Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my friend from Florida, for the time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong option to this closed rule and the underlying legislation. First, let me say that I really am pleased that Congress belatedly sees a need to address the President's unconscionable, declared by court, unconstitutional domestic spying program. Unfortunately, we are considering a bill today that was primarily drafted by the White House. I do not relish the notion of criticizing this bill; but because what it does to the Constitution, however, and I am sworn to uphold, as are all of the Members of this body, to uphold and defend that Constitution, I am not going to sit idly by and watch people trample on it. Now, I have lived and seen how unchecked power in the hands of bureaucrats can be used to squelch legitimate first amendment exercises. We have seen monitoring of students, preachers and housewives. I have seen what happens when government protectors think they answer to no one. And, frankly, it is not pretty. I just implore you all to think back to the 1970s,and Americans were shocked to learn about President Nixon's unchecked spying for political advantage. Americans were similarly dismayed over the legendary J. Edgar Hoover's listening in not only on Dr. King, but many other targets. Those illegal surveillance scandals were, in part, what led to the creation of the select committees of intelligence. It is our job, Congress's job, to ensure that we effectively oversee the activities of the NSA, the FBI, and the CIA. To the point. This White House bill really does scare me. We would be giving not just President Bush's administration, but every subsequent administration a blank check. This bill does so much to chip away at the civil liberties and privacy protections built into the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, you will hear it referred to often as FISA, that it could, if passed, have very disastrous effects. It redefines the definition of surveillance in an irresponsible way. The effect is that the NSA, the FBI, would be able to listen to any call or read any e-mail that comes into or goes out of the United States. So if a soldier overseas calls her husband, NSA can listen in. If a little girl in my home town of Mirimar, Florida, sends an e-mail to her grandmother in Israel, NSA can read it. If a student at Florida Atlantic University is studying in France and calls her father at home in Ft. Lauderdale, NSA can listen in. Now, that soldier putting her life on the line in Iraq is not a terrorist. The little girl in Mirimar and her grandmother I think we can all assume are not plotting to overthrow anything. The student at Florida Atlantic and her father I am just guessing have likely not sworn their lives to overthrowing the United States Government. At the risk of being trite, the White House-drafted bill has more holes than Swiss cheese. Maybe we ought to just call it the Swiss cheese bill. It throws out some pretty broad terms and never defines them. What is an armed attack? What is an imminent threat or imminent attack? They are not defined in this bill. Yet, the President has broad authority under this bill to do whatever he pleases under these conditions. Footnote right there. Let's make this very clear, not just this administration but succeeding administrations would have this power. Arguably under this bill, every single day since September 11, 2001, we have been under the imminent threat of a terrorist attack. And if the mover of this bill and the White House get their way, every call and every e-mail, even domestic ones, would be subject to warrantless surveillance. Allowing this President or any President to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance under these vaguely described circumstances is, simply put, dangerous. You never know how the next President might use or abuse her power when she gets it. You know, Mr. Speaker, I am fond of quoting Ben Franklin, and so I am going to do it again today. The legendary Ben Franklin said: ``Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.'' This is what we might do today again. This piece of legislation may be one of the most important bills that the House will consider this year or any year, and not one Member of the House, not one, will be able to offer an amendment. That bothers me generally, Mr. Speaker. Today it bothers me specifically. There was an amendment rejected at the Rules Committee offered by our colleagues, Mr. Schiff and Mr. Flake, that was similar to an amendment that I offered at the Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives. My amendment simply would have made the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act more transparent to the people who depend on it most. It was legislation more or less drafted at their request to clear perceived ambiguity in the current law. My language would have made it clear, even to the people in President Bush's administration, what constituted domestic spying and what was foreign-based. Yesterday, the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, my friend, David Dreier, when he did not permit amendments on this floor said: ``Well, Democrats did not have a substitute.'' Well, today, we have one. And what is your excuse now, Mr. Chairman? Not to worry, it is a rhetorical question. The answer I well know is to squelch democracy here in the United States House of Representatives. You beat with rulemaking that which you know you cannot beat with reason. And what message does that send to those that would follow our lead, those we are trying to teach our Democracy Assistants Commission? I know what you say: do as we say, not as we do. For today, in the people's House, democracy is being eviscerated by those who recommend it to others. I have said it before: the way the majority runs the House is shameful. It is hypocritical. It is un-American, and it is undemocratic, and it happens every single day that we have a closed rule, and in other circumstances as well. Could it be any clearer that America needs a new direction? Stopping, thwarting the will of those of us in the House of Representatives who have a different point of view, or at least should have an opportunity to have discussed a different point of view and have the will of the body make the decision as to whether or not that point of view or the one offered by the majority ought prevail, should be what we should be about in democracy. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this closed rule and the White House legislation which brings it to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, when we were in the Rules Committee in those hours of debate, how fast after that discussion when these people presented themselves did the rule come to the floor? In short, was there any deliberation?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), my good friend. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5\1/ 2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), my friend, who offered an amendment that I offered in the Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. My good friend, the distinguished gentleman from California, has cited again Franklin and those three other persons. But I would remind him that they did not yield all of their power to the President. They did consider that separation of power. And Mrs. Wilson stated a minute ago that this bill puts in place rules of the road. The problem is that the rules are optional and the President gets to ignore them essentially whenever. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 1 minute to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have some suggestions about implementing every tool at our disposal. The 9/11 Commission would be one. I would urge the gentleman not to lecture us regarding our commitment. We offered a measure to improve this measure. Everyone wants to catch the same people you are talking about catching. There is no problem in that regard. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), my colleague on the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/ 2\ minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to provide that the House will immediately consider legislation that implements the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, bipartisan commission, that this Congress has ignored up to this time. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we have spent the past few days debating constitutionally suspect bills that are designed, in my opinion, to advance the Republican midterm election political agenda rather than make real progress in the serious war on terror. The 9/11 Commission gave Congress failing grades for good reason; we have failed to do all we can to protect our citizens. Why don't we take a few hours to debate the proposals that this bipartisan panel of experts has advised would actually make our borders more secure and help us stop the next terrorist attack? A debate like this may not fit into the majority's midterm election strategy, but it might actually lead to some good policy. Again, I urge a no vote on the previous question, so we can have a debate and vote on the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. Please vote ``no'' on this closed rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. The able Chair, who is so articulate and capable, also is the master of immediate revisionist history. As he cites the whole set of events that have brought us here, he ignores the fact that over the weekend all of the negotiations were with the administration and with the Republican majority. Go to the record from yesterday's Rules hearing, and you will find that Duncan Hunter, the Chair of the Armed Services Committee, said no Democrat was involved in those negotiations. So how disingenuous can you be?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I don't have sufficient time. If your body will give us time, then I will be happy to yield to you.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. No one really disputes whether or not this legislation is needed. In fact, all of us are acutely aware that it is imperative that we establish the legal parameters needed to properly apprehend and prosecute villains who act against this country. Those whom we deem a threat to our country should be given at least an opportunity to be put on trial properly, and if found guilty of their crimes, should be promptly put in prison or executed. But our responsibility, that we are not discharging fairly, is to make law that is constitutional and consistent with our international obligations. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to support today's legislation in its current form. We cannot overturn hundreds of years of judicial precedent specifically referring to habeas corpus for the sake of political expediency. Our judicial system has guaranteed the right to be heard in court, the right to know the evidence presented against you--when Mr. Cole was giving his litany of the rights that are being offered these terrible people, he left out that particular aspect--and an opportunity to contest your charge in a meaningful way. The government should not deny the minimum legal process to certain individuals now and risk the loss of freedom for all people in the future. Additionally, as the Supreme Court has ruled--and I predicted before, you are going to get a chance to rule on the constitutionality of this measure, and it should have been expedited pursuant to the plan offered by Mr. Skelton that was ignored in the Rules Committee--the United States is required under the Supreme Court to uphold the standards codified in the Geneva Convention. The current treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay is questionable. Someone argued just a moment ago, what was the rush? We have this person who committed 9/11. And that is true. But everybody in the Intelligence Community has said all 14 of the prisoners that were transferred to Guantanamo, their intelligence has been exhausted and their value for intelligence has been exhausted. We also run the risk of approving prior transgressions. I shan't spend much time on that. This war on terror has reached global proportions and the world is watching our conduct closely. In the words of the distinguished late Senator William Fulbright, ``If America has a service to perform in the world, and I believe she has, it is in large part the service of her own example.'' I close, Mr. Speaker: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Ask Ben Franklin. That is what he said.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, according to the majority leader, the House will adjourn 2 days from now and take a political vacation for 6 weeks. We will do this despite the fact that we will leave 300 million Americans less safe than if we stay here and implement the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. Continuing to do nothing in the face of continued threats to our people and our way of life is hardly what the American people elected us to do. The 9/11 Commission focused their recommendations into three broad areas: We need to attack terrorists and their organizations; we need to prevent the continued growth of Islamist terrorism; and we need to protect against and prepare for terrorist attacks. It pains me to say, though the American people must know, this administration and this Congress have failed miserably on all three of these counts. Instead of going after terrorists, we invaded Iraq and have caused an all-out civil war there that costs American lives on a daily basis. The war in Iraq has not prevented the growth of terrorism. We are learning now that it has actually enhanced the growth of terrorism. Instead of protecting and preparing for the next terrorist attack, we busy ourselves building partial ``let's pretend'' fences. I recommend and unanimously request that we consider the bipartisan recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, less jaw jacking and more action.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution calling on the people of the world and their religious and political leaders to work towards ecumenical understanding and interfaith dialogue. Usually, it is not my habit to address religious issues on the floor. I strongly believe in a person's right to religious freedom, as well as the separation of church and state. However, due to recent incidents in various parts of the world I am deeply concerned about the apparent lack of religious respect and tolerance. Therefore, I could not stand by without introducing this resolution. Not just Christians and Jews, but also Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and the followers of many other religions believe in values like peace, respect, tolerance and dignity. These are values that bring people together and enable us to build responsible and solid communities. I strongly believe that this is what religion is, or should be about. People all over the world share these universal values. While few religious leaders and scholars would doubt the commonalities that exist among the various religious groups, the followers of these religions unfortunately struggle in their effort to peacefully coexist. It is my impression that too often, the differences in belief are stressed instead of their common grounds. Too frequently, religious feelings get hurt--sometimes intentionally, but more often, unintentionally. In the last few weeks, we have again witnessed a lack of mutual understanding and misled reaction. These recent events have shown that even religious leaders are sometimes prone to lacking the adequate sensitivity in dealing with other people's beliefs. The reaction to this incident on the other hand was definitely disproportional, which indicates that the situation was used for political reasons. The specific incident I am referring to is this: His Holiness Pope Benedict's debatable statement about the prophet Muhammad at a German university two weeks ago and the following unrest in parts of the Arab world. The subsequent unrest resulted in the murder of a nun in Somalia and the burning of churches in the Gaza Strip. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned that many regions of this world are suffering from the effects of armed conflicts with religious aspects. I believe that the differences of faith are not the real reason for these conflicts. As a matter of fact, religious differences are actually exploited to convince people to participate in primarily political conflicts. Given the fact that most religions share basic values, it is most unfortunate that religious people can be played off against each other so easily. One possible reason for this may be that people do not know enough about other people's beliefs. This resolution encourages the peoples of the world and their political leaders, including the ones in our country, to learn about their neighbor's beliefs. I am convinced that religious and spiritual understanding plays a positive role in facilitating trust and overcoming political differences. Mr. Speaker, this resolution expresses our assistance for all projects that support a productive and constructive inter-faith dialogue. I know that there are people here in the States and in many other countries of the world, working hard on this issue. I am aware of the fact that some of them risk their political and social credibility or even their lives. All of them deserve our deepest recognition. Moreover, I want us to urge political and religious leaders, and all peoples of the world, to move forward in a conciliatory spirit, to deal with religious matters in a responsible and balanced way, and to focus on their common grounds. We all know that there will be no peace among the nations without peace among the religions, and we also know that there will be no peace among the religions without a dialogue among the religions. To support this dialogue and to show that we are conscious of its importance, I ask you to support this resolution.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Jimmy Carter also said that States should make voter registration and IDs accessible to all eligible citizens by using mobile offices and other means to register more voters and issue photo ID cards, and he also called for comprehensive electoral reform, which you all are not willing to do. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished minority whip, my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), my good friend and classmate.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is only the things you cite, I just am curious. For beer or to cash a check or get on a plane or buy cigarettes or go into a building, do you need citizenship on that ID?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ehlers continues to use Arizona. In the first 6 months of 2005, as a result of Arizona's Proposition 200, more than 10,000 Arizona citizens had their voter registrations rejected as a result of failure to provide adequate proof of citizenship. I think that is horrible. Mr. Speaker, someone else that knows about protecting us from fraud is the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, who I believe has had a substantial career dealing with the subject of voter problems. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I just wish to correct one thing with reference to President Carter. What he said was that there should be identification, not proof of citizenship, and that it should be free to everybody. I am sure he didn't allow for an unfunded mandate. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, a decorated veteran and hero that all of us respect. I would be interested, the kind of hero that Ike Skelton is, that he tell his story; or hear his story about what happened to him. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), my good friend. Ms. Solis is the first Hispanic woman to be elected to the California senate. She has had a lot of experience in this voter business.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am in opposition to this closed rule. This so-called Federal Election Integrity Act places an unconstitutional burden on the fundamental rights of eligible citizens to participate in our country's democratic process. I agree with the words of President Lyndon Johnson when he said, ``The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible wall which imprisons men and women because they are different from other men and women.'' Today, before millions of Americans, the majority is trying to reconstruct the walls of injustice and imprison our poor, disabled, elderly and young by putting up barriers to the voting process. This majority Congress has decided to embarrass itself further by coming up with a solution in search of a problem instead of passing legislation that would rectify actual problems that plague our citizens. Out of all of the issues that this Congress could be considering in the last 2 weeks before we adjourn, the majority has decided that the priorities of the American people include trying to make voting harder for segments of our population that already have it difficult. In today's USA Today, it says, ``Crisis Seen in Luggage Screening.'' And this is a report by TSA and airports highlighting the urgency of us needing to screen baggage that goes onto airplanes, and here we are screening voters who have done nothing wrong in the first place rather than dealing with urgent matters. Although the majority of Americans have and use IDs as a routine matter, approximately 10 percent of the public, disproportionately people of color, elderly citizens, disabled citizens, and young people and low-income citizens, do not have government-issued photo IDs. When I think about the latest schemes of the majority, I cannot help but think about who exactly this bill would affect. I call attention, for example, to elderly blacks born into segregation, as my mom and grandfather and grandmother were, and racism that existed in the pre- civil rights era in the South. My mother was born in Florida in the early 20th century at a time when the birth of most blacks was not officially acknowledged by States or localities. This meant that my mom and thousands like her were not issued birth certificates. This practice continued in some areas of this country into the 1950s. Furthermore, many persons at this time do not drive, like my mom, so they never obtained licenses either. Mr. Speaker, the claim that voter fraud is such a rampant problem is really beyond the pale. There is virtually no empirical evidence. I might add they held no hearings, did not take into consideration anything other than some nominal reports regarding this matter. There is virtually no empirical evidence that voter fraud with any frequency would warrant such a restrictive and potentially harmful legislation. Furthermore, proponents of the voter ID requirements cannot even prove that existing safeguards do not adequately address the minimum problems of fraud. I heard all of the talk about something happened in Arizona and what the people did. All of that was prosecutable under the law as it exists. This legislation is nothing short of yet another political ploy at a political time when we are in high political dudgeon to bamboozle, disenfranchise American citizens. The fact that this bill is being considered as a closed rule with no amendments and no debate confirms my suspicions that the majority is actively doing everything in its power to stifle democracy instead of letting it flourish. Mr. Speaker, this country needs a new direction. This bill is nothing but a distraction to real issues that deserve real solution. Currently States have several alternative means to address potential problems associated with voter fraud. When those alternatives are executed correctly, which includes statewide voter registration databases, in- person affirmation and signature comparison, they pose less of a burden on eligible Americans than a mandatory ID. I also note that most of these alternatives have long been used successfully in States across the country. If Republicans were serious about carrying out real election reform, they would not have voted against the two amendments offered by my two good friends on the House Administration Committee, Ranking Member Millender-McDonald and Representative Lofgren, that sought to improve voter participation and access to polls. As it stands, the current legislation before us today does absolutely nothing to alleviate the problems Florida had with recent elections on September 5, and would not address current problems that many States are still experiencing today. Maryland, just last week, had all sorts of problems that this measure here would not have covered in their flawed election. I am not the only one who is concerned about the effectiveness of this bill. Our colleague, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, expressed extreme concern about there not being a paper trail in the voting process. I strongly agree with his concerns and those of Robert Wexler, who has fought the paper trail problem in my district, and note that this bill provides nothing, nothing, for States to improve electronic vote. Several States, including Florida, Missouri, where Mr. Skelton is from and who will speak, has personal experience. Ohio, Michigan, Arizona, and the city of Albuquerque, New Mexico, have enacted voter ID requirements that have been challenged in court. Many have already been found unconstitutional and thrown out while others are still pending. Just yesterday, another judge, a superior court judge in Georgia, threw out that State's voter ID, which has been litigated ad nauseam. For a party that doesn't like trial lawyers, the Republicans would almost guarantee big business with trial lawyers, with the increase of litigation that would immediately follow the passage of this litigation. Mr. Speaker, we cannot bypass the opportunity to pursue real election reform. We cannot let the majority pass harmful and vague legislation that would only nullify the advances we have witnessed with such legislation like the Voting Rights Act. Two years ago, in response to what I believe is going to be recited, that this is not an unfunded mandate, 2 years ago, the Democrats on the Appropriations Committee tried to provide funding under the Help America Vote Act, but the Republicans on that committee voted it down. So your argument that there would be funds for this falls on deaf ears. Once we pass a measure like this, the localities are going to have to bear the brunt, whether we fund it or not. Voting is for all of us, not just most of us. We can and must do better in the people's House. For these reasons, I oppose this closed rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Arizona (Mr. Pastor). Arizona has been utilized an awful lot here. Perhaps we should hear from an Arizonan who was at Mr. Ehlers' hearing and could speak to this issue. (Mr. PASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)