Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield just for a quick correction?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida (Mr. Putnam) for yielding me time. I also thank him for bringing the real Florida orange juice to the 7 a.m. rules meeting this morning. I oppose this closed rule, Mr. Speaker, and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I wondered to myself earlier this morning as the Rules Committee majority members passed yet another closed rule which stifles debate and shuts off meaningful contributions from Members of this Chamber. What is the problem? Congress has only had since January 3 of this year to complete work on the 12 annual appropriations bills, the so- called ``must pass bills'' that Congress works on every year. In case anyone is unclear, so far the President has signed only five of the 12 appropriations bills that must pass and become law before September 30. Defense appropriations? Not done. Military quality of life and Veterans Affairs? Not done. Transportation, Treasury, HUD? Not done. Of course, the bill which funds this very institution, the legislative branch appropriations legislation, well, we did that to protect our branch. And the sad part? No one is to blame but the party in control. It is an irrefutable fact, the last time that there was sole Democratic control of Congress and the White House, all 13 appropriations bills were passed by September 30. We had a balanced budget. And oh, yes, budget surpluses as far as the eye at that time could see. My, how times have changed. Now we have debt as far as the eye can see and disdain from much of the rest of the world. The people here are the modern day incarnations of Nero. The majority fiddles while the Nation burns. More than 45 days have passed since Congress passed its last continuing resolution, 48 to be exact; and in that time, Republicans have managed to pass a measly three of the ten outstanding appropriations bills at the time of the last continuing resolution. In baseball, their batting average would be pretty good. But in the real world where salaries and promotion are based on accomplishments and contributions, getting done 30 percent of what you are supposed to get done is absolutely abysmal. In any other job in America, 30 percent would get you fired. It should here too, Mr. Speaker, and I hope America is paying attention. So I ask, what in the world have the majority Members been doing over the last month and a half that they cannot get these constitutionally- mandated appropriations bills done on time? We know that they have not dealt with FEMA. I have been trying to get them to deal with FEMA since the agency messed up Florida recovery efforts in the year 2004. And now look at where their neglect got us. Republicans have not dealt with the national security leaks in the Bush White House. They have not dealt with increasing access to health care or investing in affordable housing for low and moderate incomes. They have not dealt with unemployment in this Nation. In fact, this morning the chairman of the Rules Committee said to us that we have ``full employment'' in this Nation. He identifies that as 6 percent. I guess there is no one looking for a job in San Dimas where he is from or the greater Los Angeles area. So forgive me, Mr. Speaker, if I feel it unnecessary to grant Republicans another 30 days to fix a problem that they, one, created on their own, and two, have shown zero ability that they are capable of leading our country in a responsibly fiscal manner. The problem is not Hurricanes Katrina or Wilma or other disasters. It is not even the failing war in Iraq. The problem Republicans have is their beloved tax cuts that 95 percent of the people in this country barely benefit from. Their problem is themselves and their failed fiscal policies. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Emergency Generators for Electric Needs (E-GEN) Act of 2005. More than 3 million Floridians were without power following Hurricane Wilma, some for well over three weeks. Few had electric generators of their own, leaving them dependent on the ability of power and utility companies to efficiently repair damaged infrastructure and make any necessary repairs. Tens of thousands of seniors in South Florida who were relatively well-off before Hurricane Wilma quickly became vulnerable when the power went out after Wilma. Many of the buildings where they lived were old, ill-equipped and unable to generate emergency power, placing their lives in immediate risk. According to various dealers, the costs of portable emergency power generators typically range between $1,000 and $3,000 depending on the wattage. Industrial-sized generators can cost upwards of $50,000. For many residents and communities, these costs are not affordable. The E- GEN Act enables individuals and communities to become self-sufficient when the power goes out. Under the bill, 75 percent of the cost of the purchase and installation of the generator would be eligible for reimbursement in the form of a tax credit. The credit cannot be used in conjunction with other emergencies reimbursements. For individual homeowners, the credit is not to exceed $2,500. For businesses, condominium associations, senior communities, and others, the tax credit is not to exceed $60,000. These credits are vital to alleviate the problems disaster victims face, especially the elderly and infirm, when utility power disruptions prevent the use of essential items such as lighting, refrigeration, elevators, medical supplies, and heating and air conditioners. Threats of natural and man-made disasters are on the rise. These events require proactive mitigation to protect the public from even larger catastrophes until order is restored. Credits used to purchase emergency generators through the E-GEN Act will save the government money and effort ordinarily used to provide shelters and temporary housing for displaced residents. If we can keep people's power on after a disaster then we can also protect their health and emotional well- being, while also keeping them in the comfortable confines of their own homes, instead of laid out on some cot in a shelter. A lack of power contributed significantly to the problems that existed in South Florida during and after the 2004 hurricanes and again following Hurricane Wilma. This legislation will help cover the costs for individuals, adult communities and businesses who want to purchase emergency generators but can't afford them. I ask for my colleagues' support 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 the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes; and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise with great disappointment that the House is being asked again to consider legislation under a restrictive rule. My good friend from Florida said that the will of the House will be expressed here today. I query him as to how that will occur under a restrictive rule. Under this rule, only a limited number of amendments will be offered by a select few. There are many who will argue that this legislation, when considered, is noncontroversial. If that is the case, then why not make this an open rule? Or perhaps the question ought to be, Why are we considering this bill at a time when the House should be considering legislation that increases veterans benefits, invests in affordable housing, and ensures that our country's neediest have access to affordable health care under Medicare and Medicaid? The truth of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, none of these issues are being debated on this floor today because my colleagues in the majority are too busy cutting backroom deals that will cut Federal funding in each of these critically important areas as well as other areas of import. I just spoke with a group of foreign service officers who were pointing out to me some of the cuts that will take place in places where they are scheduled to go. The majority knows that they are wrong on all of these issues, and that is why they do not want to debate us on them. So, Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves at this moment on the floor of the House debating a bill that I would think my friends on the other side of the aisle would say reeks of hypocrisy and overarching Federal Government interference. Are not Republicans the ones who claim that they are the party of States' rights? Are not Republicans the ones who claim that States are more effective in regulating what happens within their own State? Are not Republicans the ones who claim that another Federal commission trumping State commissions already in existence is nothing more than unnecessary bureaucracy? Are not Republicans federalists? But Republicans are not saying these things. Instead, some are trying to divert attention away from the things on a much larger scale that actually matter. Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to say that a problem does not exist in the sport of boxing. My friend mentioned one Kid. Mention to him another, Kid Gavilan, who died in our area and of my good friend, Representative Diaz-Balart, a shoeshine man after fighting some of the better fights in two divisions with some of the better fighters in the world at some point. So there are a lot of things to be said from people receiving too many blows upside their heads. In the last decade, amateur and professional boxing has grown into a multibillion dollar business. Promoters, cable companies, and the sporting industry as a whole reap big ticket sales from the sweat and toil of young athletes. Yet those who actually step into the ring often find an entirely different opponent outside the ring, as Kid Gavilan did. Many boxers find those who claim to be in their corner have made dirty deals and shortcuts that undermine a boxer's earnings and in some cases their health. Contracts are often broken or exploited. Injuries and adequate medical care are sometimes overlooked. These are important issues that should be dealt with, but not by this body and not in this manner. The solution would seem to be a crackdown on State commissions that woefully fail to enforce their own rules and regulations. Better yet, maybe we need a national sports commission to regulate all sports that Congress all of a sudden wants to regulate. First it was baseball; and we really did clean up baseball and steroids. That is gone. We do not have that as an issue any more. And now it is boxing. What next? The National Hockey League or the National Football League? All of these sports in some ways are violent, and we hear stories every year about athletes being injured, paralyzed and even killed. What about the Ultimate Fighting Championships, where they put people in cages and then knock each other's brains out? Or World Wrestling Entertainment business where a lot of people wind up after careers in that field with broken bodies because they missed the trick at a given point? Or even our own United States Olympic Committee? If we are doing this about corruption, I can think of few sports committees in history as corrupt as the Olympic Committees. However, that is not what we are doing today. In the grand scheme of things, we have more important issues to deal with: a failing war in Iraq, skyrocketing prescription drug prices, our own citizens displaced by a recent torrent of natural disasters in my good friend from Florida's district and my district alone, and continuing unethical behavior from executive and legislative branches of our government, including national security leaks. All of these issues and so many more need to be higher priorities in our work today, but this body is silent on all of them. On behalf of the American people, I say, speak up. The silence is deafening. It is time that my friends in the majority stop wasting our time with bills that neglect those in need and divert attention from the failures of this body over the last decade. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying legislation that does little, if anything, to promote the general welfare of our great Nation. One of the arguments that was made is if we do not regulate this from a national level, what is going to happen is boxing will go on venue shopping. I pointed out yesterday that Ali fought the Thriller in Manila and in addition to that fought the Rumble in the Jungle, so if we regulate it from the Federal level, what is going to stop them from going abroad to rope-a-dope? Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of one of the most important figures in our Nation's history: Mrs. Rosa Parks. In 1955, this courageous and gallant young lady took a stand. Or more correctly, took a seat, on a public bus in Montgomery, Alabama. Her refusal to give up her seat to a white man may have resulted in a disorderly conduct conviction and a $14 fine. But her refusal to move to the back of the bus ignited a flame that started a revolution. She brought forth change among the American people. The consequences and significance of her stand makes her a true hero in American history. We always hear how Mrs. Parks refused to give up her seat because she was tired from a long day of work, but this is only a half truth. Yes, she was tired. But Rosa Parks' weariness came not only from a hard day's work, but also from years of discrimination that she and our people faced daily due to the racist and segregationist laws of our country. She knew that blacks were required to give their seats to white passengers if there were no more empty seats. But Rosa Parks made a conscious decision to fight. All of us here today, white, brown, black and blue, are better off today because Rosa Parks said, ``No.'' Rosa Parks' arrest served as a catalyst for a massive 381 day boycott of the public buses in Montgomery, which was led by another great individual, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. During this time, African Americans would carpool, walk, bike, taxi, or do whatever else they had to do to get to their various destinations. They did everything, but ride the bus. Despite the harassment that everyone involved in the civil rights movement faced, the boycott continued and was successful. Resolution was finally achieved in 1956 when the case was brought to court, and the segregation of buses was ruled unconstitutional. As we all know, what Rosa Parks jump started in 1955, eventually led to passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights act of 1965. During her lifetime, Mrs. Parks worked for the equality of not just black people, but all people. She was elected secretary of the Montgomery branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, unsuccessfully attempted to vote many times to prove her point of discrimination, and founded the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self Development, an organization which aids in the social and educational development of our youth. Rosa Parks demonstrated that one person can help so many other people by standing up for what they believe in. While we grieve her death, we also celebrate her life. We must remember her actions inspired others to dream more, learn more, and do more. With that, we all become more. A great man once said, ``All of the great leaders have had one characteristic in common; it was the willingness to confront unequivocally the major anxiety of their people in their time. This, and not much else, is the essence of leadership.'' Great leaders of the time, such as Rosa Parks, were tired of the inequality, and tired of the disparity that African Americans were facing at that time. She challenged; she led; she served; and she inspired. Rosa Parks died with honor and principle. We have, but no other option, to live our lives in a manner which honors and mirrors the virtues she pursued with absolute courage and bravery.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution condemning Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's threats against Israel. Not in recent time have we heard such a repugnant statement made by an international leader. And I stand here today with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to declare that the United States Congress will not sit idly by while Iran threatens Israel with anti-Semitic, racist, and dangerous threats. Since its establishment in 1948, Israel has sought to live in peace with its neighbors. It has signed peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, and continues to seek a two-state solution with the Palestinians. On the contrary, Iran continues to seek instability in the Middle East. For Iran's dictatorial regime, instability is power. Its actions combined with its anti-Semitic and anti-Western statements seek to accomplish nothing more than incite hate and violence in the region. President Ahmadinejad's comments represent Iran's long-term goal of violently destroying Israel. Most despicable about these statements is that Iranian leaders make them ``in the name of Allah.'' They attempt to manipulate the text of the Koran from its words of peace into directives of extremism and intolerance, tainting the world's views of the religion. Mr. Speaker, the people of Iran are calling out for freedom from the tyrannical regime which holds them hostage. While it is not the role of the United States to free the people of Iran, it is certainly our job to support them--and we will when they and their leaders choose democracy over autocracy and instability. Until then, the United States will never stand by when Iranian threats are levied at Israel or any other democracy in the world. The world can always count on that.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act. Many of us share the belief that the Federal Government's response to Hurricane Katrina was disorganized and inadequate. FEMA was far too slow to arrive, and evacuees were left stranded in massive shelters with egregious standard of living violations. Victims of the storm are now spread all over the country, costing the government $11 million per day just to house only a portion of evacuees in hotels. Tens of thousands are still living in inadequate shelters and even tents--months after the storm--with little assurances for their safety and security. These two problems--increasing the availability of temporary housing in times of national emergencies and improving training and preparedness for national emergencies--must be resolved to ensure that the humanitarian catastrophe that occurred in the gulf coast and continues to happen today will never occur again. I come to the floor today to introduce the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act. My bill establishes no fewer than six National Emergency Centers spread throughout the United States. The Centers would be used, first and foremost, to provide temporary housing, medical and humanitarian assistance, including education, for individuals and families displaced due to an emergency. The Centers would also serve as a centralized location for the training and coordination of first responders in the instance of an emergency. In turn, the Centers will improve the coordination of preparedness, response and recovery efforts between government, private, not-for- profit entities and faith-based organizations. The National Emergency Centers would be located on military bases, with a preference wherever possible for those installations closed during the most recent BRAC round. I am proposing these sites because the necessary infrastructure to house, feed, educate and care for evacuees over an extended period of time is already in place, thus limiting the cost and time needed to construct these facilities. Mr. Speaker, our Nation was not prepared for the disastrous hurricanes that struck the gulf coast last month. The establishment of National Emergency Centers will go a long way to ensuring that our response to national emergencies are not as disastrous as the disasters that created the emergencies in the first place. I ask for my colleagues' support and urge the House Leadership to bring this legislation to the floor for its swift consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am pleased and privileged at this time to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my colleague on the Committee on Rules.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleague that just spoke that the many people that I know, and they are numerous in my State and elsewhere that were killed by guns and are advocates against guns, are not fanatics. They are people who are victims of murder. Additionally, I thought I made it clear, I wish to make it clear again, that insofar as the second amendment is concerned, everyone that I know in this body is protective of a person's right to own a gun. The fact of the matter is that manufacturers who act irresponsibly should be sued by persons if they so choose when that harm comes to them. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule and the underlying legislation. My friends in the majority are again bringing to the floor a rule that blocks debate in the body before it begins. Under this rule not one Member of the House, Republican or Democrat, is permitted to offer an amendment. Under this rule and under this bill, the gun lobby is rewarded while public safety is thwarted. A few examples: The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) offered an amendment last night that prohibits suspected and known terrorists from purchasing firearms. That was not made in order. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), my good friend who will speak on this issue later, had an amendment that expands existing prohibitions on armor-piercing bullets to include those bullets capable of piercing body armor. And the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda Sanchez) offered an amendment that permits courts to hear suits based on the sale of weapons to persons with domestic convictions. Under this rule, however, not one of these amendments, or any of the five other commonsense amendments offered by Democrats in the Committee on Rules last night, will be given any consideration by the full House. Madam Speaker, our government was built on the foundation of an open and transparent participatory process. Yet, since 1994, when Republicans regained control of the House; I might add, Republicans that argued against closed rules, participation has been limited to only those who share their beliefs. The underlying legislation, which dismisses existing lawsuits against gun manufacturers and dealers and prohibits the filing of future suits, is not sound public policy. On the contrary, it is outright political grandstanding. During the last 3 years, more than 34 government entities have filed valid lawsuits against gun manufacturers, distributors, and trade associations. At the beginning of 2005, 18 of those suits had won favorable rulings, while only a handful had been dismissed. The remaining cases are still in court, and I gather that this legislation contemplates eliminating those citizens' rights to be in court. In fact, several State appeals and supreme courts have also ruled that gun manufacturers and dealers can be held liable for the reasonably foreseeable use of firearms for criminal purposes. Settlements from these cases have forced gun manufacturers to make necessary safety modifications that the industry had previously refused to do. How many times do we have to see a baby with a gun in its hand or at its head or killing some member of the family before we get to safety modifications? The ruling in the D.C. sniper case forced the gun manufacturer Bushmaster to inform its dealers of safer sales practices that will prevent other criminals from obtaining guns, something that Bushmaster had never done before. Other rulings have resulted in major crackdowns on ``straw purchases,'' where legally purchased guns are resold to individuals unable to lawfully purchase a weapon on their own. In each of these instances, it is beyond fair to say that they were not frivolous lawsuits. Yet, if the underlying legislation becomes law, when the cases are heard then none of them would have even been filed. Perhaps my friends in the majority can help me understand what is so unreasonable in requiring an industry that produces a product with the sole purpose of killing to take the necessary precautions to protect public safety, and is it our belief that the American judicial system is incapable of properly dismissing lawsuits that are both unreasonable and overzealous? They do it all the time. Let us be honest and call this bill and this debate what they really are: legislative abuse, with closed rules and a political charade. Republicans are using the legislative process in an attempt to penalize attorneys and trial lawyers, historically supporters of Democrats, who hold the gun lobby, a major campaign contributor to my friends in the majority, accountable for its actions. The majority's reckless disregard for judicial integrity mocks our Constitution's separation of powers doctrine. Dangerously, it does so at the expense of American safety. I implore my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying legislation, and I would say to my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), that I know of nothing in my makeup that would cause me at any point in time to want to do anything in derogation of the rights of American citizens under the United States Constitution. The second amendment, the right to own a gun, is everybody's right. But manufacturers ought not be manufacturing guns that are not safe and are poorly manufactured, and nobody should be protecting them at all. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. 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, just in case people think that it is only those of us who believe in our legal system that are opposed to this particular measure, I have in hand a letter from law enforcement's opposition to H.R. 800, and here is what it says: ``Dear Representative: As active and retired law enforcement officers, we are writing to urge your strong opposition to any legislation granting the gun industry special legal immunity. The bill would strip away the legal rights of gun violence victims, including law enforcement officers and their families, to seek redress against irresponsible gun dealers and manufacturers. The impact of this bill on the law enforcement community is well illustrated by the lawsuit brought by former Orange New Jersey police officers Ken McGuire and David Lemongello.'' I gather that their lawsuit would be dismissed as frivolous. ``On January 12, 2001, Officers McGuire and Lemongello were shot in the line of duty with a trafficked gun negligently sold by a West Virginia dealer. The dealer had sold the gun, along with 11 other guns, in a cash sale to a straw buyer for a gun trafficker. In June of 2004, the officers obtained a $1 million settlement from the dealer. The dealer, as well as two other area pawn shops also, have implemented safer practices to prevent sales to traffickers, including a new policy of ending large volume sales of handguns. These reforms go beyond the requirement of current law and are not imposed by any manufacturers or distributors. ``If immunity,'' this is what the law enforcement community, some of them say, ``if immunity for the gun industry had been enacted, the officers' case would have been thrown out of court and justice would have been denied. Police officers like Officers McGuire and Lemongello put their lives on the line every day to protect the public. Instead of honoring them for their service, legislation granting immunity to the gun industry would deprive them of their basic rights as American citizens to prove their case in a court of law. We stand with Officers McGuire and Lemongello in urging you to oppose this legislation.'' It is signed by the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, The Police Foundation, the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police, chiefs of police from New Jersey, Ohio, Massachusetts, Nevada, California, New York, North Carolina, Maine, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Rhode Island, and Kansas and Virginia and countless others that time will not permit me to add. If police officers who are out there protecting us cannot find the protection in this House of Representatives from bullets or armor- piercing bullets, and we are going to protect people who manufacture that stuff from having legal suits brought against them, some that may be dismissed, some that may be won, some that may be lost but it is an American right, just like that second amendment is an American right that I will go to my grave believing in, but I will go with these police officers in believing that it is wrong to deny people an opportunity to take their matter to court and have it decided appropriately by a court of law and juries of their peers who are all 435 of our constituents. In addition to what is wrong is this system is wrong. When you close out amendments that would allow people to have an opportunity to come down here on the floor of the House of Representatives and represent their constituents, this is a closed rule; and I urge my colleagues to vote against this closed rule.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my good friend, Representative Hilda Solis, and Senators Kerry and Durbin to introduce the Public Health and Environmental Equity Act. It has been 5 weeks since Hurricane Katrina devastated the lives and landscapes of the gulf coast region. The floodwaters that ravaged Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi in the last month have finally begun to recede and America and the world have become all too aware of the losses suffered by the citizens of these areas. They have lost family and loved ones. Most have lost homes, jobs, and businesses. And in their greatest hour of need, they were left abandoned and forgotten. Our own President was forced to admit the shortcomings of the so-called ``relief'' effort. While nothing can ever make up for the misery endured in the first days of the storm, there is plenty we must do to alleviate additional harm as rebuilding begins. Understandably, residents are anxious to get back to their homes and to their lives. Anxious contractors with a different agenda have vowed that such a mission can be fulfilled sooner rather than later. They want us to believe that homes, buildings, and schools fully submerged from weeks of raw sewage, pesticides, solvents, decaying corpses, and teaming with mold will magically become clean and safe to move into. How will they accomplish such a feat? Their plan: Have the EPA completely waive every environmental mandate that has protected us for 35 years. Simply put, this means that anyone involved in Katrina rebuilding will be allowed to dump where they want, pollute where and when they want, and contaminate for as long as they want. It's a quick- but-dirty solution for cleanup and reconstruction with no regard for maintaining clean air, water, or soil. Once in place, environmental loopholes attributed to Katrina recovery in the gulf region will also be the excuse for any company to create toxic breeding grounds anywhere in the country. Your backyard could be next. Mr. Speaker, waiving these long-standing environmental regulations is an irresponsible and unconscionable way to jump-start the rebuilding process. What we'll end up with are toxic residues that will sicken these communities for years to come. Residents who return to their homes under such EPA waivers will face a lifetime of illness and uncertainty about the water they drink, the air they breathe, and the soil they walk on every day. Failure to fully implement current environmental health and safety regulations jeopardizes every human and ethical standard we claim to hold dear. Loosening these environmental safeguards will further victimize those still struggling to regain their lives. We know what Katrina's victims look like; we know their income level; and we know why they've been ignored. To roll back highly regarded environmental protections will add insult to an already festering injury of racial and social injustices. The citizens of the gulf coast want the same things the rest of America strives for--a safe place to live, work, and raise their families. They expect their elected officials to uphold laws that secure these basic necessities. They deserve our assurances and our actions that the value of their lives are no longer a back burner issue. Katrina's victims already survived the worst natural disaster in modern American history. They've already survived a relief effort that can only be described as shameful. Why on earth would we create a man- made catastrophe and tell them it's in their best interest? The resolution which we are introducing today makes Congress's commitment clear and obvious that we do not believe that Katrina--or any other natural disaster--should be used to justify rolling back and completely waiving environmental regulations. I ask for our colleagues' support and urge the House to move this resolution swiftly.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember and honor the invaluable contributions of Judge Constance Baker Motley. She died of congestive heart failure at NYU Downtown Hospital in New York City yesterday at the age of 84. Judge Motley was a woman of many firsts and true pioneer in the civil rights struggle. Judge Motley was a woman with numerous accomplishments. She helped write briefs in the groundbreaking Brown vs. Board of Education case in 1954 and she headed a legal campaign that opened admission at the University of Mississippi to James Meredith in 1962. Meredith was the first African American student to attend that school. By the time he graduated in 1963, Constance Motley had made 22 trips to Mississippi on behalf of the case. Later that year, she helped 1,100 black children be reinstated in Birmingham after they were expelled for taking part in a demonstration. Judge Motley also served as the first black woman in the New York State Senate in 1964 and the first woman borough president for Manhattan. In 1966, Judge Motley was sworn in by President Lyndon Johnson as the first African American woman to serve as a federal judge. She ruled on a number of cases that dealt with everything from discrimination in housing to denial of benefits to Medicaid recipients to prisoners who had been unconstitutionally confined to solitary confinement for more than a year. Her aspiration for what she termed as ``dignity for all people'' emerged early. Constance Motley was the ninth of twelve children born to parents from the small Caribbean island of Nevis. At the age of 15, she was not allowed onto a public beach because she was black. It was then that she began reading all she could about black history. She later became president of her N.A.A.C.P youth council. Three years later, Clarence W. Blakeslee, a white philanthropist, heard Constance Motley giving a speech at an African-American social center. He was so moved by her stately oration that he offered to finance her aspirations for a law degree. Judge Motley attended Fisk University in Nashville, my alma mater, then transferred to New York University. In 1946, she graduated from Columbia School of Law and become a volunteer at the N.A.A.C.P.'s Legal Defense and Education Fund, which had been founded by Thurgood Marshall. Known for her dignified manner and quiet approach, Judge Motley was highly regarded as an extraordinary legal tactician. It was also one of the reasons Thurgood Marshall felt that she could be so effective during the Meredith case in 1961. Of the ten cases she argued before the Supreme Court, Judge Motley won nine. She continued to work tirelessly on a variety of civil rights cases. One of the most recent cases included her decision in 1978 allowing a female reporter to be admitted to the New York Yankees' locker room. Mr. Speaker, Judge Constance Baker Motley was a brilliant advocate for the legal rights of all people. In her autobiography Equal Justice Under Law, Motley said defeat never entered her mind. ``We all believed that our time had come and that we had to go forward.'' It is with this faith that she lived, and in this spirit that she will forever be remembered.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for the time. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, rarely in the last decade has the Committee on the Judiciary's majority been interested in working in a bipartisan fashion. So I am pleasantly surprised that cooperation and consultation won out over partisanship and ideology during the drafting of the underlying legislation. At the same time, however, as the underlying legislation comes to the floor under the blanket of inclusiveness, it is disappointing that the rule providing for its consideration is again restrictive. Under this rule, all but a few select amendments are blocked from being presented to the body. All but a select few are blocked from offering amendments that would strengthen and improve the Violence Against Women Act. All but a select few are blocked from offering amendments that would place more law enforcement on the street and help reduce crime. All but a select few are blocked from making a good bill even better. Forty-six amendments were submitted to the Committee on Rules yesterday evening, Mr. Speaker: 15 by Republicans, 23 by Democrats, and eight bipartisan. Nevertheless, under this rule the House will have the opportunity to consider only 12 of them, that is, of the 46 amendments offered in the Committee on Rules yesterday, barely one out of every four is actually made in order under this rule. That is not democracy. It is autocracy. And it is just not right, no matter how noncontroversial a bill may be. Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation is supported on both sides of the aisle. It is largely similar to legislation which passed overwhelmingly in the 108th Congress, and I plan to support it. I am pleased that the bill increases funding for the Department of Justice Inspector General and the COPS program well beyond the President's short-sighted budget request. The bill merges the Byrne Grant program with the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program authorizing $1.1 billion for the program in fiscal year 2006 and an unspecified amount through 2009. It also extends the Bullet Proof Vest Partnership Grant program to assist State and local law enforcement to upgrade and purchase new life-saving vests. I am equally pleased that the Committee on the Judiciary included in the bill a provision authored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff). This provision requires the Department of Justice to report to Congress annually on the number of detainees suspected of terrorism in the United States and those that the United States is holding and whether they will be treated as enemy combatants or criminal defendants. Mr. Speaker, as a beacon of freedom, the United States has a responsibility to maintain a justice system that is transparent, fair, and respected throughout the world. The Schiff provision goes a long way towards restoring the respect that America once commanded regarding the treatment of prisoners of war. It is my hope and expectation that this provision will be included in the conference report that is ultimately sent to the President for his signature. Finally, the underlying legislation reauthorizes the Violence Against Women Act, which is set to expire in a few days. First signed into law in 1994 by President Clinton, the Violence Against Women Act provides significant protections to women, children, and families who are victims of sexual assault, domestic violence and abuse, stalking, and sex trafficking. Under the act, women and children who are victims of these heinous crimes are provided with access to legal aid, social services, counseling, and most importantly, protection under Federal law. The underlying legislation reauthorizes and expands critical programs already in existence under current law while also creating new programs that improve our efforts to protect women and children from the sick and twisted. Mr. Speaker, as I briefly mentioned, the underlying legislation is a good bill, and I will support it. Nevertheless, it is disappointing that Members of this body are being blocked from making this good bill even better. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson), a leader in this field and for a number of years in the California legislature and ambassadorial ranks.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, as I said at the outset, this is a good bill and I plan to support it, but a good bill could have been made better had amendments of Members in this body on both sides been made in order. We are not the workaholic Congress around here, and we have the time to undertake to do things that are critical for the American public. I am absolutely convinced that we could have allowed most, if not all, of the amendments that were included. I have said on other occasions that my colleagues in the majority were championed by some of the best skilled legislators in 1992 and 1994. One of them, a deceased Member, former chairman of the Committee on Rules, a good friend of mine that I traveled actively with and dearly miss him, was Gerald Solomon. Others of course, former Speaker Gingrich and the distinguished Robert Walker. I saw them on this floor repeatedly saying that the big problem that existed with Democrats at that time was that they were operating on closed and restrictive rules. I guess what changed here is the majority, and there are some who still have not got it, and that is, that people in this body represent all of the people in America. Until such time as we open all of the rules to Members who are desirous of offering germane amendments, we will be having restrictive and closed rules and shutting out, blocking out a part of the individuals who represent upwards of 600,000 to 800,000 people each. I find that anathema, particularly in light of the instruction that came from those in the majority. I remember so vividly hearing on the radio people talking about closed rules and open rules, and people did not even know what a closed rule and an open rule was, but the mantra was that the rules were closed. Open them up, so that the American public can have a transparent Congress that allows for the flow of legislation to be debated on this floor and that the will of the House then should prevail. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) began this discussion by saying we need smart, experienced and independent people to take a hard look at the problems Katrina exposed and identify solutions before we move organizational boxes again. I cannot agree more. This motion to instruct is timely, and I urge Members to support it. The truth of the matter is, what Congress needs to do is what we were taught as children, and that is to count to 10 and take a deep breath when there is a problem. Listen, we are not playing pin the tail on the elephant or the donkey. We are dealing with tragic consequences of our fellow Americans. Before shuffling boxes, we need a clear, unambiguous plan for disaster preparedness, not something prepared in a back room. We are 4 years out from 9/11, and obviously are woefully unprepared for disaster. The majority is going forward with a 5-month, $500,000 investigation into what went wrong in Katrina, and that should complement an independent investigation into what went right and what went wrong. How do we do what the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) says? How do you integrate the military, how do you integrate the faith-based institutions, how do you integrate the volunteers? Where is the national registry for physicians? We have not settled the issues from last year's storms and we continue to use the term ``Katrina,'' but there was an Ophelia and there is a Rita, and America's problems are continuing. Pass this motion to instruct.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), my good friend and a leader in the fight for education and for veterans and other affairs in this Congress.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver), a man of the cloth, a reverend representative. (Mr. CLEAVER 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. My distinguished friend on the Committee on Rules never ceases to amaze me, but he has done it again. The gentleman says we are going to have a time and place to debate this. It will be for 30 minutes; 435 Members of this body are going to have 30 minutes to debate this. For the gentleman's information, the Boustany amendment has been made in order. And yes, we are discussing it and this is the time and this is the place to make sure that we do not discriminate with Federal dollars. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I cannot impress enough to the chairman that title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to the use of religious organizations' own resources, not Federal taxpayer dollars. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), my good friend with whom I serve on the Committee on Rules. (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)