José Serrano

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Michael Thomas Doyle, who was honored, on October 6 at the 1995 St. Benedict The Moor Neighborhood Center's dinner dance, for his leadership and guidance. Mr. Doyle is one of eight individuals who were recognized for their remarkable success in helping rehabilitate individuals who had been struggling with substance abuse. The rehabilitation program is being implemented at St. Benedict The Moor Neighborhood Center. Born in Manhattan, raised in the South Bronx and currently residing in the Bronx, Mr. Doyle's commitment to his community began early. While attending DeWitt Clinton High School in the late sixties, he volunteered his time as a tutor at an after school program sponsored by St. Peter's Lutheran Church in the South Bronx. Later, as a full time sophomore at City College of New York, he became the director of that program, working with troubled youths and youthful offenders. Mr. Doyle did not stop there; as part of his college studies, he became a student teacher at St. Peter's School and Brandeis High School. Upon graduation from City College in 1974 with a B.A. in English, Mr. Doyle worked in the New York State Office of Drug Abuse Services. He served as a drug treatment assistant at a residential center specializing in the treatment and detoxification of adult men. Mr. Doyle's commitment to our community is demonstrated by these and many more accomplishments within his illustrious communal services career. His appointment as the area director of The Bronx Operations in 1995 is further evidence. He is now responsible for 6,900 occupied units of In-Rem housing for the city of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Michael Thomas Doyle for his endeavors in an area that provides an invaluable service to our community.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the budget reconciliation bill that is before the House this week. I hardly know where to start in denouncing this misguided bill, but several themes are apparent. It makes vast, untested changes in the way our country does business. It abandons federal commitments to the most vulnerable among us-- children, families, the elderly, immigrants, the working poor, the sick--and makes many of them the subjects of State-run experiments in providing health care, education, jobs, and other services. It needlessly cuts taxes on corporations and wealthy investors while it raises taxes on more than half the population--the half with incomes under $30,000 a year. It dumps huge new responsibilities on the States but gives them little time to plan, establish new programs and bureaucracies, or hire and train State employees. It makes changes in programs across the Federal Government; while some may be useful, many are probably not or they wouldn't have to be rammed through the House in this manner. It tramples on the procedures the House has established to permit full and open debate on important issues by inserting provisions never considered by a committee or actually rejected by a committee. Of course, the bill has been a moving target as the Republican leadership cut deal after deal to buy the votes they need to pass this massive nightmare of a bill. The real targets and beneficiaries of this bill are shockingly clear from a couple of the tax provisions. The bill provides for $245 billion in tax cuts that go mostly to wealthy investors and corporations. According to the Office of Management and Budget, the top 1 percent of families, those with annual incomes over $350,000, will see their taxes cut by $14,050 per year. The $500 tax credit per child would go to families with annual incomes up to $200,000. But the credit is nonrefundable, which means that a family of four would receive a reduced credit or no credit at all until its annual income reached about $30,000. At the same time, the Republicans propose to save $23 Billion from the Earned Income Tax Credit [EITC], which offsets payroll taxes and the failure of the minimum wage to keep pace with inflation, permitting low-income working families to keep more of their earned income, or, if their income is very low, providing a modest income supplement. The result of these two provisions--the non-refundable per child tax credit and the EITC cuts--is that fully half of America's working families, those with annual incomes below $30,000, face increases in their taxes. The EITC cuts will have a particularly serious impact on New Yorkers. New York has a State EITC, which is tied to the Federal credit. Nearly one million low- and moderate-income working families will see increases in their State taxes as well as their Federal taxes from the cuts in budget reconciliation. We discussed the Republicans' huge and dangerous cuts to Medicare last week, although without enough time for debate or opportunity for amendments to improve that deeply flawed bill. It came up last week, of course, because the Republicans hoped to fool the American people into thinking there is no connection between the $270 Billion in Medicare cuts and the $245 Billion in tax cuts. But here it is again, as title XV of this bill. Another reason that considering Medicare last week was a mistake is that it is so closely related to Medicaid. Changes in one program affect the other in ways that have not, in my view, been sufficiently studied. Moreover, cuts in both programs, taken together, will have devastating effects on our health care system, patients and providers alike. Mr. Chairman, on Friday, I met with a group of providers in my South Bronx district to discuss the cuts' impacts on their facilities and hear their views. One participant, representing the Daughters of Jacob Geriatric Center informed us that between 90 percent and 95 percent of the center's residents are supported by the Federal health programs and that 75 percent of its budget goes to labor costs. Clearly, cuts in Medicare and Medicaid will have serious, harmful effects on the health and well-being of the seniors at the center. Apart from the cuts in Medicaid funding, provisions ending the entitlement of eligible individuals to coverage and converting Medicaid to a shrinking block grant are alarming. Medicaid is a national program precisely because some States were unwilling or unable to meet the health care needs of the poor. To assume that every State will have the will and the resources to meet these needs, especially as Federal contributions decline so sharply, is dangerous wishful thinking. On Tuesday, my constituent, David Tuzo spoke about the importance of Medicaid at a rally on the Capitol Grounds. David, who is HIV-positive, has four sons, three of whom are foster children he has saved from abuse and abandonment. In closing his remarks, he said, ``I guess there are two reasons my health is so good and I feel so optimistic: my life with my kids gives me hope and Medicaid is my lifeline. Without Medicaid, I'd lose my kids and my life.'' But there is no guarantee that the medical services David receives now with Medicaid coverage will continue to be covered, or even that he and his sons will continue to be eligible. Welfare reform is another empty, to be added title of this bill, although conferees are now meeting to resolve differences between the versions of H.R. 4 that passed the Senate and House. But I think anything born of H.R. 4 ought to be rejected, not hidden away in this huge bill. My outrage has not diminished since the House voted to take away the Federal guarantee that some modest assistance will be available for those children and families whose desperate circumstances make them eligible. That is not just bad public policy, it is immoral. I also continue to be angry at the ongoing immigrant-bashing that began with H.R. 4, which would deny public assistance on the basis of legal immigration status. We know that immigrants don't come here for public assistance; they come to join family members and to provide a better life for their children. They work, they pay taxes, they participate in community life, and they play by the rules. Why should they be targeted, except to save money? Mr. Chairman, there is a great deal more to condemn about this bill, but I am nearly out of time. Let me just mention a few more outrages. The bill repeals the alternative minimum tax on corporations, letting corporations get away with paying no Federal income taxes at all. The bill permits businesses to raid their pension funds of as much as $40 billion, threatening the retirement security of millions of current workers. The bill amends the Community Reinvestment Act to make it easier for banks to avoid investing and lending in communities from which they take deposits and to make it harder for community groups to challenge a bank's CRA compliance. The bill terminates the RTC and FDIC affordable housing programs and repeals the low-income housing tax credit, reducing the already small stock of affordable housing for low- and moderate-income families at a time of increasing homelessness. The bill eliminates the direct loan program and the graduation grace period, putting a college education, which is the most effective vehicle for success, beyond the reach of most people. The bill incorporates the provisions of H.R. 927, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, an extreme bill that would enhance policies that have never worked, increase the suffering of the Cuban people, and adversely affect United States businesses, the United States court system, and our relations with our closest allies. The bill ignores reforms made just 2 years ago to the tax exemption of certain income from investments in U.S. possessions such as Puerto Rico, known as section 936, and, instead, phases it out over 10 years. I believe section 936 should be left alone, but if it must be changed there are better ways. Mr. Chairman, all thinking Members agree that we must bring the Federal deficit under control, if not actually balance the budget. There is wider disagreement over the number of years it should take. I personally think 7 years is too short and requires the kind of mindless slashing of spending the Republicans propose rather than thoughtful adjustments, but the Republicans insist on 7 years. Cutting taxes before the deficit is under control makes the required spending cuts that much greater. And the specific cuts chosen, aimed mostly at low- and middle-income families, and the refusal to curb corporate welfare, add to the outrages in this bill. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this terrible bill.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the memory of Hermes Luciano Caraballo, who still remains with us in spirit through the many people he touched and served. Today his memory will be honored by his family, friends, and members of the community at the First Annual Dinner of the Caraballo Memorial Scholarship Fund. Born in Yauco, Puerto Rico, Mr. Caraballo started serving the Christian community at the early age of 6 at The Four Square Church of Ponce. One year after his marriage to Ms. Isabel Olan, he came to New York City and became an active member of the Church of God 3:16. He excelled at this church as leader of the men's Ministry and was the Assistant District Commander of the Spanish Eastern District, A.G. of the Royal Rangers. In 1964, Mr. Caraballo obtained the approbation of the Directorship and faculty of the Spanish American Bible Institute of New York after finishing 3 years in theological studies. Eighteen years later he served as an advisor at Glad Tidings Church and an elder of the Spanish Department. In 1995, he was founding trustee of Grace Tabernacle. Mr. Caraballo's dedication to the well-being of the community was also evident through his involvement with many organizations including, Hunts Point Multi Service, Model Cities, Puerto Rican Community Development Project, ``La Hermandad Yaucana Civica y Cultural, Inc.,'' ``Hijos de las Piedras y la Fraternidad Isabelina,'' The Puerto Rican Day Parade, ``La Federacion de los Pueblos,'' and ``La Association del Nino Evangelico.'' In addition, he served as community liaison to Assemblywoman Carmen Arroyo. A remarkable human being, Mr. Caraballo left a legacy of hope, encouragement, convictions, and joy. He was a father and a friend to those who needed him. He is survived by his wife and six children. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying homage to the life of this exceptional individual who was committed to the service of the most vulnerable and of those in need of encouragement and hope.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Michael A. Benjamin, an active community leader and a dear friend who was honored for his outstanding contribution to health community issues on October 6 at the 1995 St. Benedict the Moor Neighborhood Center's Dance Dinner, in the South Bronx. Michael A. Benjamin is one of eight individuals who were recognized for their remarkable achievements in helping rehabilitate individuals who had been struggling with substance abuse problem. The rehabilitation program is being implemented at St. Benedict the Moor Neighborhood Center. A Bronx resident, Mr. Benjamin started his career as an alcoholism counselor. He served in this capacity at various centers over a 7-year period, including Hunts Point Multi Service Corp., Prospect Hospital, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Health Center, and Our Lady of Mercy Medical Center. After his exemplary career as a counselor, Michael worked as a special assistant to Assemblyman Hector Diaz. I had the privilege of bringing him on board in this same capacity while I was serving the N.Y. Assembly, just before I was elected to Congress. Michael presently serves as parliamentarian of the executive committee of the Bronx Democratic County Committee and is a member of the community advisory board of the Morrisania Diagnostic and Treatment Center. He also served as chairman of the Youth Services Planning Committee and has sat on various committees and boards, including the South Bronx People For Change Anti-Drug Committee, the New York Lung Association Minority Task Force, and the Community Advisory Board at the Bronx Alcohol Treatment. He earned a bachelor of arts degree in political science at Syracuse University and has done graduate work at State University of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Michael Benjamin for his success and lifelong commitment to community health issues.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Assemblywomen Carmen Arroyo, who was honored for her outstanding service to the community on October 6, at the 1995 St. Benedict the Moor Neighborhood Center's Dinner Dance, in the South Bronx. She is one of eight individuals who were recognized for their remarkable success in helping rehabilitate individuals who had been struggling with substance abuse. The rehabilitation program is being carried out at St. Benedict the Moor Neighborhood Center. A native Puerto Rican who holds a Bachelor of Arts from the College of New Rochelle, Ms. Arroyo overcame many economic difficulties during her youth. She had to fight in a world where women were mostly relegated to the home. First, Ms. Arroyo was determined to become a bookkeeper, and studied to finish a course leading to secretarial- bookkeeper certification. Her studies were interrupted when she moved to New York and started working at a factory. Her seven children joined her a year after, but unable to find day care services for them, Ms. Arroyo was forced to rely on public assistance. This experience moved Ms. Arroyo to help those who, like her, were struggling to improve their lives. She founded the South Bronx Action Group, an organization dedicated to empower women, Latinos and blacks in the community. Later, suitably empowered herself, she became president of the Puerto Rican Women in Political Action Organization. In 1977, Ms. Arroyo became the executive director of the South Bronx Community Corporation, an organization committed to aggressive urban development in the South Bronx. As a Puerto Rican woman, she understood the need to advance the socioeconomic condition of Hispanic women. Ms. Arroyo is the first Puerto Rican woman elected to the New York State Assembly and the first Puerto Rican woman appointed to the New York State Medical Advisory Board. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the Assemblywoman of New York's 74th Assembly District, Carmen Arroyo, for her lifelong career and dedication in the service of the poor, the disenfranchised, women, children, and the elderly.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Sharon A. Joslyn, who was honored, on October 6 at the 1995 St. Benedict The Moor Neighborhood Center's Dinner Dance for her great contributions to our community. Ms. Joslyn is one of the eight individuals who were recognized for their remarkable success in helping rehabilitate individuals who had been struggling with substance abuse. The rehabilitation program is being implemented at St. Benedict The Moor Neighborhood Center. As a nurse and a member of the International Grail Women's Movement, Ms. Joslyn has worked in community health projects in the United States and in Brazil. After her relocation to the South Bronx, she has continued working as a nurse at the Dominican Sisters Family Health Service on Alexander Avenue. Ms. Joslyn also served as an active member of the St. Ann's Development Corp., which branched out from St. Ann's Episcopal Church. Along with other members of the corporation, Ms. Joslyn had risked bodily harm by operating an office and living in a building scheduled for demolition, in order to save it and to preserve the office that services our community. Ms. Joslyn currently works at St. Luke's Catholic Church where she is responsible for community programs and is the coordinator of the U.S. Grail International Team. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Sharon A. Joslyn for her undying sense of commitment to our community, which has in turn embraced her efforts and dedication.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong and determined opposition to H.R. 2425, the Medicare so-called Preservation Act of 1995. H.R. 2425 is a very bad bill. It comes to the floor after a very flawed process and under artificial time limits imposed by the Republicans to prevent full and free discussion of the issues. H.R. 2425 is driven by the Republicans' draconian budget, which means it is based on very bad numbers, not on any understanding of health care in this country. It will have far-reaching, negative impacts on most Americans. [[Page H 10365]] H.R. 2425 would cut $270 billion in future Medicare spending. That is three times the size of any previous provision to address the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund's solvency. Yet it will extend the HI Trust Fund's year of exhaustion only to 2006--the same year the Democrats' much more modest proposal, based on the Medicare trustees' recommendations would. The balance of the $270 billion does nothing to shore up the HI Trust Fund, but, instead, makes possible $245 Billion in unnecessary tax cuts aimed at the wealthiest--more than half the tax break goes to people making over $100 thousands a year. Seniors would pay twice the current part B premium in 2002, as well as higher deductible and copayments. Cost growth would be held below the growth in private sector health spending. Seniors who have greater health needs than the working population, would be forced to pay much more, particularly as fewer providers would be willing to accept rock-bottom Medicare reimbursement rates, and protections from balance billing would be repealed. Otherwise, seniors would have to give up their choice of doctors and accept second-class health care in underfunded managed care plans. Hospitals are already reeling from changes in the health care industry; the hits they would take in reduced payments for graduate medical education, bad debt, disproportionate low-income patient load, and the like, would put many hospitals, particularly the public hospitals that serve the poorest populations and our great teaching hospitals, at great risk of closing. Special deals for various portions of the health care industry would weaken consumer protections and make it much harder to combat Medicare fraud and abuse, kickbacks, and other anticompetitive behavior. Meanwhile, medical research and the care provided by specialized institutions such as our children's hospitals are very much at risk. The process, too, is very bad. Medicare is being rushed to the floor without full consideration by all the committees with jurisdiction. The Judiciary Committee majority actually waived--just gave away--its jurisdiction over crucial changes in medical malpractice, antitrust rules, the False Claims Act, and antikickback penalties. That is just not right. Nor should the House consider Medicare apart from the rest of reconciliation, just so the Republicans can try to convince the American people that there is no relationship between Medicare cuts and tax cuts for the wealthy. Under a fair and open process, this House would consider and amend all parts of reconciliation--the inexplicable tax increases on the working poor, the unnecessary tax cuts for the wealthy, the dangerous attack on workers' pension funds, the reckless spending cuts across the budget, as well as the excessive cuts and changes in Medicare and Medicaid--together. The House should be able to consider the cumulative impacts of all the changes and make necessary adjustments. American's so-called sandwich generation, for instance, as a result of reconciliation, will find themselves pressed harder and harder, helping their parents with higher Medicare premiums and other health care costs while dealing with cuts in their children's student aid. Because of the close relationship between Medicare and Medicaid, the House should be able to consider--and, where necessary, do something about--the impacts on each of changes in the other as well as the cumulative effects of changes to both. What will be the combined impact of Medicare and Medicaid cuts on our health system? A report by Barents Group LLC prepared for the Greater New York Hospital Association estimates that, over 7 years, New York City residents will pay $2 billion in excess part B premiums; and hospitals and long-term-care facilities together will lose more than $24 billion. By 2002, job loss will total 140,000, of which 112,000 will be in health care sector. The Healthcare Association of New York State estimates that the 16th district will lose over $2 billion and nearly 11,000 health care jobs. Individual hospitals will lose hundreds of millions of dollars. And what would be the impact on Medicare if a State, given authority to set Medicaid eligibility and coverage and a shrinking pot of Medicaid dollars, decides it cannot afford to fund long-term care? Under the proposed caps on Medicare spending, how will Medicare cover the much more expensive hospitalization that will surely result? What recourse will seniors have if a State decides not to fully cover the Medicare premiums, deductibles, and copayments of the elderly poor? Their coverage would effectively be ended, and it is unlikely that managed care plans will have sufficient enrollment capacity soon enough or in enough places to meet the needs of all seniors who need low-cost health care. I believe the House ought to be able to consider situations like this, but separating consideration of Medicare from Medicaid by nearly a week will make it impossible. Mr. Chairman, there is much more I could say in opposition to this bill, but I will not go on. I simply urge my Republican colleagues to come to their senses and support the Democratic alternative, which extends Medicare's life just as long as H.R. 2425 without all the other harmful baggage. At a minimum, I urge all my colleagues to oppose this dangerous, ill-considered bill.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, let me first preface my comments by saying that the beauty of democracy is the ability to disagree. For me, the pain of democracy tonight is to have to disagree with colleagues of mine from the Cuban-American community who have a special emotional involvement in this issue. I come tonight not only as a person who was born an American citizen, but with a special feeling in my heart for having been born in an American city in the island of Puerto Rico, for those two islands, Cuba and Puerto Rico, hold historical and cultural bonds that some people in this body may just not understand. If the people in Cuba hurt, then I hurt, and I wonder how much of their pain is caused by us, not by their leadership. So I think it is important for us to be honest with ourselves, at least in private if we do not say it out loud. This is not about democracy. It cannot be about democracy. Our country at this moment in its foreign policy statements has no moral grounds to say that this issue is about democracy, not when we are dealing with China and Vietnam and with Korea and with other countries, not when we see elections in the Caribbean, democratic [[Page H 9347]] elections that are very questionable in terms of how they were conducted and we look the other way. Mr. Chairman, what this is about, in my opinion, is, in fact, a response to a well organized lobby in two parts of our country, in Florida and in New Jersey, which has taken their emotions and their ability to lobby well and made a lot of people feel that this is the kind of legislation we need. As much as I oppose the law of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli], we could say there is this law already on the books, why do we need this, as the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli] said tonight, admitting that his law does not work. I have done that in the past. It is not an easy thing to admit. What this is about is a group of people in this country, Members of Congress, who kneejerk immediately to the thought of getting to this quote, unquote, last communist left. How do we do it? By squeezing the Cuban people. If we squeeze them to a point where they are hungry on the streets, they will rise up against their government. Mr. Chairman, I am not a scholar in world history, but I do not remember the last revolution led by hungry people. I do not remember the last revolution led and put together by people who cannot feed their family. It is usually the middle class and the upper class that leads these revolutions. What do we do? We lie. We lie to ourselves because we say that the Cuban people support the embargo. Let me see if I get this straight. A mother in Cuba who does not know where she is going to feed and how she is going to feed her children tomorrow calls her sister in Miami. Her sister interrupts her dinner, pushes aside a plate of white rice or black beans, fried plantains, and a Coca-Cola, not to mention a little pork or beef and says, ``Yes, what do you want, my dear?'' She says, ``Listen, I don't know how I am going to feed my children tomorrow, but I want you to support the embargo so I can get this guy off my back.'' Are mothers in Cuba different from mothers throughout the world? Would a mother do that to her children? Give me a break. It is people here who support the embargo because the embargo will bring about a crisis in Cuba eventually they hope which will allow them to move in and play a role in a new Cuba, for if we lift the embargo and negotiate with the Cuban Government, there will be a transition because Cuba already is on a road that will never turn away from where it is going now. Mr. Chairman, do we know what will happen? The new Cuban Government will be composed of people who live in Cuba now, and that is bad news for people who want to go back to Cuba, not to visit relatives, but to run the government. Let me say what I think is happening here and this is what I am afraid of. We in our profession like to make the predications and be right. I make this predication and I pray to God that I am wrong. We will squeeze the Cuban people more and there will be a crisis in Cuba, and it will become an immigration crisis for us, and that is when we really react negatively toward Cubans because we do not want any more Cubans in this country. We are anti-immigrants all of a sudden. So we will have to blockage Cuba and someone will fire a shot somewhere and we will be there the way we always know how to be with troops. Mr. Chairman, the lawsuits allowing people who were not citizens at the time that their property was dealt with to now sue, the whole idea of telling a CEO from a foreign corporation, if you are dealing in Cuba with these properties, your children and you, your relatives, cannot enter this country, not even for a kidney transplant, what the heck are we talking about here? Mr. Chairman, there are children in Cuba tonight who are on the road to more suffering. Can we be proud of that? Can we be proud of that? I started to say where I came from. A great poet once wrote that Cuba and Puerto Rico are of one bird; it is two wings. Both hurt in different ways. One is a colony and one with much pain. I would like it to end. It can end if we get off this machismo trip we are on, stop our obsession with one individual and deal with the Cuban people for the human beings they are. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 927, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act. This is an extreme bill that continues and strengthens diplomatic policies that have never been successful, and introduces troubling new policies that will adversely affect U.S. businesses, the court system in the United States, damage our relations with our closest allies, and, most important, increase the suffering of the Cuban people. The existing Cuban embargo has not resulted in any change in Cuba's Government. The imposition of even stricter sanctions against Cuba would only exacerbate the already critical economic situation in Cuba and cause even more hardship to the real victims of this embargo, the Cuban people. Cuba does not pose a threat to our democratic government, and the United States Government should not pursue the policy, contained in this legislation, which would serve to further increase Cuba's isolation. We should instead have the courage to develop and expand a constructive relationship with Cuba. The existing Cuban embargo and current United States policy toward Cuba does not have the support of the world community. This support is vital for a successful foreign policy. H.R. 927 would even further damage our relationships with our allies, and violate the North American Free-Trade Agreement. Passage of this legislation would have a very negative impact on the court system in the United States. This bill would allow any United States citizen, or any company organized under United States law, whose property was expropriated by the Cuban Government, to sue Cuba or any foreign business that is using the property today. The result will probably be the filing of thousands--maybe even hundreds of thousands-- of lawsuits in U.S. courts. If the estimate of $4,500 in administrative costs per case (as provided by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts) is correct, the resulting cost to the U.S. court system and the taxpayers of the United States is tremendous. Finally, the current trade embargo is already harming businesses in the United States. American businesses are banned from doing business in Cuba, and this has meant that European and Latin American investors are able to enjoy new business opportunities without any competition from United States business interests. It is ironic that countries well known for their human rights violations are our trade partners. We have opened the doors of commerce with Vietnam and North Korea, and yet we continue to follow a policy that has no moral grounds and damages the national interests of the United States with respect to Cuba. I would urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 927, a bill that moves U.S. foreign policy even further in the wrong direction. We should instead take the first steps in the path of bringing economic recovery to our neighbor, and building a productive and peaceful relationship.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my extreme distress-- even disgust--at the way H.R. 2127 provides for the programs of the Department of Health and Human Services. I was privileged to serve on the Labor--HHS--Education Subcommittee in the last Congress, and I was proud of our work under Chairmen Natcher and Smith and ranking Republican Porter. But this bill is a disgrace, and I am glad I had no hand in writing it. The bottom line is that this bill does not include enough money to meet the Federal obligation to protect and improve the health and well- being of all of us in the United States, but particularly of the most vulnerable among us. The victims of these cruel HHS spending cuts are many, and include the elderly, children, women, and working people. The few bright spots are not enough to save the bill. There were modest increases in funding for community and migrant health centers and the maternal and child health block grant, but these came entirely at the expense of title X family planning, which was terminated, and the increases disappeared last night when family planning was restored. This bill slashes, by more than 50 percent, the Healthy Start Program, which is today successfully reducing infant mortality in the South Bronx and other places. There is a very small increase in the Ryan White CARE Act, but only for title I. The other titles are flat funded, although the HIV/AIDS epidemic continues to grow. My congressional district in the South Bronx is particularly hard hit by HIV/AIDS, and Ryan White funds from all titles are crucial to meeting the needs of the growing numbers of affected women, children, and adolescents. There is a modest increase for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But, while increases in key prevention programs such as sexually transmitted diseases, breast and cervical cancer, chronic and environmental diseases, and infectious diseases are welcome, equally critical prevention programs for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, lead poisoning, and injury are flat funded. And the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health is cut by 25 percent and its training program is eliminated. The bill quite appropriately increases funding for the National Institutes of Health, where scientists seek new understanding of biological processes and disease mechanisms that will permit us to challenge and defeat threats to our health, improving quality of life and saving lives. But the bill eliminates the separate appropriation for AIDS research, putting execution of the annual plan for NIH AIDS-related research, which Congress mandated, at risk. The bill cuts nearly $400 million from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration and totally eliminates the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention at the same time the Republicans' welfare reform proposals will vastly increase the need to prevent and treat mental illness and substance abuse. The bill slashes the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, a key player in learning--and disseminating its findings on--how to provide health care that is both high-quality and cost-effective. There is a modest increase in the Job Opportunities and Basic Schools [JOBS] Program, which helps welfare recipients become self-sufficient. The bill kills the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program [LIHEAP], which is simply immoral. Poor, mostly elderly people have died of the cold last winter and in the nationwide heat wave this summer. Killing LIHEAP assures that more of them will die. The child care and development block grant is flat funded and obligation of its funds is delayed until the end of fiscal year 1996, at the same time the Republicans' welfare reform will be forcing more mothers of young children into the workplace. This bill cuts Head Start. Cuts Head Start, Mr. Chairman. Maybe not by much, but Head Start is one of the most popular and successful early childhood programs we have, and, until this year, it has been permitted to expand toward the goal of meeting the needs of all eligible children. Many are still unserved, and more will be dropped from the program with this cut. The bill cuts funding for temporary childcare/crisis nurseries and for abandoned infants assistance. It cuts child welfare training and research and adoption opportunities. It cuts development disabilities programs, Native American programs, and homeless services grants. The bill savages the violent crime reduction programs enacted just last year. The bill slashes Older Americans Act programs, including such services as prevention of elder abuse, preventive health, and the vital nutrition programs. This bill, Mr. Chairman, even cuts basic functions of the Office of the Secretary, such as civil rights--and even the HHS inspector general. Mr. Chairman, that's just funding. The riders related to HHS programs are astonishingly [[Page E 1639]] wrong-headed. They trample on the health and well-being of our people. The abortion issue is the source of most of the mischief--this bill limits women's right to reproductive freedom, denies biomedical researchers--and sufferers from certain diseases--the hope of finding new treatments or cures using fetal tissue acquired under tight controls, and limits the ability of accrediting bodies to set standards for medical training. Then there's title VI, a whole new bill that limits political advocacy by Federal grantees. Who is better prepared than providers of health, social, educational, and other services, to advise policymakers on the needs of their clients and the efficacy of various programs they participate in? And how do we justify proposing to violate these groups' first amendment rights to freedom of expression with their own money? The clear purpose of title VI is to silence the advocates for the poor, the sick, the elderly, the green, and other people whose needs or whose views of Federal obligations and Federal programs do not have the authors' support. On the whole, the title II and the related legislative provisions of this bill are part and parcel with the entire bill--cruel and disastrous. This bill is a mean-spirited joke on anyone who believes that the Federal Government has a moral obligation to protect and improve the health and well-being of our population and to make the investments in our people that help them to be self-sufficient and our economy to be competitive. The problems with this title illustrate why the entire bill deserves swift defeat and a complete rewrite. I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 2127.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, the committee's draconian cuts to education programs represent a fundamental shift in our Nation's priorities. Less than 1 year after the passage of Goals 2000, President Clinton's ambitious plan to prepare our children for the 21st century, the Republican majority stands poised to initiate a massive rollback in funds for programs which benefit our most precious resource--our children. There can be no higher priority than their education and training for the future. The more than $1 billion cut in title I, the program which serves our poorest children, the 59 percent cut to safe and drug-free schools, and the 75 percent cut to bilingual education, when combined with cuts at the State and local levels, will have disastrous consequences for our Nation's already overburdened and understaffed school systems. In New York City, these cuts will result in nearly 42,000 fewer children receiving title I services, 9,000 fewer students in bilingual education programs, and the loss of nearly 3,000 teachers. Other Members have spoken eloquently about the cuts to education programs. I would like to speak for a moment about the cuts to bilingual education programs. I find these cuts particularly troubling because the need for the services those programs provide is ever- increasing. The number of limited English proficient children is expected to increase to nearly 3.5 million by the year 2000. Studies have shown that language-minority students take several years to fully master academic English. Bilingual education allows these children to keep up with their peers in math and science courses, while simultaneously mastering the English language. These programs have been proven effective at reducing dropout rates, which for Hispanic children are more than 50 percent. This bill eliminates funds for nearly 200 programs, including literacy training, student aid, and graduate fellowships. We cannot hope to remain competitive in the global marketplace if we do not provide for the education and training of all of our citizens, not just those who can pay their own way. This shift in our priorities is unacceptable. I do not believe that the way to solve our fiscal problems is to shortchange our citizens and mortgage our children's future. I strongly urge the defeat of this bill.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2127, making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, as well as several Related Agencies. Mr. Chairman, traditionally, the Labor-HHS-Education bill has been one of the most important bills before Congress each year. It funds programs that are key to the Nation's well-being: health, education, social and employment services that touch every person in the United States and provide the means for all of us to live healthier and more productive lives. That is why this bill, this year, is such a tragic mistake. Its initial problem was the misguided priorities the Appropriations Committee used in allocating spending authority among the subcommittees. A grater problem is the equally misguided priorities used in writing the bill. No amount of tinkering will make H.R. 2127 livable, Mr. Chairman; the Appropriations Committee should simply tear it down and rebuild it from the ground up. In many ways, H.R. 2127 is a 180-degree turn from the priorities in last year's bill, in which, even within tight budgetary limits, we were able to strengthen the Nation's investment in our youngest children by increasing funding for Head Start and Healthy Start. We were able to increase funding for title I, our country's primary mechanism for assisting disadvantaged children, and continue to fund Pell grants and Federal students loans, strengthening our commitment to access to higher education regardless of one's ability to pay. We were able to strengthen our ability to save lives and improve health with increases for critical public health, health research, and health care programs. We were able to increase funds for key employment and training programs. H.R. 2127 is in sharp contrast to those priorities. It cuts Head Start--cuts Head Start, Mr. Chairman--and whacks 50 percent out of Healthy Start. It guts spending for title I and for bilingual and migrant education, and totally eliminates funding for Safe and Drug-Free Schools, Dropout Prevention, vital literacy programs, and Goals 2000, President Clinton's ambitious plan to prepare our children for the 21st century. Minor increases in certain health spending come at the expense of an important family planning program and both the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health and the Office of the Surgeon General, all of which are eliminated under this bill. It slashes key employment and training programs and kills the summer youth program. Just as hundreds of unfortunate people have died in the nationwide heat wave, it kills the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. And so far, Mr. Chairman, I have referred only to the funding priorities in this bill. The limitations and legislative provisions in H.R. 2127 are far- reaching meddling in issues under the jurisdiction of authorizing committees. Among other things, they threaten the health and safety of women, the safety and rights of working people, and the ability of Federal grantees to share their expertise with or represent the needs of their members and clients before policymakers. Mr. Chairman, this cruel bill makes victims of the most vulnerable people in our Nation, our children, our seniors, our minorities, even our increasingly beleaguered working people. There is just no reason to support such a mean-spirited bill. I urge my colleagues simply to vote it down and let the Appropriations Committee try again to produce a new bill that will deserve the support of the House.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, the outrageous cuts to the Department of Labor and related agencies proposed by the Republican majority are a vicious attack on hardworking Americans. The proposed cuts to OSHA enforcement, to the Wage and Hour Division, and to NLRB would result in a dangerous shift in the policies which protect working Americans. The prohibition on enforcement of President Clinton's Executive order banning striker replacement is but one example of the egregious and inappropriate legislating occurring on this year's appropriations bills. From Youth Fair Chance, School-to-Work, and Summer Youth Employment, to the Job Training Partnership Act and Community Service Employment for Older Americans, opportunities for job training and employment are being severely reduced, and in some cases, completely eliminated. The funding cuts to the National Labor Relations Board and the Wage and Hour Division will mute two strong advocates for working people. These programs are an essential part of providing opportunities for millions of Americans to achieve a decent standard of living. The cuts in this bill would move us farther and farther away from this goal. We cannot, with any conscience, allow these cuts to happen. This bill has devastating consequences for all Americans. I strongly urge defeat of this bill.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I just want to share with our colleagues what happened in New York. The gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez] and I encourage the people to come to the July 8 citizenship day. We set up an 800 number. One thousand people showed up and were processed for citizenship, but 29,000 phone calls came in that we were able to record. Every time 40 phone calls came into the machine, the system closed down until we cleared it out, so the estimate is that maybe over 100,000 people called up. Again, to reiterate, people who are here with documents, people who are here legally, as we say, people who want to be American citizens, we were able to process them on their way to full citizenship. I think it is important to support this amendment and to say if we, indeed, wish people to follow the law, then what we should be supportive of is this kind of amendment.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment. I think the point that a lot of Members miss on this issue is that in the Federal workplace and in the workplace in general, there are many people who rely on this agency for their last resort. Their ability to deal with the system, to deal with discrimination, to get some relief comes from this agency. What the gentleman is trying to do is deal with the fact that has been stated here before; the backlog of cases in this agency, the inability to process all the cases is really creating a very unfair situation. This is, as has been stated before, about equality. This is an agency and a program that is truly in the best tradition of American democracy. Not to support this amendment is really to continue to say that equality in this country is not important. If you do not build a Federal prison, you can create a slight problem. If you do not give someone their due rights in this society, you create a major unfair problem. This is a good amendment, and every Member should vote for it.

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

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I do not really think that this is an argument about our resolve to do what we have to do for democracy or any other subject we want to discuss. This is just a bad expenditure. That TV station has not been seen in Cuba for the last couple of years. In fact, the reports are that it was seen one evening with Popeye cartoons. I know Popeye is good and funny. I do not know if Popeye is good at undoing any kind of government. Those of you who are new to this House and strong on the issue of cutting budgets, this is a good one to start. The problem here is simple, and you are going to hear it throughout this discussion. There is a lobby in Miami that I envy. They are so strong. They can get their own TV station, their own radio station, their own embargo, and, of course, they can present it as something that is against everything that is wrong and in favor of everything that is right. This, my friends, is a waste of money. When was the last time someone came from Cuba and said I saw TV Marti? They do see CNN programming. What they do see is the World Series when it goes in on the antenna. TV Marti does not get in. Whether or not it is jammed by Mr. Castro is not the point. I do not allow anything to come to my House that I do not want. So maybe he has got a problem with that. That is his decision to make. But why are we spending tax dollars on something that does not work because we have got people telling us that they want electronic toys to play with? If they want electronic toys, let those lobbyists get a Radio Shack card and go and buy something and leave TV Marti unfunded and save that money.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me briefly say at the outset that I am troubled by the fact that when prior agreements are reached on time for amendments, depending on how late the session goes, we tend to change those agreements and that is why we have a limited time now. Mr. Chairman, my amendment says that no funds can be used to pay for the activities of the advisory board for the Cuba broadcasting, under the Cuba Radio Act. What happens is that recently, reports have come out in an investigation, a Federal investigation by the IG that indicates that the chairman of the board of the Advisory Board of Radio Marti is misusing his position as chairman of this board; is in fact writing policies that are not within his direction to do so; that he has in fact influenced the way Radio Marti conducts its business; that he has influenced Radio Marti broadcasts to Cuba, and what kinds of things Radio Marti says. The IG report also denounces the fact that this gentleman determined who gets hired and who gets fired; that if you disagree with his desire to run his personal agenda, and someday return to Cuba as President of the island under his exiled government, that he then fires you. It is, in fact, a complaint by a person who was under fire, an employee of Radio Marti, that caused the IG investigation which denounces this action. Now, if you have been close to this issue for years, and I have and others in this body have even longer than I, you know that this is no secret, that the worst kept secret in this country is the fact this gentleman, this chairman of this board, runs this program, in other words, the worst kept secret in America is that this station has become the electronic personal toy of this individual, who feels that he can control all kinds of political matters by this station. In fact, he is chairman of Radio Marti's advisory board and is only supposed to provide general advice to the White House about Radio and TV Marti. He has influenced both management of Radio Marti and news coverage. The Office of Inspector General of USIA has issued an interim report documenting examples of inappropriate influence by the chairman. There have been personal abuses and personnel abuses. A close associate was hired and promoted. Radio station employees who protested the influence were retaliated against. That is all in the report. In January, Radio Marti broadcast, at his request, statements that the administration was near agreement on immigration when, in fact, the administration was trying to work out other agreements. During the recent months, 280 stories in favor of a bill that the chairman supports tightening the embargo were aired on Radio Marti, while only 70 stories against the embargo were aired. Incidentally, my stories against the embargo were never aired, and I am a Member of Congress. So you can imagine how serious this stuff gets. The complaints traditionally are that this agency is being run not to service the needs of the United States, but to serve the needs of this one individual. You are going to hear from opponents of this amendment that this is a witch-hunt against a great American. Fine. You are going to hear from opponents saying they want to investigate the people who investigated to make sure that they were fair in their investigation. You are going to hear how this report was leaked and is unofficial. Well the fact of life is most of what is in this report, even when it is official, will stay the same, and it will say that we should not be using taxpayers' dollars to allow someone to run a nearly, if not fully, corrupt operation, which is the advisory board and his influence on it. Those are not the statements of the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] or myself or other people throughout the years. There is finally, as reported by the Washington Post and the New York Times, the statement in a report that says this is horrible, this should not take place, this is improper. USIA probes activist's role at Radio Marti; anti-Castro activist is being probed: Cuban American has meddled in Radio Marti, officials say. This should not take place. What I am asking today is we are not attacking Radio Marti, but Radio Marti does not need an advisory board which is being run this way.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I recently received a letter from a constituent, Mr. Geoffrey Graham of the Bronx. Mr. Graham thanked me for my vote against the proposed constitutional amendment to permit Congress and the States to prohibit the physical desecration of the U.S. flag. He also enclosed an essay expressing his views on this issue in more detail, which I thought was very eloquent. I commend this essay to my colleagues, and hope that each and every one will read it carefully and think again about the messages this amendment to our Constitution would send to residents of the United States and to the rest of the world. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Graham's essay follows: Why I Oppose the Flag Desecration Amendment There are three reasons to oppose the Constitutional amendment that would ``protect'' the flag. The most important is that it will bring a small measure of fear into the lives of ordinary Americans. There are countries where people live in deep fear of their own government and institutions. Russia is a particularly tragic example, but there are many others. The contrast in quality of life between such countries and our own is so stark that any change in that direction should be viewed with apprehension. Now, the friendly and familiar American flag, always a welcome presence, is being transformed into something that must be handled warily. It will have to be kept from young children and boisterous drunks, lest a felony occur. Unruly adolescents will have to be taught that disrespect for this object, unlike disrespect for the family bible or Crucifix, can bring severe punishment from outside the family. Idealistic teenagers, who sometimes believe in the First Amendment with almost religious fervor, will have to learn that the flag is an exception that could get them into very serious and long-lasting trouble. Housewives who are tempted to wash a soiled flag along with the regular laundry will have to remember that they had better not. We will have become a nation that is slightly afraid of its own flag. A second reason is that it will undercut our efforts to help dissenters around the world who are being punished for violating some holy symbol. Sometimes, polite verbal protest is not enough. Most of us could sympathize with women in Islamic fundamentalist countries who might burn their veil or even a copy of the Koran. Of with women in poor Catholic countries, where the church has great influence, who might publicly destroy a Bible of crucific in anger over the church's position on birth control. Or with inhabitants of the former U.S.S.R. or Rhodesia if they burned their hated internal passports. Or with Chinese dissidents who, following the Tienanmen Square massacre, might direct a bitter symbolic protest at China's leader Deng Xiaoping (the act is to publicly break a small bottle, a ``xiao ping''). Our efforts to shield such dissenters have been moderately successful; but in the future, they will be weakened by the taint of hypocrisy. Indeed if disrespect for an icon is the important thing, rather than the form which the disrespect takes, it will be hard for us to reproach the Iranian government for its treatment of writers like Salman Rushdie. The third reason is that the amendment will vandalize something much more important than the flag, our Constitution which includes the Bill of Rights. The Constitution is based on an unusual principle of government: an agreement to strictly limit the ability of any group to use the machinery of government against those of whom it disapproves. To that end, it guarantees freedom of expression without concessions to powerful political interests. In particular, it provides that expressions of discontent must be harmful, rather than merely convey and offensive idea, in order to be forbidden. Now we are abrogating that principle in return for the shallowest of satisfaction. The Constitution, not the flag, has made us the great nation that we often are. It is admired around the world, and has been imitated countless times. Along with the Magna Carta and the Geneva and Hague Conventions, it is a landmark in the human effort to treat each other with decency. It is one of the greatest secular documents ever written, but its greatness derives from the fact that we usually live up to its guiding philosophy. It deserves better than this. There is still time for the American public to give this proposed amendment the careful scrutiny it deserves. We should.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, unaccustomed as I am to quoting Cal Thomas, I would like to share his column on amending the U.S. Constitution to allow prohibitions on burning the American flag with my colleagues. The article, from the May 6 issue of World magazine, follows: Extinguishing Liberty Watching the Fourth of July festivities in Washington (and around the country on television) showed the depth of love most Americans have for this country. That is why a constitutional amendment to ban the burning of the American flag is so silly, stupid and unnecessary. No one forced the millions of people waving flags--who respect and honor the republic for which it stands--to love America. They exhibited a spontaneity no law can impose. When the House last month passed a constitutional amendment that would, should the Senate and states concur, outlaw flag burning, it continued a game politicians have been playing with public school prayer. The rules of the game are that the social problems confronting America can be fixed from the top--a kind of ``trickle-down'' morality. Politicians love this because they have done much to promote such a view, which advances their careers and preserves their jobs. Many others hold this belief because it absolves them of responsibility for fixing what is wrong with their own priorities and transfers it to government. And when government increasingly reveals its inability to repair social damage, we blame not ourselves but government and politicians, deepening the cynicism against institutions and those who work in them. There hasn't been a lot of flag burning since the Vietnam War. Sen. Howell Heflin (D-Ala.) says that's why now, with the heat of passion reduced, is the best time to ban it. But any time is a bad time for such a ban. First, what constitutes a ``flag''? Is it only the cloth that waves from a flagpole or can it be one that is stapled to a wooden stick? Is the reproduction of the Stars and Stripes on a napkin, patch, or coffee cup considered a flag? Some flags are made in Taiwan or in other nations. Would they count as American flags? I saw a chair upholstered in a flag. If the chair was thrown on a bonfire during a protest rally, would that violate the proposed constitutional amendment? And why is burning being singled out for prohibition? What about stomping, spitting or pouring paint on the flag? Those who would ban flag burning have placed the American flag in a category and context that is idolatrous. Idolatry is defined as ``the worship of a physical object as a god; immoderate attachment or devotion to something.'' While we don't worship or devote ourselves to the flag as we might be a religious symbol or being, the attachment some would force on the rest of us comes pretty close to resembling that definition. The Fourth of July overwhelms us all with the number of displayed and waved American flags. As with speech, the best way to overcome the ugly variety is with more and more beautiful speech, along with a common rejection of the ugly speaker and his words. When a flag is burned, it is the protester, not the flag, who is demeaned. He reveals his base ingratitude when he burns a symbol of a nation great enough even to allow him to indulge in moronic behavior. Banning flag burning will increase the probability flags will be burned. Allowing it removes the political stinger.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, today I join the community organization 52 People for Progress, Inc., to do honor to Mr. Miguel Amadeo for his noteworthy musical and public accomplishments. Mr. Amadeo is a dear personal friend and an invaluable member of our South Bronx community. Better known as Mike, he started his musical career at the age of 16. Since then, he has composed over 200 songs. A humble man, his talent has been shared with various prominent Latino artists such as Johnny Albino, Cuarterto Los Hispanos, Hector Lavoe, Andy Montanez, Willie Colon, and Celia Cruz, among others. Besides being a gifted and prolific composer, Mr. Amadeo is also a dedicated member of our South Bronx community. He has been a longtime supporter of the organization 52 People for Progress which aspires to improve the conditions of the community through music, culture, and art. He worked for 40 years serving customers at his record store, Casa Amadeo, in the South Bronx. Indeed, in the late 1970's when businesses were fleeing, Mike stayed, endured and continued to write his songs and serve his loyal clientele. The music of Miguel Amadeo has enlightened and brought hope to thousands of listeners. His gentle nature has changed the lives of many individuals who have been touched by him. It is not frequent that we find both, musical talent and commitment to the community, in one individual. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize citizens like Mr. Amadeo, who with their talent, fortitude, diligence, and relentless dedication give back to their community and set an example for others to follow. Today, Mike will receive a well deserved public recognition in the same community theater he helped to build. I ask my colleagues to join me and the South Bronx community in conveying best wishes and deep gratitude to Mr. Miguel Amadeo.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Rita Di Martino, a national Latina leader who will be honored on July 27, 1995 by MANA: A National Latina Organization. On that evening the organization will announce the establishment of the Rita Di Martino Scholarship in Communications. MANA was founded over 20 years ago and through its programs has worked to achieve recognition for Latin American women throughout the United States. The Rita Di Martino Scholarship is the first of many scholarships that MANA will establish in the future to recognize the impressive accomplishments of Latin American women in this country. Latina leaders' achievements and service in the fields of business, education, politics, science, medicine, and the space industries will be honored in this way. Rita Di Martino is the first Latin American woman to be recognized by MANA for her outstanding contribution to both the Hispanic community and to our Nation as a whole. She is an esteemed spokesperson for the Hispanic community and a nationally recognized expert on Hispanic affairs. Ms. Di Martino is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations, the Ana Mendez University System, and Gems Television International. She serves on the Executive Committee of the National Council of La Raza, the National Hispanic Corporate Council, the Cuban American National Council, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, the U.S. Senate Republican Task Force, is the Vice-Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, and is a Presidential appointee to the USO World Board of Governors. In 1982, President Ronald Reagan appointed Ms. Di Martino as the U.S. Ambassador to the UNICEF Executive Board. Ms. Di Martino influenced policy regarding the relationship of the United States and UNICEF, achieved increases in UNICEF's financial support, and extended the scale of programs in the areas of child health, water quality and sanitation, nutrition, and education. Ms. Di Martino conducted oversight and program review visits in Central and South America, East and West Africa, Egypt, and Morocco. Ms. Di Martino is currently the Director of Federal Government Affairs for AT&T where she coordinates the company's relations with the administration, Congress, and various State governments. She enhanced the political standing of At&T by securing recognition of AT&T as a major corporate citizen by the current administration. As a leader in the Hispanic community, Ms. Di Martino provides information and guidance to the company's administration about this growing segment of the population and offers leadership and direction with respect to multicultural issues. She is frequently called upon to act as a spokesperson for AT&T in both Spanish and English publications, broadcasts, electronic media, and live events. Ms. Di Martino has been recognized by Who's Who in America, 100 Hispanic [[Page E 1445]] Influentials in America Today, and Cattell's Who's Who in American Politics. She has been widely honored and recognized for her efforts in the areas of public policy, communications, and public service by businesses and community organizations, colleges, universities, and various educational institutions, in addition to numerous publications and journals. Through MANA's scholarship program Ms. Di Martino and her achievements will continue to inspire and enable generations of young Hispanic women to strive to be the leaders of tomorrow.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, I spoke to the graduates, teachers, and families at 15 public school graduation exercises in my district. I consider it one of my most important duties as a Representative to celebrate these events and acknowledge publicly that these young people of the South Bronx, often in spite of terrible odds, have successfully completed major stages in their education. However, I missed several votes in the House. If I had been present, I would have voted as follows: On further consideration of H.R. 1854, Legislative Branch Appropriations, 1996: Rollcall No. 408, approval of the Journal--no. Rollcall No. 409, motion to permit Committees to sit--no. Rollcall No. 410, Fazio amendment, amended by Mr. Houghton--yes. Rollcall No. 411, Clinger amendment to cut Folklife Center, increase CBO to do unfunded mandate analyses--no. Rollcall No. 412, Orton amendment to cut the Botanical Garden, increase depository libraries--no. Rollcall No. 413, Klug amendment to cut GPO staffing--no. Rollcall No. 414, Christensen amendment to ban funds for elevator operators--no. Rollcall No. 415, Zimmer amendment to return unspent funds for deficit reduction--no. Rollcall No. 416, motion to recommit--yes. Rollcall No. 417, passage of H.R. 1854--yes. On H. Res. 170, the rule for consideration of H.R. 1868, Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations, 1996: Rollcall No. 418, ordering the previous question--no. Rollcall No. 419, passage of H. Res. 170--no.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, to my right here is the reason why this amendment makes very little sense. Let me first preface by saying that I, too, like the gentleman from New York, served our country's armed services. I was doing it to protect not only the flag but what the flag stands for. I, too, like the gentleman, if I am walking on the street and I see someone hurting our flag, will grab him and slap him around, not because he does not have the right to do it but because he is being stupid. The problem with this amendment is that it really cannot be enforced fairly. Here are symbols of the flag. The question to be asked is, does this amendment cover these symbols? Will every State uniformly speak to this issue? So if you wear a soccer shirt with the American symbol on it and you sweat it up or you are a terrible soccer player, will that offend somebody and therefore be covered by this amendment? How about those tacky ties to the far right? One is orangy red; the other one gets even worse because it tries to imitate the flag in a miserable way. That tie really does not look good on anyone, but will it look better on someone and, therefore, be OK? That is a question. On July 4, this weekend, people throughout this country will be eating cake made out to look like the American flag. Some will be light. Some will be full of cholesterol. Is that offensive to someone? That is a question to be asked. Get ready for this. You see this flag here? This could be covered by this amendment. This flag was made in Taiwan. If you really want to talk about offending the flag, should not all flags be made in this country by American workers? Buy America, only American flags. Right here we have a young woman who looks very good in a flag. She has got a flag skirt on. How about someone who does not look good in that flag? Up here is the symbol of my hometown, Mayaguez, PR, where I was born. It has the Puerto Rican flag and the American flag as symbols of the Commonwealth. Some statehooders use that symbol to express their desire to be the 51st State. Some people who believe in independence or Commonwealth find that offensive to put both flags together. Some might decide that that is improper for their flag or for their Commonwealth, and how would they be protected under this amendment? The point is a simple point. Do any of these symbols of the American flag get covered under this amendment? If so, why will you not let us discuss the issue of what constitutes the flag and what constitutes desecration of the flag? I realize that we have an amendment, but we wanted to amend piece by piece to be able to discuss this. The gentleman from New York should know that. I would think, my colleagues, that the best way to protect our flag is not to worry about what constitutes the flag and what constitutes desecration. If that flag could speak to us, it probably would tell us to stop this silly debate and to do what it stands for. It would tell us to feed the children that are hungry. It would tell us to take care of the senior citizens who need Medicare. It would tell us to stop disliking each other along racial lines. It would tell us to respect each other. If you do that, you honor the flag. If you put this as a question, you make a mockery of the flag.