Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would ask the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), my friend, does the gentleman know of any time that we have amended the Bill of Rights in the United States of America?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), for yielding me time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to ask my colleague from Georgia a question, if he does not mind, and engage in just a brief colloquy. Does the gentleman know or has his staff related to him, when the last time occurred in America that a flag was burned, and how often that occurs, let us say, in the last year or 2?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. And reclaiming my time, does the gentleman distinguish between flag burning and other forms of desecration when he cites the 119? I have no memory of a flag burning in recent times. And I am curious to know whether or not you do. Flag burning is what this Congress constitutional amendment is about.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) before he leaves the floor, that every time that we have amended the Constitution it has been to expand liberties and rights, not to restrict them. If this amendment passes, this would be the first time in the history of this country that we would pass an amendment that would restrict rights and liberties.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Reclaiming my time, I cannot believe my colleague would even try to make such a specious argument, but the fact of the matter is there have only been 15 incidents in a country of 300 million people between the years of 2000 and 2005. There are substantial laws on the books that will prosecute fools who desecrate the flag. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), my very good friend on the House Committee on International Relations. (Mr. ACKERMAN 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. I would just comment, in the Johnson case, it was Justice Scalia that was the fifth vote that made the ruling that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) was speaking of just a moment ago. I would hope that he would know that. The sum fact of the matter is none of us are in favor of anybody burning a flag. But the simple fact of the matter is all of us ought to be about the business of protecting the rights and the liberties of United States citizens. What I have said I repeat, and that is I am not so insecure that when I see a fool burn a flag that it makes me anything more than incensed. It does not cause me to lose any respect for my country at all, but the rights of that individual are the things that we must be here to protect. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I do not want to create a constitutional morass, but I had the time and yielded to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), and I tried to reclaim my time. The Chair then permitted the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) to yield time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), which should come after the time that I have utilized.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. No.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. No, the gentleman does not.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I--

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleague from Georgia, if he is interested in this colloquy continuing, perhaps it is that he would yield some time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), who may in turn yield time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) and myself and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before yielding to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), I would just say to my friend from Florida that this judicial review that he talks about evidently is going to take place forever. It is not about food, Mr. Speaker. The detainees are properly fed. But they cannot see their relatives. Most of them cannot see a lawyer, and most of them have not been told what they are charged with. When I say it is Kafka-esque, Franz Kafka wrote the book ``The Trial'' that said how horrible it was to be in a situation where one does not know their accusers, they do not know what they are charged with, and they are convicted of something in sitting there. We cannot do that in this country. It is not about food. It is about rights. It is about human rights and dignity. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, let me thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule providing for the consideration of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006. First, Mr. Speaker, let me remind my colleagues that Members who wish to do so can go to the Intelligence Committee office to examine the classified schedule of authorizations for the programs and activities of the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the national intelligence program. This includes authorizations for the CIA as well as the foreign intelligence and counterintelligence programs within, among other things, the Department of Defense, the National Security Agency, the Departments of State, Treasury and Energy, and the FBI. Also included in the classified documents are the authorizations for the tactical intelligence and related activities and joint military intelligence program of the Department of Defense. Today more than ever, we must make the creation of a strong and flexible intelligence apparatus one of the highest priorities of this body. The terrorist attacks of September 11, combined with the continuing threat of further attacks, underscore the importance of this legislation, and I am pleased that it has been brought to the floor before the July 4 recess. Now, Mr. Speaker, while I generally support this bill, it is not closed to improvements. As the Democrats noted in our additional views, this bill is the first authorization bill to be considered since the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 became law last December. The reforms undertaken last year, in the aftermath of two intelligence failures, created a Director of National Intelligence and dramatically reshaped the intelligence community. This authorization bill will therefore help define the authorities, priorities, and direction of the Director of National Intelligence and the entire intelligence community. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the committee rejected the President's paltry request for counterterrorism funding and, instead, fully funded the intelligence community's needs. Fully funding counterterrorism represents bipartisanship and good public policy. Of course, this does not seem to be the first time that this administration does not heed the advice of its own intelligence experts, but I digress. Let me speak also briefly about the fact that this bill and the report accompanying it are pretty much silent on one of the most salient issues of the day, our military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The allegations of severe human rights abuses at Guantanamo Bay are at best extremely disturbing and at worst unforgivable sins of our Nation, which has always led the fight for human rights. I do not work there, so I cannot speak to the veracity of every single allegation. But I do know that Guantanamo Bay is a stealth prison, an unrecognizable blip on the radar screen of domestic and international law. Surrounded by a world of laws, treaties, norms and practices, Guantanamo is an unrecognizable entity, a small space where the law simply does not penetrate. The prisoners are in judicial limbo, with limited access to lawyers and no legal recourse to profess their guilt or innocence or to protect themselves from abuse. In fact, many of them have now been jailed for more than 3 years without even having been charged with a crime. It sounds a bit Kafkaesque to me. Requests from objective outside observers to examine the condition of the prisoners have been rebuffed time and again. The Bush administration seems to trust in only itself to determine whether the prisoners are deserving of legal protections. I am disheartened by the intelligence authorization bill's silence on this matter. The Members of this body should be greatly concerned with the utter lack of respect for the law or adherence to international agreements that characterize Guantanamo Bay. Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once said, ``If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law.'' Congress has a responsibility to prevent Guantanamo Bay from becoming the personal prison of convenience for the Bush administration to stash people it does not want to suffer legal rights to. This body would be greatly remiss if we shucked that responsibility in favor of turning a blind eye to what very well might be the biggest terrorism recruitment tool since the attacks on September 11. Mr. Speaker, as I have said, this bill provides authorizations and appropriations for some of the most important national security programs in this country. With the adoption of the manager's amendment, which we will hear about in much greater detail presently, I look forward to supporting the bill's ultimate passage. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my colleague with whom I serve on the Rules Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I answer the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), I am on the side of the American people and I am on the side of the rights that I believe are principles inherent in our United States Constitution and throughout the United States Constitution. I do not have time to yield to the gentleman, otherwise I would. Make no mistake about it, most of us feel as strongly as most of you do, and I do not think that anybody here ought question our patriotism. This Nation is the greatest Nation on this Earth, and we do not have to have anything to fear. We do not have to have any worry about trying people who harm this Nation. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will modify this rule so we can consider the amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) that was rejected in the Committee on Rules last night. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of this amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just one thing for my friend from Florida: Charge it and prove it. That is all. This is a great Nation. We can charge those folks with a crime, and we can prove that they did what the gentleman said. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at this point to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and privileged to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the distinguished ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the Waxman amendment has been explained. It would establish an independent commission, similar to the 9/11 Commission, to conduct an extensive, bipartisan, and thorough investigation into the multiple accounts of prisoner abuse that have occurred in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo. Mr. Speaker, it has been well over a year since the shocking and humiliating photographs of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib first became public. I doubt there is any Member of this Chamber who was not appalled at that disgraceful act. Yet, in spite of these events, the House has done very little of substance. Mr. Speaker, if you allow me to conclude by saying, a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote on the Waxman amendment, so we can take immediate steps to fully investigate these very disturbing incidents of prisoner mistreatment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend and classmate, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).