Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. When I was a child, my grandmomma took me to churches. She played piano for all of the churches in town, four in Altamonte Springs. Sometimes I did not know whether I was going to be sprinkled and be baptized here or repent and be baptized. It was very difficult, but all of the children in that town went to all of the churches. For 41 years Head Start has existed, and it is the most empirically collected database organization supporting the children of the United States of America. And for all of those 41 years, all of these faith- based organizations have been involved in receiving contracts to do business. What we are saying is they cannot do it with Federal dollars. They have to do it with their own money.

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 reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Rules reported out a restrictive rule providing for the consideration of the School Readiness and Head Start Reauthorization Act. A total of 24 amendments were submitted to the Committee on Rules on this bill, 16 by Democratic members and eight by Republicans. In typical fashion, however, only 12 of those amendments were made in order. Half of our colleagues' proposals, half of their legislative ideas, half of their amendments are blocked from consideration under this rule. This includes, among many others, the McCollum-Van Hollen amendment, which calls for providing assistance to Head Start providers complying with congressional transportation mandates and the rising costs of gasoline. This commonsense amendment provided much needed assistance to Head Start programs that are having to cope with escalating gasoline costs. They are now choosing between buying new books for their students and putting gas into their buses. Unfortunately, the House will not have the opportunity to debate this amendment because it was not made in order under the rule. As all Members should know, Head Start was created to address the preparatory educational deficiencies among economically disadvantaged children as a part of the War on Poverty. Since that time, millions of children and families have been the beneficiaries of a proven winning educational model for early childhood development. This body likes to talk about readiness in many contexts: disaster readiness, military readiness, emergency readiness. We devise and implement all kinds of plans in order to be ready or prepared for any eventuality. School readiness is more than just being prepared for entry into the educational system. It is preparation for entry into life's systems. Head Start is just what it says: a head start. It gives systematically, economically and socially disadvantaged children the head start that potentially allows for the navigation and negotiation of hurdles in life's race that they may not otherwise have been able to maneuver without. It is at this very point in the lives of our children that they are introduced to varying themes and concepts that will shape them into the individuals they will become. Several of my Democratic colleagues from the Congressional Black Caucus have designed excellent amendments designed to broaden the scope of readiness for America's disadvantaged children. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) had an amendment and it asked for the recruitment of African American and Latino men to become Head Start teachers. This was made in order. The gentleman from Mississippi's (Mr. Thompson) amendment calls for the Department of Health and Human Services to provide additional assistance in areas affected by Hurricane Katrina, and I suggested to the Chair that we broaden that to include any disaster so that children are covered who are in the Head Start category. The gentlewoman from California's (Ms. Millender-McDonald) amendment allows homeless and foster children to be automatically eligible for Head Start. These amendments were designed to help, not hinder; to move forward, not backward; to grow, not stifle. I am pleased that they were made in order and enthusiastically support each of these amendments. Unfortunately, although the underlying legislation has the support of both parties, the rule also makes in order a controversial and discriminatory amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), our colleague. His amendment contains language that should give all of us pause and may cause this bill not to pass should it be approved by this body. The Boustany amendment allows faith-based Head Start providers to discriminate with regard to religion when hiring personnel to run their programs. Does this not blatantly and egregiously undermine what we are trying to do here? We are supposed to be about the business of creating opportunities and closing gaps. The Boustany amendment only creates opportunities of systemic disadvantage and discrimination and closes doors to the very ones trying to open them for America's children. Even more, title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act clearly stands in opposition to the gentleman from Louisiana's (Mr. Boustany) amendment, the same title VII that was voted on and agreed to by the Members of this great body 41 years ago. Title VII provides every citizen broad- based protection against employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Supporters of the amendment will argue that the Supreme Court decision in the Amos case allows for the amendment to be in order and is, therefore, constitutional. That decision does, in fact, allow for the consideration of religion in hiring practices. However, it does not allow for the consideration of religion to discriminate in hiring practices. How soon we forget that it is the very same language that made this bill highly controversial in the 108th Congress, and it will allow for it to be controversial if it passes again. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. Speaker, if we are serious about the lives of our children, if we are serious about readiness, if we are serious about reauthorizing Head Start, then it is critical that we continue to work in a bipartisan fashion and reject proposals which seek to divide this body and its Members. The chairman of this committee and the ranking member and the members of this committee have worked very actively to fashion a reasonable and bipartisan effort. Congress should not be in the business of supporting State-sponsored discrimination. Forty-one years ago we said no. Today, 41 years later, no still is no. The House should, without question or hesitation, reject the Boustany amendment and approve the bipartisan underlying legislation with some of the proposed amendments. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), my classmate, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Education Reform, the subcommittee of relevant jurisdiction for this legislation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of one of the great figures in Jewish and world history, the late Simon Wiesenthal. Mr. Wiesenthal, a Holocaust survivor who crusaded to ensure that those responsible for the Holocaust were brought to justice, passed away earlier today in his home in Vienna, Austria. Simon Wiesenthal followed his creed of ``justice, not vengeance'' and oversaw the arrest, capture and conviction of many Nazi war criminals. Simon Wiesenthal was imprisoned at five German Condentration camps during the Nazi Holocaust, narrowly escaping execution on numerous occasions. After he was liberated, Mr. Wiesenthal went to work for the United States Army and began gathering information to be used in the Nazi war crimes trials. After the Nuremberg trials, while the governments of the United States and the Soviet Union were no longer interested in pursuing Nazi war criminals, Wiesenthal continued the charge to arrest and convict those responsible for the genocide of more than eleven million innocent people, including six million Jews and 89 of Wiesenthal's personal relatives. Wiesenthal's most celebrated capture was that of Adolf Eichmann, one of Hitler's main engineers of his final solution. While Eichmann's wife claimed that he was dead, Wiesenthal was able to prove that the evidence for his death was insufficient. Wiesenthal then assisted Israeli efforts to track down Eichmann. Eventually, the war criminal was caught and executed thanks in large part to Wiesenthal's efforts. After the extremely high profile capture of Eichmann, Wiesenthal was able to gather enough support to continue in his efforts. He continued his mission and was able to secure the arrests and convictions of other important Nazis. His work led to the capture of Karl Silberbauer, a member of the German Gestapo who arrested Anne Frank. Silberbauer's confessions disproved the claims that The Diary of Anne Frank was a forgery. Wiesenthal was also instrumental in the capture and conviction of Franz Stangl who was in charge of running the Treblinka and Sobibor concentration camps. Wiesenthal also is credited with locating Hermine Braunsteiner-Ryan, a housewife living in New York who had supervised the murder of hundreds of children during the war. Simon Wiesenthal believed that it was his mission to ensure that the victims of the Holocaust were not forgotten and that the type of atrocities that occurred during the Second World War do not happen to anyone anywhere ever again. Personally, I was honored to have made his acquaintance and was humbled by his presence. Thanks to Simon Wiesenthal's lifelong dedication to the cause and organizations such as the Simon Wiesenthal Center, neither he nor the victims of the Nazi atrocities will ever be forgotten. It is now our responsibility to continue the vision of Simon Wiesenthal. We can not allow the horror of what occurred at Auschwitz and Treblinka and the other concentration camps to be erased from our memory; we can not allow racism and hatred to fester to the point where genocide becomes an option; and we can not allow those who commit acts of genocide to walk away without having to answer for the horrific crimes they have committed. The world has lost a champion for compassion and humanity in the death of Simon Wiesenthal. May his memory always be a blessing unto all of us.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the distinguished ranking Democratic member on the House Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time. A footnote right there, Mr. Speaker. I hope the irony is not lost on the House that the gentlewoman, a New York Member, is being lectured to about homeland security issues and why there is no need for an independent Katrina commission. New Yorkers were told 3 and 4 years ago that there was no need for an independent commission on 9/11. I note peripherally that the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules has other business and has left the floor; but I was prepared to ask him, and perhaps his replacement in the chair for the majority can answer for me, what did the House of Representatives do in the last 3 years with reference to the tragedy of 9/11? What we wound up doing, because the victims and New York pressed forward, was establishing an independent commission. The chairman pontificates that we should exercise our constitutional mandate; and so does his replacement, my friend and colleague on the Committee on Rules, say what our constitutional duty is. Every one of us is mindful of our constitutional duty. But are you then prepared to admit that we did not exercise it correctly in the 9/11 Commission period and that is why the 9/11 Commission came into existence in the first place? Last year, as we all know, four hurricanes ravaged my home State of Florida and some of the gulf coast. Three of them literally destroyed parts of the district that I am privileged to represent. In the immediate and long-term aftermath, our communities saw FEMA's shortcomings. We saw that a once-reliable agency had been placed on the back burner as an afterthought in the Department of Homeland Security. Natural disaster preparedness and response programs have become trapped in a homeland security bureaucracy. FEMA has lost its focus, and Floridians and others know that. Our delegation literally begged the committees of jurisdiction to hold hearings on what we saw in Florida. I even introduced bipartisan legislation in March with our colleague on the majority side, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), to address what we perceived to be FEMA's largest problems. Yet every time we took our concerns to the committees, we were told it is not a big enough problem to consider on its own. Our staff was told we do not think that an oversight hearing is needed. Well, Mr. Speaker, what America saw in the gulf coast resembles the Federal Government's absolute incompetence that Florida saw last year. Despite a whole lot of lip service, nothing has changed. The 9/11 Commission was created to provide a full and complete accounting of the 2001 terrorist attacks. Implicit in this mandate is the simple fact that Congress alone would not or could not provide such a full and complete accounting. There is no reason to expect that the Republican Katrina commission will do any better. That is why I and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and 156 of our colleagues yesterday introduced H.R. 3764, legislation establishing a real independent commission, immune from political influence and absolute partisanship. And while they cannot officially cosponsor our bill, a significant part, 76 percent, of the American people agree with us. They question this Congress' ability to exercise real oversight and are calling for an independent and bipartisan Katrina commission. Supporting the American people's concerns, you, Mr. Speaker, said at one point, and I quote, ``Our party controls the levers of government. We're not about to go and look beneath a bunch of rocks to try to cause heartburn.'' Put another way, Mr. Speaker: we helped create this mess, and we are not going to be able to investigate it ourselves. So forgive me, Mr. Speaker, if I question the majority's ability to conduct effective oversight with this type of political candor. Substantively, the Republican plan is partisan. And because my colleagues say it is bipartisan does not make it so. It is inadequate. In stark contrast to the 9/11 Commission, Republicans outnumber Democrats on the majority's partisan Katrina commission. In contrast to the 9/11 Commission, which was given 18 months to do its job, the majority's partisan Katrina commission is only given 5 months. As the chairman put it last night, do it quick, do it fast. Quickly, he said. Despite the 9/11 Commission's $15 million budget to do its job, the majority's commission they propose is only given $500,000. Footnote right there. What about the committees of jurisdiction already in existence in Congress? And what about creating a circus atmosphere that drains resources from this Congress do you not understand? Shamefully, the House will not have an opportunity to vote on the Hastings-Menendez independent Katrina commission legislation, because Republicans have blocked us from offering it. Just as they always do, Republicans block what they cannot defeat. Despite what Republicans will suggest, today's debate is not about politics. It is about the need for truth to assure the American people that we all know their needs. For my constituents, it is about the failures of this Congress, and for others it is about the failures in New Orleans and in the States and at the Federal Government. It is about saving lives and rebuilding communities.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ with the gentleman about what the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence did. I serve on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The Senate Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence conducted an investigation; the House did nothing.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of the Coast Guard reauthorizion bill. As my colleague previously noted, the rule permits Members who preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record to offer those amendments. I appreciate that this opportunity was afforded to Members. I am, nevertheless, disappointed that the preprinting of amendments was even required. Despite the majority's claims, this legislative procedure which they call open is actually restricted. It is not an open rule because every Member is not permitted to offer any germane amendment. Mr. Speaker, first established in 1915, the Coast Guard is responsible for patrolling the more than 12,400 miles of coastline in the United States. Nearly 2,000 of these miles are located in my home State of Florida. Today, the more than 100,000 active personnel, reservists, civilian and volunteer members of the Coast Guard auxiliary are America's front line guarding our seas, shores, ports and borders. In South Florida, the auxiliary volunteers play a critical role in promoting boating safety and awareness in our communities. They assist in search and rescue operations and work every day to make South Florida the recreation hotspot that it is. The underlying legislation authorizes $8.7 billion for the programs of the Coast Guard in fiscal year 2006. This includes some $1.6 billion for its Integrated Deepwater System to assist the Coast Guard to upgrade an aging fleet of ships and aircraft and improve the technologies it utilizes. With three major international shipping and cruise ports located within just miles of my district, the Deepwater System is critically important to Coast Guard operations in Florida and elsewhere. The Coast Guard works tirelessly to protect the ships and individuals who utilize our ports in this Nation and in my district, Port Everglades, Palm Beach and Miami and Dania. I am pleased that the committee has determined this program worthy of such critical funding, and I express my hope that the Committee on Appropriations will fund IDS at its authorized level. The authorization bill also permits the Coast Guard to establish Naval Vessel Protection Zones offshore, and it increases the number of active duty personnel in the Coast Guard to 45,500. The bill also doubles the duration of time that Coast Guard Reservists may be called up to active duty from 60 to 120 days over a 1-year period. While the increase in active personnel is certainly needed so that the Coast Guard can continue to accomplish its mission, the change highlights a growing problem facing our Armed Forces. That is, America's all-volunteer military has become increasingly dependent upon the extended call-ups of Reserves. The war in Iraq has indeed made recruiting more difficult for our armed services, but so have the diminishing benefits and pay we offer to our soldiers and the health care services we extend to our veterans. This Congress, so quick to wrap itself in the American flag, continues to underpay our soldiers and shortchange our veterans. With a track record like this, who can blame a soldier for not re-enlisting and a veteran who questions her country's commitment to her well-being now that she is out of the military? Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this body, I thank the Coast Guard, as I am sure all of our colleagues do, for its service and commitment to the security of our great Nation. I am proud to offer my support for the Coast Guard and the underlying legislation. Before ending, Mr. Speaker, I do want to make mention that during this time of great division and nastiness in Congress, it is commendable that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure was able to work in a truly bipartisan fashion. While our fellow citizens in the gulf States begin to rebuild their lives, they should take note of the bipartisanship and cooperation that went into crafting the underlying legislation. As the author of legislation establishing an independent commission to evaluate the Federal, State and local governments' responses to Hurricane Katrina and with the support of more than 150 Members of this body and 75 percent of the American people, at least in one poll, it had been my hope that a similar willingness would have existed amongst my majority colleagues to address that issue. Unfortunately, as the American people have learned in the past 2 weeks and will find out again later this morning, no such willingness exists. We can come together today and create an independent, bipartisan Katrina Commission with an equal number of Republicans and Democrats on it who will not be subject to political influence and partisanship. I implore my Republican colleagues to rise above the rancor in this body, follow the example set today by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and establish an independent Katrina Commission. The majority's unwillingness to establish such a commission will leave us woefully incapable of reforming our current disaster preparedness and response programs. If the last 5 years have taught us anything, it is that this Congress is unwilling to police itself or this administration. The only viable option is an independent commission. In support of the Coast Guard, I ask that all of us look at the extraordinary work that they are doing and have done in the gulf coast region. We must know that every time one of those helicopters lifts and rescues victims from this awful tragedy that the time for that propeller is running out and these are already aging crafts. It is critical that we allow the Coast Guard the sufficient funding in order that they may revamp, restore, rehabilitate, and purchase the appropriate equipment to patrol our Nation's shores. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) put it so well when he indicated that the Coast Guard is overburdened and underprepared. It is our responsibility to ensure that we do better. On the scale of our armed services, the Coast Guard is always an afterthought, it seems, when it comes to resources. But in terms of what they do immediately with reference to the 12,000 miles of shores that they patrol, it is critical that we have clear understanding of their needs. I have been on Coast Guard cutters, as have many of my colleagues. I have seen them in their rescue operations for persons who are not even American citizens, risking their lives and sometimes suffering loss themselves trying to ensure that others are protected in a proper manner. They do an outstanding job and their Deepwater program will help them to do an even better job than they are doing. It is not fair to send people up in aircraft that are legend related in terms of their age and usage. It is critical that we pass this measure, and I believe that it will pass overwhelmingly; and I hope that the future of the Deepwater program will be appropriately funded by this Congress so that the Coast Guard will have in its possession the necessary personnel and material in order to do the job to keep this Nation safe. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague from New Jersey, Representative Menendez, to introduce legislation establishing the Katrina Commission to examine and evaluate the Federal Government's response to Hurricane Katrina and assess our ability to respond to future large-scale disasters. We are proud that our legislation is the companion bill to S. 1622 which was introduced last week in the Senate by our colleagues Senators Clinton and Mikulski. While the long-term impact of Hurricane Katrina will be felt for years, our evaluation of the Federal Government's response to, and preparation for, this and other major disasters--natural and man-made-- must begin immediately. Mirrored after the 9-11 Commission, the Katrina Commission will consist of 10 members with no more than 5 being from either the Republican or Democratic parties, thus ensuring an independent and diverse make-up of commission members. The Katrina Commission will be afforded the same powers which the 9-11 Commission enjoyed and will be tasked at finding the answers to the critical questions that we all have. These include but are not limited to: Were we adequately prepared to respond to a disaster of this magnitude? Are we any more prepared today than we were before Katrina? What plans were in place before Katrina made landfall to meet power, utility, and telecommunications needs following the storm? What plans are in place for future disasters? What was the availability of adequate resources to meet the needs of displaced individuals and families, including temporary housing, medical services and facilities, transportation, and food and water supplies? Did our Federal disaster response plans consider the needs of all communities? What plans existed to ensure that underserved communities reached safety before and after Katrina? How effective was the Federal Government in its rescue and other life-saving techniques? Was the Federal response to Hurricane Katrina efficiently coordinated with State and local governments? Was it adequate and appropriate in size and scope? What improvements do the Executive and Legislative Branches need to make to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of our disaster response programs? Mr. Speaker, my Congressional District received the brunt of three major hurricanes last year. As I said earlier today, certainly our first priority has to be to rescue those who are still alive and provide them with housing, medical attention, food, and water. However, as the Gulf Coast turns to the recovery and rebuilding processes, the billions that Congress will spend will not be enough to fix the problems that exist within FEMA. Based on my own personal experience dealing with FEMA and its director over the last year, I warn the Members of this body that the problems you see today are just the tip of the iceberg--and it has nothing to do with the magnitude of the disaster. Inconsistency in FEMA regulations, constant reinterpretations of the Stafford Act, Federal officials treating local emergency operations centers like revolving doors, lack of coordination, and FEMA's fluid and unclear chain of command are just a few of the many significant and real problems that Floridians dealt with last year and are still dealing with today. I have literally begged the committees of jurisdiction in this body to hold hearings on these shortcomings. I even introduced bipartisan legislation in March with our colleague, Clay Shaw, to address a slew of institutional problems within FEMA that we experienced first-hand last year. Yet every time we take our concerns to the committees, we're told, ``It's not a big enough problem to consider on its own.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, is the problem big enough now? How many people must die in a disaster before something becomes a ``big enough problem'' in this Congress? Accountability is the only way to restore integrity in a broken system. An independent commission is the first step in repairing our disaster response system, which we all now know is woefully inadequate. I ask for my colleague support for this legislation, and I urge the House Leadership to bring it swiftly before the House for its consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation establishing a National Independent Inquiry Commission on Disaster Preparedness and Response (NIICDPR) to examine and evaluate the Federal Government's response to Hurricane Katrina and assess our ability to respond to future large-scale disasters. While the long-term impact of Hurricane Katrina will be felt for years, our evaluation of the Federal Government's response to, and preparation for, this and other major disasters--natural and man-made-- must begin immediately. Mirrored after the 9-11 Commission, the NIICDPR will consist of 10 members with no more than 5 being from either the Republican or Democratic parties, thus ensuring an independent and diverse make-up of commission members. The NIICDPR will be afforded the same powers which the 9-11 Commission enjoyed and will be tasked at finding the answers to the critical questions that we all have. These include but are not limited to: Were we adequately prepared to respond to a disaster of this magnitude? Are we any more prepared today than we were before Katrina? What plans were in place before Katrina made landfall to meet power, utility, and telecommunications needs following the storm? What plans are in place for future disasters? What was the availability of adequate resources to meet the needs of displaced individuals and families, including temporary housing, medical services and facilities, transportation, and food and water supplies? Did our federal disaster response plans consider the needs of all communities? What plans existed to ensure that underserved communities reached safety before and after Katrina? How effective was the Federal Government in its rescue and other life-saving techniques? Was the federal response to Hurricane Katrina efficiently coordinated with State and local governments? Was it adequate and appropriate in size and scope? What improvements do the Executive and Legislative Branches need to make to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of our disaster response programs? Mr. Speaker, my Congressional District received the brunt of three major hurricanes last year. As I said earlier today, certainly our first priority has to be to rescue those who are still alive and provide them with housing, medical attention, food, and water. However, as the Gulf Coast turns to the recovery and rebuilding processes, the billions that Congress will spend will not be enough to fix the problems that exist within FEMA. Based on my own personal experience dealing with FEMA and its director over the last year, I warn the Members of this body that the problems you see today are just the tip of the iceberg--and it has nothing to do with the magnitude of the disaster. Inconsistency in FEMA regulations, constant reinterpretations of the Stafford Act, federal officials treating local emergency operations centers like revolving doors, lack of coordination, and FEMA's fluid and unclear chain of command are just a few of the many significant and real problems that Floridians dealt with last year and are still dealing with today. I have literally begged the committees of jurisdiction in this body to hold hearings on these shortcomings. I even introduced bipartisan legislation in March with our colleague, Clay Shaw, to address a slew of institutional problems within FEMA that we experienced first-hand last year. Yet every time we take our concerns to the committees, we're told, ``It's not a big enough problem to consider on its own.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, is the problem big enough now? How many people must die in a disaster before something becomes a ``big enough problem'' in this Congress? Accountability is the only way to restore integrity in a broken system. An independent commission is the first step in repairing our disaster response system, which we all now know is woefully inadequate. I ask for my colleagues support for this legislation, and I urge the House Leadership to bring it swiftly before the House for its consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking Democrat of the Rules Committee for the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the four bills which the House will consider today under suspension of the rules should this rule pass. However, I also rise with great trepidation about the way in which the majority continues to run this body without regard for general order and procedure. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz- Balart) said that he is proud to be bringing this rule under the suspension provisions. I would ask the gentleman whether or not in his conference all of the T's were crossed and the I's were dotted to bring a matter out, since in your conference and in our caucus we have a provision that as a general measure we will not bring a matter under suspension for more than $100 million. Under suspension of the rules, Members are afforded limited time for debate with zero opportunity to amend the legislation. When this rule passes, that is exactly what we will get. That is just wrong, regardless of the urgency of the legislation. Mr. Speaker, this administration that is in charge of this Nation's negligence in responding to Hurricane Katrina strongly resembles the incompetence that Florida saw in the Federal emergency management organization last year. The Bush administration's refusal to accept responsibility for its inaction mirrors the arrogance that we continue to deal with today in Florida as we recover from last year's disastrous hurricane season. Certainly our first priority has to be the rescue of those who are still alive and to provide them with housing, medical attention, food and water. However, as the Gulf Coast turns to the recovery and rebuilding process, the billions that Congress will spend will not be enough to fix the problems that exist within FEMA. Based on my own personal experience dealing with Under Secretary Brown directly over the last year, I warn the Members of this body that the problems you see today are just the tip of the iceberg, as the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) just said. And it has nothing to do with the magnitude of this awesome disaster. My colleague says that he is proud. I wonder if my colleague from Florida is proud of the fact that $1.5 billion from last year's hurricanes are still outstanding. I wonder if my colleague is proud of the fact that his county, Dade, and my county, Broward, were denied Federal assistance from FEMA this year with this same Hurricane Katrina. I wonder if my colleague is proud of that fact that there are blue roofs in Florida where people's roofs are still not covered, and it does not even rise to the magnitude of what is going on in the Gulf Coast; but last year's FEMA problems are not corrected. Inconsistency in FEMA regulations, constant reinterpretations of the Stafford Act, Federal officials treating local emergency operation centers like revolving doors, lack of coordination and FEMA's fluid and unclear chain of command are just a few of the many significant and real problems that Floridians dealt with last year and are still dealing with today. I have literally begged the committee of jurisdiction in this body to hold hearings on these shortcomings. I even introduced bipartisan legislation in March with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) to address a slew of institutional problems within FEMA that we experienced firsthand last year. Yet, every time we take our concerns to the committees, we are told it is not big enough as a problem to consider on its own. Well, Mr. Speaker, is the problem big enough now? How many people must die in a disaster before something becomes a big enough problem in this Congress? The new mantra that I hear from my colleagues in the majority is that there will be time to investigate. It is almost as if we cannot chew gum and walk at the same time. We must do what we are doing for the Gulf Coast, but we also must do what we have to as a responsibility in Congress in the nature of oversight. Later today I will introduce legislation establishing an independent commission to examine the failures of the Federal Government in responding to Katrina, as well as evaluate our current ability to respond to any type of large-scale disaster, natural or man-made. The President and congressional Republicans argue that we should not play the blame game because they may be in part to blame. Congress placing FEMA in the Department of Homeland Security and allowing the agency to operate completely unchecked helped create the disaster that we are in today. We created the problem, and now we need to fix it. I question, however, whether there are enough in this body who have the courage to do what is right and not only criticize the administration, not only criticize local and State officials, criticize this Congress as well for our incompetence and inaction. But actually doing something is what is required. Accountability is the only way to restore integrity in a broken system, and an independent commission is the first step in repairing our disaster response system which we all now know is woefully inadequate.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in solidarity with the Members of this body--Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative, southerner and westerner, black, white and brown--in support of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill for Hurricane Katrina. Just as all of you were there for my constituents last year after an unprecedented four hurricanes devastated my home state of Florida, I stand here today with you to offer my full support for all of those affected by Hurricane Katrina. On the eve of August 25, 2005, Katrina first made landfall in South Florida. Broward and Miami-Dade Counties were the first to witness the strength of this devastating storm. As a result of her strength and ferocity, more than 150 families saw their homes, some even in my district, receive major damage or were completely destroyed. Tens of thousands of homes and businesses were out of power for days and many in South Florida remain homeless today because of Katrina. Despite this obvious disaster, I find myself today infuriated that FEMA has denied individual assistance to the residents of Broward and Miami-Dade Counties. The agency claims that the magnitude of the disaster in South Florida does not merit Federal assistance. I disagree. It does not matter if 1 or 100 homes are destroyed because of a natural disaster. Federal emergency disaster assistance exists to help those in need when they have no one but the Federal Government to turn to. It is beyond irresponsible for FEMA to neglect the needs of my constituents simply because the extent of the damage does not reach some artificial and fluid threshold. My thoughts and prayers remain with the residents of Florida who have been affected by the storm, as well as the people of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. As this great body convenes today, I am deeply troubled by the pictures that I see on television and in the press. Our fellow citizens are in a battle not only with the elements of Mother Nature but also homelessness, disease, starvation, and dehydration. I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, that this body is heeding the call of the Democratic Leader and meeting today to pass this emergency supplemental. But I am shocked that in the richest country in the world with our vast resources, our own fellow citizens are literally dying in the streets of New Orleans because we cannot get them food to eat and water to drink. I've even heard that organizations such as the American Red Cross are being prohibited from delivering essential humanitarian assistance to New Orleans residents because they are being prohibited access to downtown. I am outraged. Making matters worse, our news programs now refer to the residents of New Orleans as refugees, as if they are not American citizens. Our words are extremely powerful, and the use of the term ``refugee'' suggests that Katrina's victims are second class individuals who rather than expecting the assistance from their fellow citizens instead should be grateful for anything they receive. Nothing could be further from the truth. Americans must answer the calls of civic and moral responsibility that comes during a tragedy such as Katrina. Do all that you can-- donate money and supplies, open your homes, say a prayer--so that the lives of those who have lost so much can return to some form of normalcy. We have a responsibility to do all that we can to help those most in need, and our government must do everything in its power. If the roads are flooded and we are unable to drive people out of downtown New Orleans, then airlift them out. Figure out a way to get water and food to those who need it. Do it quickly, and do it now. The lives of our fellow citizens are at stake.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation that will significantly alter the ways in which we conduct elections. The Voter Outreach and Turnout Expansion Act of 2005, expands upon the Help America Vote Act, HAVA, of 2002 to incorporate several necessary measures. In the aftermath of the 2000 election, Members of Congress united in an unparalleled bipartisan effort to pass election reform legislation. HAVA was one of the most far-reaching electoral measures since the Voter's Rights Act of 1965. This one accomplishment does not, however, signify the dissolution of political disenfranchisement within our current system. In the 2004 Presidential election, we saw numerous problems resurface. Again, voters waited for hours to cast their ballots. Across the country, newly registered voters were denied access to polls and thousands of names were wrongfully removed from voter rolls. These egregious acts of disenfranchisement affected those most vulnerable, young students, minority communities and the elderly. Such problems will continue to persist until further action is taken to implement election reform. We must not be afraid to be innovative in our solutions. Our greatest political legacies have often been born in times of unrest and implemented under the acquiescence of skeptics. The VOTE Act takes aim at combating voter apathy through same day voter registration, early voting, no excuse absentee voting, improved registration by mail procedures, the establishment of an Election Day holiday, and guaranteed leave on election day to allow employees to vote. Specifically, the legislation does the following: The VOTE Act requires states to establish same-day voter registration procedures. Under the legislation, voters who have not previously registered to vote will be permitted to register on Election Day at the appropriate polling location and vote in that election. To address concerns over voter fraud that in the past so many of my colleagues have suggested occurs, voters are required to present proof of residence and written confirmation pursuant to the Help America Vote Act. Title I of the bill is linked to the enforcement provisions of the Help America Vote Act to ensure states' compliance. Further, the VOTE Act requires local elections supervisors to establish early voting polling locations within the jurisdiction where registered voters will be able to vote prior to election day. Early voting must commence no less than 22 days, or three weeks, prior to election day and shall be made available to voters during normal business hours each weekday. Additionally, elections supervisors must make early voting available to voters on no less than two weekend days during the three weeks. The bill also prohibits states and local supervisors from requiring voters to provide a reason for voting absentee. All too often, voters become discouraged from voting absentee, or just voting at all, because they are required to provide a reason. Voting should not be a test where excuses are not permitted. On the contrary, absentee voting should be an option--and an easy one to take advantage of at that. The VOTE Act also amends the Help America Vote Act to require that election supervisors provide voters with adequate time and opportunity to complete their mail-in voter registration form. In instances where the state registration deadline has already passed, supervisors are required to inform the voter of same-day voter registration opportunities that exist. Further, my legislation requires that federal employees be given the day off on Election Day and encourages states to make Election Day a legal holiday and provide paid leave for state government employees. Finally, the VOTE Act requires private companies with 25 or more employees to allow their staff to take up to 2 hours of paid or unpaid leave time to vote. Employees who live more than 25 miles away from their workplace are allowed to take up to three hours of leave. Enforcement of these provisions is tied into the Family Medical Leave Act. By and large, Americans who do not vote cite employment as the top reason for not voting. The VOTE Act allows them to work and vote without the fear of losing their jobs in the process. Throughout these halls, Mr. Speaker, there have been numerous discussions of elections, yet the focus has been on who is spending what and how. We have become immersed in a discourse that is out of touch with the true needs of those we represent. As Members of Congress, it is our duty to pro actively address any and all institutional restrictions on political participation and civic engagement. Mr. Speaker, how can we condemn the prevailing apathy among our youth if we ourselves personify that same approach? The VOTE Act will both engage new generations of voters and empower Americans in every city and State, nationwide. Our electoral concerns will not be abated unless such far-reaching legislative action is pursued. I urge my colleagues to not stand idly and watch our systems continue to weaken, lend your support to the Voter Outreach and Turnout Expansion Act.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleagues an international dilemma that has been brought to my attention. There is a disturbing situation taking place that is seriously affecting the relations between the African nations of Cameroon and Nigeria. President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria promised several years ago to withdraw his troops from the Bakassi Peninsula in the Republic of Cameroon. President Obasanjo has yet to follow through on this arrangement. Not only has the Nigerian military remained in the Bakassi Peninsula, on June 17 and 18, there was an unfortunate violent incident that led to the death of a Cameroon soldier and the wounding of another. I call upon Nigeria to adhere to the International Court of Justice's decision and obey the rule of law by returning the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon, thereby finally putting an end to this ongoing dispute. I call upon President Obasanjo to withdraw Nigerian troops from the Bakassi Peninsula and return the territory to the Republic of Cameroon. The West African region is extremely volatile and has already experienced numerous conflicts and wars. I sincerely hope that both nations can reach an agreement in accordance with the decision set forth by the International Court of Justice and work together in establishing greater cooperation and stability. A genuine effort from both sides is needed to resolve this issue in a peaceful and timely manner and I anticipate the realization of this goal.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution supporting the goal of the United States establishing a responsible energy policy toward the Gulf of Guinea region in Western Africa that encourages local content development and greater governmental transparency. The United States buys approximately 15 percent of its oil from the Gulf of Guinea region in Western Africa. Research indicates that in 10 years the United States will import 25 percent of its oil from the Gulf of Guinea region. The Gulf of Guinea region comprises the countries of Nigeria, Cameroon, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Angola, Congo-Brazzaville, Sao Tome and Principe, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. With record-breaking prices for oil and gasoline products, reliance on a narrow range of the world to supply most of our oil has proven to be short-sighted as well as costly. We must now consider a broader range of fueling sources. By working as an active partner with the Gulf of Guinea region in Western Africa, the U.S. can positively guide changes that help develop West Africa's oil economy while securing economic growth, finding additional oil resources, and honoring human needs. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. As Members of Congress, it is our moral responsibility to ensure that we establish a responsible energy policy toward the Gulf of Guinea region that is mutually beneficial and responsible. I look forward to working with my colleagues and moving this promising resolution forward.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my good friend that I serve with on the Committee on Rules.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. As my colleague from the majority mentioned, the rule is typical to that for all conference reports, and I will not oppose it. Mr. Speaker, I rise today not in opposition to the Interior and Environmental Appropriations conference report, but, rather, in disappointment that we have not done enough. Indeed, we live in trying times with enormous fiscal constraints, many of which we have brought upon ourselves. As the chairman and ranking Democrat of the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies will probably note today, they did the best that they could with what they were given. Indeed, they did, Mr. Speaker. I commend the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for their hard and, perhaps most important, their bipartisan work on this legislation. I do believe that they did the best with what the majority gave them. The Interior conference report includes $84 million for Everglades restoration in my district and throughout south Florida. It increases funding for the National Endowment of the Arts and Humanities, as well as operations at our national parks and Indian health care. The underlying report also includes a provision that I offered during floor consideration prohibiting funds in the bill from being used to work in contravention of a 1994 executive order requiring that Federal agencies take the necessary steps to achieve health and environmental equity across all community lines. The inclusion of this provision in the conference report sends a clear message to the Environmental Protection Agency that it must change the way it goes about doing business. On behalf of every community in the country which will benefit from this provision, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for their commitment to working with me on this issue of critical importance. The conference report also includes a provision championed by my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), that stops EPA from intentionally exposing pregnant women and children to pesticides and requires the agency to establish standards which will come down on the side of public health. While I am pleased that the aforementioned is included in the conference report, I am greatly concerned about the report's major cuts in clean drinking water and conservation programs. These programs are essential to protecting our environment and the health of our citizens. It is offensive that this Congress has found the money for tax cuts for the best-off of us in our society, but not enough for these critical programs. Finally, this legislation includes $1.5 billion in emergency funding for veterans health care. Frankly, this money should have been appropriated before the July 4 recess. Instead, the majority played politics with the Senate, and our veterans were told no. More than 1 year ago, Democrats came to this floor with the former Republican chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), arguing that the majority was shortchanging veterans health care by more than $1 billion. What did the majority do about our concerns? Absolutely nothing. Democrats got stonewalled, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) lost his job, and America's veterans got shafted. This spring, Mr. Speaker, our Democratic prophesy came true. The Bush administration finally admitted that it had pushed a budget which shortchanged veterans health care by some $1 billion. Democrats countered that $1 billion still was not enough, and the administration waffled. Eventually and embarrassingly, the Bush administration finally admitted that the actual shortfall was closer to $1.5 billion, the amount appropriated in this conference report. How is it that this body can willingly authorize sending our troops into harm's way, yet refuse to provide them with the health care benefits they were promised? I am pleased that the other body has the backbone to fix what is wrong, but I am not pleased by the efforts of the administration and House Republicans to cover up these shortfalls. Shame on all of us for letting this happen. Mr. Speaker, individuals on their own are not going to conduct major environmental restoration, force power companies to reduce toxic emissions from their smokestacks, or clean up our Nation's drinking water. But collectively, collectively, we can all make this happen. Enforcement is not free, and neither is environmental restoration. Is there anybody in this body who is unwilling to pay just a little more to ensure that every American has clean air to breath and safe drinking water? If given the chance, who would not be willing to pool his or her resources with others in their neighborhood to collectively ensure that everyone has safe drinking water, or that no child would be forced to grow up playing in backyards polluted by dangerous levels of mercury and other toxins? I will most likely support the underlying conference report, but I say to my colleagues, we had an opportunity to do more in this conference report. Our willingness to do so, however, was the missing ingredient. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to praise improved relations and partnerships between the United States and the Republic of India. The United States and India have never been as committed to each other as they are today. Our two countries are two democratic nations that hold many of the same goals and ideals in common, such as supporting democratic institutions and eradicating global terrorism. The transformation of U.S.-India relations over the past four years has indeed strengthened economic and diplomatic cooperation between our two countries. In the past year, United States and Indian officials have met countless times to address our economic and political agendas. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns, Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and current Secretary of State Condoleezaa Rice have all recently visited India to engage in constructive dialogue on improving U.S.-India relations. Additionally, Indian Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee and External Affairs Minister Shri Natwar Singh have met with President Bush in Washington, D.C. The visit by the Honorable Prime Minister of India Manmohan Singh to the United States, including last week's bicameral address in the confines of this great Chamber also marks a commitment to the growth of our bilateral relationship. The current acts of friendship on the part of the United States and India have demonstrated the improvement in relations and should be commended. The signing of the Next Steps in the Strategic Partnership (NSSP) initiative was an important contributor to the improved relationship between the United States and India. It addresses civilian space cooperation, civilian nuclear activities, high-technological trade and missile defense issues. Last month, both defense secretaries of the United States and India signed a ten-year military agreement. Additionally, U.S. commercial military sales to India have risen from $5.6 million in 2003 to $17.7 million in 2004, and are projected to surge to $64 million in 2005. This increase in sales demonstrates the trust and promise of our partnership. Mr. Speaker, the United States and India have made significant strides in improving our relationship. Because of that, U.S.-India relations have never been stronger. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and join me in commending the continuing improvements in relations between the United States and the Republic of India. May our partnership with India be everlasting.