Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, in 20 seconds I put to the Chair a simple question: If this resolution is so simple and noncontroversial, why did it come through the Rules Committee? And is it not true that Mr. Lantos' resolution is also simple, and there was nothing to preclude the Committee on Rules from hearing the Lantos matter, had you chosen? And are you not the greatest exemplar of not having closed rules, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the chairman for not answering my question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pretending that we are dealing with the problem is not dealing with the problem. This bill is going nowhere fast, end of story. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth). (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this restrictive rule and the underlying legislation which is nothing more than a xenophobic attack on immigrants who were in search of a better way of life for them and their children. The United States has long been a shining example of inclusion and diversity. Even in some of our darkest days of intolerance, we have always managed to rise above our differences and fuel the flame beneath the world's melting pot. By resolving these differences, we have cultivated a strong Nation of citizens from around the world. That is why I find it so troubling that some here today are determined to extinguish that flame with so-called immigration reform that does little to address current immigration challenges or make our borders safer. Even worse is the manner by which this legislation is being brought to the floor today. Under the rule, part A, a meager 15 of the 130 amendments that were offered in the Rules Committee are actually made in order. That means that 115 amendments, 115 ideas, 115 voices are all shut out from debate under this rule, and you multiply that by their constituents. Included in these 115 blocked amendments is an amendment offered by my good friend from south Florida (Mr. Meek) which sought to remedy some of the double standard immigration practices that apply to Haitian immigrants. Also blocked from consideration under the rule are the Sanchez-Conyers substitute and the President's very own guest worker visa program offered by Representatives Kolbe, Berman, Flake and Gutierrez. I heard the chairman a moment ago say that we should have this guest worker program. Well, he did not put it in this rule, and all we had to do was do that to at least give some credibility to that argument. I was confused as I heard him. I did not know whose side he was on. Clearly, the autocracy in this Republican-controlled body has reached an all-time high when a Republican President cannot get a vote on his own proposal. I offered an amendment to the rule this morning at 7 a.m., barely 3 hours ago, that would have made the Kolbe-Berman amendment in order, but Republicans on the Rules Committee, except one, rejected my amendment and blocked this amendment from being considered by the House. I understand that the House leadership has told many in the majority that it intends to consider the President's proposal on the floor sometime before the House recesses this week. If that is, in fact, the case then why did the chairman of the Rules Committee specifically tell his assembled Republican colleagues this morning to vote against making the President's proposal in order? Perhaps it is because the majority do not want to consider what they cannot defeat or perhaps they have zero intention of ever considering the Kolbe-Berman amendment. Whatever the reason, Mr. Speaker, if I had a dollar for every time the Republican leadership promised a Member something and failed to keep that promise since 1995, well, I would be a Republican. Words are cheap until they are backed up with action, and if anybody thinks that this part A is getting ready to have the necessary appropriations to undertake the meager measures on border security, then I have a bridge in Mr. Nadler's general area that I would like to sell them. Our immigration laws are in dire need of revision. Everybody in this House knows, Mr. Speaker, that our immigration laws are broken. The current system is rife with double standards, quota limit, wet foot-dry foot, air foot-boat foot, student visas, just to name a few. The bill before us today does absolutely nothing to address these shortcomings in the law. Instead, it is a harsh set of laws that favor heavy-handed enforcement in the guise of protection. Mr. Speaker, my south Florida-based district staff, as I am speaking, work every single day, and today as I speak there are immigrants lined up throughout the halls of the office that I am privileged to serve, lined sometimes as many as 30 or 40 people deep snake through the hallways of that office. Some came here legally. Others arrived illegally. Regardless, all of them share the same American dream with one another and all of us. Our rich and diverse cultural backgrounds are our strength. The underlying legislation, however, mocks that diversity and creates a system under which simply applying for citizenship would be risky. Arbitrary factors could deny naturalization on the basis of whether an alien is a person of good, moral character. If this bill becomes law, anyone who has ever had an illegal presence in the United States will be arrested, convicted of a felony and jailed. Even those who seek asylum from honor killings, human trafficking, and forced prostitution would immediately be branded as felons and thrown into American jails. This wide net of prosecution is also cast upon American citizens accused of helping, hiring or transporting potential immigrants. We have a wonderful and rich history of churches and philanthropic groups who serve as a lifeline for newly arrived immigrants who diligently seek legal status. Business owners could also be fined and penalized for not verifying the citizenship of every worker through a new system of stringent checks that is an unfunded mandate at best. These checks would require approximately 7 million American employers to screen almost 140 million workers. These are the people who do not believe in big government. We owe it to all who live here, whether born on this soil or not, the chance to contribute in a fair and meaningful way that protects our safety, provides for our prosperity and values our distinction. Let me go back and say that there are people in this country, there are elected officials in this country whose parentage may very well have been brought here under certain circumstances, forced here under others, came here of their own volition, and likely were here illegally. Many of those persons are some of the stellar citizens in our respective communities. I look no further south than my district and can tell you the significant number of Cuban Americans and Haitian Americans that all of us ought be proud they are here and Jamaican Americans, the whole Caribbean basin, many from South America, everybody ain't in this category of 11 million people who we are getting ready to felonize. We need look no further than our own families to appreciate the richness and diversity of this country. Most of us here today in this House are no more than two to three generations away from an ancestor who traveled to America by boat, plane or even on foot or were brought here by others to work for nothing. Many came at great risk and sacrifice. Thousands died on the way here. They journeyed here not for a free ride but for a better way of life, not for a handout but for a hand up. I went a few months ago to the Statue of Liberty, and I had my grandson with me. We stood and we looked and he began to understand what it meant more and more. He is 11 years old, and I could see the pride as he thought of his many friends that he goes to school with that come from other countries and his understanding the need for tolerance that that great symbol signifies for this Nation. As a nation of immigrants, it is beyond irresponsible to address this issue with such closed minds. It is time for us to undertake comprehensive illegal reform, and I urge 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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui). (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), my friend, for yielding the time. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would the Chair be kind enough to advise both sides as to the remaining time?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Washington, DC, December 15, 2005. Members of the United States House of Representatives: As you prepare to debate the rule on H.R. 4437, the ``Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005,'' the U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposes this legislation due to its adverse impact on employers, and asks that you reject House Resolution 610. The process that led to the development of this legislation and its consideration on the floor has been seriously flawed. The Chamber remains strongly opposed to this legislation. We have been urging Congress to fix our broken immigration system for years, which would include securing our borders, creating an employment verification system that is fast and reliable, designing a temporary worker program that meets the future demand for workers, and reasonably addressing the legal status of the undocumented workers and their families currently in the United States. With the notable exception of border security, this bill, particularly the provisions of Title VII, would make our dysfunctional immigration system even worse. The bill mandates that all employers of all sizes comply with a new government-run electronic/telephonic verification system to ensure that all employees are authorized to work. The concept is based on past, very limited pilot projects, and it is doubtful whether a new mandate of this breadth, applicable to over seven million employers and over 140 million employees, can realistically be implemented, particularly under this legislation's deadlines. These pilot projects were limited to approximately 3,600 employers and only new hires, while the legislation will also apply to existing employees. Further, there have been many practical, documented compliance problems under the program. While improvements have been made, the extension of this program to a much broader universe creates serious questions as to its practicality in the real world. The proposal also includes massive, in some cases uncapped, increases in penalties against employers. Paperwork violation penalties are increased 25 fold--up to $25,000 per individual. Furthermore, the bill would now transform into a felony with jail terms what until now has been a civil violation for unauthorized presence in the United States subject to fines and deportation. This provision is directly inconsistent with the President's proposal, which recognizes the economic contributions of these workers, and that there should be a pathway for these workers to earn legal status. The debate over the proper status of these workers should have been left to the context of comprehensive reform initiatives. The Chamber continues to support the concept of a workable verification system as part of a comprehensive reform package, but new laws that simply place more burdens on employers through worksite enforcement alone are not the answer. The Chamber has repeatedly called for legislation to: 1) provide for increased national security and control of our nation's borders; 2) create an efficient temporary worker program that allows employers to recruit immigrant workers when there is a shortage of domestic workers; and 3) provide legal status for qualified, screened undocumented migrants now in the country. As the President has stated, all three of these elements must be part of any initiative. The Chamber has supported efforts to address these critical issues, and is dismayed that the House rule essentially forecloses any meaningful debate on these important areas. Due to the critical importance of this issue to the business community and our nation's economy, the Chamber will use the vote on this rule in our annual How They Voted rankings. Again the Chamber urges you to vote `no' on House Resolution 610, the rule on H.R. 4437. Sincerely, R. Bruce Josten. Mr. Speaker, the last paragraph of this letter states, ``The Chamber has supported efforts to address these critical issues and is dismayed that the House rule essentially forecloses any meaningful debate on these important areas. Due to the critical importance of this issue to the business community and our Nation's economy, the Chamber will use the vote on this rule in our annual How They Voted rankings. Again, the Chamber urges you to vote no on House Resolution 610, the rule on H.R. 4437.'' The Chamber's display is the same dismay that we have seen in a bipartisan fashion here. It is not that we do not need reform. But what is needed is comprehensive reform. And simply put, we are not reaching that with the legislation that we are making a rule on at this time. And we cannot do that, I might add, with a restrictive rule.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), my good friend and classmate.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my classmate and good friend from New York (Mr. Nadler). (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, Mr. McGovern, my distinguished friend from Massachusetts; my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from the State of Washington; and I were in 6 hours of hearings yesterday on something called border security, anti- terrorism, and illegal immigration, and we came here this morning at 7 a.m., ostensibly to pass out the rules necessary to hear that bill. Until 15 minutes ago, I was on this floor of this House waiting to hear that bill. I ask my colleagues in the majority: Where is this terribly onerous, atrocious bill? Why do you not pull it? The reason that we are not taking it first, rather than what we are now patching up as pensions, and caution to America, what we are about to see is protection of CEOs with their golden parachutes while workers and their pensions are getting a brass shaft. But that is not my point I want to make. What I want to say is we are getting ready to create fear and confusion, and there is substantial confusion on the majority side in light of the fact that they are shifting from this bill to that bill and not dealing with the things we need to do and get on out of here. We do not need to do this immigration and border security bill, and I hope that your confusion led you to the same conclusion and that you will pull that sucker.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Washington State (Mr. Hastings) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Sometimes these rules cause confusion when there are two Mr. Hastings managing the rule. So in advance, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my good friend and I want to make sure that there is no confusion. Mr. Speaker, my good friend and colleague has already pointed out the closed rule we are working on today is mandated by the fact that we are dealing with a trade agreement. So I take no issue with the type of rule, on this specific occasion. However, as I said to Chairman Dreier last night, along with closed rules, trade agreements by our rules are supposed to come to the House floor with 20 hours of debate. I do recognize the limiting aspect with reference to the rule, and this trade agreement is permitted 2 hours. Chairman Dreier pointed out, rightly I believe, that this U.S.- Bahrain trade agreement is one of the most noncontroversial agreements of this kind to come before Congress in a long time, and as I said, that may be so, but it is also not the point that I wish to carry. We have had several more controversial trade deals come before the House in recent years where we were also given 2 hours of debate time. More recently, we saw that in two trade agreements. Trade deals should come to the floor under the 20 hours of debate that the law prescribes. If only 5 hours or 5 minutes is what is necessary to pass the bill, so be it, but I see a bad precedent being set. I ask my friends in the majority to let the House work its will, not so much on this bill, but certainly any other in the future that comes before us. As to this specific trade agreement, as I have already said, it comes to the floor with the support from the administration and both parties in Congress. While I seriously doubt that free trade with the tiny island nation of Bahrain is going to be the rising tide that lifts our flagging economy, after all, trade with Bahrain accounts for only .03 percent of our total trade activity, I also will not try to stand in the way. It should be noted, however, that despite its small size, Bahrain runs a trade surplus with the United States, joining most other countries in the world. So, what this agreement does is give us one more country the opportunity to sell more of its goods and services here, even more cheaply than it already does. Maybe one day soon, Mr. Speaker, we will find a country that the United States will run a surplus with, instead of the other way around. One can only hope. I do have one other very serious concern with Bahrain, Mr. Speaker. Until recently, Bahrain continued to enforce the primary aspect of the Arab League boycott against Israel, which bars imports of Israeli- origin goods. Simply put, the United States should not trade, and certainly not enter into free trade agreements with, nations that discriminate against America's closest and most trusted Middle East ally. The kingdom of Bahrain now says they will relent. The kingdom now says that it ``recognizes the need to dismantle the primary boycott of Israel and is beginning to achieve that goal.'' Let us be crystal clear, Mr. Speaker. This change of heart is purely economic, and it happened just in the last month. I suspect that it has nothing to do with the fact that an economic embargo based on religion is wrong and an affront to basic human rights. The fact that the country's parliament has rejected, in the last 6 weeks, the lifting of the embargo, and the kingdom has made it clear that it is not normalizing relations with Israel only further proves my point. Whatever the reason, I am thrilled that Bahrain will work to end the long-standing ostracism of Israel by its neighbors. It is past time. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Washington, and I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 538. On the 10-year anniversary of his death, I believe that it is important to think back and honor the life of Yitzhak Rabin, for he was a great figure in the pursuit of worldwide peace and stability in the Middle East. During his two terms as Prime Minister of Israel, Rabin attempted to work and negotiate with then Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yassar Arafat to bring about a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Rabin's service to the nation of Israel began with his work in the Israeli Defense Forces. Rabin rose to the position of Chief of Staff, and under his command, Israel was able to successfully defend itself against its neighboring states during the Six-Day War. Following his retirement from the IDF, in 1968 Rabin was chosen to serve as ambassador to the United States. In 1973 he was elected to the Knesset. Only one year later, Rabin was chosen to be the leader of the labor party, eventually being elected Prime Minister of Israel. During the early 1990s, in Rabin's second run as Prime Minister, he made it a priority to solve the Palestinian conflict. His tireless efforts on that behalf led to the Oslo Accord. For his efforts Rabin was awarded the Noble Peace Prize. As we all know, Prime Minister Rabin was murdered in Tel Aviv by a citizen who did not support his efforts towards achieving peace. I had the opportunity, along with President Clinton and several other Members of Congress, to attend his funeral in Israel. It was one of the most deeply moving ceremonies to which I have ever been. We remember Yitzhak Rabin today as a great man who worked his whole life to protect and strengthen the free state that is Israel. His memory inspires us to continue the progress for global peace. It is crucial that his memory and influence is not forgotten a decade after his tragic assassination.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would inform my good friend from Florida that getting up for a 7 a.m. Rules Committee does not alter my temperament. The suggestion that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle should have completed their work by September 30 is mandated by our responsibilities here in the House of Representatives. And I find it disingenuous to speak of the other body, which I heartily endorse what my colleague said with reference to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) in this House of Representatives but the other body is controlled by the majority. The White House is controlled by the majority. And it is y'all that have it all. And so under the circumstances, it is your responsibility to have done it by September 30. To answer the gentleman, what we would have done perhaps if we did not go home for Thanksgiving and take Thanksgiving dinner up here. The gentleman asks for another date or debate about this continuing resolution, doubtless what we would have been able to do is stay here and that may have lit a fire under some of the people in the other body who need to get their work done. We have all sorts of problems in this Nation and there is no reason for us not to complete our work.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, that is Worth Avenue in Palm Beach, not West Palm Beach. Our colleague Mark Foley represents that area, a Republican. I represent Pahokee and Belle Glade, which are also in Palm Beach, and you are talking about no tax base. I just want to have that correction made.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I join the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), my colleague, in asserting that we should stay here and complete the task that is before us. I say to my very good friend from Florida that your and my chairman of the Rules Committee speaking about closed rules in another time made the following statement, that closed rules are anathema to democracy. When you argue that we are going to have time to do this, when we take the budget deficit matter up, what you are talking about is 1 hour on the rule, 1 hour on general debate, you say 2 hours, I will accept that, on general debate, 10 minutes in the motion to recommit, and that then is what 435 Members and five delegates have that they can deal with in terms of time. The problems pointed out by my friend from Oregon are significant, and the things that you have heard me say in the Rules Committee, the things that disturb me and distress me most are these things having to do with education. No one can tell me that they are not prepared to make the sacrifices for our children to have afterschool programs; and yet, what we are going to find in that program are substantial cuts. There are no afterschool programs in the counties that I represent. In Medicaid, it is no secret what is about to happen. When we cut Medicaid, any way you cut it, you can slice it, dice it any way you want, States, get ready, because you are getting ready to have a significant problem with tax increases at that level. What part of national sacrifice do we not understand? What part of closed rule that I heard so often in 1992 does the majority not understand that that does not give the Members of this body the opportunity to come forward with amendments that might make sense with reference to fiscal responsibility here in the House of Representatives? Those are some of the issues. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. In private schools.