Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I went to school and almost became a physician. I do not know what there is about some of the damages that the gentleman from Georgia calls so-called damages. I do not know how brain damage, losing my legs, double mastectomies, those kinds of things, are so-called punitive damages. If doctors commit those kinds of errors, they ought to be held accountable, and juries are the best place for that to occur. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/ 2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), a new Member, the son of a former Member of the United States Congress, our former colleague Bill Lipinski.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, what is a provision protecting the drug companies doing in a bill that is supposed to be about doctors' malpractice premiums? How does this provision ever get into this bill in the first place? My guess is that many of my colleagues who support this bill have been asking the same question and would vote to strike it from the bill if they were given the opportunity. But because of this closed rule, the House will not have the opportunity to strike this embarrassing sop to the pharmaceutical industry from this legislation. Defeating the previous question will give Members a chance to vote on what has now been dubbed the ``Merck loophole.'' This section is not just bad policy, Mr. Speaker, it is almost criminal. Every day we read about more evidence that the pharmaceutical company Merck concealed information about the risks of its FDA-approved drug Vioxx. I do not think any of my colleagues want to find themselves in the position of defending people who hid information about this drug that could have saved someone's life. Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can debate this important amendment. I want to make it very clear that a ``no'' vote will not stop us from considering this legislation. We will still be able to consider the medical malpractice legislation on the floor today. However, a ``yes'' vote will prevent us from considering the Emanuel amendment to strike this ill-conceived language. Again, vote ``no'' on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. One of the previous speakers, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), said that some victims have won, quote, the malpractice lottery. Tell that to, for example, Ms. Linda McDougal, who had a double mastectomy because a doctor misdiagnosed her condition and recommended this radical procedure. Does the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) really think that Ms. McDougal has won some sort of lottery? I just cannot believe that. Key findings from ``The Growth of Physician Medical Malpractice Payments: Evidence From The National Practitioner Data Bank'' show that the average annual malpractice claim pay-out rose only 4 percent a year from 1991 to 2003, in line with the average overall increase in the cost of health care. Time will not permit me to go into a litany of statistics and supporters, but I do want to point out that the thought seems to be that people do not want to practice medicine. Well, the number of doctors increased throughout the Nation from 1985 to 2001, even in States with no malpractice award caps. The study showed that there were 497,140 professionally active doctors in 1985 and 709,168 in 2001. The report found little evidence that doctors are leaving one State for another State with malpractice award caps. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can amend the rule to make in order the Emanuel-Berry amendment. This amendment would strike from the bill a provision granting immunity to manufacturers of medical products from being sued when it is discovered that those manufacturers withheld potentially damaging information from the FDA and the public. The amendment was offered in the Rules Committee yesterday, but, like all the rest, was defeated on a straight party-line vote. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to print the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), who is a farmer and a pharmacist.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my good friend who serves on the Committee on Rules.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), my friend, for yielding me the time. I should say Doctor Gingrey and that I want him to call me Attorney Hastings so we get it clear as to who we are around here. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule. Like a broken record, my friends on the other side on the aisle are yet again blocking every single Member of this body, Republican and Democrat, from offering an amendment to this ill-conceived legislation. I might add, no hearings were held regarding same. Under this closed rule the majority is committing the greatest form of political malpractice. The Republican medical malpractice bill does nothing to lower the cost of health care for low- and middle-income families. Instead, insurance companies make out like bandits while the 45 million uninsured Americans continue to live without access to quality health care. This is the third time in as many years that Republicans are bringing this incredulous bill to the floor under a closed rule. In the last 3 years, 67 amendments have been offered to the underlying bill in the Committee on Rules. Republicans have blocked all 67 of them from being considered by the House. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking Democrats of the two committees of jurisdiction, offered a fair and balanced substitute to this legislation last night. Their substitute takes steps to weed out frivolous lawsuits, requires insurance companies to pass their savings on to health care providers, and provides targeted assistance to physicians and communities that need it most. The House, however, will never have a chance to debate their proposal. As they have done so often in the past, what Republicans cannot defeat, they simply do not allow. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) were also prohibited under the rule from offering their common-sense amendment. Their amendment would have taken out language from the underlying legislation that protects manufacturers of medical products, including pharmaceutical companies, from being sued even when they knowingly place a faulty product on the market. For example, when Merck did an internal test on the side effects of Vioxx, it reported that only \1/2\ of 1 percent of those tested had incurred some type of cardiovascular event. A further investigation showed that Merck had actually doctored the study when, in fact, 14.6 percent of Vioxx patients were negatively affected by the medication. Under the Republican medical malpractice bill, those who have died or been injured when taking Vioxx will have no legal ground on which to seek compensation for Merck's outright negligence. Many at home may be asking themselves, How could Congress knowingly protect a manufacturer from being sued if it continues producing a product that it knows is faulty and can cause real harm or even death to someone? What about corporate responsibility? What about protecting the lives of innocent Americans? To them I say, if the underlying legislation becomes law, what I just described will become the norm. The majority have made it crystal clear that they do not believe irresponsible companies and manufacturers should be held responsible for their actions no matter the harm they inflict. As my colleague and good friend on the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) said last night, welcome to the Committee on Rules, where democracy goes to die. Mr. Speaker, President Bush and the Republican Party have unfairly singled out trial lawyers as the root cause of skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance rates across the Nation. They suggest that the prevalence of ``pain and suffering'' awards in malpractice suits have forced insurance companies to raise their liability insurance rates and force doctors out of business. This suggestion is both superficial and wrong. H.R. 5 does nothing to help doctors with high malpractice insurance premiums. Study after study have confirmed that while the insurance company is raising premiums for doctors at a record pace, the amount they pay out for lawsuits has remained stable. The insurance industry is price-gouging physicians and lying to the public all to justify limiting the rights of victims so that the industry can add to its already record-setting bottom line. This bill is a distraction from the real problems that exist in America's failing health care system. Physicians and lawyers are pointing fingers at each other while insurance companies are quietly and quickly running to the bank. Solutions to our Nation's health care woes do exist, Mr. Speaker, but they go beyond blaming one group of Americans and involve more than one easy-to-fix resolution. I urge my colleagues to oppose this closed rule and reject the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). (Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes and 20 seconds to the very distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I thank him also for his articulate leadership on this issue and the others which affect working people throughout this country. Let my say at the outset, I opposed this closed rule and the limited amount of time to debate the underlying legislation. Like the owner of the restaurant in Casablanca who feigned surprise at the illegal gambling in his club, let me just say that I am shocked, shocked that the majority would bring a bill of such importance to the House floor and only permit 2 hours of debate to be split by the 440 Members of the House of Representatives. This is not about trade. Trade is a two-way economic street. And the simple fact of the matter is, no one can demonstrate to me what Guatemala and Nicaragua are going to be buying from Florida and elsewhere in the United States. It is a one-way agreement. Look, NAFTA was bad for your district like it was for the State of Florida. This deal is going to make things worse. If CAFTA is like NAFTA, too many Americans will get the shafta. Ten years of NAFTA have shown just how devastating these agreements can be for working families and the environment. Florida has lost more than 35,000 jobs because of NAFTA. Industries that once were thriving and successful in the State of Florida and elsewhere in this Nation employing tens of thousands of hard-working Americans have been shipped south of the border where labor is cheap and environmental protections are but a figment of our imagination Mr. Speaker, I voted for NAFTA and the administration was unable to uphold the things that they said they were going to do with reference to the environment and labor standards. And I doubt very seriously if this administration can do any better than the previous one. My distinguished friend, and he is my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), began his remarks this evening by saying national security and border security. I invite the chairman to tell me how it is our border security is better on Mexico because of NAFTA, or that our national security is better. In western Palm Beach County, a region which I am proud to represent, and is our country's second most sugar cane-intensive area, unemployment is already above 15 percent. Under CAFTA, the future of this industry, which provides more than 20,000 jobs to this area alone, will undoubtedly be in jeopardy. Considering who wins and who loses with CAFTA, it is clear that only the most selfish of fat cats would favor this terrible agreement. I challenge any of my colleagues to raise a family on a minimum wage in America, and indeed to find a job in America when CAFTA has sucked yet more of our factories and other businesses out of our country. But a bigger challenge would be to survive as a campesino in any Central American nation, where wages are even lower, where environmental controls are weak or non-existent, where there is little or no access to health care, and where openly complaining about working conditions could mean death or disappearance. This is what the majority claims they want to approve today. We should be ashamed of ourselves. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on the vote on H.R. 3283, I was in the Intelligence Committee when the vote was cast. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 289, a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of National Health Center Week. From August 7-13, numerous organizations will collectively promote quality and preventative medical care through local health centers. It has become increasingly apparent that our healthcare system is not only lacking, but also failing those it is meant to serve. There are currently an estimated 45 million uninsured individuals living in America. This group not only includes 8.4 million children, but also homeless and migrant populations across the country. Of those that do have health coverage, studies have estimated that as many as 65 million individuals remain underinsured. Countless others lack easy and affordable access to quality care providers. Health centers are an indispensable component of the continuing effort to secure medical care for underserved individuals. These community-based, non-profit organizations bring health services to impoverished areas, which are disproportionately affected by these ever-present health care disparities. Through partnerships with churches, businesses and other community initiatives, health centers are able to touch those that are typically unreachable or marginalized by existing healthcare conglomerates. Health centers have become American institutions and fundamental elements our daily lives. These organizations, operating with minimal resources and small, committed staffs are able to serve hundreds within their communities. In the state of Florida alone, approximately 500,000 residents are annually served through local health centers. Mr. Speaker, this weeklong celebration of health centers brings recognition to the unsung heroes of the healthcare industry. By raising awareness we are not only showing our appreciation to those that contribute to these efforts, but we are also bringing attention to the healthcare alternatives that are available to our communities. I urge my colleagues to lend their support to this resolution.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 358, commemorating the 50th anniversary of the desegregation of Little Rock Central High School, in Little Rock, AK. At a time when racial intolerance and ignorance were openly embraced as a way of life, nine courageous African-American youth took a stand, and in doing so, ushered in the civil rights era. On September 23, 1957, this brave group of students entered the halls of Little Rock Central High School with one goal in mind: to obtain an education. This objective, universal to all parents and children worldwide, was far from easily accomplished. Central High School, a product of the Jim Crowe sentiment, had never seen an African-American student in any of its classrooms. These nine individuals would be the first. The students stood face-to-face with mobs of irate citizens, all staunchly opposed to integration, and armed National Guardsmen who were ordered by the governor to prevent their entrance. The student body too was unwelcoming, spiteful of the racial invasion into their school. Despite such unconcealed prejudice and cruelty, these nine students persevered and served as an inspiration to us all. One member of this group would later become the first African-American graduate of Little Rock Central High School. The story of the students who would later be referred to as the ``Little Rock Nine,'' gave Americans hope that we could overcome the racial oppression, struggle and strife that had become endemic in our culture. All around the Nation, organizations such as the Southern Christian Leadership Conference led by Dr. Martin Luther King, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee led by student activists, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, worked together to create large-scale changes through seemingly small proactive actions. It would be a disservice for this body to not take a moment to individually recognize each member of this remarkable group. Ernest Green, Elizabeth Eckford, Jefferson Thomas, Dr. Terrence Roberts, Carlotta Walls Lanier, Minnijean Brown Trickey, Gloria Ray Karlmark, Thelma Mothershed-Wair and Melba Pattillo Beals have each equally contributed to the movement that has helped us all be where we are today. Mr. Speaker, the story of the Little Rock Nine remains one of the most powerful illustrations of triumph over adversity within our modem history. It is our duty as leaders to ensure that the past is not only remembered but also distinguished and honored as it so rightly deserves. On the 50th anniversary of this milestone in the battle to gain equality both under law and in life, we are given the opportunity to bring national recognition to these modem day heroes. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 59, a resolution commemorating the women suffragists who fought, and won the right for women to vote in the United States. This legislation applauds women's rights activists whose commitment to changing an unjust system led to the eventual passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920. As we all know, the 19th Amendment granted women in the United States the right to vote. The women's suffrage movement began in the mid nineteenth century when Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton held the first women's rights convention in Seneca Falls, New York, on July 19, 1848. Established in 1869, the National American Woman Suffrage Association fought tirelessly against discrimination and oppression, often times receiving severe punishment in response to their protests. After only several decades, due to the progress of women's rights activists, women in the U.S. experienced advancement in property rights, employment and educational opportunities, divorce and child custody laws, and increased social freedoms. As new generations of women continued to bolster the strength of the movement, they initiated a social revolution that would touch every aspect of life. The time has come for Congress to recognize these brave individuals who struggled for equality in the face of adversity, and ultimately amended our constitution to allow for equality among both genders. The suffragists' accomplishments are a credit to American democracy. Their unfettered commitment to equality for women should serve as an example to nations in which this struggle is still being fought today. Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by again expressing my support for this legislation and encourage my colleagues' support. It should be a precedence of this Congress to acknowledge the significance of the women's rights movement and honor its leaders with a day of commemoration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), my good friend. A lot has been made of those who crafted this legislation. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) was extremely instrumental in providing that bipartisan flavor to bring us to this moment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we come to the close offering praise to those who brought us this far. I add my congratulations to the distinguished leadership of this committee on both sides of the aisle for fashioning a piece of legislation that I believe will pass the House overwhelmingly and that I certainly intend to support, and I ask all of our colleagues to do likewise. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with disappointment that the House is again considering a rule that blocks all but a select few from offering amendments. Let me make it clear I do not oppose the underlying bill, and I intend to vote for it, but the closed manner by which the majority is bringing the underlying bill to the floor is just plain wrong. Yesterday in the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) offered an amendment that would permit military personnel on Active Duty in the Department of Defense-designated combat zones to receive packages on a postage-free basis. Under this rule, however, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) is not permitted to offer his amendment. I am disappointed and displeased that the majority has once again failed to provide the House with an opportunity to extend the most meager of benefits to those men and women who risk their lives so that all of us can be free. We really should be ashamed of ourselves. As the gentleman from Texas has noted, Mr. Speaker, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act represents the first major restructuring of the United States Postal Service in over 30 years. This bill provides the Postal Service with greater flexibility to set its rates and manage its costs. It also creates a new regulatory system for overseeing the Postal Service's operations and levels the playing field for the Postal Service to finally compete against the megacommercial delivery services of the world. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is long overdue. On July 26, 1775, Benjamin Franklin was named our country's first Postmaster General. It took the Continental Congress just 1 day to name Benjamin Franklin to that prestigious post. As many of my colleagues and students of American history are well aware, the Congress of 1775 had many great issues to deal with at that particular time, such as the Revolutionary War, disputes over taxes, and the issue of private landownership, just to name a few. Yet with all the great events that were taking place at the time, the Continental Congress still managed to name a Postmaster General in just 1 day. Ironically, it took President Bush 5 years to finally support the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. Benjamin Franklin once said: ``You may delay, but time will not.'' Mr. Speaker, I applaud my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for refusing to delay this bill any further and for demonstrating the intuition to present such a sensible and necessary piece of legislation. The success of the legislative process by which the underlying bill comes to the floor today should serve as an example of what Congress can accomplish when bipartisanship and openness overwhelm political partisanship. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 328, a resolution recognizing the 25th anniversary of the workers' strikes in Poland in 1980 that led to the establishment of the Solidarity Trade Union. This legislation praises Polish workers in the shipyards of Gdansk and Szczecin for rising up against the repressive Soviet controlled communist regime in demand of greater political freedom. The actions of these courageous and peaceful individuals were directly responsible for the establishment of the Solidarity Trade Union, a profound social movement that ultimately ended communism in Poland without bloodshed. This resolution rightly expresses the sense of Congress that our government should recognize and honor the struggle and sacrifice of the citizens of Poland, whose tireless efforts succeeded in restoring democracy to their country while simultaneously highlighting the correlation between organized labor and strong democratic institutions. Now, more than ever, it is important that Congress pay tribute to, and support, those nations that willingly and actively allow the unimpeded formation of labor unions. For it is those countries that exhibit the most free and fair democratic policies. No such phenomenon is better exemplified than in the case of the Solidarity Trade Union. The formation of this important group ultimately led to the election of Poland's first post World War II non-communist Prime Minister, Mr. Tadeusz Mazawiecki. Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by again expressing my support for this legislation and encourage my colleagues' support. It should be a priority of this Congress to pay homage to members of the Solidarity Trade Union on the 25th anniversary of its inception and acknowledge the ensuing bond of friendship that has flourished between our two nations on account of workers' rights.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this closed rule and H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005. The manner in which the amendment process of this bill was handled is shameful. Both the Judiciary and the Intelligence Committee had jurisdiction over this legislation, yet somehow, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee has managed to twist this bill into one that only he finds acceptable. As a Senior Member of the Intelligence Committee, I offered an amendment that would have extended the sunset for Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 until 2010. Section 6001, also known as the ``lone wolf' provision, allows the government to define any individual non-US person as a terrorism suspect, even if that person has no clear ties to a foreign government. This new authority has been in place for a mere seven months and has yet to be subjected to meaningful review. Extending the sunset would give Congress a significant period of time in which to assess the impact of this considerable new authority. Members of the Intelligence Committee agreed; and my amendment had the support of almost every single Member of the Committee, both Republican and Democrat. Inexplicably, the amendment was later removed by the Judiciary Committee. I asked Chairman Sensenbrenner point blank in the Rules Committee hearing yesterday why my amendment was removed from the bill. His response--``I don't know.'' He doesn't know, then who does? I guess somewhere between the fourth floor of the Capitol and the Judiciary Committee, my amendment must have been lost. I believe the partisanship and incivility of the Judiciary Committee has unfortunately, infected the bipartisan manner in which the Intelligence Committee has always approached its work. Regardless, I am still committed to pursuing my amendment and working with the conference committee in a bipartisan fashion to reinsert my amendment into this legislation. Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that, once again, I find myself protesting the manner in which legislation has been brought to the floor. Over sixty amendments were offered in the Rules Committee yesterday yet only twenty have been made in order. Forty amendments, including my own, will not be debated today. Even Representative Harman, the ranking Member on the Intelligence Committee, offered four amendments that the Rules Committee refused to make in order. In fact, none of the amendments offered by any Intelligence Committee Democrat is made in order under this rule. This is absolutely inexcusable. America's national security is of paramount importance, but our security needs will not be met by limiting debate on the issue. The American people deserve a Congress that has fulfilled its Constitutional role by considering each and every idea put forth by its Members to improve this and all pieces of legislation. Without a doubt the underlying bill could be improved. For example, this bill amends Section 213 of the Patriot Act to require the government to notify the subject of a search warrant within 180 days of the search but does not sunset the provision. Statistics provided to Congress show that only eleven percent of the searches conducted using this power were related to terrorism--eleven percent! Given that this overbroad search and seizure power is abused almost ninety percent of the time, isn't Section 213 the very model of a section in need of a sunset? Again, amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee addressing these issues but they were not made in order. While no one in this body, Democrat or Republican, objects to this country's need to fight terrorism, the sweeping, un-checked powers provided to our government through the provisions of the Patriot Act and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 are beyond worrisome. The inclusion of sunsetting provisions allows us to examine the practical effects, both positive and negative, before permanently allowing such a broad expansion of government power. As a freedom loving society, we must diligently monitor any infringement on our civil liberties to ensure it is justified. But this bill, allowing the virtually unchecked monitoring of the average citizen on the flimsiest of justifications, is too broadly tailored to defend. After careful consideration and examination, I cannot support a bill that takes away so much while offering so little. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this closed rule and no on H.R. 3199.