José Serrano

Mr. SERRANO

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

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, let me also say that it has been a pleasure working with the gentleman from Florida. The big difference being chairman and being ranking member--I will tell you a little secret--is that you get to speak first. Other than that, we have the same headaches to deal with. I want to tell you what a pleasure it has been. In the best sense of our democracy, whatever I say here today is about the bill, not about you. If it was about our relationship, we would probably have a different bill, anyway. But don't tell your leadership I said that. Before I begin to address the substance of this bill, let me just say that this is not what we should be considering on the floor today. The American people have spoken loud and clear. It is long past time for this House to act to reduce gun violence. How many more tragedies must we endure before we do something in this Congress? How many more Columbines? How many more Newtowns? How many more Virginia Techs? How many more Orlandos? Enough is enough. It is time for this House to reject the NRA and enact strong gun laws, and as soon as possible. Before the recess, Democrats stood in the well of the House and asked these questions. The Republicans ignored us. Upon their return this week, Republicans have tried to provide themselves with political cover. Suffice it to say that what they are proposing is not really enough. Americans are asking us to take effective action and, instead, we are here debating another underfunded and hyperpartisan appropriations bill. This would be laughable if it were not so sad. The other side of the aisle can no longer look the American people in the face and tell them that effective action to reduce gun violence is not necessary. That is the first of many reasons why I rise in strong opposition to the bill before us today. While I truly appreciate the efforts of Chairman Crenshaw and Chairman Rogers to listen to the concerns of our side, which includes our leader, Mrs. Lowey, and to accommodate us when they could, their efforts have been overwhelmed by a deficient allocation and the large number of partisan riders that are part of this bill today. This bill is not the largest bill in the appropriations lineup, but it touches upon many areas that are crucial to the American people. From consumer protection, to financial markets regulation, to economic opportunity, to taxpayer information, this bill touches the lives of almost every person living in our Nation, and, sadly, this bill does a great disservice to many of them. There are some good portions of this bill that I will highlight briefly. The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund receives a substantial increase above last year, the Small Business Administration is also well funded, and our Federal judiciary will have the resources that it needs. But in a bill with more than 30 agencies, both large and small, that is a pretty short list. The reason it is so short is the inadequate allocation that this subcommittee received. This bill is $1.5 billion less than last year's bill, a 6 percent cut. The result is that many agencies, large and small, have been severely cut. The IRS is cut $236 million from last year's funding levels. From 2010 to 2015, the budget cuts have forced the IRS to cut its workforce by 18,000 employees. These cuts hurt more than the IRS, since it means our deficit will increase because more taxes won't get collected, more tax cheats won't face punishment, and more honest taxpayers won't be able to get their questions answered by the IRS. The Securities and Exchange Commission is funded at $226 million below the President's request and $50 million below last year. The SEC is our cop on the beat for Wall Street, and chronically underfunding our primary enforcement arm for the financial markets invites more wrongdoing. It is also problematic that the majority has sought to rescind the use of the SEC's Reserve Fund, which is dedicated to IT upgrades. However, funding levels are not the only problem with this bill. The majority has chosen to include dozens of highly partisan riders in this bill. The sheer number and variety of these riders injects partisanship into the appropriations process in a way that I have not seen during my 26 years in Congress. Each rider caters to a different special interest group that supports the other party. From the Koch brothers, to anti-choice activists, to big corporations, to the Tea Party, each category has a rider geared to help them. Unfortunately, the rest of the American people are seemingly out of luck. Let me highlight a few of the lowlights. Rather than helping preserve an open Internet, something that is crucially important to American consumers and businesses, this bill prevents the FCC from enforcing their net neutrality rule until the final disposition of three pending lawsuits on this issue. The IRS is prevented from reforming the 501(c)(4) process that caused so much confusion and controversy. They are also prevented from enforcing the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act, a move that the CBO says will result in a loss of revenue and which the rule provided a special waiver just to include. The SEC is prevented from requiring public corporations to disclose their political contributions. There are multiple riders limiting women's health decisions by and in the District of Columbia and in the Federal healthcare exchanges set up by the Affordable Care Act. There are also numerous riders to try to hamstring the President's efforts to conduct foreign policy with regard to Cuba, and there are riders attempting to roll back Dodd-Frank and the efforts of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to protect Americans. This list just scratches the surface. We are opposed to all of these riders and many others that I don't have time to mention today. These riders have no business in the appropriations process. They highlight how the primary goal of this process has changed from funding our government to scoring political points, and I think that this bill is a sad demonstration of that problem. The real loser in all of this is not Republicans or Democrats, but the American people. This bill underfunds critical priorities for working families. This bill is loaded down with riders geared toward special interests, but which truly harm taxpayers, consumers, investors, and businesses. Before I conclude, let me just mention that much of what has been added to the bill has little basis in reality. The majority knows that there is a veto threat by our President on the bill as currently constructed. Absent serious changes to the overall funding level and the removal of these excessive riders, this is not a bill that will ever be signed into law. I hope that one day the majority accepts that reality and comes to the table to negotiate in good faith. But as it currently stands, this simply is not a bill that I can support. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), our ranking member.

Mr. SERRANO. Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters), the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), one of our great progressive voices who is a member of both the Appropriations and the Budget Committees. Sometimes they don't get along, but that is her issue.

Mr. SERRANO. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip, for the purpose of entering into a colloquy.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank my friend, the distinguished whip from Maryland, for his continued involvement in this effort and his steadfast advocacy for making sure that the process sees that the new FBI headquarters is located on the best site possible. He also has my commitment that we will work together to ensure that this is a fair process and that GSA provides all relevant information to prospective bidders accurately. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We heard some comments on the House floor before about what people are offended at that my side speaks about, and the word ``oversight'' was used. I want to make it clear that I am the biggest supporter of oversight, but oversight does not mean destroying agencies, oversight does not mean cutting budgets down to a bare bone where they can't function, oversight does not mean going after the IRS simply because it is in some rule book that you always go after the IRS, oversight is not telling women what to do, and oversight is not telling the District of Columbia that it can't have any kind of self-government because, given a choice, we would not allow the District of Columbia to do anything, including what is allowed to be done by the Constitution. I just want to clarify that point. I believe--we believe--in oversight. But when you start oversight with the feeling that a zero budget would be the best way to go, when you start with a feeling of disrespect for the leader of our country, our President, when you start with a feeling that you got elected to Congress to oppose everything that happens in Congress and that only you can clean up and fix Congress, as if it needed fixing, sometimes I may be the only one who says it, but there is gridlock and there is democracy. Sometimes people don't agree, and when they don't agree, that is healthy. Now, if they don't agree all the time, just for foolish reasons, then it is gridlock. But when we don't agree because we don't agree on philosophy, that is democracy at its best. In other places, the budget is always on time, but there is only one person making the decision. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. SERRANO. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. It strikes section 632 of the underlying bill, a controversial FCC rider that prohibits the FCC from implementing its order on net neutrality until three court cases are resolved. Yet again the majority is trying to hijack the regulatory process for its own ends. This rule went into effect almost a year ago, and none of the fears that were raised about the net neutrality rule have come to pass. There has been increased investment and profits for Internet service providers. There is no reason to continue the crusade against this rule. Although section 632 sets out to only last as long as the lawsuits are ongoing, the actual text encourages the plaintiffs in these lawsuits to do everything in their power to delay a resolution to the cases in question. Four million people wrote in about the rule that this committee is now trying to stop. The normal process of objecting to a rule would be that you go to the courts, and that already happened here. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied a petition by several telecom companies and industry trade groups to delay implementation of the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, net neutrality rules. Organizations like the Consumers Union have pointed out that there was plenty of public notice with the net neutrality rules. There was an initial notice of proposed rulemaking, an extensive description released before the FCC vote, and waiting 2 months after the Federal Register publication before the rules took effect. Throwing in an additional hurdle departs from established rulemaking practice and simply isn't needed. Ironically, just last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the FCC's 2015 net neutrality rules in these cases, giving the agency unquestionable authority to regulate the Internet. Of course, they could still appeal, which demonstrates how harmful this rider is. It would delay net neutrality while the court process plays out. Blocking net neutrality means blocking an open Internet. It allows a broadband provider to block any Web site or application it wants and would allow pay-for-priority schemes, where all traffic is slowed down to make the way for the content of deep-pocketed giants who can pay for preferential treatment. It seems to me that Republicans are trying to give corporations more freedom and options to do whatever they want while trying to place more restrictions and burdens on individual citizens, like denying them access to a free and open Internet. Section 632 is harmful to our economy, our democracy, and should be stricken from the bill. I thank the gentlewoman for her amendment, and I urge support for the amendment.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Ellison

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I support the amendment. The aim of this amendment is to create an Office of Good Jobs within the Department of the Treasury. This office would help ensure that the Treasury makes contracting and employment decisions encouraging the creation of decently paid jobs, implementation of fair labor practices, and responsible employment practices. The Federal Government ought to be setting an example for the Nation when it comes to contracting decisions. Members of Congress who are committed to creating good-paying jobs and supporting workers have a chance with this amendment to see those values reflected throughout our government. This office will help guide the Treasury to make responsible contracting and employment decisions and do right by the countless men and women who help us perform the Nation's business each and every day. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. SERRANO. I thank the chairman. I was going to open up by saying the same thing: This is probably the most bipartisan account that we have in this bill and it has been for years. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This amendment would slash funding for the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, or CDFI Fund, by $20.7 million. This is a harmful and totally misguided cut. The fact is that the CDFI Fund helps generate economic growth and opportunity in some of our Nation's most distressed communities. The Fund supports financial institutions recognized for their expertise in providing services and support to distressed communities. These institutions leverage Federal funds to draw in new or increase sources of private funding. According to the description provided to the Rules Committee, the gentleman's amendment says: to ``offset an inappropriate augmentation of this account outside the appropriations process by the Department of Justice through settlement agreements, which required banks to donate $20.7 million to certified CDFI entities.'' But the fact is that the Fund is not receiving money from DOJ or from any bank. It is completely inaccurate and inappropriate to reduce the CDFI Fund in any amount as a result of the gentleman's assertion. Any settlement with banks for fraudulent activity during or leading up to the financial crisis was delivered by banks directly to CDFIs. At no point has the Fund benefited or seen an increase in funding as a result. The fact that some of our large banks have entered into civil settlements with the Department of Justice should not even enter into this discussion. The fact is that the need for investment in these communities is far greater than the resources that have been provided. The passage of this amendment would do a great deal of harm. We are not just talking about cutting $20.7 million from the Fund. Because of the leveraging of private sector investment, we are actually talking about an amendment that would effectively cut many times that number of investment in job creation, community facilities, and housing. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. SERRANO. That will confuse some people. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment. This amendment would strike language that prevents reform of the 501(c)(4) rules that have caused confusion and abuse in the campaign financial field. We have heard from a number of charities and foundations that these rules governing electoral campaign activity must be made more clear and be effectively enforced. The language in the underlying bill prevents that and should be stricken. I urge support for the amendment, and I thank my chairman for the minute.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, the problem with this argument is that it has become an abortion argument and it isn't a debate about abortion. It is an issue about a doctor and a woman and her healthcare decision and an insurance where one person can have certain rights under their insurance plan and another one cannot. Let's remember that there are some Federal dollars in this plan, but there are also personal dollars, but no rights according to some people.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, if I didn't know better, I would be confused. On one hand, we cut money from the SEC because they shouldn't be the cop on Wall Street that it should be, but then on the other hand we want to continue to cut money and prevent them from telling us where the other money is coming from, which is the one that funds elections. What is the problem with the American people knowing that such a candidate or such a committee got money from such a corporation? I want to know. They want to know. So, sure, our ratings are low. You know why our ratings are low? Because there is so much secrecy in what we do, and it shouldn't be. This is a great amendment, and it is one that should be accepted on a bipartisan basis. Let's stop trying to tell the SEC that they don't exist. They exist. And I will tell you one last point that is very short. When I was chairman of this committee, they came to us and said: We don't want any more money; we are fine. Then we found out years later why they didn't want more money, because they didn't want to enforce anything. We fell through into a big hole.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, when I became chairman of this committee in the past, I think I was the first chairman ever to say that I wanted less power rather than more power. The reason I said that was because I didn't want to oversee the District of Columbia as chairman of the committee as one overseeing a colony. For me, that was very important, since I was born in the colony of Puerto Rico and I now represent the Bronx, New York, in Congress. So it is very personal for me that I should not do to others what I don't like people doing to my birthplace. Let's understand something. This is not a constitutional question any longer. In my opinion, and I have been saying this for years, this is about the ability to say that you stand for things that you really don't stand for in your own districts. So people who can't control the budget in their district go to the newspapers and say: I am very strong on controlling spending. And when you ask them where, they say: Oh, in the District of Columbia. And then they will tell you: I oppose the needle exchange programs. And they say: Where? We have one here. They say: Oh, but I do it in the District of Columbia. And they say: And I stop women from getting their health services in order and getting abortions. They say: But it is legal here. They say: No, but I did it in the District of Columbia. What has happened is that D.C. has become this playground for Members of Congress to say ``I stand strong on these issues,'' when, in fact, they don't stand strong on those issues. They only stand strong on the issues of the abuse of the District of Columbia. And we will continue to do this. We will probably see it again and again and again. I mean, just look at this, and I don't want her to feel any worse than she feels already, but she can't vote on her own amendment today because she doesn't have a vote. The gentleman from Puerto Rico is in a similar situation. He can't vote on his own amendment. He sponsored a bill with Mr. Duffy that he can't vote on. That is the situation we have. How can we, as the greatest country on Earth--and I don't say that in jest. I believe it. How can we go and tell countries in Latin America and the Caribbean and the Middle East to be democratic, to be supportive of democracy, and then we don't practice it on a place down the block from us--not down the block, the place where we are situated. How can we tell Puerto Rico that it can't deal with its own situation and yet tell Latin America that it must change its ways, and the Middle East that it must change its ways? We continuously have this contradiction, and we have to take care of it. This one is a simple one. This one is they passed a referendum, the courts spoke, Congress had an opportunity to say something stronger, it didn't, and now it is trying to come back and make up for it by putting language in the bill where it doesn't belong. Please, ladies and gentlemen, think of this vote not as a vote that can score you points back home, but a vote that can give people in the District of Columbia the ability to take their own money and spend it as they see fit, no different than North Carolina, than the Bronx, New York, or than any other community. Even Florida does it that way, too. I ask that you support Ms. Norton's amendment. I probably can predict the outcome of it, but we will continue to fight this fight because it is right. And the same Constitution that may have said some things about D.C. that we are expanding on and overusing is the same Constitution that guarantees all of us the right to govern ourselves and to govern our resources and to govern how we behave. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, to quote a great American Republican, Ronald Reagan, ``there you go again'' trying not to allow things to be out in the open when they should be in the open. This is a new effort to funnel unlimited money into politics. Current law limits trade association PACs from soliciting member corporations, their stockholders, and their executives without permission from the corporation and limits these solicitations to a single trade association PAC each year. This amendment would remove these solicitation restrictions and expand the number of solicitations a stockholder or corporate executive could get. I don't know about you, but I think most Americans are pretty sick of politically motivated fundraising emails. This would expand the number of emails that many people would get. This is just another way to empower groups, like the Chamber of Commerce, over the needs of ordinary Americans. That is not right. Last I heard, most trade association PACs were not lacking for money, and most corporations, millionaires, and billionaires had plenty of loopholes in our campaign finance system. But the gentleman from Nevada seems to think differently on both counts. This bill is not the right place to change campaign finance law, let alone to change it in a way that hurts American voters. I oppose the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think my Reagan quote was better than the other Reagan quote, and I stand by that comment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I think that this is one of those opportunities to insert language into an appropriations bill that doesn't belong there. I think the gentleman, who is a very nice guy, should rethink it. Maybe he can invite us all to his home State and we can discuss it at length, or at least to the chairman's State and we can discuss it at length, or to the Bronx to a Yankee game and we can discuss it at length. But I think that we are spending too much time here putting things in this bill that don't belong in this bill. And we are reaching a point where we may never again see what I saw when I got here, which is the ability to see a bill stand alone and pass and get signed by the President, or, rather, what we have now where we get these omnibus bills or these continuing resolutions. We should look at that. We should look at what we are doing to the committee, what we are doing to ourselves, and what we are doing to the Nation. I yield back the balance of my time.