Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. The only thing that I am pointing out is the significance of land grant institutions. I think the gentleman makes a valid point, but this doesn't obviate the point that you are making.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I am amused by your bemusement. At the very same time, I certainly understand the dynamic you have put forward. If you choose to make such an amendment and if 434 other Members and the Delegates choose to do so, I would assume that is their responsibility. I am discharging mine.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the hard work and commitment of the Keiser family. Evelyn Keiser was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and graduated from Temple University. She was one of the first women in the United States to receive a Bachelors Degree in Medical Technology. Evelyn Keiser moved to south Florida in 1961 and co-founded Keiser College in 1977. Art & Belinda Keiser, along with Evelyn, have continued to serve our community by providing superior education through Keiser College, now known as Keiser University. The Keiser Family continues to contribute to Broward County and the State of Florida, not only through their educational institutions, but also through philanthropy. Keiser University will celebrate their 30th Anniversary in 2007. Madam Speaker, I proclaim January 31, 2007, as Keiser University Day in the 23rd Congressional District.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds merely to respond to the distinguished minority leader that we offered in the Rules Committee a motion that they denied, and that was to have an opportunity to have a substitute. An amendment was made in order if the gentleman had chosen to make that amendment, and he chose not to. But I say to those who argue that there is symbolism involved here that indeed there is. But death is more than symbolism. Death is real, and the persons who die that come from the 5 million persons that these Delegates and the Resident Commissioner represent are real people. They and their families need this symbolism. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield the balance of our time to the distinguished gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo), my good friend.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I heard someone say the vote counts, and it doesn't count. But every time I see the scroll indicating that another American soldier has died, that is a count that adds up, and that count is firm. The people of, the residents of Puerto Rico and the Delegates lose the lives of their soldiers in that count along with those of us from the respective States.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Perhaps you can get some time from your side. With that in mind, I had the good fortune, Madam Speaker, of traveling on two different occasions to American Samoa. I never met people that were more inclined to be patriots than the people of American Samoa. I had the good fortune of traveling there on each of those occasions with the gentleman now that I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to, my very good friend from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavega). (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I wish I had the time. Madam Speaker, as a matter of fact, with your permission, how much time do we have?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I am very proud to be bringing this bill to the House floor today. This minor change in House rules represents a major step forward for the nearly 5 million Americans whose voice is not currently represented on the floor of this House. That is right, Madam Speaker, 5 million Americans go unrepresented on the floor of the people's House. This is one of the few things we can do for the American body politic that is not only the right thing to do, it is easy to do as well. One of the most simple, yet eloquent and powerful statements in support of what we will do today was made by one of our former colleagues several years ago. Ben Blaz served in this House for 8 years as the delegate from Guam in the mid-1980s and early 1990s. Delegate Blaz is a man of unquestioned patriotism and uncommon valor. He retired from the Marine Corps with the rank of brigadier general, and during his time in the corps he was awarded the Legion of Merit, a Bronze Star with Combat V and the Vietnam Cross of Gallantry. I give you a little background on the former Delegate so that our colleagues can have some context when I tell you what General Blaz had to say at one time on this House floor. What the general said about his status in the House and the faith of his fellow Guamanians was this: ``We are equal in war, but not in peace.'' So it is today, Madam Speaker. Over the past several months, and as recently as this week, in the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan, young Americans from Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Washington, D.C. have fought and died in defense of their country and in service to the Nation they love. In the helicopter that crashed last week, two from the Virgin Islands were on that helicopter and lost their lives. And yet our colleagues, Mr. Fortuno from Puerto Rico, Dr. Christensen from the Virgin Islands, Mr. Faleomavaega from American Samoa, Ms. Bordallo from Guam and Ms. Norton, from Washington, D.C., have no right to cast a vote and be a voice for their constituents and our fellow Americans out on the battlefield. But, you know, Madam Speaker, I may be overstating the importance of this modest rules change. It is, after all, more symbolism than substance. Yes, our colleagues who I just mentioned will finally be able to cast a vote on the House floor, but, and this should be the clincher for my Republican friends who generally prefer to see democracy squelched in the people's House, if a vote cast by a Delegate or the Resident Commissioner or by them collectively amounts to the deciding votes on a question before the House, then the vote is retaken without permitting them to participate. So who could possibly be opposed to giving our colleagues, arguably some of the most gifted and thoughtful legislators in this Chamber, the right to cast a nondecisive vote on the House floor? I mean, that really should be done. Let me close for now by doing something I don't often do here, and that is to quote the current President of the United States. Last night, Madam Speaker, standing where you are, not 25 feet from where I stand today, the distinguished President of the United States, President Bush, said, ``This is a decent and honorable country.'' What we are trying to do on the House floor today, colleagues, is the decent and honorable thing to do. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, before yielding, I would just like for my distinguished colleague to reference two cases, Michaels v. Anderson, and the action of the United States District Court. And since you are so worried about the constitutionality, I would just urge that you read those two cases; it may add clarity.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 4 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the distinguished Chair of the Judiciary Committee. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished woman from the Virgin Islands, my good friend, Dr. Christensen.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to a continuing champion of this subject for 3\3/4\ minutes, the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, most deserving of statehood, Ms. Norton.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I would merely urge the gentleman to recognize that Puerto Rico has 4 million citizens, and I don't know what planet he is living on, but everybody in the District of Columbia pays taxes. And I don't understand this continuing argument. I am curious to know what would happen if Dallas, Texas, didn't have the right to vote in the House. I would also remind the gentleman that the United States District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has already ruled that this matter is not unconstitutional. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), my good friend and classmate who is the Chair of the Small Business Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus and my good friend from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. In that 15 seconds, I would ask my friends, the Delegates, if they would just stand and have America know something, that I am getting ready to cast a vote for them. They cannot cast a vote for themselves. How long does it take for 5 million people to be represented in this body? I thank my colleagues.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 86, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 78) amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to permit Delegates and the Resident Commissioner to the Congress to cast votes in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, do we have any time remaining at all?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay on the table the resolution of the distinguished gentleman.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007. We must be mindful in the creation of long-term energy alternatives for the future of our nation, as the acronym CLEAN denotes. I am honored to be among my many esteemed colleagues as an original cosponsor of this legislation. At this juncture, we must move beyond the obvious motivations for responsible energy policies. As my colleagues have acknowledged, scarcity of resources, national security, greenhouse gas emissions, and the impact of oil exploration top the list of concerns addressed by this legislation. However, we must also acknowledge the true impact of these challenges on our nation's most vulnerable populations. In this sense, progressive energy policy is inextricably linked with the pursuit of true environmental justice. Madam Speaker, my support for this legislation is founded in a profound desire to confront the diminishing life changes and debilitating health conditions attributed to polluting energy sources. Asthma has significantly increased over the past few decades, especially among African American populations. In 2004, 17 percent of African Americans under the age of 18 lived with asthma compared to only 11 percent of their white counterparts. On behalf of our children, we must understand the root cause of this disparity and take action to pursue alternative sources of energy for posterity. Furthermore, I support the thrust of this legislation because it discourages extraction from offshore oil and natural gas reserves. I stand with many of my constituents in acknowledging that the pursuit of these resources has the potential to cause life-threatening accidents and irreversible environmental damage to our Outer Continental Shelf. Rescinding incentives for this form of oil and natural gas production set forth in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act will undoubtedly protect our fragile marine ecosystems and stimulate the quest for alternative energy sources. Madam Speaker, complemented by other pieces of legislation, the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007 will bring accountability to the industries responsible for many environmental injustices and shift our nation away from a defunct paradigm of reliance on irresponsible energy sources. A new age for energy use is upon us.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this bipartisan bill, H.R. 4, the Medicare Prescription Drug Negotiation Act of 2007. This quality, sound bill enjoys support not only from Members from both side of the aisle, but also from the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the Consumer's Union, the AFL-CIO and Families USA. Most important, the majority of Americans are in favor of the principles set forth in this bill. For generations, among Democrats' top priorities has been to make healthcare more affordable for all Americans. I stand here today, as an exceedingly proud cosponsor of this bill that will take steps toward accomplishing just this. H.R. 4 fights for what is fair and right for our Nation's seniors, and fixes the Medicare prescription drug program as we know it today. The current prescription drug plan has kept costs high and created needless confusion for the 22.5 million seniors who chose to enroll in Medicare Part D. This number doesn't even begin to contemplate the millions who did not enroll, perhaps because of the complexity of the benefit. The present Medicare Part D forbids the government from negotiating affordable drug prices at the expense and well being of our seniors. So, while big companies like WalMart receive deals on prescription drugs, the American people can not. According to findings from Families USA, the law's current ban on bargaining for lower drug prices had caused seniors on Medicare to pay significantly more for their drugs. The history behind the current defective drug plan, introduced by Republicans in 2003, was one of the most corruptive abuses of the legislative process in all of our lifetimes. In the middle of the night, while most Americans were sleeping, Republicans snuck this bill in, loaded with giveaways for the drug and insurance companies. And using their signature scare tactics, the Republican leadership bullied the rest of their party to pass this bill after holding a 15 minute vote open for 3 hours! Mr. Speaker, such an abuse of legislative power is immoral and wrong. I am pleased to say that such abuse ended when Democrats took up the gavel. With Democrats in the driver's seat, seniors across America will be a part of new drug plan. A drug plan that will be tailored to America's seniors--and not the big drug companies who are now reporting record profits. The current Medicare Prescription drug program is not the best we can do for our seniors. Improvement clearly needed to be made to Medicare Part D, to make it more affordable and fair for its beneficiaries. The comprehensive and affordable plan being passed today is an important step forward toward alleviating seniors' prescription drug price concerns. The bill repeals the provision that bans the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HRS) from negotiating with drug companies for lower prices, and instead requires the Secretary to develop a workable negotiation process to secure affordable drug prices. Now, for instance, where private plans have failed to rein in outrageous drug prices, the Secretary will be allowed to use his bargaining power with the drug companies. Contrary to Republicans' claim that this bill would destroy the free market system, today's New York Times editorial page notes that, the bill ``is sufficiently flexible to allow older Americans to benefit from the best efforts of both the government and the private drug plans.'' Moreover, by requiring Medicare to negotiate rates with drug companies, the leftover funds can be used to fill in beneficiaries' coverage gap. Reducing the gap, known as the doughnut hole, would lower those beneficiaries' out of pocket costs. But this bill, while imperative and necessary, is only the first step towards improving the Medicare system. Our seniors deserve a real comprehensive prescription drug plan; one that will be simpler, cheaper, more reliable, and with less ``holes'' than the former devastating plan. My fellow Democrats don't merely have a 100-hour plan to fix the rising costs of prescription drugs. We have a long-term agenda on how to fix our Nation's heath care system. And we are ready to work with the President and Republicans in Congress to provide true relief and real choices for all Americans.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Haitian Protection Act of 2007. This important piece of legislation would designate Haitian nationals as eligible for Temporary Protected Status (TPS), The creation of TPS was intended to serve as the statutory embodiment of safe haven for those who are fleeing--or reluctant to return to--a potentially dangerous situation in their country of origin. According to section 244A of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1990, TPS may be granted when: there is ongoing armed conflict posing a serious threat to personal safety; it is requested by a foreign state that temporarily cannot handle the return of nationals due to environmental disaster; or extraordinary and temporary conditions in a foreign state exist which prevent aliens from returning. Haiti meets all three of these requirements for designation; and yet, not once have Haitian nationals qualified for TPS. Madam Speaker, there are currently nine countries that are protected under the TPS provision: Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, Burundi, Somalia, Sudan, and Liberia. Within the past year, all nine countries have obtained status renewal for an additional twelve months because it has been determined by the Department of Homeland Security that the country in question is unable to handle the return of its nationals due to varying circumstances. Last year, during the 109th Congress, I wrote to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regarding the unfair treatment of Haitian nationals by current U.S. Immigration policies. In response to my letter, DHS stated that before they could make a decision to grant TPS to Haiti, they had to determine whether there was ``(1) an ongoing armed conflict within the foreign state posing a serious threat to the personal safety of the country's nationals if returned there; (2) an environmental disaster, such as an earthquake, flood, drought, or epidemic in the state; or (3) extraordinary and temporary conditions in the foreign state that prevent nationals from returning safely.'' After assessing the aforementioned factors as they apply to Haiti, DHS has taken the following stance: ``Decisions on these requests will be made on a case-by-case basis based on the specific circumstances involved when requested.'' Madam Speaker, Haiti's recent political, civil, and governmental crises, as well as the extraordinary and temporary conditions caused by several natural disasters, easily make Haitian nationals currently in the United States eligible for TPS. Any major storm that hits Florida almost always crashes through Haiti first, taking lives and leaving cities already impoverished from the previous year's storms, further devastated. Throughout Haiti, vast deforestation leaves the country extremely vulnerable to mudslides from heavy rains. It is now 2007 and Haiti still remains severely devastated by the aftermath of Tropical Storm Jeanne, Hurricane Ivan, and serious floods throughout the region that occurred in 2004. The loss of life in Haiti is all but too common, and unfortunately overlooked, when natural disasters whip through the region. The death toll that resulted from the combination of these natural disasters reached over 7,500. In addition, an estimated 250,000 people were left homeless across the country and at least 4,000 homes were destroyed, with thousands more damaged as a result of the storm. The Haitian government's ability to provide basic governmental services--clean water, education, passable roads and basic healthcare-- is still severely compromised by these natural disasters. Repatriating Haitians at this time imposes an additional burden on government resources that are already stretched too thin. Concerning stability and overall safety, Haiti is still in dire need of an adequate policing force to maintain order and halt the escalation in kidnappings that are plaguing the nation. As of January 2007, the Department of State continues to advise Americans that current conditions in Haiti make it unsafe to travel due to the potential for looting, the possibility of random violent crime, and the serious threat of kidnapping for ransom. The warning goes on to state that more than 50 American citizens, including children, have been kidnapped over the past year. Madam Speaker, if it is unsafe for our citizens to travel to Haiti, then those same conditions should make it much too dangerous and inappropriate to forcibly repatriate Haitians at this time. It is unfortunate and appalling that our current immigration policies hold such harmful double standards. I want to make it very clear that I acknowledge and heartily congratulate Haiti's shift toward recovery, as seen by the successful democratic elections held throughout 2006. However, President Preval's nascent democratic government still faces immense challenges in regards to rebuilding Haiti's police and judicial institutions to achieve the fair and prompt tackling of the ongoing political and criminal violence. Most recently there has been a sharp increase in common crime, especially kidnappings which continue to plague the capital and other cities and regions. The absence of security and failure of police and the judicial system to function effectively only makes matters worse. In addition to safety and human rights considerations, halting the deportation of Haitians is also an economic matter. Under the law, TPS beneficiaries are eligible to obtain work authorization permits. The ability for Haitian Nationals to legally work in the United States put them in a position to contribute to their country's reform and development until such time it is safe for their return to Haiti. Madam Speaker, the Haitian Diaspora has always played a pivotal role in assisting Haiti. It is widely known that Haitians residing in the United States often work three jobs to send money back to Haiti each month. Many Haitians in the United States often send remittances to support family members, and others travel home to lend their expertise toward rebuilding and humanitarian efforts. Designating Haiti under TPS status would preserve and increase remittances--over a billion dollars a year--from the Haitian Diaspora to relatives and communities in Haiti that are key for welfare, survival, and recovery. Haiti is more dependent than any other country on remittances--nearly a billion dollars a year--sent home by Haitians in the United States. Remittances to Haiti far exceed foreign aid. Many Haitian Nationals in the United States who previously sustained relatives in Haiti through remittances, are being deported, further depriving Haiti of an important source of financial aid that is well- positioned to assist when based here in the United States. Madam Speaker, by refusing to give Haiti the TPS designation, our inequitable immigration policies continue to send a clear message: The safety of Haitian lives is not a priority compared to a Honduran, Liberian or Sudanese life. We must act to change this perception. Our immigration policies have to change; they must reflect fairness and treat Haitians equally to Nicaraguans, Hondurans, and Salvadorans whose deportations are suspended and who are allowed to work and support their families back home. Madam Speaker, Haiti is making great strides to recover and rebuild. We cannot reward their efforts by kicking this country, and its people, down when they are doing everything possible to bring their country out of chaos and destruction. The election of President Preval in February 2006, and the election shortly thereafter of a national legislature which promptly confirmed his cabinet nominees, along with the broad internal and international support which this new democratic government enjoys, makes it imperative that the United States seize every current opportunity to assist that government to succeed. Many in Haiti, as well as the Haitian Diaspora worldwide, need us to reach beyond what has been done before and demand for more. The Haitian Protection Act of 2007 is necessary to achieve fundamental fairness in our treatment of Haitian immigrants and remedy the accurate and widespread perception that U.S. policy has discriminated against them. Madam Speaker, we cannot miss this opportunity to help Haiti stabilize its economy, rebuild its political and economic institutions, and provide a future of hope for Haiti's people. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and urge the House Leadership to bring it swiftly to the House floor for consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, my good friend, Dr. Gingrey, speaking just a moment ago, said, stand up and be the men and women that you should be. Let me tell you, I heard my other colleague, Mr. Sessions, talk about all this wonderful bipartisanship that took place for 12 years. Well, I have been here 14, and all I know is rancor and disagreement and very little in the way of bipartisan spirit that has been engendered here in this body. But let me talk about this business about closed rules. It was understood that in the ``Six for '06'' that the rules would be closed. I assure you, and everyone else has, that there will be more open rules than you provided. You had 195 total rules in the 109th Congress. Twenty-two open rules. Twenty-two open rules, 20 of which were appropriations bills, only truly open. And you had 50 closed rules, 67 restrictive rules, 26 conference report rules and 30 procedural rules. We will match you in time.