Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to Chet Edwards from Texas.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, sometimes I think I am living here in la-la land. These people were in charge of the House; they were in charge of the Senate, and they were in charge of the White House. And they left us 11 appropriation measures that Mr. Obey and his committee have had to deal with in trying to clean up their mess. I would like to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), the chairman of Military Construction and the VA Subcommittee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Pasco, Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. General Leave

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 794.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 794 provides for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 3043, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. The conference report also includes the House and Senate compromise on the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act. The rule includes two additional provisions. The first provides that only the majority leader or his designee can move to proceed to consider H.R. 3688, the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act. It addresses a procedural motion under the trade act and is often adopted by the House, including three times during the last Congress alone. The second ensures that in the event that the Senate on a point of order strips out the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs provisions from this conference report, that the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education portion of the report will not be further delayed and, instead, sent immediately to the President for his signature. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and the underlying conference report. Of all the conference reports which Congress will consider, the vote on this one will be the most telling. It will be the most telling because Members will have an opportunity tonight to take an up-or-down vote on the needs of our children and Congress's commitment to America's veterans. Members are either for $5.1 billion in mandatory increased funding for veterans military benefits or they are not. They either support $1.1 billion in increased funding for Pell Grants or they don't. We are either for restoring the President's $287 million cut in job-training programs for the unemployed or we are not. Do you support $530 million in increased funding for VA hospitals and other medical facilities, or do you oppose the funding increase? What about Head Start? The conference report includes $154 million in increases in funding for this critical early childhood education program. Low-income energy assistance programs? There's a $250 million increase in funding for these programs, which ensure that millions of Americans are warm in the winter and cool in the summer. How about the National Institutes of Health? The conference report increases funding for this vital agency by $1.1 billion so that America will continue to be the global leader in medical research and technology. Or Ryan White AIDS programs? There's an $85 million increase for them. I am especially appreciative of this increase because of the continued epidemic that HIV/AIDS poses throughout south Florida and particularly in the district that I am privileged to represent. All of these priorities and many more are funded in the underlying conference report on which Members will have an opportunity to cast a simple ``yes'' or ``no'' vote if this rule is approved. Democrats promised, Madam Speaker, that we would govern differently than the previous majority, that our legislation would reflect not the ideological views of a few, but the priorities of the many. Moreover, we vowed to work in a bipartisan fashion. This is exactly what we did with this conference report, as indicated by the numerous Republican Senators spanning the ideological spectrum who signed the conference report. Finally, we promised earmark reform, and that is what is done in this report. After Republicans spent 12 years increasing the number of earmarks to more than 14,000, Democrats cut the number of earmarks nearly in half in this conference report. Perhaps most importantly, we have made available for public viewing earmark disclosure statements, and any new earmarks placed in this conference report are clearly marked and in full accordance not only with the letter of the law but also its spirit. I am proud that we kept our promise for transparency and reform. Madam Speaker, the importance of this conference report transcends partisan politics to address the disparities that exist in the competition to meet our human needs. The programs in the underlying legislation prioritize the livelihood of citizens from all walks of life and helps those individuals live at a standard that should be expected in the greatest Nation on Earth. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying conference report. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 794 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in support of H. Res. 759, which recognizes two of the most important events in the area of human rights in the twentieth century: Recognizing the 40th Anniversary of the Mass Movement for Soviet Jewish Freedom and the 20th Anniversary of the Freedom Sunday Rally on the Mall in Washington, DC. I would like to specifically touch on one of the most important aspects of the Jewish struggle for freedom--the right to emigrate. A few months ago, the travel plans of many Americans were disrupted when they were unable to acquire within a reasonable period of time U.S. passports that would allow them to travel abroad to certain regions. It was an inconvenience, but fortunately, the State Department with great effort cleared up the backlog and the waiting period is now back to around two months. Now imagine waiting five, ten, or even fifteen years for a passport allowing you to leave the country. Imagine not filling out an application and dropping it into the mail, but instead trudging from office to educational institution to police station seeking signatures from employers and various officials, without which the emigration office would not even consider the application to emigrate. Imagine being told you can't leave, but not given any rational reason as to why not. Or being told that you cannot emigrate because of military service--in a construction unit! Imagine taking to the streets with a sign demanding the right to reunify with one's family and loved ones abroad, as stipulated in the U.N. Convention on Civil and Political Rights, and being set upon by police and perhaps winding up in a forced labor camp or in internal exile in some tiny village in Siberia. It may be hard to imagine, but this is what thousands of Soviet Jews faced when they wanted to emigrate to Israel from the former Soviet Union. And why did Soviet Jews want to emigrate? Many of them were tired of the government anti-semitism that permeated the Soviet system, including a quota system for educational institutions. Understandably, they did not want their children to face these obstacles. Many wished to practice their Jewish faith, to be able to attend a synagogue--if they could find one that hadn't been closed by the Communists--without having to worry that some Communist Party hack would see them and report them to their employers or teachers. Others were tired of the constant stream of anti-Semitic articles in the Soviet press parading as opposition to Zionism. In 1967, with the Soviet press spewing tirades against Israel and alleged Zionist misdeeds in the wake of Israel's victory in the Six Day War, the Jewish emigration movement in the Soviet Union began in earnest. Many applicants, to be sure, were allowed to leave, but others were refused time and time again. The word ``refusenik'' was coined. Members of the Jewish community in the United States and throughout the world took up their cause. Others who cherished basic human rights, including Members of this body, joined in solidarity. Activists took part in demonstrations, wrote letters to Soviet officials, visited refuseniks in the Soviet Union, sent packages to imprisoned refuseniks, and never quit working on their behalf. It was an impressive demonstration of determination and unity. And as this resolution notes, almost twenty years ago, on December 6, 1987, an estimated 250,000 persons demonstrated on the National Mall here in Washington on behalf of Soviet Jewish emigration as President Reagan prepared for a summit meeting with General Secretary Gorbachev. African Americans joined the rally in large numbers due in part to the active Jewish participation in the civil rights movement in the United States. One of these African American leaders eloquently expressed why so many non-Jews were there. He said, ``As long as one Jew is kept against his will in the Soviet Union, we are all Jews.'' A few years later, as the Soviet Union was collapsing and perestroika and glasnost became the watchwords, the barriers to Soviet Jewish emigration were lifted. Justice had at last prevailed. Mr. Speaker, this resolution recognizes both the brave individuals who stood up to tyranny and demanded their right to freedom of movement, and those who vigorously campaigned on their behalf. As Chairman of the U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I am honored to stand with my colleague and good friend, Henry Waxman, in support of this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono), who is an original sponsor of this measure.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 764 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 764 provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 505, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007. The resolution provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources. The rule makes in order an amendment offered by Representative Flake of Arizona. This was the only amendment submitted to the Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to speak for long about this legislation other than to express my sincere hope that this body will move forward expeditiously with its passage. Our Nation is greater because of its vast diversity and the living narrative of all those who contribute to it. However, make no mistake, our government has treated a number of cultural communities in a less than favorable manner. Mr. Speaker, we are not here to debate the particulars of our Nation's dealings with Native Hawaiians. However, it is only right that all indigenous people should have a right to determine how they should interact with our government. As my good friend from Hawaii, Representative Neil Abercrombie, mentioned in the Rules Committee, the current system of land tenure for Native Hawaiians is organized under the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. This State agency does not meet the needs of Native Hawaiians in the most effective manner as it is currently arranged. What the community demands and needs is an entity in which the Native Hawaiians can be effectively engaged. Rightfully, this legislation will give Native Hawaiians an opportunity to create such an entity and empower themselves with self-determination. I do want to make note of my concern that there are some in this body who are seeking to create controversy where none exists. Contrary to what some say today, this bill does not allow gaming on Native Hawaiian lands, nor does it lay the groundwork for gaming. On the contrary, it takes the necessary steps to put Native Hawaiians on the necessary path to control their destiny. Additionally, similar legislation has passed the House in the 106th Congress and was reported out of the Natural Resources Committee in both the 107th and 109th Congresses. Unfortunately, the measure was never taken any further until today. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides the appropriate framework for debate on this bipartisan legislation, which is the culmination of many years of negotiation. I have been in this body, and I have seen Neil Abercrombie, and now Mazie Hirono, and before, Patsy Mink, work actively on this particular legislation. The lack of amendments submitted to the Rules Committee for this legislation is a testament to years of bipartisan collaboration. It is only right that we bring this legislation to the full floor today in this manner. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), the sponsor who has labored with this legislation actively in several Congresses, who is from the Committee on Natural Resources, and the author of this bill.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, my good friend, Representative Hastings. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. General Leave

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this bill is about the right to live. It is about empowering Native Hawaiians to own their destiny and choose how to manage their livelihood. This bill is not about gaming. In fact, it expressly is prohibited in this bill. Instead, the bill is about providing an opportunity to effectively reorganize the Native Hawaiian government to better meet the needs of Native Hawaiians. The underlying legislation enjoys the support of Hawaii's Republican Governor Linda Lingle, the business community in Hawaii, the National Congress of American Indians, the Alaska Federation of Natives, and Hawaii's entire congressional delegation. Mr. Speaker, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act has received immense bipartisan support year after year. It is now time that we fulfill the duty of this Congress and serve Native Hawaiians just as they have served and contributed to the vibrant and diverse culture that is America. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule, the previous question, and on final passage of the bill. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 764 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 3. The House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees immediately, but may declare a recess under clause 12(a) of rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional legislative days after adoption of this resolution.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I am the last speaker, and I will reserve my time until the gentleman closes.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I customarily do not find myself on the floor after the close of business, but I am here today because I genuinely find myself in the position of concern that I believe a significant number of Americans share. We have passed, out of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, a measure that will provide health care to many of this Nation's children who presently are uninsured. The President, exercising his prerogative, vetoed that measure, and as a result of that, further discussions are ongoing, and the need, again, is to put forward a measure that will provide health care for 10 million children in this country that find themselves and their families without the necessary assistance for medical care. Mr. Speaker, the President, on the day before yesterday, proposed that there be an additional $49 billion spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. There's no one in the House of Representatives who does not support the military efforts of the United States military. There's no one in the House of Representatives who is not exceedingly proud of the extraordinary work that the military has done. The military has done what the Commander-in-Chief required of them, and for those of us, as policymakers, expect that they would be able to do. And quite frankly, one of my colleagues is preparing legislation that talks about the benchmarks that we had originally set for the military and the fact that the military, the U.S. military and the coalition forces have achieved all of those benchmarks. And, in short, we could not arguably say, with the removal of Saddam Hussein or with other temporizing measures that have been brought to various provinces in Iraq, that the military has not been successful. They have been. And when they come home we want them to receive the proud accolades of the American citizenry, and that's every Member of the United States House of Representatives. But let's compare the cost in that particular effort with the cost for our children's health. Forty-one days in Iraq would provide health insurance for 10 million children. Now, I don't know all of the nuances of the defense budget, but I have reason to believe that if we did not give all of the money as requested by the President that this particular effort could be run for a substantial period of time. I might add, all of us are mindful of how stretched the United States military is. But you know something? Without knowing, I would venture a guess that some soldier's child may not be properly insured in this country. Some soldier's child. To my way of thinking, that is absurd. For us to be in the position, a Nation as resourceful as our Nation, a Nation as accomplished as our Nation, a Nation with genuinely the best physicians and nurses and hospitals in the world would find ourselves in this position. We must pass SCHIP, and we must do so immediately.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 746 provides for consideration of H.R. 3773, the RESTORE Act of 2007, under a closed rule. The rule provides 90 minutes of debate. Sixty minutes will be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. Thirty minutes will be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Mr. Speaker, with the resurgence of al Qaeda and an increasing global threat from weapons of mass destruction in places such as Iran, every single person in this body wants to ensure that our intelligence professionals have the proper resources they need to protect our Nation. As vice chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, I assure you that every one of us on that panel and others, Republican or Democrat, are working tirelessly and often together to do just that. But the government is not exempt from the rule of law, as our Constitution confers certain unalienable rights and civil liberties to each of us. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, the Bush administration upset that balance by ignoring the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, commonly referred to as the FISA law, establishing a secret wiretapping program and refusing to work with Congress to make the program lawful. Democratic members of the Intelligence Committee, led by the distinguished chairperson, Sylvestre Reyes, have been trying to learn about the Bush administration's FISA program for years. But the administration, which has been anything but forthcoming, has done everything it can to stop us from doing our job and helping them to do theirs better. A footnote right there, Mr. Speaker. In today's Washington Post, it is reflected as late as now, when the RESTORE Act is on the floor, the administration has agreed to give certain information to the Senate and still not to the House. When the administration finally came to Congress to modify the law, it came with the flawed proposal to allow sweeping authority to eavesdrop on Americans' communications, while doing almost nothing to protect their rights. The RESTORE Act, true to its name, restores the checks and balances on the executive branch, enhancing our security and preserving our liberty. It rejects the false statement that we must sacrifice liberty to be secure. It does not go as far as I would want it to go. It does not go as far as some people would like for it to go, but it does protect our liberty and secures this Nation. The legislation provides our intelligence community with the tools it needs to identify and disrupt terrorist attacks with speed and agility. Yet another footnote, Mr. Speaker. While we concentrate on surveillance as it pertains to wire, I would have people know that the terrorists by now have been pretty well educated about these matters and may very well be using other methodologies totally unrelated to the telephone. I remind people when it was leaked to the media that Osama bin Laden was using a certain kind of wire, he hasn't been heard from in that forum since. So let's be very cautious to not put all our eggs in the surveillance basket. There are other methodologies that might be employed that I assure you the intelligence community is mindful of and right on as it pertains to discovering them. It provides additional resources to the Department of Justice, the National Security Agency and the FISA Court to assist in auditing and streamlining the FISA application process while preventing the backlog of critical intelligence gathering. The RESTORE Act prohibits the warrantless electronic surveillance of Americans in the United States, including their medical records, homes and offices. And it requires the government to establish a recordkeeping system to track instances where information identifying U.S. citizens is disseminated. This bill preserves the role of the FISA Court as an independent check on the government to prevent it from infringing on the rights of Americans. It rejects the administration's belief that the court should be a rubber stamp. Finally, the bill sunsets in 2009. This is a critical provision because it requires the constant oversight and regular evaluation of our FISA laws, actions which were largely neglected during the last 6 years of Republican rule. Mr. Speaker, all the American people have to do is pick up a newspaper to read about what happens when this government has unfettered access to warrantless electronic surveillance. According to a letter to Congress from a company executive, Verizon alone has fielded almost 240,000 phone record requests from the FBI since 2005. Nearly 64,000 of these requests, or over one-quarter of them, were made without a warrant. This is almost 100 phone record requests per day by our government to Verizon seeking private information about our citizens, without a warrant. Realize, we are just talking about requests made to Verizon by the FBI. And these are just the requests that Verizon told Congress about this week because the Bush administration has consistently refused to answer our questions about the President's program. Even more, it doesn't factor in the hundreds of thousands of requests that were made to other phone companies during the same time that we don't know about. Mr. Speaker, if we have learned anything since the terrorist attacks of September 11, it is that the balance between security and civil liberties is not only difficult, but absolutely critical. The RESTORE Act does absolutely nothing to block or hinder the efforts of our intelligence community. And Member after Member on the other side of the aisle are going to come down here and comment that it is hampering our intelligence efforts. Quite the contrary. It enhances their ability to do their jobs effectively and ensures the integrity of their efforts. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, before I yield, I would like to assist my colleague from Washington, who is my good friend and was in the majority last year when the Wilson bill, H.R. 5825, the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act, was considered by the House. It was considered under a closed rule, H. Res. 1052, which self-executed an amendment in the nature of a substitute in lieu of amendments recommended by the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees. I think that is the precedent. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), my very good friend who serves on the Ways and Means Committee and the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I make one reference to the Computer and Communications Industry Association which writes in support of the House Judiciary Committee's approach to retroactive immunity, contrary to what the previous speaker, my good friend, the ranking member, just said regarding that matter. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey, a distinguished member of the Intelligence Committee, my good friend Rush Holt, who is also Chair of the Special Intelligence Oversight Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my distinguished friend and colleague from Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee, 1 minute. But before I do, I would like to have Mr. Royce understand that he is entitled to his opinion but he is not entitled to his facts. And the facts as he recited them with reference to what Director O'Connell said occurred under the old FISA law, not this one. And I might add, that old FISA law was good enough to participate in bringing down the German possible terrorists. With that in mind, I would like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlelady from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?