José Serrano

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dennis DeLeon, a human rights advocate, AIDS activist, Hispanic community leader, and, I am proud to say, a friend. He will be honored today for his great contribution to the community by Manhattan Borough President Ruth W. Messinger at the ``Unity in Community'' event. Born in Los Angeles to Mexican-American parents, young Dennis started a career of community activism, serving as the president of the student body at Occidental College. He later graduated from Stanford School of Law. His school years were marked by his academic achievements and leadership in law and Latino organizations. Dennis soon became active in Latino civil rights issues. He was one of the founders of the largest Latino employee organization in the Department of Justice and later, in California, he worked as regional counsel for California Rural Legal Assistance, an organization which provided legal assistance to migrant workers. In 1982, he was appointed to serve as senior assistant corporation counsel in the New York City Law Department where he provided litigation supervision on civil rights issues including immigration, gay and lesbian antidiscrimination, and gender discrimination. Besides being an excellent attorney, Dennis has written a number of publications on human rights, Hispanic labor and discrimination issues. In 1986, New York City Mayor Edward Koch appointed Dennis to serve as executive director of the Commission on Hispanic Concerns. In 1988, Manhattan Borough President David Denkins appointed him to serve as deputy borough president. He later served as chairman of the New York City Commission on Human Rights. Dennis continued fighting for the rights of Latinos, gays, women, lesbians, immigrants, and other minorities. Presently, he leads the Latino Commission on AIDS. Dennis is tireless in his commitment to the enhancement of services for Latino AIDS victims and their families. He is a board member of a number of organizations, including the New York State Bar Association, Puerto Rican Bar Association, Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Persons with AIDS Coalition, and the Latino Coalition for a Fair Media. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me to recognize this outstanding individual who is being honored today for his human rights efforts and his dedication to the Latino community.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1561, the American Overseas Interests Act. In an era of rising global interdependence, this bill sends the message that America is turning inward, away from its allies and the areas that need it the most. Instead of maintaining and strengthening the leadership and vision expected from a great superpower, this bill cuts and weakens the powers of the executive branch and distorts the priorities of foreign policy. More specifically, H.R. 1561 creates a vacuum of leadership and support for the nations in our own hemisphere at the time when they need it the most. As a former member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations and as a representative of a district heavily populated by Hispanic-Americans from throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, I have a strong interest in issues affecting this area. This bill would reduce assistance to the region by $213 million. Mr. Chairman, where is the logic in this reduction when it is clear that our closest neighbors are in dire need of our leadership and support? In the last few years, this region has borne the brunt of the reductions necessary to accommodate preserving or increasing assistance to other regions of the world and any reduction only further jeopardizes the process toward peace, prosperity, and democracy currently underway in Latin America and the Caribbean. Developmental assistance and economic support funds further our own national security interests by encouraging fledgling democracies, emerging economies, and public health initiatives. Not long ago, the Western Hemisphere was ruled largely by military dictatorships. Now it is overwhelmingly represented by emerging democracies. We should not turn our back on the nations of this hemisphere while they struggle to establish the structures which support strong democracies. In addition, foreign aid to Latin America and the Caribbean makes economic sense. It strengthens the ties forged by NAFTA, GATT, and the Summit of the Americas and supports the President as he seeks to further U.S. trade and economic interests in our hemisphere. The United States should not reduce its commitment to our fastest growing market, which accounts for $178 billion in two-way trade, $91 billion in U.S. exports, and 2 million in American jobs. Finally, public health initiatives for the hemisphere should be supported. The Western Hemisphere has been declared polio-free thanks in part to the decade-long investment by the United States in polio prevention programs. Significant progress has also been made in the areas of immunization, family planning, oral rehydration therapy, and AIDS. Cutting aid for these programs could affect the lives of millions of children and cause a public health crisis in the region. Aid to Latin America and the Caribbean furthers the interests of the United States with respect to national security, trade, and public health. It is in our own best interest to live in a neighborhood of nations which are stable and prosperous. While this bill seeks to cripple our own Nation's ability to forge ties with our closest friends and allies, it also works to dictate the foreign policy objectives of the rest of the world by prohibiting assistance to any foreign government that the President determines has provided economic assistance to or engaged in no-nmarket-based trade with the Government of Cuba or any entity controlled by such government in the preceding fiscal year. Mr. Chairman, is assistance to Russia or Israel in jeopardy as they move ahead with their trade initiatives in the Caribbean island? Do we expect hundreds of other sovereign and independent nations to, in effect, support an embargo which they have consistently voted against in the United Nations for 3 consecutive years? Are we asking the nations of the world [[Page H5731]] to submit to our punitive and vindictive Cuba policy and our obsession with its leader? Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1561's short-sighted objectives with regard to Latin America and the Caribbean reflect the short-sightedness of the bill in general. Foreign assistance only represents 1 percent of the total Federal budget, but it is a crucial part of our role in world leadership. At a time when the world looks to the United States for leadership and vision, this bill sends the message that the United States prefers a narrow, arrogant, isolationist policy. As the world changes, it is logical that our foreign policy priorities also change, but this does not imply a need for withdrawal from our responsibilities. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. So the remaining portion of the amendment, as amended, was agreed to. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, May 19, 1995, a group of dedicated public school educators gathered in my congressional district to honor one of their distinguished colleagues, Eduardo J. Torres, for his years of service to the children of our district and indeed, the Nation, and on the occasion of his retirement. Eduardo J. Torres began his professional career at the Puerto Rico Planning Board's Division of Social Planning, a division under the jurisdiction of the Governor's Office. Beginning with that appointment, his distinguished career has been devoted to the education of students of limited English proficiency, a devotion which has earned him the respect of his peers and the distinction of being a leader in his field. Mr. Torres began his career in Community School District Seven in my congressional district in 1965 as a bilingual teacher in school and community relations. In 1972 he became teacher-trainer and coordinator of the Puerto Rican Studies Program, and later coordinated the Reading Advancement Through Puerto Rican Literature Program. In 1976, Mr. Torres was appointed assistant director of the Northeast Center for Curriculum Development, a national project of the U.S. Department of Education, housed in Intermediate School 184, which developed culturally and linguistically relevant curricula in Spanish, Italian, Greek, and Russian for bilingual students and their teachers throughout the United States, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. In 1986, Mr. Torres was named bilingual education coordinator supervising educators, testing, placement and recruitment of bilingual teachers. Mr. Torres will be missed by his colleagues and the community of students and teachers with whom he has worked over the years and to whom he has dedicated his professional life. He is recognized by his colleagues for his friendly, efficient manner and his quiet style of leadership. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me and the residents of my district and students and professionals of Community School District Seven in conveying our deep gratitude to Mr. Eduardo J. Torres and to extend to him our best wishes for a happy, fulfilled retirement.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, May 19, 1995, a group of dedicated public school educators gathered in my congressional district to pay tribute to one of their distinguished colleagues, John L. Crawford. Mr. Crawford has been the principal of Intermediate School 183 since it opened its doors in the South Bronx in 1974 and has earned the distinction of being the longest serving intermediate school principal in Community School District Seven. He has been a dedicated and innovative school leader, bringing many new programs to his school and the district at large. Mr. Crawford developed the first magnet school program in the district, the Paul Robeson Magnet School for Medical Careers and Health Professions, and implemented an comprehensive after- school program which then served as a model for New York City youth board school based programs throughout the city. Because of his leadership and in recognition of his contributions, Mr. Crawford was asked by the chancellor to serve on two special advisory committees: the City-Wide Mainstreaming Committee on Special Education and the Committee on Articulation. Mr. Crawford's contributions to the community beyond his school are equally impressive. He currently serves as the Council of Supervisors and Administrators Community School District Seven chairman and in 1991, he served as the assistant to the superintendent supervising district activities and programs. He is the deserving recipient of numerous awards and recognitions. I am proud to count Mr. Crawford among my friends. On behalf of the residents of my district--in particular the many students and school professionals whose lives he has so significantly touched--I thank Mr. Crawford for his years of service. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in conveying our best wishes and deep gratitude to the principal of I.S. 183, Mr. John L. Crawford.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, May 19, 1995 a group of dedicated public school educators gathered in my congressional district to honor one of their distinguished colleagues, Jose M. Graciano. Mr. Graciano has been the principal of P.S. 5 since 1971 and has earned the distinction of being the longest serving public school principal in Community School District Seven. His record of accomplishment at P.S. 5 is truly impressive; he has brought more than two dozen different enrichment programs into his school. We are particularly proud of Mr. Graciano for his accomplishment in creating the first bilingual pre-kindergarten program in the Nation, a title VII grant Project PROBE. Under his leadership, P.S. 5 was designated a model bilingual school, recognizing the successes of such programs as the Bilingual Teacher Corps, Project SABE, Project BETA and CSIP. Mr. Graciano is an active member of his community and his hard work has earned him numerous awards and recognitions including the Educator of the Year award from the Hispanic Educators Association, the Community Service Award from the Association Civica Arecibeno, the P.S. 5 Parent Teacher Association Award, the Ramon S. Velez Scholarship Committee Leadership Award and the P.S. 5 Parent Teacher Association 20th Anniversary Award. Mr. Speaker, the residents of my district, Hispanic Americans everywhere, and indeed the entire Nation are the beneficiaries of such lifelong dedication to the education of our youth, and in particular of those often-disadvantaged youngsters who grow up in our inner city communities. I ask my colleagues to join me in conveying best wishes and deep gratitude to Mr. Jose M. Graciano.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the budget for the caring majority offered by Mr. Payne and Mr. Owens. As I mentioned yesterday, this entire process is flawed because every alternative presented to the House must balance the budget by fiscal year 2002, which some economists fear would pull resources out of the economy too abruptly. The Payne-Owens substitute was developed within this artificial restraint. But the Payne-Owens substitute is by far the best of the proposals before us today. Its assumptions are far fairer than those behind the other proposals, increasing revenues as well as cutting spending and putting defense on the table along with domestic programs. It protects essential Federal functions from the budget axe and makes needed investments in our Nation's future. On the revenue side, the substitute would give individuals an income tax credit to offset 20 percent of Social Security payroll taxes--a major, if necessary, burden on working families. Revenues would come from increasing certain corporate and business taxes, eliminating certain tax subsidies for businesses, and raising the tax rate on capital gains. On the spending side, the Payne-Owens substitute would cut defense spending to a level more in line with the world we're living in today, while providing the resources to continue our role in international affairs. It would protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and increase our investments in education and training programs. It would continue the crucial Federal role in public health and biomedical research and further our commitment to a cleaner environment and to biological diversity. It would address the failings of our welfare system by maintaining Medicaid, AFDC, and school lunch as entitlements, creating jobs, and increasing support for child care. It would balance violent crime enforcement programs by strengthening prevention and increase funding for juvenile justice, weed and seed, drug courts, and ounce of prevention. Mr. Chairman, this is the best alternative before the House today. It would bring our Federal budget into balance in fiscal year 2002 without making the Federal Government unable to protect the Nation's health, safety, and environment, or provide a safety net for the most vulnerable of our people. I urge my colleagues to support the Payne-Owens substitute and, if it does not pass, to oppose the Republican budget.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to House Concurrent Resolution 67, the Republican leadership budget resolution for fiscal year 1996. I believe the Members of this House are unanimous in agreeing that we must bring the Federal deficit under control. While there are differences over whether the budget must be in absolute balance or whether deficits, and surpluses, have a role in stabilizing the economy, getting the deficit down is a universal goal. We must reduce the amount of debt we leave to our children. But there are legitimate questions about how fast to go, how steep a glideslope is fair or wise. The Rules Committee's requirement that all amendments produce a balanced budget by fiscal year 2002 limits the proposals this House may consider to those that slam the brakes on Federal spending. The result will be economic whiplash. The Republicans' budget, which must cut Federal spending deeply enough to finance tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, would aggravate the whiplash; balancing the budget in 5 years as in the Solomon-Neumann substitute, would break the neck. The most basic function of a compassionate society--of all its institutions, from its churches and charities to its national government--is to protect and nurture the most vulnerable of its people. It is unconscionable to force a balanced budget when it causes so much pain to so many in our population. The only alternative to the Republicans' budget that is the slightest bit compassionate is the budget for the caring majority, to be offered by Mr. Payne and Mr. Owens, but even that had to be developed within the artificial restraint of balancing the budget by fiscal year 2002. Mr. Chairman, the priorities in the Republicans' budget are as wrong- headed as the rest of their program this year. We have talked about many of their misplaced priorities during House consideration of the Contract With America, when the House passed their bills to slash the social safety net, especially for our children, to disarm our crime-fighters, to turn environmental policy over to the polluters, and to give tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy, among other things. Then came the House-passed rescissions bill, cutting funds for training and employment, especially summer jobs for youth; for home energy assistance for the elderly and the poor; for disease prevention; for a whole range of education programs; and for basic housing assistance. The Republicans' budget assumes all these cuts and changes and goes after the elderly as well. There would be cuts in Medicare spending that will require higher deductibles and copayments, less care, less choice of doctors. Medicaid would be a non-entitlement block grant, threatening both the programs that help keep the elderly and disabled in their own homes and the support that provides for their long-term care without impoverishing their entire families. And in a few years, the Republicans assume the Consumer Price Index will be adjusted, which will cut Social Security COLA's and increase indexed taxes. There is a basic disconnect in the thinking behind the Republicans' budget. We must, they say, balance the budget to ensure our children's future. But what sort of future will they have if we cut spending for maternal and child health; freeze Head Start; cut day care; kill reforms and withdraw resources from elementary and secondary education--especially from disadvantaged and immigrant children; end Federal funding of libraries--the most [[Page H5171]] basic unit of do- it-yourself, by-your-bootstraps self-improvement; make higher education more expensive if not put it entirely out of reach; shrink job-training programs? What kind of a future is this for our children? Mr. Chairman, we have had hours of debate on this budget resolution and I think the issues are clear. I wish the arguments from our side would lead the Republicans to support a more compassionate Federal budget, but I know the votes aren't with us. But I urge my colleagues to think very hard about what this budget means. I will certainly oppose it and hope many of my colleagues will do the same.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, there they go again. The pattern the Republicans set for the first 200 days was to cut spending and repeal programs intended to help children, the poor, the elderly, legal immigrants, and working families, so they can give tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans at the same time they are balancing the federal budget by 2002. The first significant piece of legislation for the second hundred days is the Clean Water Amendments of 1995, H.R. 961, known in some circles as the ``Dirty Water Act'' because the Republicans have chosen to protect polluters rather than the health and well-being of ordinary people. This bill would roll back two decades of progress in reducing pollution in our lakes, rivers, and coastal areas, and halt further progress. It would let corporate polluters increase pollution, and make downstream water users pay to remove pollution that shouldn't get into the water in the first place. There are problems throughout the bill. Perhaps the most widely debated provisions would redefine 80 percent of the nation's wetlands out from under federal protection. Now, we don't have a lot of wetlands in the South Bronx, but we do drink water, and wetlands recharge water supplies and filter harmful substances from our water. We eat fish and seafood, and wetlands provide critical habitat, assuring adequate stocks now and in the future. We enjoy fishing, swimming, and other recreation on and around the water, and wetlands help keep our waters clean. But H.R. 961's wetlands provisions would cost us more while reducing the quality of our water and the safety and quantity of our seafood. We have plenty of reasons to care about wetlands. Another major problem for me, Mr. Chairman, is the burden this bill would place on urban consumers downstream from runoff sources--the agribusinesses, miners, foresters, and developers that would not be required to take even minimal actions to prevent pollution for decades, if every. In many areas, overall water quality continues to be poor because sources of polluted runoff are not doing their share. Under H.R. 961, low-income urban ratepayers would have to pay more to get clean water, while upstream businesses that could afford to limit pollution would not be required to do so. In addition, I am deeply distressed by the bill's lack of environmental justice protections for poor people and people of color. Amendments to require water quality testing and reporting in areas where the most vulnerable populations live, work, fish, and swim, and posting of fish advisories to warn subsistence fishers that fish in certain waters are too poisoned to eat--low-cost and cost-effective measures--have been rejected. And, Mr. Chairman, these are only a few of the problems I see in this bill. The Clean Water Act is widely regarded as one of our most effective and successful environmental laws. It has produced marked improvements in the health of our people, the quality of life along our waterways and coasts, and the availability of clean water for household use and recreation. But the Republicans, in H.R. 961 reverse these successes and deny us further progress. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this bill, as do many thoughtful New Yorkers, who have written letters opposing H.R. 961. Marcia Fowle of the New York City Audubon Society wrote: Over 23 years, the water quality of New York Harbor, the Hudson River, the East River, Long Island Sound and Jamaica Bay--making up 578 miles of New York City waterfront--has markedly improved due primarily to the Clean Water Act. This progress should not be broken nor weakened. Judith Enck and Linda Babiarz of NYPIRG wrote: There are few things as important to sustaining life as water. We must not return to the days when swimming and fishing threatened our health. Bruce Carpenter of New York Rivers United wrote: Regardless of amendments, please vote NO on H.R. 961. The quality of our country's waters must not be undermined by polluters and special interests. Rav Freidel of Concerned Citizens of Montauk wrote: We have tried to find alternative amendments that would make the Clean Water Act clean again. There is no way to fix it. It is simply a dirty water bill. Marcy Benstock of the Aquatic Habitat Project, Clean Air Campaign in New York City wrote: H.R. 961 includes so many harmful changes that it cannot be fixed. They are right. No amendments adopted in the House will fix this bill and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against passage of H.R. 961.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1215 and urge my colleagues to reject it. With our overall economy doing well, and with the American people demanding attention taxes. But even if this were the time, I believe any tax cuts should be directed to helping working families improve their lives and enhance their ability to participate fully in our economy. Instead of this bill, we should be looking at further expanding the earned income tax credit, providing other refundable credits, or providing credits or deductions for the costs of education and training, as the Democratic leader's substitute would do. Instead, we have a bill that directs more than half of its benefits to households with incomes above $100,000 and over 66 percent of its benefits to households above $75,000. And how do we pay for all this generosity? Well, by cutting appropriations for programs such as those on the Budget Committee's list of illustrative cuts--LIHEAP, job training, workplace safety, education, housing, biomedical research at NIH, to name only a few-- none of which should be used to offset anything on the pay-as-you-go side of the budget. And by slamming Federal employees through their pension system. And by raiding the Medicare trust fund. Any by relying on the wrong-headed savings from welfare so-called reform, which will in fact either increase State costs--and State taxes--or increase misery among our most vulnerable populations. I will concede that H.R. 1215 has a couple of good points, such as the accelerated death benefits provisions, which I cosponsored, and the tax credits for expenses of adoption and of caring for an elderly relative at home. Of course, the credits would be much better if they were refundable, as they were in the contract, to encourage people of limited means to build and strengthen families. But overall, the bad points in this bill far, far outweigh the good. Where to begin? If I begin at the beginning, I must protest the provisions that violate the spirit of the Budget Act by removing the barrier between the discretionary and the pay-go sides of the budget, allowing appropriations cuts to offset tax cuts. The portion of the budget that is subject to appropriation has already been the major contributor to deficit reduction, but has not--until now--been available to pay for tax cuts. This is very bad policy. Then there's the extraneous stuff, particularly the provisions relating to Federal pensions that couldn't win a majority vote in the committee that actually has jurisdiction over them. But here they are, in H.R. 1215. The authors of the Contract With America want to violate the Federal Government's contract with its employees. Two million Federal employees face tax increases that exceed any tax cuts they might hope to receive from the rest of the bill, so we can cut everyone else's taxes. The American Dream Restoration provisions would explode the deficit, especially in the years beyond our 5-year budget calculations. The family tax credit in the original contract was refundable, so all families with incomes up to $200,000 could benefit, even those whose income tax liability is small, but who still pay Social Security, Medicare, and State and local taxes. But in this bill the credit is not refundable. The parents of 34 percent of American children will not be able to receive the full credit because their incomes are too low. Only the better-off fully benefit from this credit. The American Dream Savings Account is written so that it brings revenue in in early years but loses tremendous amounts after 5-years, just when efforts to balance the Federal budget are at their most intense. The overwhelming winners under the capital gains tax rate reduction for individuals are the households with incomes over $100,000, which would receive 76.3 percent of the benefits. The business tax changes are also backloaded, with major revenue losses coming in the years after 2000. And even as the big changes in depreciation make an alternate minimum tax more necessary, to assure that profitable businesses pay at least some income taxes, the bill phases the minimum tax cut. The taxpayer debt buydown is another deeply troubling concept. We are already facing extremely hard choices as we attack the federal deficit, but the ``glideslope'' could become impossibly steep if taxpayers can divert up to 10 percent of income tax revenues from legitimate Government spending to a debt reduction fund. Mr. Chairman, this is an untimely, bad, misguided bill. I urge all my colleagues to vote to reject it.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in opposition to all term limit amendments as they come here today. It is a silly notion put together by a bunch of losers. Let us understand what we mean by that. The current movement started when some people who were running against incumbents lost and decided they were going to fix their defeats by creating this new movement. You recall a few years ago that is how it started. I stand before you today as probably the person that should be used as the poster child for the anti-term-limits movement. Yesterday was my 5th anniversary in Congress. I have already gone more than half the House in seniority in those 5 years. So obviously there is nothing broken that needs to be fixed. People are leaving this place. People are making other decisions. People are being defeated. There is no need to do this kind of a thing. Now, every so often you get an opportunity to speak to people from Latin America who always question why we spend so much time in this country trying to undo our democracy. They tell us, ``You know, we would give our lives, and we do in many cases, to have your democracy. And what do you do? You talk about airport parking, you talk about salaries, you talk about people's private lives and term limits. We want an election. We want the ability to elect someone, and you want to unelect people.'' Now, in the last election, I receive 98 percent of the vote with an opponent. That was the highest in the Nation. According to you, the voters in my district were dumb and did not know what they were doing, and they should not be allowed to do that ever again, because they are dangerous to us, to themselves, and to their families, to their community, and certainly they are endangering my life. And last but not least, under your plan, you would have to elect the most progressive people in the Nation who would come together every so often, look at each other and say, ``A couple of Hispanics, a couple of African-Americans, a couple of women, let's make those two chairmen of committees, that one subcommittee chairman. Let us give them equality.'' The seniority system works. Term limits is for losers. Let it stay with the losers. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to amending the U.S. Constitution to limit the terms of Members of Congress. The Republicans keep talking about what a historic day this is. Well, that may be, but not for the reasons they claim. The House is being asked to vote on a measure of historic silliness, a measure that represents a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that, if it ever existed at all, no longer exists. Mr. Chairman, term limits are simply silly. The American people already have--and exercised as recently as last November 8--the right to limit the length of service of their own Senators and Members of the House of Representatives. It is argued that term limits are necessary to wrench legislatures away from entrenched career politicians, and the evidence of entrenchment is the high reelection rate of incumbents who seek reelection. Incumbents who seek reelection, Mr. Chairman. We all know--or know of--incumbents who chose not to run for reelection because they knew they were likely to lose. Likely to lose, Mr. Chairman. They decided to go out gracefully rather than spend the time or raise and spend the money and be rejected all the same. But look at my brief service in the House. I was elected in March 1990. In November 1990, 45 seats changed hands. In November 1992, another 110. In November 1994, another 87. By my calculations, at least 242 seats--more than half the membership of the House--have changed hands since March 1990. The term limits movement is the brain child of losers, plain and simple. They ran for Congress and lost. Unable to remove incumbents through the normal political process, they have created a movement to remove incumbents automatically. They have been helped, and much public support has been whipped up, by radio talk show hosts and other professional Congress-bashers, who persist in painting government service as corrupting. You know, Mr. Chairman, I am bilingual in Spanish and English, so I can keep in touch with scholars and politicians in Latin America. And all the time I hear, ``What is it about you Americans, that you are constantly trashing your own Government? What is it about you Americans that you spend so much time worrying about how much money Members of Congress make, what they drive, where they park, whether they have a gym? And now you are going to kick them out after a certain amount of time regardless of how the people they represent feel about them?'' Mr. Chairman, this comes from a part of the world where people literally die to have a government like ours, literally die for the opportunity to elect someone and keep electing them for as long as they want, not see them shot in the middle of the campaign. And they look at us and say to me, ``Serrano, que es lo que pasa?'' And they're right, Mr. Chairman. This is crazy. Mr. Chairman, term limits aren't just silly, they are unfair to groups within our society that have traditionally been underrepresented in Congress. In the 30 years since the Voting Rights Act was enacted, minority and women Members have increased in numbers and increased in influence through the seniority system. minorities and women--begin to gain some power in Congress, some people decided it is time to curtail terms. And once that's done, only the most good-hearted, progressive group of Members would look around and say, You know, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Watts, Ms. Velazquez, we think we will share some of the power and influence in this place with you. Term limits aren't just silly and unfair, they represent a major shift in power away from the people's branch of the Government. If we limit terms, sooner or later we will find Congress playing catchup to the executive branch, congressional staff, and lobbyists. So 10 years from now, we will see a new movement of people who demand unlimited terms, who say ``let people run.'' Mr. Chairman, I was sworn in on March 28, 1990. I chose that day because it was the 38th anniversary of my parents' arrival from Puerto Rico. I thought it would be a great tribute to their many years of working in a factory to give their children a better life to have their son enter Congress that day. I know they would not have thought of Congress as an institution that would corrupt their son or turn him into something they did not bring him up to be. And that is why at bottom term limits are dangerous. they reinforce the false notion that Congress and our entire Federal Government are corrupt and that anyone who serves more than a certain time, regardless of his or her accomplishments or contributions, is by definition crooked and unworthy of serving the American people any more. That simply is wrong, and serves only to further diminish our most basic institutions in the public's eyes. Mr. Chairman, some of our most eminent Members on both sides of the aisle are walking advertisements for letting the people choose their own representatives as many times as they like. I urge my colleagues to oppose any constitutional amendment to impose term limits on Congress.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mink amendment and against the mean-spirited, anti-children Republican amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in emphatic opposition to the so-called Personal Responsibility Act. It has long been clear to most thinking people that our current welfare system is failing the Personal Responsibility Act will make the situation of the poor much worse, not better. Perhaps the clearest sign that this bill is totally wrong-headed is that is saves so much money. Everyone know it takes more spending, not less, to give poor mothers the tools they need to get and keep jobs and to escape poverty--they need education, training, job search assistance, day care for their children, jobs. Cost is the main reason Congress has been slow to face welfare reform in the past. But this bill cuts the programs that sustain our neediest families at the same time it cuts the programs that might give them a hand up. And why? To cut taxes for big corporations and the well-to-do. What a scandal. A very, very big problem with this bill is how it treats our children. I hardly know where to begin. If we pass this bill, we risk increasing the number of babies born too small to thrive. We punish the neediest children because we don't approve of their parents' conduct. We shortchange child care even as we attempt to force more mothers into the work force. We leave abused and neglected children in grave danger for lack of child protection resources. We put children's nutrition at risk, threatening their ability to learn and grow into healthy adults and productive participants in our economy. This bill slashes the safety net for poor children and families. It removes the entitlement--the guarantee that some modest assistance will be there for those families whose desperate circumstances make them eligible. If Federal funds run out, what recourse will these wretched families have? It cuts off whole classes of people--most legal immigrants, babies born to unwed mothers under 18, people who have received 5 years of assistance--however dire their circumstances. And that is in good times, never mind recession. Mr. Chairman, another big problem with the bill is title IV, the provisions related to immigrants. That the United States is a nation of immigrants is a cliche precisely because it is true. We all have roots beyond the borders of the United States; we all have ancestors, as near as parents or as remote as many-time-great grandparents, who, willingly or not, came to America. We know that immigrants do not come for public assistance; they come to join family members already here 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 by this bill? If these restrictions were only to affect future immigrants, who would know the rules before they immigrated, well, I would disagree with the policy but it would be a little fairer. However, title IV, in cutting off people who are already here--and who face horrendous backlogs when they try to naturalize--makes sense only as a spending offset. It is certainly not fair to immigrants or their families and sponsors. A relatively small problem, Mr. Chairman, but one with a big impact is that under this bill, there will be no national nutritional standards for the nutrition block grants. Nutritional needs do not vary among the States, and 50-plus separate standards will make uniform national data collection and evaluation impossible. This bill won't just permit States to substitute Kool-Aid for milk if they're short of funds, it will make it impossible to tell what the nutrition picture is nationally or by State. Mr. Chairman, I could go on about the failings of this ugly, mean- spirited bill--frozen block grants, transfers among grants, distribution formulas that stress participation rates but not serving the neediest. But instead, Mr. Chairman, I will just mention that I am a cosponsor and strong supporter of the Family Stability and Work Act, which the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] is offering as a substitute. Her approach is, I believe, the right one. Mrs. Mink's amendment seeks to move welfare families to self- sufficiency through work. It retains entitlement status for the safety net. It protects children. It invests in preparing welfare recipients for work. It does not automatically cut anyone's benefits unless they refuse to work or refuse a job. It continues critical benefits for up to 2 years after a family gets off welfare. It doesn't overreach by fooling around with existing nutrition, child care, or child welfare programs. It rewards States for success in moving welfare recipients into the work force. It does not finance itself on the backs of legal immigrants. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is the right way to go. I urge all my colleagues to reject the Personal Responsibility Act and support the Mink substitute.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, when New York State reinstated capital punishment on March 7 of this year, the highest ranking law enforcement official in my community, the Bronx, issued the following statement, which I commend to my colleagues' attention. Statement of Bronx District Attorney While the law enacted today reinstates the death penalty in New York, far more significant is its feature that permits a sentence of life without parole for the first time in our state's history. Since this law confers upon me the discretion to seek either sentence, I wish to make my policy clear regarding the exercise of that discretion. I was raised by loving parents who instilled in me an intense respect for the value and sanctity of human life. As a result, I have devoted my life to the criminal justice system. During more than 20 years in that system, I have seen the devastation inflicted by those guilty of horrible crimes. I have felt the rage and thirst for vengeance which all but consumed the victims and their families. I understand the desire of many of them to ``throw the switch'' themselves. But I have also personally witnessed the devastation of those wrongfully accused. As an assistant district attorney, I convicted a defendant of intentional murder. He was released after his brother later plead guilty to committing the crime. Would even a brother come forward to save an innocent man if the consequence was death? and if he didn't, who would have been able to ``throw the switch'' back? Those familiar with the criminal justice system know that the surest deterrents to crime are the probability of conviction and the certainty of punishment. However, under our system of justice the death penalty neither can nor should be mandatory. Consequently, it is highly uncertain that the penalty actually will be imposed by a jury in a given case, that its application will be fair, that the sentence will be upheld on appeal, that the defendant will be executed and that others will be deterred. Moreover, the price of this uncertainty is enormous given the cost in time and resources of trials and appeals in death penalty cases. Clearly, this money could be better spent on providing more judges and courtrooms so that more defendants could be brought to trail more quickly. The money could also be better spent on valuable and broadly-based crime-fighting and crime prevention programs, including reducing the flow of illegal guns, incarcerating more violent criminals and providing more assistance for crime victims. While these programs may not provide the visceral gratification of the death penalty, they will do a lot more to improve the quality of our lives. For all of these reasons, while I will exercise my discretion to aggressively pursue life without parole in every appropriate case, it is my present intention not to utilize the death penalty provisions of the statute.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, March 16, the New York Office of the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration will unveil a pictorial stamp cancellation to honor a giant of romantic music and borinquen patriotism, Bobby Capo. I rise to pay tribute to the memory of this extraordinary and beloved individual. Felix Manuel Rodriguez ``Bobby'' Capo was born in Coamo, Puerto Rico in 1922. Having moved to New York as a young man in the 1930s, Bobby Capo encountered for the first time a land of cold winters and often chilly race relations. He set about very early in life to overcome these features with the warmth of his music and personality. In the course of his 68 years Bobby Capo composed over 2,000 songs and released more than 50 record albums. But these figures do not do justice to the influence of this superb artist. Possessing a lyrical tenor, perfect pitch and supreme grace, Bobby Capo was a dynamic showman whose tours and television appearances in New York, Puerto Rico and the rest of the United States and Latin America were vital to the popularization of the romantic style. His great ballads ``Piel Canela,'' ``Juguete'' and ``Sin Fe,'' sung by hundreds of artists around the world, are timeless classics that will forever convey the mystery of romantic love. Mr. Speaker, as the first Puerto Rican to direct his own television shows and appear in Mexican films, Bobby Capo was a theatrical phenomenon as well. But he was much more than an entertainer. A man for all seasons, in his later years he became increasingly involved in public affairs. He served as Director of the New York Office of the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration, he founded and was the first president of the Puerto Rico Guild of Artists, and in numerous capacities promoted a better understanding of Puerto Rican and Hispanic culture. Moreover, in many personal acts of advocacy and political action he proved himself a dedicated and energetic defender of the less fortunate in our society. Mr. Speaker, I was extremely privileged to have known Bobby Capo, to have had him as an inspiration and a mentor. His romanticism, his devotion to the island of his birth, and his sheer love of life are elements of his spirit which have struck a deep chord with me and with many thousands of others. I remain a devoted fan of his enduring music and memory, both of which will live on forever in the hearts of his admirers. I ask my colleagues to join me in appreciation of the life and legacy of this wonderful man.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, let me see if I can get this right. The Republican approach is to lower taxes for the rich by taking the school lunch away from the children. The contract with America is undoing the legend of Robin Hood. Republicans who were elected last November never told the voters that they intended to bring pain to the children of our country. The mean- spirited Republicans continue to set their sights on attacking those members of our society who are least able to fight back. This time they have gone too far and the American people are aware of the all-out assault on children in this country. The Republicans can try to mislead the people about the Social Security cuts but they are not going to be able to hide their attacks on the school lunch program and the children in our country. Day after day, Republicans come up with a new way to hurt helpless little Republicans want to do away with? The voices of the American people are being heard. Do not hurt the children.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, the 50th day of the mean-spirited, reactionary, insensitive, indifferent, right wing, extremist, antipoor, antichildren, Constitution bashing, bordering on racist, contract on America is now before us. If we read the fine print we will find out what the Republicans want to give the American people: Orphanages for poor children, no lunch for poor children, abolish prenatal care for women, deny our communities of police officers, allow Government agents to break into our homes without a search warrant. By dishonestly claiming to balance the budget, destroy the Social Security and Medicare programs, the elephants have been very busy in the first 50 days. God help you if you are poor, a minority, or the Constitution. The elephants are going to stomp all over you in the next 50 days.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentlewoman on this amendment, because she has made a splendid case on behalf of protection of a Federal right, a constitutional right, that women have. is also an issue that should concern men, not only because we should be concerned about protecting women's rights, but also because men are not safe from this violence. Many of these clinics offer services that are necessary for men. A man walking into one of these clinics to learn more about communicable diseases or about reproduction choices for people in the community or just to accompany someone is a target for this kind of violence, and so I think, while it is important for us to stand up today for the rights of women, it is also important and intelligent for us to admit to the fact that some of the men and women who stand outside of these clinics and are willing to deal in violence have directed that violence at men, not only at women. And so today I stand up on behalf of this amendment, because I believe it is the right thing to do, because I believe that this amendment does not interfere with anything that the majority party is trying to do. On the contrary, it reinforces their rhetoric that they are concerned about local involvement and local control. Local control should be aided by us, by allowing and sending this signal, this clear signal, that these rights must be protected. This is a unique situation, and unique problems need unique solutions and approaches. What the gentlewoman from Colorado has suggested today is an approach that says that we can all get together and send a signal that this is a behavior we will not tolerate, not only by law, but that we will also make the funds available to carry this out. Support this amendment. It does not interfere with anything you have in mind.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green. (Mr. GENE GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez]. (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I feel that this is one issue that is going to be very hard for the other side to cover up. They can be tough on crime all they want, they can say all they wish to say on all the talk shows, but it is going to be hard for them to explain why they are turning their backs on local communities and turning their backs on cops. This is the simplest issue to understand. If you believe that we have to do something about crime, then we have to help the people on the front lines, and that is the police officers in our communities. They continue to say that they are for fighting crime, but now they have the opportunity, and what do they do? They turn against a good program, a program that can only be restored through this amendment. That is why I rise in support of this amendment for on them, and to say that this is an amendment we can vote for. They may control a lot of talk shows, but they will not control public opinion when they turn their backs on the police departments in our communities. And lastly, they will gain a Presidential veto, and on cops the communities will stay with us on that issue.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I was concerned. Let me first say I am in support of the bill in general, and I am in support of the provisions of having aliens who commit crimes be deported. But I am wondering now on the question of Mexico's sovereignty and how you impose this kind of a situation? Maybe I missed that part of the gentleman's statement. Is this an agreement that you hope will be signed in Mexico determining where the person must be deported to?

Mr. SERRANO

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

Mr. SERRANO. With all due respect to the gentleman, the reason for the protection that I try to put forth, a reason that the gentleman may probably never experience or has ever experienced in his life, is the fact that there are some Federal authorities that upon looking at some American citizens determine, assume that that person does not belong in this country, simply by the way they look, simply by their first name or their last name or the fact that they may not have fully mastered the English language. This simply says give me the protection that I deserve as an American citizen.

Mr. SERRANO. I thank the gentleman very much. The gentleman's comments obviously fall right to the point that there has been ample proof that this Federal agency has not carried out its duties in a proper way, and when they do not carry them out in a proper way, I think it becomes the role of this body to protect our citizens. I think that is a point that should be made. In many instances the violation of rights and privileges are committed upon citizens of the United States, the illegal searches, the fear, the attacks, the midnight raids, the middle of the night raids, the lack of respect for individual rights. If the folks on the other side really believe that their bill is a good bill, and if they believe that they have not in fact trampled, as I believe, on the fourth amendment, there should be no problem in accepting this amendment. This amendment simply will strengthen their belief that the fourth amendment is still intact, and I would urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as we can notice by the amendments that have been submitted here today, there are two issues that are being discussed. One is the belief by many of us that in fact the bill presented by the majority strikes down most if not all of the protections of the fourth amendment. But in addition, some agencies have been singled out by these amendments because they are, unfortunately, agencies with either a reputation of misusing their power or, and in most cases, a reputation of striking fear into the hearts of hard-working, law- abiding American citizens and in many cases, or in most cases, both. There is no reason that one can imagine why an American citizen or a resident of this country should be afraid of any of its Federal agencies. Yet that is the case in so many instances. That is why today you have seen people discussing so many different agencies. The INS is, in many neighborhoods in this country, at the top of the list of the kind of an agency that can strike fear into the hearts of people. Because when the INS decides that it has cause to believe that there is illegal immigration taking place or has taken place in a certain neighborhood, the INS does not stop to ask questions and to determine who they should go after and who should be protected under our Constitution. What the INS usually does is walk into a neighborhood where the color of the people's skin or the language they speak appears to indicate that illegal immigrants could be in fact living in that community, and they will tear down a business door, they will tear down a home, they will tear down the privacy of a family or an immigrants. We have seen this throughout our communities, most recently in the northern Manhattan section of Washington Heights where reports took place, where bodego owners, grocery store owners were illegally confronted by the Immigration Department in a desire to determine whether or not there were illegal immigrants, undocumented immigrants, in that community. So for anyone in my community, whether they were born American citizens or not, this Federal agency is one that strikes fear into our hearts. And incidentally, someone may say, ``Well, if you've got nothing to hide, you should not be afraid.'' That is not the case. If you look like a certain person, if you have the first name of Jose, you can be sure that you will run into the INS at one time in your life and they will not give you any way to explain yourself. They will just ask you some very hard questions.