Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Apparently my good friend, and he is my good friend, from Connecticut was not mindful that there were 100 Members of the House of Representatives who wrote to the FEC asking that the McConnell v. FEC decision be upheld. But I don't want to get bogged down in all of these legal mores. The simple fact of the matter is that if we intend to do something that would make a difference, we could all support public financing. I challenge any of you to tell me that that would not cure the problems that we continue to talk about. I also would urge my friend from Connecticut, who argues about loopholes, to ask the chairman what I say about laws that we pass here. You show me a law and I will show you a loophole. I have been involved in politics as long as anybody in this room, and for the 41 years that I have been involved, we have continued to reform campaign finance by calling it campaign finance reform. Every time we reform it, the Republicans or the Democrats, the majority or the minority, somebody comes up with a way to get around the law. So make this one, if you will, Mr. Chairman, and be mindful of all of the people that have spoken with reference to the myth that I think that you perpetuate. One of the biggest myths, the National Review says, is that this bill would level the playing field. That is language you used earlier, Mr. Chairman, ending the ability of the wealthy to fund propaganda. This is completely false, according to the National Review. Wealthy individuals would still be free to say whatever they want, whenever they want. The proposal would end only the ability of individuals of lesser means to pool their money to independently speak out on issues. The simple fact is when you cite to the law, my recollection is you didn't say anything at all about Buckley v. Valeo, which simply said in its holding that money is speech, and that is ultimately what winds up happening here. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question, so I can amend the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule, if it does, it will bring H.R. 4682, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2006 to the House floor for consideration. 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, 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. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, my friend, (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the people of the Republic of Haiti for holding successful democratic elections on February 7, 2006. I would also like to congratulate their chosen successor, Mr. Rene Preval. I commend the people of Haiti for their active commitment to and unbridled belief in democracy. On such an auspicious occasion, the best way we can honor the Republic of Haiti is by continuing to lend our support through economic and humanitarian policy that encourages development, not dependency. While elections are the necessary first step towards democracy in Haiti, there still remains a long road ahead. It is crucial that we, the United States, do not continue to perpetuate the legacy of interference and neglect in Haitian affairs. We must work with the newly elected President of the Republic of Haiti, Rene Preval, and we must work with Haitians in both Haiti and the U.S. to make their dreams of sustained democracy and prosperity a reality. Several of my distinguished colleagues, myself included, have a significant number of Haitian constituents in our district. It is my sincerest hope that we will work to bring their home country out of the grips of poverty and despair once and for all so that Haiti's rich, yet tumultuous, past will finally evolve into a future of sustained success.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation authorizing $3 million annually over the next ten years for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board. Additionally, my legislation requires the President to include a line item request in his budget proposal every year. I am pleased to be introducing this bill with the support of the Democratic Members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. In December 2004, President Bush signed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act into law. Included in this bill was language establishing the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board, a cornerstone recommendation of the 9-11 Commission. The Commission understood that in the emotional aftermath of September 11th, it was important to provide objective oversight of the protection of our cherished civil liberties. This oversight is the main purpose of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board. The Board has been established to review proposed regulations and Executive Branch policies' effects on civil liberties, particularly related to the War on Terrorism. Many saw the creation of this board as a promising step in protecting us from terrorism while maintaining the civil rights of everyone. However, more than a year after the legislation was signed into law, the Board has yet to hold its first meeting. As a matter of fact, the first Board members were only approved a year ago. Even more, because the Board is housed within the Office of the President and operates at the behest of the Administration, Congress itself is not able to appropriate $1 for its operation because we never authorized any spending. With no substantive work performed by the Board to date, it's as though the Board only exists in the spirit of the law--not in its letter. If that was Congress's true intent, then the Board might as well only exist on paper, or as an illusion in our minds. But it wasn't, and that's why this legislation is absolutely necessary. Realize, Mr. Speaker, the most disturbing lack of support for the Board has come from the Administration itself. In the President's budget request for fiscal years 2005 through 2007 and the requests for supplemental funding, there have been no funds requested specifically for Board operations. Zero! Without this funding, the Board cannot even buy a pencil much less develop a plan to accomplish its tasks. The Administration's failure to fund the office, coupled with the inactivity of the Board, leads one to question the commitment of the Administration to ensuring the protection of privacy and civil liberties. Does the Administration welcome an objective review on civil rights issues regarding its terrorism policies or would it rather govern in a vacuum? Would the President rather operate behind closed doors without questions from, or accountability to, any oversight board? Unchecked policies shrouded in secrecy will do nothing to help this country maintain checks and balances between safety and civil rights. The bill I am introducing authorizes $3 million in annual funding for the Board so that Congress can do what the President has failed to do. This funding level will ensure that adequate resources are available for sufficient staff and resources to support critical statutorily mandated activities of the Board. This includes reviewing proposed regulations and policies related to countering terrorism, the implementation of laws, regulations and policies related to countering terrorism, and advising the President and department heads on matters impacting privacy and civil liberties. It's time that we demand that the Administration stop dragging its feet on funding the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board. If civil liberties are of any concern to this body and the President then there is no reason to stall the progress of the Board by denying it the money it needs to get started. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to fully fund the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board so that it can get about the business of protecting the liberties and security of all Americans.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. My amendment provides that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up legislation that does two things, undergirding what my good friend, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey, mentioned in his remarks earlier. First, it stops the President from moving forward with his deal to transfer operations at a number of our Nation's busiest ports, including the Port of Miami immediately south of my district, to the Government of Dubai state-owned Dubai Ports World. This is the identical language that was offered in the Appropriations Committee yesterday by Chairman Lewis and later adopted by the committee on yesterday. Secondly, the legislation would strengthen the process by which our government reviews future foreign takeovers. Specifically, it would require that all foreign transactions that could result in foreign control of any entity engaged in interstate commerce to undergo a thorough review that mandates the direct involvement of the President and the Congress. Whatever Members believe about the Dubai agreement, the House should be guaranteed an up-or-down vote on whether or not we want to turn control of a significant number of our Nation's ports over to a company that is owned by a foreign government. This administration, without consulting the Congress, negotiated a secret backroom deal to turn the management of our vital ports over to a foreign entity. The House must be involved in this process that directly affects our national security now and in the future. We are sent to Washington to protect this Nation and its citizens. We owe it to them to make sure this type of deal is never allowed to slip through the system again. I want to emphasize that this vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the agenda of the Republican majority. A ``no'' vote will allow those of us concerned about the safety and security of America's ports to offer an alternative plan right here and right now. It is a vote to consider homeland security priorities for the American people which the majority today has refused to consider. I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring up legislation that gives Congress the right to cast a vote and be heard on this matter of significant national security. I wish to repeat that: I urge all Members, both sides, to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring up legislation so that we can do our job that gives Congress the right, just the right, to cast a vote and to be heard on this matter of significant national security. 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 such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the restrictive rule and the underlying legislation reauthorizing the Office of National Drug Control Policy. As our colleague from Texas has already noted, the rule makes in order 15 amendments to be offered by Members from both sides of the aisle. But what he did not mention is that the rule blocks 10 other amendments which were considered yesterday in the Rules Committee. It blocks them from being offered on the floor today. Included in the 10 blocked amendments is a proposal offered by my good friend, Representative Bean, that would have required the Government Accounting Office to examine the unintended effects of hyperactive disorder drugs. At a time when more and more children and adults are being diagnosed with some form of attention deficit disorder, this study could go a long way towards helping all of us better understand the problem. Yet my friends in the majority on the Rules Committee blocked this amendment from being considered. Perhaps it is because they do not want to address the issue, or perhaps it is because they are trying to defeat Representative Bean in November. Whatever the reason, the House will not have the opportunity to consider this important amendment today because the rule prohibits it. The rule also does not permit Representative Waters from offering her amendment, which would have required the ONDCP to develop objectives for reducing drug overdoses and the spread of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis. Her commonsense amendment, too, is blocked from consideration under the rule. So while this rule is certainly more generous than most of those in the past, it is not by any stretch of the imagination open. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to dwell on the specifics of this legislation, which we all agree is important and necessary. I do, however, wish to speak briefly about the issues facing our communities, mine specifically, due to drug abuse and our failed efforts to rehabilitate abusers. A little history, first. In 1971, President Nixon declared the so- called modern-day ``war on drugs.'' He characterized drug abuse as ``America's Public Enemy No. 1.'' He argued that drug addiction is a public problem. Since then, since 1971, Congress has attempted to pass laws, or passed laws, that cracked down on drug usage and harshly punished those who used these addictive poisons. Though our intentions have largely been sincere, we have yet to institute policies that reflect a comprehensive understanding of this continuing problem. In America's black communities, minimum sentencing guidelines instituted by Congress and State legislatures for drug offenders and for other nonviolent crimes have had a lasting effect that will linger for generations to come. Consider this: under current Federal law, the mandatory minimum sentence for being caught with 1 ounce of crack cocaine, a drug that the statistics show is more likely to be used by blacks than anyone else in our country, that mandatory minimum is longer than the mandatory minimum sentence for being caught with the exact same amount of powder cocaine, a drug that the statistics have shown is more likely to be used by whites than anyone else. Even more, mandatory sentencing guidelines prohibit judges from using reasonable discretion to rehabilitate and not incarcerate the persons that are abusers. As a direct result of these draconian and discriminatory laws, black men in America are nearly 10 times more likely to be incarcerated for drug use than white males, notwithstanding the fact that they had the same amount; it was just nuanced as crack or powder cocaine. Tens of thousands of black children are growing up in America in single-parent households, often plagued by poverty. Sure, drug usage is certainly a component of that problem. But the senseless mandatory locking up of first-time nonviolent drug offenders has done more to tear black and white families apart in America than almost anything else. Drug prevention programs, such as those authorized in the underlying legislation, are important, as is the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The 1990 designation of south Florida as a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area has been very useful in directing Federal resources into our region to stop or attempt to stop the flow of drugs into the State and country. I supported efforts under different programs, different administrations, Republican and Democratic, when I was a Federal judge two decades ago. I continue to support them today. Nevertheless, I refuse to accept that our drug policies have had the positive effect that so many in this body claim. Drugs are still easily accessible on our streets and in our schools, and our drug laws are senseless, outdated, and in dire need of revision. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to a day when the Members of this body will be willing to have a meaningful debate about the successes and the failures of Federal drug policies and mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines. Only then will we fully recognize how big a failure our policies have been and take the necessary, indeed the appropriate, steps, to rehabilitate, not write off drug abusers. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can amend this rule to allow a vote today to block the President's plan to turn over our Nation's ports to a government-run company in Dubai. 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. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. E. Pat Larkins, Commissioner of the City of Pompano Beach, Florida, on the occasion of the dedication of the E. Pat Larkins Community Center. Commissioner Larkins has been a good friend to me and to the citizens of Pompano Beach for more than 20 years. Born to a carpenter father and a mother who picked beans for a living, Pat has piled success on top of success throughout his life. In the process, he has made possible opportunities for African-Americans they would not have seen otherwise. In 1971, at a time when black-owned companies found it difficult to make headway in the construction industry, Pat Larkins helped start the Broward Minority Contractors' Association to promote the interests of African-American builders. In 1985, Pat became the first black mayor of the City of Pompano Beach. In all, he has been elected 10 times, for a total of 20 years, during which he has also served three terms as Vice Mayor. Pat Larkins has been recognized numerous times as a fine citizen and an enormous credit to his city and to the people of Broward County, Florida. He is a great American, and I am proud to call him my friend. Today's naming of the E. Pat Larkins Community Center is a fitting tribute to this excellent man. On behalf of my colleagues in the House of Representatives and all of the residents of Florida's 23rd Congressional District, I congratulate Pat for this honor and wish him health, happiness, and continued success in the future.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Uni-Capitol Washington Internship Program, an international internship program that was highlighted in a Roll Call article last week. I have been a proud participant in the program since its inception seven years ago. The Uni-Capitol Washington Internship Program gives Australian university students the opportunity to intern in the office of a Member of the Congress. Each year, 12 students from all across Australia are selected to come to Washington to participate in the administrative and legislative processes that underpin the functioning of Congress as a democratic institution. Such experiences are invaluable opportunities for these students to gain knowledge and a deep understanding of the internal workings of the United States Government while bringing their own skills and backgrounds to their respective Congressional offices. The Uni-Capitol Program selects undergraduates from 7 universities by matching the applicants with Members and Senators who share their views. The students who are selected come from a variety of academic disciplines, but all have an interest in learning about and promoting the U.S.-Australia relationship. The Program facilitates this by enabling the formation of genuine friendships and the exchange of views and ideas between the Australian interns and their respective offices. I have often enjoyed the interaction that has occurred between my Australian and American interns. This, my colleagues, is how we build relationships which will ensure that the U.S. and Australia remain friends and allies for years to come. My office is currently hosting Sarah Dillon who is completing a double degree in law and international studies at Deakin University. She has been an exceptional addition to my staff and has provided us with an international perspective on constitutional governments, a passion for relieving suffering in Darfur, and the culinary delights of vegemite. Sarah is participating with 11 other very qualified students. Andrew Brookes from Melbourne University is in Senator Christopher Dodd's office; Ryan Conroy from Deakin University is in Representative Sam Farr's office; Jenna Davey-Burns from Melbourne University is in Representative Louise Slaughter's office; Douglas Ferguson from the University of Canberra is in Senator Debbie Stabenow's office; Jessica Gurevich from Melbourne University is in Representative Mike Castle's office; Scott Ivey from the University of Western Australia is in Representative Loretta Sanchez's office; Saul Lazar from Deakin University is in Senator Chuck Hagel's office; Abbie McPhie from Melbourne University is in Representative Jerrold Nadler's office; Linda Nelson from the University of Wollongong is with the House Science Committee's majority staff; Marianna O'Gorman, from the University of Queensland is in Delegate Eni Faleomavaega's office; and Rachel Thomson from the University of Western Australia is with the Joint Economic Committee's minority staff. I would also like to commend Eric Federing who founded and continues to direct this international internship program. Eric is a former senior House and Senate staffer of more than a dozen years, and I congratulate him on making his vision a reality. In the process, Eric continues to make a great contribution to the mutual understanding and appreciation shared by Australians and Americans, myself included. I am proud that my office is part of this program, as I believe it provides a unique and important bridge between the United States of America and Australia. The program has been, and will continue to be, an extremely beneficial experience for all involved. I implore my colleagues to participate in this worthwhile program in the coming years.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution honoring the memory of Coretta Scott King who passed away yesterday morning. In a lifetime of effort and tireless struggle, Mrs. King championed the principles of peace, integrity, and human dignity. Alongside her husband, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., Mrs. King strove for civil rights, endured bombings on her home, and dreamed of a better life for her children. Because of her and so many others, my children and grandchildren are growing up in a world of greater opportunity. After her husband was taken away tragically, Mrs. King, still shouldering the immense emotional burden of her loss, did not choose to withdraw from the world. She chose instead to continue forward with the work they had started and the legacy they had built. Only 4 days after the death of King, Mrs. King led a march of 50,000 people through the streets of Memphis. For her determination and courage, we are forever grateful. Coretta Scott was born in Heiberger, near Marion, Alabama, on April 27, 1927. Growing up on her parents' farm, Coretta walked 5 miles every day to her one-room school in order to receive an education. As a young woman, she learned the lessons of struggle and perseverance from her determined mother. These lessons helped her excel and graduate as the valedictorian from Lincoln High School. Mrs. King then went on to enroll at Antioch College where her sister Edythe had been the first full-time black student to live on campus. Mrs. King majored in education and music, pursuing the love she had inherited from her mother. By her graduation in 1951, Mrs. King decided to become a professional singer and accepted a scholarship to the New England Conservatory of Music in Boston. It was in Boston that she met Martin Luther King, Jr., a fellow student. They were married 2 years later. Their first child, Yolanda, was born in 1955, only 2 weeks before the Montgomery bus boycott. Three more children soon followed: Martin Luther III, Dexter, and Bernice. During the campaign for civil rights, Coretta Scott King did more than support her husband, she worked as his peer; giving speeches in her husband's stead and traveling to Geneva on behalf of Women's Strike for Peace as a delegate at the Disarmament Conference in Geneva in 1962. Mrs. King maintained her passion for music throughout this turbulent period, often giving concerts on behalf of civil rights. In May 1968, only months after her husband's assassination, Coretta Scott King took up his place in the Poor People's March to Washington. That year, Mrs. King founded the Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change, the first institution built in memory of an African American leader. Mrs. King was also instrumental in the establishment of the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Holiday. After personally leading an enormous education campaign and seeking an Act of Congress, Mrs. King oversaw the first national observance of the holiday to honor her husband in 1986. In 1974, she formed the Full Employment Action Council, a coalition of over 100 organizations dedicated to full employment and equal economic opportunity. In 1983 Mrs. King gathered over 800 human rights organizations on the 20th Anniversary of the historic March on Washington in the Coalition of Conscience. While protesting apartheid in 1985, Mrs. King and three of her children were arrested outside the South African embassy in Washington, DC. Nearly a decade later, she stood in Johannesburg as Nelson Mandela was inaugurated as the new President of South Africa. Throughout her life, Coretta Scott King remained a devoted promoter of positive social change. Despite grief and constant sacrifice, she continued to lend her voice to issues of social justice, human equality, and democratic progress. Mrs. King advocated for a more open- minded global community. The world is better because of Coretta Scott King. She affected countless lives and her voice will be deeply missed, especially by those who carry on her incredible undertaking.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for the time. Mr. Speaker, I guess it is appropriate that we are providing for suspension of the rules, since we learned yesterday that the President has suspended the law regarding spying on American citizens. I heard one of our colleagues earlier say that it was the law. I would remind him that this House has passed no such measure permitting spying on American citizens, even babies know that. Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has already noted, this rule will permit the House to consider nine pieces of legislation under suspension of the rules. While I will not oppose this rule and intend to support the nine bills to which the rule applies, and I say that advisedly, taking into consideration the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), my distinguished colleague, who will explain in detail the circumstances regarding Labor-HHS and the drastic implications for the finances of certain agencies. I am deeply concerned that the House is again operating outside the boundaries of regular order. For the last year, my friends in the Republican leadership have consistently convened the House a mere 3 days a week, occasionally 4. They have regularly sent Members home earlier than anyone else in this country gets off work. Sure, I certainly, and I believe all of us, appreciate going home a few hours earlier during the week. But forgive me, Mr. Speaker, if I am not the most sympathetic Member when the leadership cries legislative crisis time and time again over situations that it created. There is a better way to run this body, and the Republicans continue to show that they are incapable of leading the House in an efficient and regular manner. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I hope that the general body heard and understood Mr. Obey's explanation, the fact remains that it would devastate programs in this country that people are totally relying upon; and, more importantly, my friends who espouse their support of the military, put the military in a position of not being able to do advanced procurement and to live at restrictive levels. That is not right. Therefore, we need to pay particular attention to the continuing resolution. I would urge Members to be prepared to come back for this particular measure, in light of the explanations offered by my colleagues Mr. Frank of Massachusetts and Mr. Obey. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Mr. Sessions

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this particular moment I am privileged to yield such time as he may consume to my good friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, at several points during my remarks I am going to refer to Ellis Island, and I am going to begin today by citing Emma Lazarus, who wrote the poem ``The New Colossus'' in 1883. Twenty years later, it was engraved on a bronze statue in New York in the harbor. What Miss Lazarus said at the beginning of her poem is, ``Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, with conquering limbs astride from land to land; here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand a mighty woman with a torch, whose flame is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand glows worldwide welcome.'' She goes on to say, ``Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!'' With silent lips she cried. ``Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door.'' Emma Lazarus understood the dynamics of America, as did those who went through Ellis Island and those of us that visit there to draw our strength in the diversity of this Nation. Today, we come to put a cover over that torch and a blindfold on that lady and toss all of those magnificent notions of diversity and this great golden door right out into the Hudson. Or maybe it is the Potomac River that we do so today. I rise to express my strong opposition to this restrictive rule, the second in as many days, for a xenophobic bill masked in catchy phrases, such as ``border control'' and ``homeland security.'' This restrictive rule blocks all but a select few from offering amendments to the underlying legislation. The chairman of the Rules Committee was in here a minute ago and said that they have made more Democratic measures, speaking of the entirety of the session, in order than Republican measures. Well, that does not hold for this particular party in part B, a very confusing process, I might add, which even the majority leader recognized. Republicans are again allowing important and critical debates to happen behind the closed doors of the Republican Conference rather than on the House floor in the eye of the public. What did you all talk about yesterday for all them hours that you could not bring this mess out here to the floor? Under this rule, 18 of the 115 possible amendments, that would now make 33 of 130, could be considered or actually made in order. Two of those will be offered by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the author of the underlying legislation. As if that is not offensive enough, only four of the 18 amendments permitted in order in the rule will be offered by Democratic Members. Then again, Democrats should not be surprised that our amendments have again been blocked from consideration. After all, President Bush, a Republican, could not even get his legislation proposal through the House Rules Committee. President Bush, one day in July of 2001, in remarks at Ellis Island, in part said the following: ``The Founders themselves decided that when they declared independence and wrote our Constitution. You see, citizenship is not limited by birth or background.'' We have an amendment dealing with that here today. ``America at its best is a welcoming society. We welcome not only immigrants themselves, but the many gifts they bring and the values they live by. Hundreds of thousands of immigrants take the oath of citizenship every year.'' And I have had, me, I have had the pleasure of seeing them in tears, with their hands raised, on numerous occasions when I served in the Federal judiciary. And my colleagues in the Federal judiciary will tell you there is no greater feeling, except perhaps when we, in other roles as judges, are helping people to adopt a child, than to see a person adopt this country as their own. ``Each has come not only,'' President Bush says, ``to take, but to give. They come asking for a chance to work hard, support their families, and to rise in the world. And together they make our Nation more, not less, American. Immigration is not a problem to be solved, it is a sign of a confident and successful nation. And people who seek to make America their home should be met in that spirit by representatives of our government. New arrivals should be greeted not with suspicion and resentment but with openness and courtesy.'' I hope throughout the debate people hearken to the great commander in chief of this country. At 6 a.m. this morning, 6 a.m., Mr. Speaker, those of us on the Rules Committee with our colleagues in the majority voted along party lines against the President and rejected an amendment that would have made the Kolbe-Berman-Gutierrez-Flake guest worker visa amendment in order. Less than 24 hours ago, the chairman of the Rules Committee, my good friend from California, stood on this very floor noting that the Republican leadership was committed to debating the President's proposal during consideration of the underlying legislation. Yet on two separate occasions when presented with opportunity to fulfill their empty promises, my friends in the majority balked. I guess old habits are hard to break. We can only hope that encouraging the spread of democracy into the House of Representatives will be the Republican New Year's resolution for 2006. Later we are going to vote on spreading democracy in Iraq. I hope all of that works, but I sure would like to see more of it come to the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, this morning south Florida newspapers include a story about 20 Haitians being found last night in a boat just north of the district in West Palm Beach that I am privileged to serve. Upon boarding the boat, which had left Port-au-Prince roughly 10 days ago in search of safety from political turmoil, customs officials noticed that they had no food or water, and that the day before many of them had fallen dreadfully ill, including the children. While the 20 hopeful immigrants were all taken into custody and will eventually be deported back to Haiti, I tell this story because it happens too often in the district that I am privileged to serve and in south Florida generally. In the Southwest of our great country, they come on foot. In Florida, they come by boat. People go to extreme lengths and take enormous risks just to get here. Once before in Boynton when a group of Haitians had washed up on shore, I stepped over the body of a naked pregnant Haitian woman and I thought to myself, my God, what kind of courage does it take to try to get away from despotism, to try to get away from political turmoil, to get on a boat and come here the way that she and others that died in that event had done? In no way do I or any Member of this body, that is Republican or Democrat, condone illegal immigration, but if Congress is going to have this debate, we ought to consider why people are willing to risk their lives to come to the United States. It is not always to bilk our social programs or to steal an American job, it is for all of the things that Emma Lazarus, and President Bush described her emblem being at the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island, and President Bush speaking there, as I quoted earlier. It is for safety and for security and for a better life. Building a fence around the country, which some have advocated, is not going to deter people from coming here illegally, but reforming a system which requires literally years to process work visa applications will. Authorizing more border security personnel also will not deter people from coming here illegally, but ending double-standard immigration policies will. Yesterday I talked about how much hypocrisy exists inside our immigration measures. We have wet foot, dry foot, up foot, down foot, all kinds of policies that seem to come at the whim of whomever the director is at any given time, be they Democrat or Republican. The system is broken. Nevertheless, the policy solutions in the underlying legislation will never end these failures because they do not even address them, not to mention the fact that they are not going to see the light of day. They are Black Flag dead in the United States Senate. Instead, they are extreme ideas aimed more at catering to the lowest common denominator of the majority's political base than providing practical, commonsense solutions to a real issue in America. `` `Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!' cries she with silent lips. `Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door.' '' What she knows as she puts the new colossus before us is that this Nation's strength comes through that golden door, and many of the persons that we will talk about today as if they are objects have made more than valuable contributions. Many of our ancestors who were brought here, others who were forced to come here, others who came of their own volition have gone on to make this Nation the great Nation that it is. I beg my colleagues to reject this restrictive rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and privileged to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) that doubtless has significant wisdom with regard to the matter we are debating.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), who has an extraordinary amount of experience in the area that we are debating.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I see that my distinguished friend and your fellow colleague from Georgia could not resist, I see he joined us. Maybe I could talk some ``Savannah talk'' and ``Brunswick talk'' to get him to understand that people come through those areas, too, as I am sure he is mindful. Mr. Speaker, basically what we have here is enforcement, but none of the compassion that President Bush has been speaking about. Let me tell you what the President said. I quoted him on Ellis Island, and he was eloquent on Ellis Island in July of 2001. But August 24, the same year, here is what the President said in part: ``And I remind people all across our country, family values do not stop at the Rio Bravo. There are people in Mexico who have got children who are worried about where they are going to get their next meal from, and they are going to come to the United States if they think they can make money here. That is a simple fact. And they are willing to walk across miles of desert to do work that some Americans won't do, and we have got to respect that, it seems like to me, and treat those people with respect.'' We ought to treat ourselves with respect and have comprehensive immigration reform, and not some piecemeal bumper sticker stuff that is not going to do anything other than give people an opportunity to go home to say that we did something about immigration. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what we are doing: We are going to create fear and confusion in the realm. And it is not all about 11 million illegal people, it is about a number of circumstances having to do with that knock on the door. Defeat this rule.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank my friend, the distinguished Rules Committee member from Massachusetts, for yielding me time. Last night I made the statement in the Rules Committee that I would not participate in the debate. I do not intend when the debate begins to have anything to say, and quite frankly if I had the wherewithal, I would ask my colleagues on the Democratic side not to say anything as well. But I do know a little bit now, having served on the Rules Committee for a little while, about closed rules, and I know when we have closed rules, we restrict democracy. We come here to advocate for democracy in Iraq, as rightly we should. But I come this morning to advocate democracy for the Members of the House of Representatives who have a different point of view that needs to be heard regarding this important matter having to do with our Nation. Like my friend and mentor, Tom Lantos, I feel that there will be division as a result of the resolution as filed. I quite frankly am a bit surprised that so many people in the majority who argue that the war should not be politicized have done an act, although subtle and nuanced, that is as political as most things that we do here. I do not decry politics. That is what we do for a living. But when it comes to this Nation, we all have a responsibility to stand together. There is no one in this Congress that does not support the military of the United States in every aspect of what it has done. There is no one in this Congress that wants us to fail in achieving victory in Iraq and anywhere that terror exists in this world. We have a vested interest in that. We have a natural right to pursue that particular interest. But to fashion a resolution that ignores the language that Mr. Lantos offered, that does precisely the same thing with civility all throughout it, I cannot imagine that we have passed yet another closed rule and that we have restricted a sensible, civil resolution offered by Mr. Lantos, Ms. Pelosi, and Mr. Hoyer. In that light, I consider it to be the kind of act that is seemingly becoming the pattern with so many people in this House who represent so many constituents who are not being heard.