, or solve the problem of any colonies they may hold. Next week is a historic moment during the commemoration of this 100- year relationship. By passing the Young bill, we will allow 4 million Puerto Rican citizens on the islands of Puerto Rico to make this decision for themselves, and then we will put forth our advice. It is interesting to note that in 1917 Congress took a vote and gave the citizens of Puerto Rico American citizenship. Since then Puerto Ricans have fought in every war, have participated in every Democratic and Republican Convention, and yet have had very little representation, if any, at the Federal level. This bill will give us the opportunity, once and for all, to do in Puerto Rico what we preach to the rest of the world. I ask the Members, as I ask them on so many other occasions, can we truly demand for the Cuban government to hold ``free elections'' if we do not allow for 100 years a free election in Puerto Rico to determine its future? Secondly, can we promote democracy throughout the world and demand that people, as they should be, be free of all persecution, if we on one hand say ``you are 4 million American citizens,'' and on the other hand say ``but you do not have the same rights either as an independent nation or as a member of the union?" Think of this. If any one colleague who is here with us today, or anyone watching this program, was to move to Puerto Rico with me, they would immediately lose all their rights. So I ask Members next week to vote for the Young bill, a way out of this problem.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am confident that both the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) have heard enough comments and concerns today so that they will go into that conference doing what needs to be done on behalf of people who are hungry and who are in need of the food stamp program. I would like to echo the comments made by other Members here today, the fact that this is a very difficult situation. On one hand, we want to be supportive of agricultural research. On the other hand, we know that so much good can come of the food stamp program, more so than we have had up to now, especially in the area of legal immigrants. And so my role today here is again to echo what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) said before. I will do nothing to stop this resolution from leaving the House. I will be supportive of its passage, in the hope that we come back with a conference report that I will not have to oppose, a conference report that will take into consideration the balance that is needed in this issue.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, in a week-long special series in New York this week, the New York Daily News is documenting what we in the South Bronx district that I represent have been saying for years: The concentration of waste treatment facilities and their fleets of diesel trucks are killing our children, our families, our older folks with asthma and respiratory illness. One-half million New Yorkers suffer from asthma. Six percent of the population. The worst rate in the country. New York City's asthma hospitalization rate is three times the national average. More than 35,000 residents are treated at city hospitals for severe asthma attacks each year, a 24 percent rise over the last decade. Deaths accountable to asthma are up 50 percent since 1980. 284 died of asthma in 1995. The asthma epidemic hits children the hardest. More than 10 percent of New York City's one million students, 130,000, suffer from asthma. 15,000 are admitted to the hospital each year, which is twice the national average. The hardest hit of all the children are those with families in the Hunts Point area of the South Bronx in my district and East Harlem in the district of my colleague (Mr. Rangel). New York City's asthma admission rates are highest in the Bronx, along with Harlem. Almost 13 percent of Bronx children under the age of 17 were estimated to suffer from asthma several years ago. Children in poor New York City neighborhoods are five times more likely to be hospitalized than their better-off neighbors. Lincoln Hospital, the primary medical center in the South Bronx, recorded 14,300 asthma emergency room visits last year; 4,500 of these involved children. Lincoln Hospital now operates two, 24-hour emergency rooms devoted exclusively to dealing with the problem of asthma, one for children and one for adults. Eleven died there last year, more than double the usual number. The youngest was only 5 years old. Now, listen to this fact. There is a school in my congressional district where 30 percent of the children in Public School 48 in Hunts Point have asthma. Asthma threatens our children's chance of success as well. Asthma has become the leading cause of children who are absent among New York City schoolchildren. Now, while researchers debate the root causes of asthma and New York public health officials focus on every theory other than pollution, our communities continue to breathe foul air and continue to sicken and die from respiratory illness. Like neighborhood residents who spend their time dealing with these issues, take, for instance, a woman by the name of Lora Lucks, who is the principal at Public School 48 in the Hunts Point area of the Bronx. She blames the area's poor air quality. She says her students get sicker and sicker every year and that the air sometimes smells bad enough to make you sick to your stomach. Now, what is really interesting here is that 200 of Public School 48's 800 students required emergency treatment last year at the same Lincoln Hospital. And perhaps the best test that something is terribly wrong with the air quality in that community is the fact that teachers that come from outside the South Bronx neighborhood, upon spending the 8 months or whatever time they spend in the school during the year, not counting weekends, they complain that the condition under which they live, their inability to breathe properly, the tearing of the eyes, the sick stomach, all the asthmatic conditions that prevail, happen not when they are living during the summer months outside the South Bronx area but only when they come into the South Bronx. Now, where could the problem be? Well, the South Bronx area of the Bronx now has over 40 sitings for waste transfer stations. One of the big mysteries in New York City is why one community got to the point to where over 40 waste recycling centers appear only in that community. New York City's Department of Sanitation currently licenses at least 85 private waste transfer stations in New York City, handling at least 13,000 to 14,000 tons per day of commercial solid waste. Today I begin to introduce this series which the New York Daily News has been working on all week long; and I will close with this, Mr. Speaker: 500,000 New Yorkers have asthma, the silent killer, and there is a child trying to breathe. This may look dramatic and some people may think in some way it is grandstanding by a newspaper, but this is the truth. This is a condition not in a foreign country. This is a condition in the Sixteenth Congressional District in New York.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the South Bronx Mental Health Council, Inc., which this past Friday celebrated its seventh annual ``Patient Recognition and Empowerment Day.'' Created in 1968, the South Bronx Mental Health Council, Inc. was previously named the Lincoln Community Mental Health Center. It is a community-based organization which provides treatment and mental health services to the local population and to area schools and senior centers. While it is important, and appropriate, to recognize the care givers who provide these services, it is even more important that those individuals who have made special efforts to overcome their challenges also receive our attention and support. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting our friends at the South Bronx Mental Health Council, who on Friday, January 30th, celebrate the seventh annual Patient Recognition and Empowerment Day.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Henry Lou Gehrig Intermediate School Microsociety, an invaluable Bronx institution, which celebrated its 1st Annual Citizenship Ceremony Wednesday, December 3, 1997 in the Rotunda of the Bronx County Building. Thanks to the efforts of some civic-minded groups in the Bronx to meet the need for increased education facilities and better prepare the youth in the Bronix for real life, the Henry Lou Gehrig Intermediate School Microsociety was established. In fact, the program prepares 6th grade students for high school after three years. It gives them the opportunity to experience real life situations, explore career opportunities, become problem solvers, understand the need for responsibility and develop leadership ability. Mr. Speaker, the Henry Lou Gehrig Intermediate School Microsociety also encourages the youth of our Bronx to share time and energy with neighborhood improvement groups and programs for youth in our community. They gain strength, hope and leadership skills through united community involvement. Through Microsociety setting, students are able to choose jobs in their area of interest. Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing the 16th district of New York where the Henry Lou Gehrig Intermediate School Microsociety is located and I am delighted by its success. I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute the Henry Lou Gehrig Intermediate School Microsociety, 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. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Joe Castillo of Fort Collins, CO, a Vietnam Veteran who undertook a meaningful journey from August 14 to November 11. He traveled on horseback from Fort Collins to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, DC, in honor of his friends and comrades who lost their lives in Vietnam. He planned his trip for 2 years. Joe was born on July 14, 1950 in Texas. He enlisted in the Armed Forces and went to Vietnam at the tender age of 18 along with several of his friends. He was the only one of his group to return home. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, November 8, Joe and his little troupe of horses and friends were stuck in the mountains of West Virginia in a cold downpour. They were running out of trail and the regular roads are too dangerous so they were worried they might not make it to Washington on time after all. Thanks to some members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars who are also horse people and who know how to navigate around that area, Joe and company were able to get out of the mountains and hook up with other VFW members in Cumberland, MD. But Joe and his horse, Indio, were on time and were part of the official Vietnam Memorial ceremonies Tuesday. The Park Service agreed to allow Joe to ride Indio to the Wall and the Vietnam Memorial Foundation allowed Joe to present his flag at the official ceremonies and say a few words. How fitting it was, Mr. Speaker, that Joe Castillo, who has grown into such an outstanding citizen, spoke at this event. We owe Joe Castillo our encouragement and praise for such a long journey to honor those who died for our country. He has shown greater character, integrity, and selflessness for embarking on this incredible pilgrimage to the Vietnam Wall. The total estimated mileage is 1,986 and 90 days of travel on horseback. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me and the veterans community in praise of Joe Castillo for the shining example he sets for all Americans.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Luis Carlos Meyer for his contributions to this Nation and to Latin America as one of the most talented composers of folkloric Colombian music. Mr. Meyer is one of the most famous exponents of ``cumbia'' of this century. He is credited with being one of the pioneers who introduced ``cumbia'', a dancing rhythm from the seashores of Colombia, in the United States, Canada, and Latin America. Mr. Meyer, now 81, has been living in the Laconia Nursing Home, in the Bronx, for the past 5 years. Reporter Javier Castano recently wrote a series of articles on Mr. Meyer which were published in the Spanish newspaper El Diario/La Prensa, in New York, after a Puerto Rican nurse who tended Mr. Meyer informed him that the famous musician was living in the nursing home. Mr. Meyer has recovered his zest for life since friends and other members of the community started to visit him again and paid tribute to him after they learned of his whereabouts from the newspaper articles. Mr. Meyer was born in 1916 in Barranquilla, Colombia. His talent for singing and playing the guitar was evident at a very young age. Already a renowned musician in his home town, he left for the capital city of Bogota, where his career continued to bloom. In 1945, at the age of 29, Mr. Meyer decided to bring his music to other Latin American countries, the United States, and Canada. In Latin America, he enjoyed enormous success with his many compositions. ``Micaela,'' ``El Hijo de Mi Mujer,'' ``Linda Jorachita,'' and ``Tropico'' were immediate successes in Mexico, Venezuela, and Panama. He also performed various roles on the large screen in Mexico. According to some accounts, Mr. Meyer came to New York City in 1958. He sang with the Xavier Cugat Orchestra and performed on the stages of ``El Chico,'' ``Chateau Madrid,'' and ``Fantasy'' in New York City. HIs music was acclaimed by the audiences of the time and continues to be in demand in many communities in the United States. He has been living in New York City over the past 30 to 40 years. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Luis Carlos Meyer for his life of artistic achievements and for sharing his music with the peoples of this Nation. His gift to our country and to our people has not gone unnoticed.

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 newspapers 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'', and ``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 News 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 thank the gentleman for yielding and for his excellent work in this area. Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of a growing number of folks on both sides of the aisle who are caught in a very delicate situation. We feel good about the bill before us and terrified of what may be coming out of the Senate in a conference report, and trying to figure out how best to deal with this situation and how best to begin to send a message here today that that has to be dealt with and dealt with carefully. We are concerned about the food stamp issue, and that is an issue that makes us the most nervous. With that in mind, I would like to respectfully inform my colleagues that I will be calling for a recorded vote on this bill in the hope that that will begin a conversation to ensure that our fears will not be founded when it comes back from the Senate.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX, I hereby give notice of my intention to offer a resolution which raises a question of the privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: Whereas Loretta Sanchez was issued a certificate of election as the duly elected Member of Congress from the 46th District of California by the Secretary of the State of California and was seated by the U.S. House of Representatives on January 7, 1997; and Whereas a Notice of Contest of Election was filed with the Clerk of the House by Mr. Robert Dornan on December 26, 1996; and Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the 46th District of California met on February 26, 1997 in Washington, D.C., on April 19, 1997, in Orange County, California, and October 24, 1997 in Washington, D.C.; and Whereas Mr. Dornan's unproven allegations and the actions of the Committee on House Oversight have resulted in an unprecedented attack against Latino voters and created a chilling effect with a message to Latinos that their votes do not count; and Whereas the allegations made by Mr. Robert Dornan have been largely found to be without merit: charges of improper voting from a business, rather than a resident address; of underage voting; of double voting; and of unusually large numbers of individuals voting from the same address. It was found that those voting from the same address included a Marine barracks and the domicile of nuns, that business addresses were legal residences for the individuals voting, including the zoo keeper of the Santa Ana zoo, that duplicate voting was by different individuals, and that those accused of underage voting were of age; and Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has issued unprecedented subpoenas to the Immigration and Naturalization Service to compare their records with Orange County voter registration records, the first time in any election in the history of the United States that the INS has been asked by the Congress to verify the citizenship of voters; and Whereas the INS has complied with the Committee's request, and, at the Committee's request, has been manually checking its paper files and providing worksheets containing supplemental information on that manual check to the Committee on House Oversight for over five months; and Whereas the Committee on House Oversight, subpoenaed the records seized by the District Attorney of Orange County on February 13, 1997 and has received and reviewed all records pertaining to registration efforts of that group; and Whereas the Committee on House Oversight is not pursuing a duplicative and dilatory review of materials already in the Committee's possession by the Secretary of State of California; and Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the 46th District of California and the Committee have been reviewing these materials and have all the information necessary regarding who voted in the 46 District and all the information necessary to make judgements concerning those votes; and Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has, after nine months of review and investigation failed to present credible evidence to change the outcome of the election of Congresswoman Sanchez and is pursuing never-ending and unsubstantiated areas of review; and Whereas, Mr. Robert Dornan has not shown or provided credible evidence that the outcome of the election is other than Congresswoman Sanchez' election to the Congress; and Whereas, the continued probe of the Sanchez election represents a direct attack on Latino voters and an attempt to silence the voice of new citizens; and those who seek to organize them; and Whereas, the Committee on House Oversight should complete its review of this matter and bring this contest to an end: now therefore be it: Resolved, That unless the Committee on House Oversight has sooner reported a recommendation for its final disposition, the contest in the 46th District of California is dismissed upon the expiration of November 7, 1997.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ms. Lucille Williams for her tireless service to those who are less fortunate in our community. She is a founding member of the Mid Bronx Desperadoes, which celebrated its 22 years of service to our Bronx community last week. Born in Learned, MS in 1922, Ms. Williams is the oldest of 14 children. She attended Cambellville Elementary School and Yazoo City High School before starting a family and moving to Detroit in the mid- forties. After she moved to Harlem in 1952, she worked for the Frederick Douglas Democratic Club. In 1962, she moved to the Bronx and became vice president of the Parents Teachers' Association [PTA] at the CS 61 then vice president and president of Herman Ridder's PTA. In 1974, under her leadership, a group of volunteers who understood the need to revitalize the Crotona Park East section of Bronx Community District 3 that was devastated by arson, disinvestment, abandonment, and population loss, founded the Mid Bronx Desperadoes [MBD]. Throughout its 22 years of service, MBD has been a model of excellence in providing our community with exemplary services through housing development and property management, economic development, and delivery of human services. Through her years of service, Ms. Williams was involved in several other agencies. She was a founding member of Seabury Better Block Association, board member of Seabury Day Care, and active in other projects before she returned to school for her college degree. Now a senior citizen, she is a member of the Comprehensive Community Revitalization Program [CCRP] and MBD's Concerned Citizens Group. Ms. Williams is the mother of 5 children and has 12 grandchildren and 9 great-grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Ms. Lucille Williams for her outstanding achievements and enduring commitment to our Bronx community.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct conferees and in strong support of immigrants' rights. I believe family reunification should be one of the highest priorities of our immigration policy and that the process of naturalization of legal residents needs to be more efficient. Letting 245(i) sunset would be morally wrong and economically unwise. It would separate thousands of families and disrupt thousands of businesses. Furthermore letting 245(i) sunset is not fiscally sound. The receipts from the penalty fee help pay for important INS activities. Mr. Speaker, 245(i) is not amnesty. It does not reward those who purposefully broke our laws. Instead, it is for people who are sponsored by close family members or by employers who cannot find eligible U.S. workers, and whose ``priority date'' is current under existing quotas. It does not change the order in which a person's claim is adjudicated. In short, section 245(i) allows business to keep valued employees and allows families to stay together. It is just inhumane to force immigrants who have families in this country to leave the U.S. and to apply and wait for their visas in a foreign country. This instills fear and promotes division of immigrant families. Mr. Speaker, this whole debate is not really about fighting illegal immigration. This is just another attempt by some members on the other side of the aisle to sharply restrict or even eliminate immigration to the United States. Republican members claim they uphold family values. But when it comes to poor families and immigrant families, Republicans have demonstrated time and again that they want to make it more difficult for immigrants who have been living, working, and paying taxes in this country to reunite with their loved ones. A policy which divides thousands of families of U.S. citizens and legal residents seems preposterous at a time when family unification and family values are a strong concern of the American people. Immigrants have contributed to the wealth and success of this nation. They are an asset to our nation. I have in the past supported measures aimed at removing barriers to legal immigration and I will continue to do so. I voted for the Family Unity and Employment Opportunity Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-649), the first comprehensive revision of U.S. immigration policy since 1965, which was signed into law by President Bush on November 29, 1990, and which made long-overdue improvements with regard to the admission into the United States of family members of legal residents and highly skilled professionals. Similarly, last year I voted against H.R. 2202, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1996, because many of the provisions of the immigration ``reform'' of 1996 are simply wrong and, furthermore, we have little to fear from people immigrating. Immigrants come to our country to escape the hardships of war and political persecution or to work to improve their lives and those of their families. We, in turn, benefit from the cultural diversity their inclusion brings to our society and the boost their working, spending, and paying taxes bring to our economy. New York City has been revitalized by newcomers to America. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to put politics aside and do justice for these hard working, tax paying, law-abiding people. Vote no on the motion to instruct.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Beck Memorial Presbyterian Church, a South Bronx landmark that on October 26, 1997, celebrated its 183d anniversary in a worship service. The theme for the service was ``Standing on the Promises.'' Beck Memorial Presbyterian Church was founded in August 31, 1814 as West Farms Presbyterian Church, in the West Farms School House on the west side of Boston Road. The present church, directly opposite the original building, was constructed with a legacy from Charles B. Beck and dedicated on October 29, 1905. Beck has seen the South Bronx community through times both of glory and of decline. Happily, this venerable institution survives not only to see the renaissance of the Bronx, but to contribute to it. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in extending best wishes to the Rev. Victor Aloyo, moderator of the Presbytery of New York and pastor of the Presbyterian Church of the Redeemer, and to the congregation and administration of Beck Memorial Presbyterian Church on the occasion of this momentous celebration.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mid Bronx Desperadoes for 22 years of service to our Bronx community. Mr. Speaker, the Mid Bronx Desperadoes [MBD] was founded in 1974 as a group of volunteers who understood the need to revitalize the Crotona Park East section of Bronx Community District 3 that was devastated by arson, disinvestment, abandonment, and population loss. First in cooperation with the local police and fire departments, and later with government officials and Community Board 3, the volunteer coalition was able to establish Mid Bronx Desperadoes Community Housing Corporation [MBDCHC] which created over 2,100 housing units with development costs of approximately $213.5 million within Community District 3. MBD has also helped residents of the South Bronx become homeowners, serving as community sponsor, marketing and sales agents for 328 new homes, including the widely acclaimed Charlotte Street development of 89 single family homes. MBDCHC is a part of the Comprehensive Community Revitalization Program [CCRP]. Throughout its 22 years of service, MBD has been a model of excellence in providing our community with exemplary services through housing development and property management, economic development, and delivery of human services. With the collaboration of a qualified staff, MBD has expanded its network to include additional services in conjunction with other local organizations and medical centers. Among these are: affordable housing development, marketing and management, 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. The achievements of the Mid Bronx Desperadoes are measured by the people they have served. Thousands of Bronx residents have been employed and benefited from the center's education and training programs. And hundreds of thousands of people, from children to senior citizens, have received quality health care. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to honor the family and friends of the Mid Bronx Desperadoes. I ask my colleagues to join in celebrating this milestone and acknowledge this outstanding agency for 22 years of accomplishment and service for the South Bronx community.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Hunts Point Local Development Corp. for 10 years of success working for the economic revitalization of the Hunts Point community in the South Bronx. Today, the Hunts Point Local Development Corp. [HPLDC] celebrates its 10th anniversary with a 10th annual tent party at the Hunts Point Cooperative Market in my South Bronx congressional district. HPLDC was established in 1988 as a non-profit community-based organization to act as an engine for economic development in Hunts Point. During the past 10 years, HPLDC has been instrumental in providing the services that corporations and residents need to succeed in commerce. Its wide range of programs and services to the community include: a bilingual entrepreneurial development program, industrial park business advocacy, computer literacy training, Internet training, and commercial revitalization. Through its Business Outreach Center, HPLDC provides counseling, seminars, workshops, and management technical assistance to small business and entrepreneurs. Today, the dynamic Hunts Point community encompasses 600 businesses and 19,000 employees, and is the largest distribution center in the Northeast. To HPLDC's credit, the corporation has provided assistance to more than 500 entrepreneurs and businesses and has helped secure over 4 million dollars in small business loans. Among other important achievements, HPLDC was chosen to serve as the administrator for the Hunts Point economic development zone. It also lobbied for inclusion of the Hunts Point community in the New York City Federal Empowerment Zone for the South Bronx. HPLDC received an excellence award from the U.S. Small Business Administration for small business development. Most recently, it has launched efforts to help rebuild the New York City 41st Police precinct and to establish a new U.S. Postal Office in Hunts Point. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the Hunts Point Local Development Corp. for a decade of achievements spurring economic development in Hunts Point, and in wishing them continued success.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my deepest sympathy to the family and friends of Bishop Gerald Julius Kaufman, a man of the cloth who dedicated his life to the service of our community. Bishop Kaufman passed away on April 25. Bishop Kaufman was sought by people from all ages. He was the chief shepherd of the Love Gospel Assembly, in my South Bronx congressional district. Established in 1970, the assembly is now one of the largest ministries in the New York City area. At a special ceremony celebrated outside the church on October 9th, the community renamed part of the Grand Concourse, the main street in the Bronx, after him. It is now ``Bishop Gerald J. Kaufman Way''. Kaufman was born in 1935 to Jewish parents Fred and Julia Kaufman in New York City. He demonstrated his strong will and perseverance by winning the battle against 12 years of substance abuse. His immense love for God and desire to be trained in the faith brought him to the Zion Bible School in Rhode Island, where he graduated with honors. In 1967, Kaufman was ordained into ministry at the Zion Bible Institute. He continued his religious education at Vision Christian University, in Hawaii, where he received a B.S.L., Th.M., D. Min., L.H.D. and Ph.D. Bishop Kaufman's service to God and his social ministry at the Love Gospel Assembly gave birth to a program which now feeds 500 to 700 people daily, a Care Service Ministry, and an Antioch School of Urban Ministry dedicated to train men and women in urban ministry. Kaufman's fruitful work at Love Gospel Assembly spread far beyond the Bronx. He facilitated the opening of churches in Orlando, FL; Aguadilla and Bayamon, PR; Bridgetown, Barbados; and Ghana, Africa. He oversaw 23 ordained ministers, 22 licensed ministers, 16 pastors, and 45 missionaries. Among other recognitions, Kaufman received a citation of merit and proclamation for dedicated community work from the Bronx Borough President's Office. Committed to his community, he also served on the board of directors of the Youth Challenge International organization and the Barnabas Ministries, and as chaplain of the Police Benevolent Association for the Federal Protective Services. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the family, friends, and members of the community in their prayers for the soul of Bishop Gerald Julius Kaufman. His legacy of love for our inner city neighborhood has not gone unnoticed. It is a blessing to all of our communities.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ms. Teresena Wise Bryant, an outstanding individual who has dedicated her life to public service and education. She was honored on October 17 by parents, family, friends, and professionals for her outstanding contributions to the community at the Eighth Annual Salute to Excellence Awards Dinner hosted by the 163d Street Improvement Council, Inc. in New York. Born in Florida, Ms. Bryant, known as Terry by her friends, moved to New York City in 1964 after receiving a bachelor's degree from Florida A&M University. In 1977, she earned a master's degree in public administration at New York University. She has shown the importance of life-long learning as she has continued to take postgraduate courses in educational fields. Through her years of service, she worked for several governmental agencies. Her career started as an assistance bookkeeper with Standard Motors. Later she worked as a homebound instructor with the White Plains Board of Education before she was hired as a teacher of recreation in the New York City Board of Education/Continuing Education Division. Within 6 months, she was recommended and hired as director of community education, Mohegan Community Center/P.S. 67 in the Bronx. She went on to become assistance executive director of contract development for the Youth Board/Bureau/Youth Services Agency. In 1987, Terry returned to the New York City Board of Education as special assistant to the Bronx board member. Terry clearly believes that electoral politics is honorable public service. For 18 years, she was the campaign manager and confidential/ political assistant to the late State Senator Joseph L. Galiber and she managed the election campaign for Bronx District Attorney Robert Johnson, the first and only African-American district attorney in the State of New York. She is an expert in redistricting and reapportionment of Councilmanic, State Assembly, and senatorial as well as congressional lines. The business, professional, religious, and civil organizations to which she belonged, like the honors and awards she was given are almost beyond counting. Terry retired last year after a fruitful career in public service. Ms. Bryant leaves us with many lessons learned in community service, leadership in education, and wisdom. A talented leader and educator, Ms. Bryant will continue sharing her knowledge and views with her family and friends. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Ms. Teresena Wise Bryant for her outstanding achievements in education and her enduring commitment to the community.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Mr. James Butler, president of Local 420 Municipal Hospital Employees Union, DC37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO. On October 11, officers, trustees and executive board of local 420 held a dinner dance in Manhattan to celebrate his 25th silver anniversary as president, as well as his birthday. Jim Butler began his service to local 420 as a union organizer in 1954. He has been a tireless fighter for better pay, health, education, and other benefits for hospital employees. Mr. Butler has long been part of the struggle for equal opportunity for minorities within the labor movement through active membership in the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, PUSH, NAACP, Urban League, and SCLC Labor Committees. He served on the executive board of CBTU's New York chapter as well as the New York Consumer Assembly's board of directors. As vice president of the 120,000 member District Council 37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Mr. Butler represented AFSCME as a delegate to the Public Service International Congress in Singapore, Zimbabwe, Finland, and the Labor Committee in Puerto Rico. He is co-chair of AFSCME's Health Advisory Committee, where he represents the interests of more than 350,000 health care workers nationwide. Throughout his life, Mr. Butler's philosophy has been one of helping those in need without expecting anything in return. He would often say: ``I have devoted my life to helping health care workers. Health care workers help the ill, but when they are ill there is no one to help them. They work under the kind of stress that most people can only imagine.'' In the past several years, Butler and his local have waged a battle against threats to privatize public hospitals in New York City. They recently saw their efforts pay off with a victory in stopping the privatization of Coney Island Hospital. In June, Jim Butler and his members boarded the ``freedom bus'' from New York to Quincy, FL, to march for justice with the mushroom workers of the United Farm Workers. Under his leadership, local 420's political action also makes itself felt in voter education and registration drives. Annually, the local registers thousands of voters and directly involves hundreds of union members in political campaigns. Jim Butler resides in Astoria, NY with his wife, Eloise. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mr. James Butler for his outstanding contributions to the advancement of the labor movement and of the African-American community.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Bronx Community College, part of the City University of New York and an invaluable Bronx institution, which will celebrate its 40th anniversary on October 22. Back in 1957, thanks to the efforts of some civic-minded groups in the Bronx to meet the need for increased higher education facilities in the ``Borough of Universities and Progress'', Bronx Community College was established. An energetic president, Dr. Morris Meister, launched an enterprise that was ultimately to help tens of thousands of ambitious people find a place a advance in the business world. Classes began in February 1959 at the former site of the Bronx High School of Science at Creston Avenue and 184th Street. In the ensuing four decades, under the leadership of Dr. Meister, Dr. James A. Colston, Dr. Roscoe C. Brown, Jr., and Dr. Leo A. Corbie, Bronx Community College has grown to be a modern community college offering 2-year associate degree programs in a variety of disciplines. The college's community service programs currently serve more than 25,000 residents of the city through academic upgrading, job training and placement, cultural enrichment, and recreation. Throughout its existence, Bronx Community College has adhered to the highest standards. In its early days, the reputation it built through the success of its graduates helped BCC to achieve steady growth in difficult economic times. Most BCC graduates find employment in positions related to their fields of study thanks to a partnership with local businesses and industries. Mr. Speaker, on that same day, BCC will welcome its new leader, Dr. Carolyn Grubbs Williams, an outstanding individual who has dedicated her life to education and public service. She will be installed as the fourth president of the Bronx Community College. The first female to lead Bronx Community College, Dr. Williams was named president in June of 1996. Dr. Williams earned a bachelor's degree in sociology, a master's degree in urban planning and a Ph.D. in higher education, all from Wayne State University in Detroit. She has shown the importance of higher education, with a focus on community college throughout her long and distinguished career. She is an expert in designing programs to help community college students continue their education beyond the traditional 2 years. Through her years of service, she has worked for several higher education institutions. Before coming to New York, she has served as vice provost of Wayne County College and acting vice president for Academic Affairs at Highland Park Community College, both in Detroit. She also has served as consultant for the Ford Foundation Urban Transfer Opportunity Program and the United Negro College Fund's Transfer Opportunity Program. The business, professional and civic organizations to which she belongs, like the honors and awards she has been given demonstrate that. Dr. Williams joins BCC with many lessons learned in leadership in education, community service, and wisdom. It is our hope that the addition of Dr. Williams to the Bronx Community College will bring continued success to the institution. Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing the 16th district of New York where Bronx Community College is located and I am delighted by its success. In addition, I participate every year in the 10K race organized by BCC. I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Bronx Community College, to the administration and faculty, and to the students, whose ambition and hard work have made this great institution a tremendous source of pride and success for the last 40 years.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York, Chairman McHugh, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Fattah, for bringing this bill to the floor. I would like to thank the New York delegation for supporting the bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues' support of H.R. 282, a bill that would designate the U.S. Post Office Building located at 153 East 110th Street, New York, NY, as the Oscar Garcia Rivera Post Office Building. Let me in addition thank my colleague and mentor, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel]. The post office is in his district, and he has allowed me to play this role throughout these couple of years on this bill. Mr. Garcia Rivera, and let me clarify for the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah], this is an old tradition in Latin America. His name was Garcia, and then you pick up your mother's last name, and that created a big confusion in New York. That is why I am ``Serrano'' and not ``Serrano Soto.'' Otherwise it would be kind of confusing at times. Mr. Garcia Rivera was elected assemblyman in New York in the 14th District on March 30, 1937. He was born in Mayaguez, PR, on November 6, 1900, which happens to be my hometown. Oscar Garcia Rivera was raised on a coffee plantation. After graduation from high school, Garcia came to the mainland and began working part time in a factory in Brooklyn while he continued to take courses to reach his goal of becoming a lawyer. He applied for a job in the U.S. Postal Service, obtained high recommendations, and was assigned to the post office in city hall. He quickly became very involved in union issues, and later encouraged the establishment of the Association of Puerto Rican and Hispanic Employees within the U.S. Postal Service. Garcia Rivera attended law school at St. John's University and graduated in 1930. Dedicated and committed to the struggles of the then pioneering Puerto Rican and Hispanics in East Harlem, he announced publicly in 1937 that he would seek a seat in the New York State Assembly. In March of that same year he made history by becoming the first Puerto Rican elected to public office in the United States. The gentleman from New York [Mr. McHugh], would be happy to know he was elected as a Republican, the first and only one, but that is an issue for another day. He won reelection the following year and continued in this post until 1940. During the short time that he served in the assembly, however, Garcia Rivera, initiated legislation that offered valuable and lasting contributions to his Puerto Rican community, the labor movement, and to the working class at large. He introduced a bill guaranteeing safeguards against unemployment. This revolutionary piece of legislation at that time was enacted into law in 1939. Garcia Rivera defended minimum wage laws, fought for regulated hours of labor, worked to establish tariff agreements, and, most importantly, he was committed to protecting the rights of manual laborers and encouraged workers to organize themselves into active unions. He also supported the campaign, which, as my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah] has said, established a law which punished lynchings throughout the United States. Every year the anniversary of his election as the first Puerto Rican who attained a public office marks a proud moment in my community's history. Despite his brief career as Assemblyman, Oscar Garcia Rivera became a great leader in his community, creating a role model for young people and establishing hope for his people that they could achieve their dreams in the United States. His actions transformed the Puerto Rican community and improved working conditions for all New Yorkers. Mr. Speaker, I believe the passage of this bill and the dedication of this building to this great leader would serve as an inspiration to the future generations in my community and Americans throughout this country and throughout the United States. Please join me in support of H.R. 282. Once again, I want to thank these two gentlemen for bringing this bill to the floor. This has been a long time coming, and as one who served 16 years in the State Assembly in New York, I take very seriously the fact that Mr. Garcia Rivera opened the doors for so many members of my community.