Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of the late Celia Bell, a constituent and friend, who passed away just two weeks ago. Celia Bell was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on May 3, 1915. She was born a twin and weighed only one and one-half pounds. Doctors had little faith the babies would survive, and indeed, one did not. But Celia not only survived, she thrived and went on to live a very full life, passing away on April 17, 2006 just a couple of weeks shy of her 91st birthday, which would have been today. Celia married Max Kauffman on December 22, 1935 and they raised three children together: Fred Kauffman (spouse Bobbie), Hedy Goldberg (spouse Bob), and Brenda Hoelzle (spouse Bob). These three wonderful children blessed Celia and Mac with 8 grandchildren: Bret Kauffman (spouse Madie), Mark Kauffman (spouse Tracey), Eric Kauffman (spouse Debbie), Lee Hoelzle, Bryan Hoelzle (spouse Sharon), Karen Caltune (spouse Todd), and Lewis and Ellen Goldberg. When she passed away, Celia was the great-grandmother of 8 wonderful greatgrandchildren: Andrew, Michelle, Max, Brennan, Aaron, and Joshua Kaufman, and Matthew and Jarett Hoelzle. Max and Celia were married for 53 years until Max's passing in 1989. Celia Kauffman never worked outside of her home, but always kept busy, sewing, knitting, and crocheting. In the late 1970's, Celia and Max moved to South Florida where she continued to be active in her community by volunteering her services. She bowled until the age of 85 when her arthritis forced her to stop. However, at the age of 89, she was still doing volunteer work as the water exercise instructor at her condominium pool and crocheting lap robes which were donated to nursing homes and children's services. It gives me great pride today to honor this great American, whose legacy lives on in her children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and friends.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it just seems like common sense to me that if you want to make port facilities safer, you put more Customs officials on the ground and give them better equipment to detect and stop terrorist attacks. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee has decided that the House is not going to debate these ideas, and in my judgment, that is a shame. Members should be aware that a ``no'' vote will not prevent consideration of the SAFE Port Act, and it will not affect any of the amendments that are in order under this rule. But a ``no'' vote will allow us to vote for these responsible amendments to increase security at our Nation's ports. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rules so the House can vote on important amendments offered by Homeland Security Ranking Member Thompson and Representative Langevin to increase security at our Nation's ports. Rules Committee Republicans rejected these amendments when we met last night. The amendment would add 1,600 new Customs and Border Protection Officers at our Nation's ports. We cannot conduct more container inspections at our ports if we do not have more people. The goal of the Langevin amendment is to make sure that these Customs officials working in our ports are using the best available technology. It authorizes funds to speed up the installation of radiation portal monitors in domestic ports of entry. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of these amendments and extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), my good friend.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the most distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who has advanced this legislation in a meaningful way, whose amendment was not, I repeat, was not allowed.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend for that. Would the Speaker advise how much time I have remaining?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My colleague, Mr. Sessions, my friend, related earlier that in full committee these matters were debated and were voted down. I would remind him that the Nadler amendment passed in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on a voice vote and that the Lungren amendment passed in the Homeland Security Committee, an appropriate jurisdiction. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 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 yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), my good friend.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to advise each of us how much time remains.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if we had made one amendment in order, it would have been satisfactory on this side, the one that was offered by my good friend Mr. Nadler, who I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My colleague from Florida says that they made 10 Democrat amendments in order and five Republican amendments, and that is true. But not a single one of those is more important than the three that you did not make in order. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin). (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, my good friend, Ms. Harman from California.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), my friend, for yielding me the time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this restrictive rule, which permits the House to consider only one half of the amendments which were brought to the Rules Committee last night. Under this rule, only 15 of the approximately 30 amendments offered by Members are made in order, while the remaining half are blocked from consideration. I find it astonishing, though not surprising, that my friends in the majority, who just in the last hour were preaching ethics reform and civility here in the House, are coming to the floor again with a restrictive rule. The rule, which was reported out of the Rules Committee along a straight party-line vote, mocks the public's call for reforming the way we go about doing business in the people's House. Clearly, the majority is good at talking the talk, but as the American people are beginning to understand, they are failing miserably to walk the walk. In blocking these amendments from being considered by the House today, Republicans are sending a message loud and clear that protecting their political majority in the House is more important than protecting the American people in their own homes. Dangerously, the rule prohibits the House from considering a Democratic amendment offered by Representatives Nadler, Oberstar, Markey, and others which requires that every single shipping container be scanned and sealed before being loaded onto a ship destined for the United States. Today, barely 5 percent of all containers coming into the United States through our ports are scanned. Unfortunately, Republicans, again along a party-line vote, blocked this commonsense security-based amendment from being debated and considered by the full House. In doing so, they have signed their names on the dotted line that they do not at this time support inspecting 100 percent screening requirements at America's ports. Mr. Speaker, as someone who represents a district which depends greatly upon three major international ports for economic activity, I take issue with the majority's not allowing this amendment being considered today. I take issue with their conscious decision to block the House from considering an amendment which will, without a doubt, make my constituents and the American people safer. Sadly, the rule also fails to make in order an amendment which was offered by the ranking Democrat of the Homeland Security Committee, my good friend and trusted advisor on homeland security issues, Representative Bennie Thompson from Mississippi. The ranking member's amendment recognizes that we cannot continue asking Customs officials to do more with less. I just had this, coming from an international flight, discussion with a fine gentleman in the Customs Department. Thirty-two years he has been there, and he indicates to me just how difficult it is for them to do more with less. The amendment that Mr. Thompson offered authorized funding for U.S. Customs and Border Patrol to hire 1,600 more officers at America's seaports. Representative Langevin offered an amendment that authorized $117 million for the purchase of advanced radiation portal monitors at all our ports to ensure that Customs officials have the most up-to-date equipment to do their job. I kept hearing all this stuff last night about they do not have this technology and everything. Well, I have seen this technology in Vilnius, Lithuania, as one example. In Rotterdam, I saw this technology. It worked. At the very least, what we need is whatever the state of art is at this point in the hopes that it will work and that we can improve it as time progresses. Under this rule, however, both of these amendments, Mr. Thompson's and Mr. Langevin's, and so many others are blocked from consideration. Mr. Speaker, as I previously mentioned, I am proud to represent a region in our country which is home to some of our largest international seaports, Port Everglades, the Port of Palm Beach, and the Port of Miami, all within just minutes of my home. They have led the way in security improvements in America. The three, Port Everglades in particular, have all enjoyed national and international best- practices recognition. So when I come to the floor today and consider the underlying legislation, I have to ask, does this legislation get our ports to where they need to be regarding security? The answer to this question is a resounding no. I have traveled all over this world visiting international ports to learn about their operations and how they secure their cargo. Among the places that I visited have been Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo, Rotterdam, Lisbon, and others. These are some of the largest ports in the world outside of the United States, and all of them manage to inspect more cargo than we do without slowing down their port operations. It was interesting to me, in the run-up to the Singapore Trade Agreement, we required in that agreement that Singapore inspect more of their cargo than we do in our own country. So I ask, if they can do it, why can we not? The rhetoric from the other side of the aisle is at an all-time high. They talk about bipartisanship, but they shy away from working together. I give credit at least to the ranking member and Chair of this committee for trying. We give them opportunities to make good bills better, but then they block the House from considering our ideas. They talk about securing America, but then balk when it comes time to actually do something about it. Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity today to do something about a real problem which we all know exists at America's seaports. This is not about showing the terrorists our weaknesses, as some in the majority have suggested. Rather, it is about giving our Customs and Border Patrol officers the necessary tools and directives to do everything that they possibly can to stop attacks from happening here in the United States. The sad thing is, Mr. Speaker, it may not be until an attack occurs that we will actually get this right. This rule and the underlying legislation fails to meet the needs of our ports and the expectations of the American people, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this restrictive rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Elsa Greenberg on the occasion of her 70th birthday. Elsa was born April 25th 1936, in Providence, Rhode Island, six minutes after her twin sister Saralee. Elsa grew up in Brookline, Massachusetts and Portland, Maine, and when she was 13, she moved to Miami, Florida. Elsa studied at the Universities of Alabama and Miami, where she learned to dance and studied education and social psychology. She was married in 1956 to Mel Greenberg, who would later found the Miami-based Greenberg Traurig law firm in 1967. A devoted wife and mother of three children--Dianne, Carol, and Michael--Elsa was widely-known in South Florida as a thoughtful and gracious hostess, and, with Mel, a generous philanthropist and engaged citizen. She was for many years an avid classical music and tennis fan, a political devotee, and a gourmet cook, even picking up the art of macrobiotic cooking after Mel was diagnosed with cancer. Elsa and Mel were married for 38 years. Elsa now devotes herself primarily to her family. Invariably, she can be found with her children and their spouses Steve, Mark, and Maria and her grandchildren Arik, Ditty, Daniel, Josh, Brian, Melanie, and Carolina. Elsa continues to be a refined hostess, now passing on her secrets to her family. She has also taken up knitting, amazing her family and friends with her impressive mastery of the craft. Elsa Greenberg continues to be a strong political enthusiast and is, in short, a patriotic citizen--the kind of constituent we all want in our districts. For her commitment to her family, to her community, and to her nation, it is my privilege to wish Elsa Greenberg a very happy 70th birthday.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Philip Thornton Haire, a very good friend and a beloved figure in Clewiston, Florida and the surrounding Glades area. Phil led a remarkable life. As a marine in World War II, he fought in the Pacific Theater, winning a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart. Following his military service, Phil began a career as a radio sales executive working throughout the West and Midwest. In 1950, he moved to the Glades area, where he began his long association with radio station WSWN, known as ``Sugar 900.'' In addition to his duties in sales, he became a sports announcer, copywriter, and eventually, Vice President and General Manager. Phil Haire was an honest, decent man who always had a smile and a kind word for people he met. He was loved and respected throughout the Glades area. Phil truly left his mark on his community and on everyone who knew him. We will all miss him greatly. On behalf of the Members of the House of Representatives, I would like to pass along our deepest condolences to Phil's family, friends, and loved ones.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Workforce Housing Act of 2006. Finding a moderately priced home used to be a concern solely for those with low incomes. Today, as the median price for a home in some parts of the United States is over $400,000, it has become an issue for all workers. This is especially true when only about 18 percent of the working population has enough income to purchase such a home. Other workers simply do not have the down payment needed to buy a home. When large numbers of Americans are priced out of the housing market, it affects more than just a working family's ability to purchase a home. Communities that fail to provide affordable housing leave employers straining to find employees. The price to attract prospective workers ultimately makes essential jobs and services more difficult and more expensive for everyone. Workers who cannot find affordable housing in or around places of employment are pressured to move further away. They endure longer commutes, use more gasoline, increase the levels of greenhouse gases, and spend more of their hard earned money on transportation. The financial impact is especially hard on low-income families who can spend 40 percent of their incomes on transportation alone. In other cases, people are forced to seek less expensive homes elsewhere. Many of the housing alternatives they have to choose from are often built from older materials, emit more pollution, and require up to 50 percent more energy. Faulty ventilation and energy hungry appliances also increase the costs to heat, cool, and power a home. Rising energy costs required Americans to spend 24 percent more for energy in 2005 than in the previous year. Such expenditures quickly deplete any savings that working families hope to use when trying to buy a home. Left unchecked, the shortage of affordable housing, combined with higher energy prices and increased transportation demands paralyzes employment, holds back economic growth, and leads to inflation. The Workforce Housing Act successfully addresses the challenges faced by America's current housing crisis. This bill provides badly needed assistance to help individuals and families purchase their first home and to encourage developers to build affordable workforce housing. For those looking to purchase a home, the Workforce Housing Act creates two forms of assistance that can be used for the down payment, service charges, appraisal, and other acquisition costs to purchase a single-family home or condominium. First, the bill creates a tax-exempt mortgage down payment account to be used for purchasing a home. This account works much like an Individual Savings Account, but can be used regardless of age and allows contributions of up to $10,000. Taxpayers that earn incomes up to 125 percent of the area median income will receive a tax credit equal to the amount of their annual contributions. The maximum credit is $2,500 for either single or married-filing-joint taxpayers. Those making below 80 percent of AMI can also receive an additional $500 credit to start the account. Once the home is purchased, it is also possible to use any remaining funds for the future repair or replacement of items such as roofs, water heaters, or major appliances. This provision helps to ensure families can pay for these types of expenses without jeopardizing their mortgage payments. Those who purchase homes using assistance from the Workforce Housing Act must use the home as their primary residence. To preserve the supply of homes created under this act, ownership of these homes can only be transferred to those with incomes that meet the stated affordability requirements. Second, the Workforce Housing Act provides potential homebuyers with finance counseling and up to $15,000 in down payment assistance. Local communities have the discretion under the bill to give teachers, first responders, certain service workers, the elderly, and low-income families priority for this part of the program. For builders, incentives are available for the construction of affordable workforce homes. Developers are allowed base incentives in the form of expedited building permits and density allowances that are above current limits when at least 25 percent of the units are priced affordably. Affordability is based on homes with a sale price that does not exceed the median purchase price for a specific area. Additional incentives are provided in the bill for affordable workforce homes that are built near mass transit lines, with energy efficient technologies and appliances, and using active and/or passive solar technology. These incentives can be used individually or in any combination not to exceed 15 percent of the base incentive value. Local jurisdictions will determine how to utilize these incentives based on the needs of their communities. The Workforce Housing Act is necessary to ensure there is an adequate supply of affordable housing for the people who need it most. It also provides reasonable alternatives that reduce some of the negative effects of increased energy demands. These are factors that threaten our economy, our ability to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and the viability of our cities and towns. 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, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts on the Rules Committee for yielding. I heard my colleague from Florida (Mr. Putnam) talk about it being terrible economic policy. I am curious, does that mean terrible economic policy to balance the budget? I also heard you in your comments say that the Democrats' budget is mythical. Well, let me tell you what is not mythical. When you make bad deficits worse, that simply is not mythical. The Republican budget resolution has no plan to bring the budget back to balance and, in fact, makes the deficit $410 billion over 5 years, compared to current deficit estimates. It calls for a mounting legacy of debt. Since this administration took office, it has requested and the Congress has provided four increases in the statutory debt ceiling totaling $3 trillion. Under this budget as proposed by the Republicans, the statutory debt by the year 2011, footnote there, the baby boomers hit at 2009, the statutory debt will increase by another $2.3 trillion, for a total increase of $5.3 trillion. It will leave the statutory debt at a record level of $11.3 trillion. What part of that is mythical? What we are talking about is something that is going to destroy the economic base of this country. This budget that the Democrats propose makes sure that this budget comes into balance. It does not cut, as does the Republican budget, funds for public health programs. It does not cut new money for transitional Medicaid assistance. The Republicans cut low-wage workers and vulnerable families. They cut nutrition assistance. They slash education, education, by $2.2 billion. They cut veterans care by $8.6 billion. It cuts budget functions that fund homeland security. I am curious, what is the myth that you would perpetuate upon the public when we are about to go down the drain?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip, my very good friend. (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would you be good enough to tell both sides of the remaining amount of time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers at this time and I am prepared to go forward.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee, my very good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), for the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule, which blocks every single Member in this body from offering an amendment to the 527 Reform Act of 2006. This bill would amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, and require, among other things, certain political organizations involved in Federal election activities to register with the Federal Election Commission. Yesterday, during the Rules Committee hearing, the majority on the committee reported out a closed rule. In doing so, this limited any opportunity for the House to fully vet this important issue. If Congress is the place for true deliberation of all points of view, then I ask, why are the Republicans so hasty to ramrod this bill through without opportunities to amend? Surely the majority realizes that abolishing spending limits is a move that intentionally pushes aside the interests of women, minorities, and other voters who may not be a part of the Republican base and therefore apparently are not worthy of regard. Or is it simply a maneuver to deny us serious debate about viable alternatives, such as one from Massachusetts offered by Representative Tierney? Representative Tierney's amendment, had it been made in order, would have completely eliminated the ability of industries and interest groups to unduly influence elections. His idea? The full public financing of elections. This proposal, which Republicans have blocked from consideration, is the only one that I have heard to date that completely protects the integrity of our elections and public policymaking process. I am equally disappointed that my very good friends, Representatives Wynn and Pence, were denied an opportunity to offer their bipartisan proposal before the House. Let us force candidates to get themselves elected based on the merits of their argument rather than the depth of their campaign accounts, which have been padded heavily by the richest of U.S. industries. One can only imagine what the Medicare bill would have looked like if the pharmaceutical industry hadn't contributed the hundreds of millions in campaign contributions to the President and Republican candidates. What about the energy bill, reeking with billion dollar tax breaks for energy companies? What would that bill have looked like if it weren't for campaign contributions to Members of Congress? If we want to get serious about corruption in Congress, then we have to get serious about corruption in our elections. For those in America, myself included, who believe that outside influences have too much control in the political process, I say take them out of the process. Make it illegal for them to write campaign checks and support publicly financed congressional elections. Seats in this and the other body are for sale to the highest bidder. But the majority of the American people do not have enough money to buy them. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have us to believe that this legislation, among other things, protects the integrity of campaign finance because it brings 527s out of secrecy. This is a false claim that could not be further from the truth. My good friend, Representative Dreier, cited Common Cause. I guess it is about time for me to cite a former colleague of his and mine, Pat Toomey, the president of the Club for Growth; or John Berthoud, the president of the National Taxpayers' Union; or David Keene, the chairman of the American Conservative Union; or Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform. All of these peoples are opposed to this measure. It is kind of interesting to me in Congress how up gets to be down and down gets to be up. But 527s are far from the clandestine operations that some may want us to believe. 527s do not operate behind closed doors. If you think they do, ask John Kerry. Their work combines social awareness, advocacy, and political activities that provide everyone with tools for political knowledge. Receipts and expenditures from 527s must be publicly disclosed and made available. In fact, 527s are already required by law to register with and report to the Internal Revenue Service. Their name is actually derived from the section of the United States Tax Code that regulates their financial activities. I think that we would all agree that it is difficult to have much more oversight than the Internal Revenue Service. The administration and their friends in the Republican majority also intend for this new legislation to simultaneously stamp out free speech, voter outreach and the free flowing exchange of ideas. Unfettered political speech, be it at issues in the mail, by phone, on TV, on the radio, and especially over the Internet, is the basis for why our Founding Fathers fought so hard to make it a part of the very first amendment in our Constitution. These are the tools Americans use to make informed decisions on the political issues before them. These are the activities that register people to vote, bring them to the polls, and engage them in necessary debate. We should take heed from those who are only now establishing free and fair elections in some parts of the world. They found out the hard way that once freedom of speech eroded, it began a slippery slope that soon crushed their liberties as well as their governments. Any time the majority wants to get serious regarding campaign finance and the influence of campaign dollars in the House, Democrats stand ready to have that discussion. And I am having a hard time understanding if way out there in America that people really do know the difference between soft money and hard money. In the meantime, I urge my colleagues for the sake of free speech and for the sake of a campaign process in which we all believe to oppose this closed rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, before we go reforming campaign finance laws and telling those on the outside what they can and cannot do, I think we need to fix up our own house. H.R. 4682 is a comprehensive reform package introduced by Leader Pelosi that is designed to clean up this Congress and show the American people we are serious about our roles as legislators and that we put the people we represent first. This bill does many things. It curbs the abuses of power by stopping the practice of keeping votes open to twist arms and lobbying Members on the floor of the House. It shuts down the K Street Project by making it a criminal offense and violation of the House rules to take or withhold official action or threaten to do so with the intent to influence private employment decisions. It ends the practice of adding special interest provisions to conference reports in the dead of night and behind closed doors. It imposes strict and enforceable new disclosure requirements on lobbyists. It curbs abuses of power and it blocks cronyism and corrupt contracting practices that endanger our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world. It is important for Members to know that defeating the previous question will not, I repeat, will not, block the underlying bill. H.R. 513 will still be considered by the House. But by voting ``no'' on the previous question, we will be able to consider the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act under a completely open rule that gives all Members of this body the opportunity to be heard on this matter. I urge all Members of this body to vote ``no'' on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.