José Serrano

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Prof. Henry A. Skinner, for his dedication to education and his service to the community of the South Bronx. Skinner is a 1969 graduate of Bronx Community College. He obtained a bachelor's degree in education from the City College of the City University of New York, and a master's degree from Columbia University. Professor Skinner has been teaching physical education during the past 25 years at his alma mater, Bronx Community College, in the Department of Health, Physical Education and Wellness. Prior to his teaching position, Mr. Skinner worked for the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, first as a supervisor, and later as the Bronx County Coordinator of Life Guard Personnel, Pool and Beach facilities. As President Clinton said earlier this week, ``citizen service is neighbor helping neighbor. It's part-time volunteers and full-time community service workers. It's communities coming together to solve common problems. And it is an essential part of what it means to be an American.'' Professor Skinner exemplifies that spirit, both in words of encouragement and in action. Professor Skinner continuously volunteers his time to present workshops in high schools, hospitals, and religious institutions. He gives seminars on self-development, stress management, career opportunities, eastern philosophy, and on holistic health care. In addition, since its inception 19 years ago, 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. In 1994, he was honored with the distinguished Service Award from the Bronx Community College Foundation. And today, Mr. Speaker, it is an honor and a privilege for me to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Prof. Henry A. Skinner for keeping the spirit of volunteering well and alive and for giving so much back to the community.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, let me first of all thank the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], the gentleman from New York [Mr. King], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Bono], the leadership of both Houses, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn], and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake] for giving me the support necessary to bring this bill to the floor and certainly the 303 cosponsors to sign on to this bill. I guess the best way to begin is the way I most like to start when I talk to people about Frank Sinatra. When my father came back from the Army after World War II, he brought home with him to Puerto Rico a set of 78 RPM records. It was my introduction to the English language, and it was my introduction to the voice of Frank Sinatra. I immediately fell in love with both. The English language I try to perfect on a daily basis, and the Frank Sinatra singing I was smart enough not to try to imitate. But throughout all of these 40 odd years, the love affair between Mr. Sinatra's talent and this person born in Puerto Rico and raised in the Bronx has been something that as I step back today even I find extraordinary. I own 290 Sinatra records, LP's, hundreds of CD's and tapes, pictures, books, over 30 films, on video of course. My e-mail address is Frank 2 even though my name is Jose, and one can hear Mr. Sinatra on my answering machine. I have been influenced by his singing to the point which I suspect is the reason why I am a New Yorker who says Tuesday rather than Tuesday because Mr. Sinatra would have never sung Tuesday. His language and his style was used by many to perfect their English. I do not remember the last day that I have not listened to a Sinatra record. I do not remember the last time that I passed up a radio station that was playing his music. His music to me is no different than his music to so many other people. It serves this incurable romantic with the ability to listen to the best music the world has ever heard. Whether it was a swinging ballad or a sad, tear-jerking ballad, Sinatra did it his way and did it better than anyone else. In the other language that I operate in, from Julio Iglesias to local singers like Danny Rivera, when you talk to them, they all tell you that the master of them all is and has been Frank Sinatra. Who stays at the top of their game for 60 years? We have had a couple of people here who stayed past 50, and we knew what a record they set. Longevity for him has been something to really look at. But then there is Frank Sinatra the humanitarian, Frank Sinatra the American citizen, the one who raised money for so many different organizations, the one who sold war bonds at the beginning of his career and, may I say, this bill mandates that the Mint will sell replicas of this medal to the public, and I suspect that at the end of the career Sinatra once again will be part of pulling a lot of money into the Treasury. For me personally, this is a very important day, because it is my way of saying thank you. It is my way of saying thank you to this individual who brought so much joy to the world through his singing and through his talent. It is my way, also, of saying thank you for not being afraid in a society that is pretty tough to cry in public, for, you see, Mr. Sinatra in his love songs cried on a daily basis, and we Americans are not supposed to cry. My father once told me, in Spanish, that the English language had taken a bad rap, that some people had suggested that it was not a romantic language, and my father Jose, I will never forget this, said to me, but if the language is sung and spoken properly, it is as romantic as Spanish, French, or Italian. Well, my father was right. And Mr. Sinatra was the living example and is the living example of the fact that English is indeed a romantic language. He is watching us today on TV at this very moment. His family is all watching the proceedings of the House. He has received the Presidential Medal of Freedom. He has received the NAACP Lifetime Achievement Award. He has received an Oscar for humanitarian work in addition to an Oscar for costarring in a movie. He has received every possible award you can receive in this country, in Israel and France, in Italy, in Brazil, all over the world. But today as the people's representative, we are all saying that we are a grateful Nation. We say thank you, Frank Sinatra, thank you for singing, thank you for performing, thank you for being you. I say personally, thank you, Frank Sinatra, for proving that my father was right. English indeed is a beautiful and romantic language and you showed the world how to do it right.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield briefly, as the gentleman mentioned, also this brings up another thought, and that is, on a daily basis we put a heavy demand on our school system. And we complain, we all do in this country, about the conditions of the schools if they are not what we want them to be in certain neighborhoods and the quality of the teaching if it is not what we want it to be in certain neighborhoods. But at the same time, we do not realize that there are other factors that impact on that situation. What the gentleman just mentioned is a prime example. If children are attending school who are suffering an ailment or a condition that may have an impact on their ability to learn, we then have placed a teacher and the school administration in a situation that they should not be placed in. They now have to cope with that and try to figure out what the problem is. So here we have a situation where we have a school-based clinic, which is a rarity in this society, but a school-based clinic may have picked up this situation of these ear infections which may leave this child permanently damaged for the rest of her life. Now, if that child had regular visits, the way most children in this country do, chances are that could have been picked up. So again, where is the investment? Is it about what it might cost now, which we do not think we are talking about costs here, we are talking about expanding existing programs, or the investment that we are making in the health of that child and, therefore, the education of that child? So I really think this one is an easy one. I know when we present something and we support it, we always try to make it sound like it can be done. But this is an easy one; this can be done. This is the country that can do it; this is the society that can do it; this is the Congress that can do it. All we need is the OK to say we will get together and do it. It is an outrage. It should not be. It is inhumane. It is improper. It is not a good investment for the future of our country, and it is not fair to these children. One last point. It cannot be said enough. It cannot be said enough that we are now talking about children who have one, possibly two parents working one, possibly more jobs. We have to continue to repeat this, not because we want to listen to ourselves talk, but because people in some places in this country get the wrong impression, that we are talking about people who may not want to help themselves or who may not be looking for that service. This is not available, and it is not available to people who can pay certain bills but cannot pick up a full visit at a doctor or hospital stay, because that is not the way it works in this country. It costs so much money to do that. So once again I thank the gentleman for bringing this subject up again, and we will continue to discuss it at length until we get the action that we think the children need.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] for having the vision to bring this issue to the floor and to discuss it as many times as we have and I know as many times as we will in the future. The gentleman well says it when he says that our families first agenda speaks to this issue. And certainly when we look at the issue, I think what all Americans who are watching tonight have to ask themselves is, Are we talking about reinventing the wheel here? Are we talking about creating a new Government program? What are we really talking about? It is very simple. I spend some time every day thinking about how lucky we are to live in this country and, at the same time, to compare what goes on in this country with what happens in other parts of the world. And we know that we are fortunate to be in a society that has been able to accomplish things other societies have not. Therefore, this issue becomes very important and very sad as we discuss it, because health care is not a discussion about throwing money away. Health care is about a basic right. Children, therefore, become the neediest in society if they cannot attain basic health care. What we are saying here is that in our country, if you were not listening to the beginning of this discussion and just listened to the middle part and we discuss 10 million children without health care, someone could say that we are in another Parliament or another legislative body somewhere in the world discussing a situation which fits into the conditions that they find themselves in. But we are not. We are in the U.S. House of Representatives in the U.S. Congress saying that 10 million children do not have health care available to them. And as the gentleman so well has pointed out, the part that makes this really difficult to even understand is that most of these children are in families where both parents or at least one parent is working. So we are not talking now about many of the conversations we have on the floor on a daily basis or on a weekly basis. We are talking about children that are within those families that supposedly are doing better in this society, but when it comes to providing health care for their children, they are not. The problem we have is that it is a burden, in my opinion, that we place on these American families that they should not have. Again, I repeat, we are not talking about American families demanding a new road in front of their house. We are not talking about American families looking for a handout. We are not talking about a gift that Government will give to people. We are talking about a basic human right, the right to decent health care. The country has the mechanism to deliver that health care, but in its lack of wisdom in this area, has allowed for 10 million children to fall by the wayside. Now, when I say over and over again that we do not have to reinvent the wheel, I believe that. I believe that we have in this country the mechanisms which allow us to cover these 10 million children. And we are not, as the gentleman well has stated, saying to our colleagues across the aisle that they must do it our way. What we are saying is, let us come together and let us do it. Let us celebrate as a nation the fact that we will cover 10 million children. In fact, if it was up to us, we would cover every American that is not covered right now. Now, interestingly enough, and I go back to my usual argument, there are countries that we criticize on a daily basis where this would not be a discussion. They have other problems, but this is not a discussion. Everyone, from the time they are born to the time they die, is covered by health care. And so what we are doing here tonight is calling on our colleagues to say, listen, there are some issues that are political issues. There are some issues that we have to argue back and forth about. There are some issues that the public expects us to disagree on. But covering and providing health care for 10 million American children who are in need of this health care, to take this worry away from families, to take this dilemma away from working families, this is something we can do. If we set our minds to do it, we can do it. Now, what really amazes me about this issue is that I do not know why they do not want to do it. I do not know, I cannot figure that out, because we are talking about something that the American public is in favor of. Interestingly enough, let us use some labels, if you go to your most fiscally conservative middle-class American and say, here is what we are going to do, we are going to expand current programs and make some changes to cover 10 million children who do not have health care; do you have a problem with that? I am taking a political chance here. I am saying they do not have a problem with that. What mother, father, who tonight knows her children has health care coverage, is going to be upset that another parent somewhere else who does not may begin to have it next month or the month after that? This is not what Americans are about. We are about taking care of our neighbor and making sure that children are taken care of. So I will do tonight what I have done every other night that we have spoken on this issue, and that is to reach out to those parents who tonight are helping their children with their homework. Perhaps they are taking a little time off to watch the Met-Dodger game and discussing with the children the celebration of the Jackie Robinson legacy and what that means to this country and to the future of this country. Perhaps they are tucking their children in bed and kissing them good night, knowing that they are secure within, not rich, not overflowing with gifts, but secure. I hope that they will take some time and write to Members of Congress and say: Let us get this done. I do not think it is right that when I put my child to bed, I know that everything is OK in terms of health care with him, that it is provided for him, that we are covered, and that there are 10 million children somewhere else in this country that do not have this coverage. I would implore these American parents do that tonight, to take that little time and write to those of us who have not seen the light tonight on behalf of those children, because what happens is, if the parents of those children do the only writing, then people will say, well, of course it is the ones who need the program, need the assistance, who are calling us; we need to hear from other people. I think that this is something that we can all be very proud of. If we accomplish this, if we, one of these evenings, ourselves, go to bed knowing that there is not a child in this country who is in need of basic health care, I think then we can be proud of the work we are doing in this House.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Mr. Jose ``Joe'' Torres, an artist in the culinary field who for many years has satisfied the most demanding palates at Jimmy's Bronx Cafe, in the Bronx, NY. Mr. Torres was recognized for his culinary ability in an article written by Josue R. Rivas which was published in El Diario, on December 18, 1996. A chef of Puerto Rican cuisine ``por excelencia,'' Joe was born in Guaynabo, PR. He credits his success to his mother, from whom he first learned the art of cooking, and later on, to the chefs with whom he worked in New York City. At Jimmy's, Joe cooks everything and for all occasions. One of his most overwhelming and, at the same time, joyous times, is the Christmas holiday season. He prepares the best Puerto Rican roast pork, rice with black-eyed peas, and ``pasteles,'' plantain dough filled with roast pork and vegetables. The food is so delicious that one almost forgets to leave room to try his ``coquito,'' his glorious coconut egg nog, for dessert. Almost a synonym for the restaurant where he works, Joe Torres welcomes the clientele at Jimmy's Bronx Cafe with the same warmth with which he would receive friends and relatives at home. At age 50, he is one of the best chefs of Puerto Rican cooking in New York City. Even though I share Joe's name and Puerto Rican origins, I must admit I do not share his ability for cooking. Hence, I feel most privileged to try his dishes when I visit Jimmy's Bronx Cafe. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Jose ``Joe'' Torres, for his extraordinary culinary ability and for giving to all of us visitors to Jimmy's Bronx Cafe the joy of tasting delicious Puerto Rican cuisine.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank once again the gentleman from New Jersey for bringing us together, as you have on different occasions, to discuss this subject. I was back in my office at the beginning of this hour listening to the comments of both of you as well as other Members. It dawns on me that one of the things we see in this House quite a bit of and throughout the Nation recently is in the last few years people celebrating the fact that the cold war is over and that we have played a major role in bringing that about and that we were very influential in changing the way different countries behaved. I think we have to celebrate that. I think it is good. It is a good sign about who we are as a people and a nation. But I think that when we do that, we also have a responsibility and that is to every so often look inward and take a look to see what we are accomplishing right here at home. When you look at the figures, for instance, in my city of New York, where 25 percent of all the residents under 65 are not covered by health insurance and where 20 percent of all children under 18 are not covered by health insurance, we know that this is a very serious problem. But what is interesting about it, both of you brought this up, is that 22 percent of those who are insured work for corporations, for companies that have more than 1,000 employees. That is an alarming statistic. We thought that if you were working, one, two, working for a large outfit, everything would be fine. Here we have the wealthiest city in the world in the wealthiest Nation on Earth with 25 percent of its population not insured. Then there is a contradiction in that we say, if you are very poor, as so many are in my south Bronx district, we will cut you here and there, but we will try to find a way to take care of you. But what you have to do is get yourself out of the condition and move forward. And when some people do by their bootstraps and in some cases with past government help move out of that condition, they find themselves then not having the availability of health insurance for themselves and for their children. How are we judged throughout the world? How do we judge ourselves? Well, some of us would say that because we have a great army, which is always ready, that we are a great nation, and that because we have accomplished so much in technology and other fields, we are a great nation. And we are and those are good signs of what we have done. But I think that there is taking a bite out of our existence and our future as a great nation and our present as a great nation the fact that so many of our children are uninsured. And I do not understand why anyone in charge of this House would say, we are not going to include that as an issue for discussion. I represent a district that has many titles. It is one of the more compact districts in the Nation. You can walk my district from one side to the other in 30 minutes. That is good for me. It is also bad because my opponent can walk it in 30 minutes also. It is one of the youngest districts in the Nation. It is at times one of the poorest districts in the Nation. And I have had friends of mine come to visit the district, and the first thing they say to me is, there are so many children: children who are going to school, children who are living in the neighborhood, children who are looking towards the future. The majority of those children have parents who are working, and yet the reason we are here tonight and the reason we have been here before and the reason we will continue to be here is because there is something terribly wrong at this moment in our country when we have allowed the situation to get out of hand to the point where if you did not know that you were watching Members of the U.S. Congress, you would think that you were watching members of another parliament or another government discussing conditions in their country. These are American children, and we are the country that claims that we have solved so many problems. I would make the same request that I made when I joined the gentleman from New Jersey before, and that is, if you are a parent, if you are a guardian of a child who is not going through this condition, as you help that child with his or her homework tonight, as you put that child to sleep, as you cuddle and tuck that child in bed and pray with him and feel good about the fact that you have got a good family which is doing well, maybe perhaps you will just take another 15 minutes and write to a Member of Congress and say, I put my child to sleep. My child has health care. My child is OK. I may complain about other things in this society and what Government is doing, but this is OK. I do not have a problem with you if you deal with this issue so that other children can have what my child has and that other parents can feel as good as I feel about my child's safety. I think what we need to do is to begin to have people who are in a better situation than others to defend the need for those folks to have something a little better than what they have now. I think that eventually we will be measured amongst many things in terms of how we treat our children. If we have to continuously get up to bring up this subject and it does not get solved, then that will be our failure. So I would hope that we come together, that we continue to do this. And once again, I want to thank you for the opportunity to join you tonight and to continue to ask you to continue this fight. You have been the leader on it for such a long time. Do not give it up. It is the right thing, and we will stand by you together as we do this.

Mr. SERRANO. If the gentleman will yield, I think he makes an interesting and a very important point. This is not about knocking ourselves, about turning our backs on our country. This is not about an unpatriotic act. This is about the fact that the strength of the country is in the future of its children, and if at the present we cannot provide them with health care, not to mention other harm we may bring to them, if we cannot provide them with basic health care, if we cannot allow a parent to feel the safety of knowing that that child will get sick and will be covered by health insurance in a country where you have to pay for medical care, if we cannot do that and if we keep quiet about it, then we are not honoring our country, I think. We are just dishonoring the country. We have to speak up and say this is a problem. But we are not saying, ``This is a problem, fix it.'' We are saying, ``This is a problem. You as a majority party bring the issue to the table and give us the opportunity to participate with you in finding solutions.'' Again, and I will close with this, as I said before, we have solutions. We have covered X amount of people. If we were inventing a health care system in this country, that would be a problem. If no one was covered and we had to start from scratch to cover people, that would be a problem. But most Americans are covered by a health plan. So what we have to do is make sure that others are covered. We do not have to reinvent the wheel. This should not be so difficult if the willingness is there, if the desire is there, if we begin to accept the fact that there are people in this society in certain conditions not because they chose those conditions or brought them on themselves, if we get out of that mentality and say, ``Yes, I am my brother's keeper. If there is a 9- month-old baby who is not covered, that is my problem, too. If there is someone uncovered somewhere else, that is my problem, too.'' If we get into that mentality, then I believe we can deal with this issue. We do not have to reinvent the wheel or set up a new plan, just deal with what we have in this country, just make sure it is fair and expanded to all.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Mr. Jaime Rodriguez, a successful Puerto Rican entrepreneur, a community activist, and a role model in the Bronx community. Jimmy, as most of his friends and associates know him, is the owner of a very popular restaurant and sports bar in the Bronx--Jimmy's Bronx Cafe. Jimmy's Bronx Cafe offers some of the best Puerto Rican cuisine in New York City. The restaurant's success is credited to Jimmy's managerial skills and superb taste for food. As a young man, Jimmy was resolute in his studies as well as in following in his father's footsteps by taking interest in the seafood business. He learned the business from the ground up and had the opportunity to open the seafood restaurant ``Marisco del Caribe.'' Later on, he expanded it to what is now Jimmy's Bronx Cafe. A good friend and mentor, Jimmy has been committed to giving back to the community in which he was born and raised. Together with the Hispanic Federation of New York City, Jimmy helped to gather toys and hosted a toy drive at his restaurant this past ``Three Kings Day,'' a Christmas tradition in Hispanic communities. Jimmy has sponsored 106 little league teams and donates frequently to local charities. Among these, Jimmy donates food regularly to the home- shelter Teresa Haven and to the senior citizen center ``Los Abuelitos,'' The Grandparents. Jimmy also contributes to Christmas in April, an organization which every year assists in renovating homes for senior citizens. Besides his charity work, Jimmy participates in numerous community and advisory boards, including his membership with the Hispanic Federation of New York City. As a visionary businessman, Jimmy has plans to open La Terraza Dinner Theater, Bronx Tours Entertainment and Cultural Tours, and other restaurants, like Jimmy's Bronx Cafe, in various cities. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mr. Jaime ``Jimmy'' Rodriguez for his entrepreneurial spirit and community activism which have served well our Bronx community and the Nation.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Bishop Daisy B. Garvin for her long and dedicated service to the community. Bishop Garvin was born in Savannah, GA in 1924. She moved to New York City where she earned a bachelors degree from the Manhattan Bible Institute in 1958. Over the past 35 years, Bishop Garvin has served as the pastor of the Greater Revivaltime House of Prayer. She is also the spiritual leader of Greater Revivaltime House of Prayer International, Inc. which oversees churches in New York, Virginia, South Carolina, and Florida. Her ministry started in the Bronx in 1962 and was later moved to Harlem, where she served for 25 years. In 1990, the church was moved back to the Bronx, where she continues to faithfully serve the members of her ministry. Through her church, Bishop Garvin has given to those in need, both of spiritual guidance and physical strength. With compassion and the strength of a spiritual leader, she has fed the hungry, clothed the poor, sheltered the homeless, succored the sick, and guided the young. Bishop Garvin has helped reintegrate teenage runaways back into their families and communities, and has assisted the victims of drug abuse and AIDS. She has also tutored children and adults in math, reading and writing. Her mission has been to set people free from the bondage of poverty, despair, and sin. Her formal education also includes a doctorate in Philosophical Theology from Unite Christian College, a doctorate in Divinity and a bachelors degree in Theology, these two from Dr. Rosalie Singleton School. Bishop Garvin has served as a member of the board of directors of the United Covenant Sisters and Brothers International, Inc., the board of elders of the Morris Cerullo World Evangelism, and as a member of Dr. Frederick K. Price's Ever Increasing Faith Network. She is also the president and founder of the Leadership Training School of Ministry. Bishop Garvin has been honored with the Great Women in History award by Bronx Borough president Fernando Ferrer, the Award of Excellence by the National Black Association of Minority Business Women, and the Woman of Excellence Award by the New Greater Bethel Ministries, to name just a few. She is the widow of Mr. Arthur Garvin, with whom she had a daughter who has followed in her footsteps, Reverend Juanita Davis. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Bishop Daisy B. Garvin for her longstanding commitment and dedication to those in need in the community.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great joy to extend my congratulations to Ms. Aida Alvarez on her confirmation to lead the U.S. Small Business Administration. Ms. Aida Alvarez is the first Puerto Rican woman, also the first Hispanic woman, appointed to a Cabinet position in U.S. history. Throught her long and distinguished career, Ms. Alvarez has acquired the experience and expertise that makes her exceptionally well qualified to lead the Small Business Administration [SBA]. ``Small business is the heart and soul of the American economy,'' Ms. Alvarez said during her acceptance speech after President Clinton nominated her to head the SBA. Ms. Alvarez was born in Aguadilla, PR, and raised in New York City. She learned first hand the importance of small businesses to fulfill the entrepreneurial spirit, build stronger communities, and spur economic growth. While still a high school student, she helped her family by working as a waitress in her mother's restaurant. After graduating cum laude from Harvard College, she worked as a reporter for the New York Post and Channel Five in New York. Her reporting of guerrilla activities in El Salvador won her an Associated Press Award for Excellence and an Emmy nomination. Ms. Alvarez held executive positions as an investment banker at the First Boston Corp. and Bear Stearns and, later on, as Vice President of the New York City Health and Hospital Corp. Ms. Alvarez served as commissioner on the New York City Charter Revision Commission, member of the Governor's State Judicial Screening Committee, and as a member of the Mayor's Committee on Appointments. In addition, she has served on numerous boards including, the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda, the New York Community Trust, and the National Civil League. Prior to her confirmation as Administrator of the SBA, President Clinton appointed Ms. Alvarez to head the newly established Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight [OFHEO] in 1993. At OFHEO, she implemented regulations to insure the financial safety and soundness of the two largest housing finance institutions in the Nation--the Federal National Mortgage Association [Fannie Mae] and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation [Freddie Mac]. Her leadership is characterized by efficient management. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in commending Ms. Aida Alvarez for her outstanding achievements and in wishing her continued success as Administrator of the Small Business Administration.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. One of the interesting things about this whole issue is that as my colleagues know, in many instances on these kind of issues the leadership comes from the White House, sort of emanates from the White House, and Congress reacts to it. In the past the White House did not speak, prior White Houses did not speak the issue of health care coverage. This White House did, and it was ridiculed for a plan that some people did not agree with. But the intent, rather than negotiating the plan, the intent was to stop the whole notion of coverage, universal coverage for everyone. And so now we find out that because of that lack of action and the inability to follow up on the family values agenda, which also should deal with this issue, you find, for instance, that the number keeps growing. A few years ago the number we threw around was 34 to 36 million Americans were not covered. The figure being dealt with now is 40 million Americans. I would also like to ask the gentleman from New Jersey to tell me if I am wrong on this issue, because he has been excellent on the issue of finding a fair immigration reform program in this country, and coming from New Jersey and coming from New York and from Texas, immigration is an issue. But is it immigration reform with a heart, immigration reform without a heart? Am I correct in suggesting, and I ask the gentleman to comment on this, that as we move to take benefits away from legal immigrants, we are now going to increase that number that we see on this chart above the 10 million children, or are those figures that we are dealing with these days already taking into account the possibility of all these folks that will be taken off the benefits, incidentally in many cases, for people who are interested, when you talk about people under 65, you are not talking about people who were here for the last 20 years, worked, paid taxes, and so one issue seems to jump on top of the other one. Am I correct that this will actually increase these numbers?

Mr. SERRANO. Just as my colleague was speaking, I was reminded of the fact that just this week the New York State Health Department came into my congressional district or a certain part to do a special study on why that part of New York City has a higher rate of asthma attacks than anywhere else in the city. And, as the gentlewoman said, this is in many cases a silent situation because people take it as something: ``Well, I have heard about it. It does not affect me. It is not a broken leg,'' as she said. ``It is not something I can see every day. I do not see it in the subway.'' We see somebody short of breath or something in the subway in New York, and we assume it is whatever, they were running down the stairs to catch the train because they were going to miss it. So this itself starts me thinking how much of an implication this has on this whole study that will be conducted now in my district. It would just seem to me that the last call that we can make here is to say we have been hearing a lot of statements about family values, I repeat once again. This is a family values issue, but it is an issue of how much we value families. And if we value families, then we must value the health care provided for the children. We cannot on one hand expect families to behave in a certain very nice, humanitarian American way, humane American way, and then at the same time have 10 million-plus children, families who are going through that situation, who face that on a daily basis, cannot react to everything else in society the way we expect them to. And so I would hope that we see this in fact as a family values issue, an issue of how much we value families, and solve it. We can. We have the ability. All we need is the word from the other side and it can happen, it can happen soon.

Mr. SERRANO. The gentleman is absolutely right. I happen to know for a fact in my district that the poorer the person, the less likely they are to get counted in the Census. The Census does not speak about anything other than counting people who live within this country. So if that is true and we know that is a fact, then the gentleman is right. The numbers there, the 10 million staggering number, could be higher. Because if a significant number of those folks fall within the poor category, and as the gentlewoman from Texas well pointed out, it covers all people throughout the society, people who are working, people who are laid off for a while, but the ones at the lower rung of the ladder would not go out and report, there may be no way to find out, and that number may continue to increase in a country where this should not be happening. Before I yield, I just would like maybe to take this time to ask something that may sound a little dramatic, but there are millions of American families who tonight will come home and there will either be a spouse there or there will be two spouses coming home from work, and throughout the night there is the ``Turn off the TV set.'' ``Did you do your homework?'' ``Let me help you with your homework.'' ``Turn off the Nintendo set.'' Maybe I am repeating my last night's statements, but my colleagues know this whole thing that we go through with discipline and love and affection, and yet many of those families know that they do not have this problem. Perhaps as they are putting their children to bed tonight, perhaps as they are turning in for the night, they realize that as bad as they have it in terms of tensions, living in this society, they still have something other families do not have. But maybe that is a sign of gratefulness for what they have been provided with, we have been provided with, that they take a few minutes and write a letter to their Member of Congress and their Senator and say: ``You know, I just put my child to bed, and I know if he is sick tomorrow I can take him to a clinic or to a doctor.'' But there are 10 million children or more whose families cannot do that, and there are 40 million Americans who cannot do that, and we are not talking here about a rip-off, we are not talking here about a giveaway, we are not talking here about corporate welfare. We are talking here about basic human needs, and maybe tonight Americans will take some time to write a letter to a Member of Congress and say: ``If this is correct, and I believe it is, do something about it. This is not something I am upset about. I will not hold you negatively accountable for providing health care for 10 million children.''

Mr. SERRANO. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker. My colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas makes an interesting point. That is, we should deal with the issue of prevention. You know, we Americans are really a very strange group of people at times. Who would not think of taking their car for an oil change or doing it themselves? There are some Americans who run the car into the ground, but most Americans know they have to do this. They either do it themselves in their driveway or somewhere, or they take it to a place to have it done. That is understood. But the whole idea of taking a human being at the age of under 10 to a clinic to get some preventative health care, some wellness care, is beyond our scope of thinking. Yet, at the end of the game when we talk about dollars and cents, as the gentleman has so well pointed out, and the gentlewoman, we are saving lots of money by going in the area of prevention. So I would hope that in this package, and I agree, there has to be something that perhaps begins to tell us about the area of prevention. As far as solutions, what is really sad about this whole argument is that the solution we already have. The bad news is that 40 million Americans are not covered. The good news is that if you do quick math, over 200 million Americans are covered. Therefore, under existing plans, through expansion and with the desire to do so, you can invent ways and bring about ways of covering the other 40 million. So we do not have to reinvent the wheel. What we have to do is simply look at what we have now and use it as the existing solution to move on to cover other people in the area where we should not allow disparity between different folks. Because in other parts of the society we have these problems and we have to deal with them on a daily basis. The fact is that most likely the people that are on that chart will also be the people who will have less access to a computer in the home than other people in this society. We know that. But this one is a basic right at this moment that people all deserve and we should be dealing with. So the solution, in answer to your question, which is an interesting point you bring up, because we certainly do not want to end this hour having people say sure, they brought up the problem, they did not offer a solution, the solution is 200 million Americans, 99 percent of whom are not wealthy people, are covered under existing plans. It is now a matter of finding out how do we cover the other 40 million, how do we take care of people who may be unemployed, and how do we especially take care of children. I would end today, again, by calling on Americans who may have health insurance, who may have a difficult, at times, life, but most of the time can as our colleagues said, count their blessings, to reach out to their Members of Congress and say that this is not something that can go on. Let us do something about it. Let us expand existing programs. Let us find solutions to this problem. Once again, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for bringing forth this issue today. This is one that I think really begins to speak to what this Congress should be about. If this Congress and this society cannot take care of its children, then it will not take care of anything else in this society.

Mr. SERRANO. First, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for putting together this special order today to discuss such an important issue. I must say, as the gentleman has well pointed out, this is a very disturbing situation, disturbing because on this floor we take great pride, and we should, on a daily basis, in the fact we live in the country we do live in. With that, we understand that there are some problems we have yet to solve, but there are some basic problems that I think we should have solved a long time ago, and for some reason we continue to have these problems. Lately, these problems have been compounded by the fact that there is a feeling that somehow if you are not getting certain care in this country it is your own fault; that you somehow created this problem on your own. After all, what we have been hearing lately is if you are poor, it is because somehow you do not get off the chair and do something about your problem. Well, now we are talking about children specifically in this report. Children are at the mercy of their society. We are in this society what we do for children. That is who we are. We are people who either take care or do not take care of children. And we have a report that says that there are that many children throughout the Nation, 10 million American children according to the chart that is next to the gentleman from New Jersey, 10 million American children. Now, what is interesting about that statement is it does not say 10 million children throughout the world. That is bad enough. It does not say, which would be also very bad, 10 million children in the Third World countries, the underdeveloped countries, 10 million children in one country, it says 10 million American children. And yet, as the gentleman states, we cannot get our colleagues on the other side to move on the issue of full coverage for all children. Now, this problem not only affects children, it affects the whole family. We hear a lot these days about family values, about how families should do for themselves. Well, there are some things that families cannot do for themselves. No family, except for maybe one-half of 1 percent in this Nation, can pay the amount of money it takes to go into a hospital or to get health care. That is why we have insurance companies. And that is why we have insurance plans, and that is why we have government subsidized plans. When we have 10 million children, and that many children, a figure that continues to go up in New York City and other places throughout the Nation, that are not insured, we have a serious problem that affects the whole family. Picture, if you will, the next study, which should be of all the children that are not insured; how many, because of related issues to not being insured, miss X amount of days from school? How many of those children are attending school in physical conditions that they should not be in? What is that doing to their ability to learn; to read and write, to do their work? What effect does that have on the family; the tension in a family? How many families have to worry about money in this country and that strains their relationship at home? How many have to deal with problems of drug addiction and that strains the relationship at home? Perhaps one of the studies should be how many of the families that are not insured, how many of the families who have children that are not insured have this extra added strain on their relationships in the home? And so to speak about family values, and to allow 10 million children to be uninsured, is really something that is hard to fully understand. One last point before I turn the microphone back to the gentleman from New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, every time that we speak in these Chambers, and on so many talk shows throughout this Nation our elected officials make public statements, we seem these days to want to attack people from certain communities. As I said before, one of the communities we attack is the poor. This one should be an easy one. This one should be one that no one should be politically uptight about. I do not know a community in this country that would be upset if Congress tomorrow did something about insuring children. If a community got upset, then there should be a study about what is wrong with that community. There cannot be an American family who would want for a neighbor's child anything less than the basic health care needs that they would want for their own family. So I would hope that today's special order begins to put forth the notion that there are some things that we do because they sound good politically, and there is opposition we take on issues because it is a good political stance. But this is good for our country, this is good for humanity, this is good for children; and we should attack this problem soon and attack it like we have attacked no other problem.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Montefiore Medical Center for 50 years of caring in our Bronx community. Mr. Speaker, this year, 1997, marks the 50th anniversary of the Montefiore Home Health Agency. Since its inception as the first hospital-based home health agency in the United States, Montefiore has cared for tens of thousands of patients. Montefiore offers a variety of programs. The long term home health care program, provides a continuum of care at home to the chronically ill, who would otherwise require nursing home placement. The teleCare program provides 24-hour access to emergency assistance in the home. The certified home health agency provides short-term care to patients in the post-hospital period. Such programs have been vital to patients recovery and recuperation. I would like to highlight the staff's devotion and energy in tending to the individual needs of each patient. Medical social workers provide unique and personal care. They teach patients how to use a variety of assistance devices. From nurses to occupational and physical therapists, these fine professionals are there when needed. Montefiore and its home health care staff stand out in their field. Montefiore succeeds in dramatically improving patients' quality of life. Mr. Speaker, let us join in the celebration of this milestone and acknowledge this outstanding agency for 50 years of accomplishment and service.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, it is always difficult to say goodbye to dear friends, to those who have given so much and so unselfishly to their communities and to our Nation. Our colleague Frank Tejeda was one of those men who are born to carry the torch for others to follow. His life is a testimony of courage, service, generosity, and integrity. Throughout his life he stood up against adversity. After dropping out of high school, he enlisted in the Marines. His exceptional military training and courage served him well in Vietnam; he was awarded with the Bronze Star and Purple Heart, and most recently the Silver Star. After 4 years of military service, Frank completed a bachelor's degree at St. Mary's University in San Antonio. He continued his education at the University of California at Berkeley, where he obtained a law degree. His desire to improve himself and to be of service to the best of his abilities encouraged him to obtain two masters degrees, one in public administration from Harvard University and a second one in law from Yale University. As a lawyer serving in the Texas House and later in its Senate, he defended the rights of the most vulnerable. He fought for worker's compensation reform and for other initiatives for minorities. His hard work and his understanding of his community in San Antonio, TX, gained him their overwhelming support to represent them in the U.S. House of Representatives. As a Member of Congress and of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Frank works relentlessly to secure veterans' rights and access to education and health care for the poor. Frank always stayed close to the people he loved: his family, friends, and his community back home. In his later years, he fought his terminal illness with the same courage and dignity that exemplified his life. To Frank Tejeda's family and friends, I would like to extend my deepest sympathy in this trying time. I would like to join all who had the privilege of knowing him in paying tribute to our American hero, Frank Tejeda, for serving his community, his State, and his Nation with the courage, generosity, and dignity of great men of history.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, recently I had the opportunity to visit the South Bronx Jobs Corps Center, which has been successful at helping disadvantaged youngsters acquire the educational and professional skills they need to succeed in the workplace. Established 11 years ago in my South Bronx congressional district, the South Bronx Jobs Corps Center is proud of the 500 Bronx youngsters it serves annually. The center provides students with guidance and training, tailored to their individual needs. At the center, younsters have the opportunity to obtain a high school equivalency diploma and to learn a variety of trades including, office assistant with knowledge of word processing, accounting clerk, nurse assistant, and building maintenance technician. In addition, the center encourages students to participate in community service. Every year students partake in antigraffiti campaigns and in beautifying buildings in our community. They also host meetings of Community Board No. 5 and the 46th Precinct Council, which students are encouraged to attend and participate in. The South Bronx Jobs Corps Center fosters a family-oriented environment to help youngsters overcome their challenges. It houses 200 youngsters and provides day care services to students' children ages 3 months to 3 years. The social component of the center's training includes parenting classes for students. In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson proposed the establishment of the Jobs Corps as an initiative to fight poverty. The South Bronx Jobs Corps Center is 1 of 100 centers nationwide and in Puerto Rico, serving youngsters ages 16 to 24. Supported by President Clinton, the Jobs Corps continues to be an effective program to assist at-risk youngsters in completing their education, increasing their self-esteem, developing a sense of belonging to the community, and preparing for a productive adulthood. This May 100 students will graduate from the South Bronx Jobs Corps Center. Seventeen of the center's 100 employees are South Bronx Jobs Corps graduates. Many others after completing the program have pursued a college education and secured part-time or full-time jobs. The most famous graduate from one of the centers in the Nation is heavyweight champion George Foreman. Mr. Foreman, who also authored a cook book, visited the South Bronx Jobs Corps Center recently to talk about the importance that the Jobs Corps program has had in his overall career. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me recognizing the staff and students of the South Bronx Jobs Corps Center for their outstanding achievements and in wishing them continued success.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Rev. Joseph M. Rollins, Jr., who was honored on January 18 for his long and fruitful career as a community activist and pastor of Saint Augustine Presbyterian Church, at 838 East 165th Street in my congressional district, the South Bronx. Reverend Rollins, a third generation Presbyterian minister, will be retiring as pastor of the church at the end of this year after 24 years of service. The tribute in his honor, entitled ``This Is Your Life'', highlighted his tireless work in the fight for civil rights and his dedication to the service of his fellowship and community. Reverend Rollins was born in Newport News, VA, in 1926. He is the great grandson of a former slave, Mrs. Clements, who gained her freedom at the age of 11. Reverend Rollins holds a degree from Johnson C. Smith University, in Charlotte, NC, an institution which was formerly associated to the Presbyterian Church. In 1954, Reverend Rollins organized the Trinity Presbyterian Church in Tallahassee, FL. A man of tremendous faith, he was among the first who believed in peaceful dissent as a catalyst of equal rights for all people regardless of color. In 1955, he was involved in the organization of the first bus boycott in Tallahassee, right after the arrest of three students from Florida A & M University. Reverend Rollins was among those who marched with Martin Luther King, Jr., during the civil rights movement. In 1963, he came to New York City and served as associate executive for the Commission on Religion and Race for the Presbyterian Church. In 1968, he became the executive of the National Committee of Black Churchman, an ecumenical movement. He was also a member of the National Presbyterian Black Caucus, and served in many community organizations, including Community Board #3, the South Bronx Leadership Forum, and 163 Improvement Council, all three in the Bronx. Reverend Rollins has received two honorary degrees from University of Dubuque, IA and Inter-Denominational Theological Center in Atlanta, GA. He is the widower of Julia Rollins, with whom he had two children, Cecilia and Metz Rollins, and is the grandfather of three. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Rev. Joseph M. Rollins, Jr. for his lifelong commitment to his ministry and for his community activism, which has so well served all of us countrymen.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding Puerto Rican woman, Mrs. Isabel Mendez, who has dedicated her life to taking care of others, especially Hispanics in New York City. Mrs. Mendez was honored by the House of Puerto Rican Cultural Heritage, known as ``La Casa de la Herencia Cultural Puertorriquena,'' on January 11 in New York City for her longtime commitment to the advancement of the Hispanic community. She was born in Yabucoa, Puerto Rico. In 1926, at the age of 17, she came to New York City. Since her arrival, she has fought every day to improve the living conditions of Hispanics and has helped them overcome the difficulties that are a part of the experience of immigrating to a new land. In 1932, Mrs. Mendez was instrumental in founding the first Hispanic Catholic Church, ``La Milagrosa Church,'' in El Barrio, east Harlem. Together with her husband, Tony Mendez, who was the first Puerto Rican male district leader of the Democratic Party, she fought tirelessly for the welfare of Hispanics in the city. In 1950, she founded the Puerto Rican Association of Women Voters, which is still in existence. Through this organization she assisted in furthering the advancement of Puerto Rican women. Mrs. Mendez also served as an interpreter for 24 years, first as a volunteer and later on as an employee, at the New York City civil court. Through her community activism, she has helped to ease the road for those who have come after and who have embraced New York City as their new home. She is the widow of Tony Mendez and the mother-in-law of State Senator Olga A. Mendez. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mrs. Isabel Mendez for her devotion to our community and for making all of us Puerto Ricans and fellow Americans proud.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my concern for our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico, who have been greatly affected by our recent action to eliminate economic development incentives under section 936 of the Internal Revenue Code without providing them with an alternative program. In dealing with important national issues such as the increase on minimum wage we must not ignore the needs of the people of Puerto Rico, my homeland. The 3.8 million American citizens of Puerto Rico deserve the opportunity to become economically solvent and self-sufficient. We must work hand in hand with the island to develop a sound economic development program that helps achieve those goals. I believe we must consider improvements and expansion of a wage credit for Puerto Rico under existing legislation. I urge my colleagues to give prompt attention to this issue early next year.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the conference agreement on H.R. 2202, the immigration reform bill. Mr. Speaker, this bill is often described as an effort to improve border enforcement and employment eligibility verification, but, in fact, it goes far beyond these widely-supported elements to attack legal immigrants in the United States, as well as the rights and health of all Americans, citizens and noncitizens alike, and our commitment to international human rights. Of course, this very unfortunate conference agreement is the result of the Republicans' negotiating and writing a new bill behind closed doors, with no input from Democrats--even those who were initially supporters of immigration reform--during either the negotiations or the actual public meeting of the conference committee! The employment provisions in this bill are simply wrongheaded. First, the bill defies logic by failing to improve enforcement of our Nation's wage and hour laws despite the fact that unscrupulous employers hire undocumented immigrants precisely so they can overwork and underpay them. Better wage and hour enforcement is the best deterrent both to this exploitation and to the jobs magnet. Next, computerized employment verification systems invite the creation of national databases on every citizen and resident of the United States, without offering safeguards against improper use or disclosure of information or any recourse if the information provided to a potential employer is simply wrong. Moreover, the bill strips from our immigration law existing antidiscrimination provisions, which were originally enacted three decades ago because it was a fact that minority citizens and residents were discriminated against in the employment process. As illogical as it may sound to my colleagues, while legal immigrants would remain eligible for certain public assistance under this bill, and many have worked and paid taxes to support public assistance and other government programs, they could be deported for actually using the benefits for which they are eligible. Worse, the deeming provisions could bar legal immigrants from receiving even emergency medical services under Medicaid. Legal immigrant children are at particular risk. They may be priced out of eligibility for means-tested programs such as Head Start or job training by deeming. Or they may be frightened away from participation in other programs such as housing, child care, or even health care lest they become deportable. And any immigrants who, despite sponsor income and the threat of deportation, actually receive services--even emergency services or services to children--must pay the government back before they will be allowed to become naturalized citizens. I guess in the Republicans' view of American citizenship, only the rich need apply. The conference agreement includes provisions that neither House nor Senate adopted and that conferees were not permitted to strike, that explicitly deny publicly-funded medical care for immigrants who test positive for HIV. There is no reason to treat HIV and AIDS differently from other communicable diseases such as tuberculosis or influenza except raw prejudice. This is also totally counterproductive to our efforts to control the AIDS epidemic in America. If enacted, these public assistance provisions, which are far more extreme than the already alarming provisions in welfare reform, will cause either a vast increase in human misery in this country or, more likely, a vast cost-shift to State and local governments and to churches and charities, including our already overburdened nonprofit hospitals. This bill would raise the income levels required to sponsor a child or spouse, sibling or parent, to levels that would disqualify 40 percent of all American families, both citizen and noncitizen, from bringing their families together in America. I guess Republican family values are not for hardworking families of modest means, but only for the wealthy. This conference agreement would also undermine our commitment to protect people fleeing from real persecution by restricting their ability to make their case for admission and denying them a hearing and judicial review. Hundreds of bona fide refugees could be returned to their persecutors under this bill. Mr. Speaker, this bill, like so many others presented by the Republican majority over the last 2 years, goes far beyond what Republicans claim to be its purposes and into the ugliest sort of politics. It is designed and intended to drive wedges into the population and to exploit some people's fears of people who look or sound different. This bill is shockingly cruel and will do real harm. I urge all my colleagues to vote to defeat this conference agreement. If it is adopted, I implore the President to stand up to the demagogues and veto it. That is the right thing to do.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an extraordinary young Puerto Rican, Miss Ariane Franco, for her dedication to excel academically and serve the community. She is an inspiration and a role model for many young students in the Nation, specially the Puerto Rican and South Bronx communities to which she belongs. Ariane was recently selected as the Boys and Girls Clubs of America's Northeast Youth of the Year. She will represent the Northeast as one of the five finalists in this year's competition, which is being held in Washington, DC. Like many other youngsters across the Nation, Ariane was raised in a family which faced many difficulties. Her desire to do something positive led her to achieve academically and to serve the community. Ariane has been an active member of the Kips Bay Boys and Girls Club over the past 4 years. At the club, she worked as a tutor for remedial math and reading, and as a computer instructor. She was also involved in numerous community service programs, including the Club's Smart Moves Program. Through this program, Ariane taught youngsters to be aware of and to prevent substance abuse, teen pregnancy, peer pressure and AIDS. Ariane's strong determination to fight adversity, and her family's spiritual strength have molded her into a very positive individual, always full of optimism and with the desire to help others. In addition to her community activism and leadership, Ariane is an excellent student. In spite of difficulties, she remained an honor student throughout her 4 years of high school at Stevenson's in the Bronx. She now attends the University of Scranton in Pennsylvania. Her strong desire to inform people about the truth has led her to major in communications with the goal of becoming a journalist. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Miss Ariane Franco for her leadership and commitment to her community, and for serving as a role model for young people. Young individuals like Ariane make all of us proud, specially our Puerto Rican community of the South Bronx.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Dr. Antonia Pantoja who will be honored today by President Bill Clinton with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Dr. Pantoja is the first Puerto Rican woman to receive this Presidential award. She is being honored for her lifetime achievements in the creation and development of numerous organizations to serve the Puerto Rican community. Dr. Pantoja was born in San Juan, PR. She lived with her grandfather, a cigar maker, in the workers' neighborhood of Barrio Obrero. From her grandparents she learned the value of workers' unions and their ability to achieve common goals. She witnessed first hand a successful strike of cigar makers that helped improve working conditions. Pantoja's parents taught her the importance of education. Young Pantoja completed a 2-year degree at the University of Puerto Rico and soon afterward she started teaching in the rural neighborhoods of Puerto Rico. Although she loved teaching, the pay was very low. In 1944, she came to New York City in search of a better economic future for her family. She moved to the Bronx and started working as a welder in a factory. Soon she witnessed the struggles of the Puerto Rican community and the lack of opportunities to improve their economic conditions. She found a job at a community center, which enabled her to attend Hunter College and complete her bachelor's degree in social work. Full of aspirations for her Puerto Rican community, Pantoja founded the Puerto Rican Forum, an organization that would assist in the creation of Puerto Rican institutions. The Puerto Rican Forum led to the creation of ASPIRA, an agency to help Puerto Rican youth focus in their studies and obtain higher education. Under Pantoja's leadership, ASPIRA grew fast and is now one of the most influential organizations helping the Hispanic community. Currently, ASPIRA has chapters in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Puerto Rico. Pantoja's work was just starting. She went to teach at the Columbia University School of Social Work as an associate professor. Later on she worked on her doctorate project, the establishment of a university in Washington, DC, to serve Puerto Rican students in the United States. Universidad Boricula served as a repository of information on Puerto Rican studies--its history, culture, and the community itself. Most recently, Dr. Pantoja established the organization Producir to help in the community development of the workers' neighborhoods or barrios in Puerto Rico. Her desire to serve the community is demonstrated in many committees and boards on which she has served throughout her career. Dr. Pantoja was a member at large of the Constitutional Convention of New York State. At the convention, she was the chairperson of the subcommittee that wrote the article on education opportunities and the article on job economic development. She also worked on the decentralization of New York City schools. Among many other memberships, Dr. Pantoja also served as a commissioner for the Study Commission for Undergraduate Education and the Education of Teachers. She was a member of the Evaluation Committee of the National Endowment for the Arts and of the National Endowment for the Humanities. She was awarded a doctorate degree, Honoris Causa, from the City University of New York, Queens College School of Law. Dr. Pantoja has been honored with the Ellis Island Medal of Liberty, the National Puerto Rican Coalition Life Achievement Award, the Hispanic Heritage Award, the U.S. Hispanic Congress Hero Award, and the John W. Gardner Leadership Award from Independent Sector, among other awards. Dr. Pantoja has dedicated her life to the advancement of the Puerto Rican community, to education and the betterment of community relations. Her extraordinary life is an example of achievement through leadership, perseverance, and faith in your own abilities. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Dr. Antonia Pantoja, for her life of achievements helping our Puerto Rican community, New York, and the Nation.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong opposition to H.R. 123, the English Language Empowerment Act and in support of the Serrano English Plus substitute. H.R. 123 is devisive, unconstitutional, and unnecessary. Supporters of this legislation say that it simply declares English as the official language. I contend that that is not true and that that bill's reach is far-reaching. Section 163(b) of the legislation states that ``No person should be denied services, assistance, or facilities either directly or indirectly provided by the Federal Government solely because the person communicates in English.'' H.R. 123 provides an entitlement for those that speak English and permits citizens to sue. But what does that really mean? Well, at federally sponsored programs or benefits would have to be in English. If the Federal Government directly or indirectly supports opera, community cultural festivals, and even sports events like the Olympics, taxpayers are entitled to receive all federally sponsored services in English or they can sue. The English-only requirement also would place restrictions on Internet communication. Because the Federal Government operates Internet servers, a Federal Web site that links into multilingual or non-English pages would indirectly provide services in other languages--depriving citizens of their right to English services--and would subject the Federal Government to frivolous lawsuits. Telecommunications and broadcasting are not exempt from the bill's provisions. The Federal Government regulates telecommunications and grants, sells and regulates broadcasting licenses. Under the requirement of this bill, the Government would be prohibited from granting licenses to foreign language stations without the threat of a suit. Even law enforcement could be handicapped by H.R. 123. While non- English languages may be used for reasons of public safety and to protect the rights of victims of crime or criminal defendants, what about the work that is done where neither the criminal nor the victim is identifiable? Much of the investigative work done by the FBI, DEA, and ISN falls into this category. The substitute I will offer is the modified text of a bill of which I am the primary sponsor, House Concurrent Resolution 83, the English Plus resolution. It states the Government's policy should be to encourage English as our common language, to empower its citizens by encouraging multilingualism, and to promote English proficiency through educational opportunities; but also to avoid infringing on indigenous languages; and to oppose measures that place undue burdens on one's ability to obtain services, representation or protection from the Federal Government because of limited English proficiency. English Plus maintains that the primary language of the United States is English and that all members of our society should recognize its importance. It proclaims that our Nation's strength lies in its pursuit of justice, opportunity, and diversity. It is unnecessary to legislate what we have established by custom and tradition. Clearly there's no threat to our common language. According to the 1990 census report, 97 percent of the American population speaks English. Of those who speak Spanish at home, 80 percent indicated that they speak English ``well'' or ``very well.'' English Plus recognizes that multilingualism is an asset, not a liability to our competitiveness in our global economy. Multilingualism encourages global competitiveness and better international relations. In fact, now more than ever Americans are learning foreign languages. According to a report by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, there has been a 5-percent increase in the number of high school students who take foreign language classes and more colleague students are taking an interest in foreign language classes. We are a nation of immigrants and have built our culture upon that diversity. In fact, the authors of the Constitution drafted the document in both English and German. During World War II, the Korean war, and the Vietnam war, the military used speakers of native American languages to communicate in a sort of unbreakable code. You can see an indication of the history of diversity in this nation if you look around at the names of cities like Los Angeles which is Spanish for ``the angels'' and Pueblo, CO, which is ``City, Red'' in English and the Rio Grande, ``Big River,'' one of our natural resources. We have always been a nation with diverse languages and learning other languages should be encouraged. My substitute opposes the imposition of unconstitutional language polices on the Federal Government and the American people. In 1923, the Supreme Court declared that restrictionist language policies like those in H.R. 123 were unconstitutional. In addition, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed that view by nullifying Arizona's English-only policy. While we want everyone to be able to be proficient in English, we must not employ measures that are inconsistent with the Constitution's guarantees of freedom of speech, representative democracy, due process, and equal protection under the law. The Serrano substitute supports the view that our Nation's strength lies in its pursuit of justice, freedom and opportunity. English-only supporters say that the common bond of our Nation is our language. Nothing can be further from the truth. Democracy--not religious, ethnic, or linguistic uniformity--is what holds this country together. Extremist language policies like H.R. 123 are devisive and racist, uniting people behind misplaced patriotism. Just think of the hardship that it would place on athletes and tourists at the Olympics if services and information were only provided in English. Inhumane policies like those found in H.R. 123, will only encourage divisiveness and resentment and delay full participation of all people in our society. The Serrano substitute promotes the view that English proficiency is achieved through educational opportunities. Denying services and information will not help one single person learn English. Immigrants and new arrivals want to learn English--I cannot stress that enough. Studies indicate that current immigrants are learning English faster than they did 100 years ago. In California, classes operate 24 hours a day and, in New York, some immigrants must wait up to 18 months to take classes to learn English. In response to that, Republicans in the House passed the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill which cut bilingual education, the program that teaches children information in their language and gradually makes the transition into completely English language classes. The House also cut the adult education program which provides funds for English as a Second Language classes. The English Plus substitute maintains that services, information, and government protection should not be denied because of limited English proficiency. Among H.R. 123's provisions is the repeal of bilingual voting ballot requirement. It infringes on citizen's ability to receive information about elections and ballots in a language that they are comfortable with and violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. In 1993, when I served as chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, I authored legislation to broaden the requirements under section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, which apply to bilingual voting ballots, which Congress passed with bipartisan support. Even Presidential hopeful Bob Dole supported it. Under H.R. 123 citizens from American territories like Guam and Puerto Rico--who are born U.S. citizens--would be exempt from the bill only while they live in those jurisdictions. Once they move to the States, as many of my constituents did, they will not be able to receive information or services from the Government in Spanish. My substitute maintains the belief that our democratic process demands the highest level of speech protection. As Members of Congress, it is essential that we be able to communicate, whether in writing or orally, with constituents, colleagues, and other government officials. It is not uncommon to receive requests for information in other languages. H.R. 123 would literally prohibit representatives from communicating in writing through correspondence, press releases, and newsletters, unless it is in English. While I think that both our bills aim to strengthen our country, the English Plus substitute empowers by encouraging opportunity and diversity while H.R. 123 imposes divisive and restrictive policies that infringe on constitutional rights. My bill affirms that English is the common language of the United States and encourages citizens to learn it. I urge my colleagues to support the English Plus substitute and if it fails, vote ``no'' on H.R. 123, the English Language Empowerment Act.