Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume before I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, which I will do gladly. I would say to the chairman that I respect very much, and I am speaking to the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier), I respect very much what my good friend from California has said with reference to the rule, the amendments that are allowed. But I was in that same process as the chairman was in the Committee on Rules. Three-quarters of the amendments that were submitted on time pursuant to the chairman's correct direction to the body are not a part of the debate here. The Sensenbrenner amendment, which is rather lengthy, came late to the committee. It is not being voted on up or down for the reason that it was made a self-executing part of the rule. Now, the gentleman can call that fair and balanced, but let me just say to the chairman that there is a new section 105, and many of the Members are hearing this for the first time. It eliminates Federal court review in many conventions against torture cases, and it eliminates the power of the Federal appeals court judges to stay the removal of asylum seekers. I do not think any irony is lost on the chairman about the Ninth Circuit's ruling.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the customary time. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side, for the balance of these arguments today and during yesterday, said very frequently, and it was repeated again by the gentleman from Texas, that the horrible people that were on the airplanes that did the dastardly deed here in America on September 11 had, collectively, 63 driver's licenses. That is, without any kind of misunderstanding between the two sides, they had these driver's licenses, and there is no question about it. But one of the things that goes ignored is the fact that in the days before 9/11, including that day, airport review of driver's licenses did not occur, and, therefore, it is a total irrelevancy. They were in this country, some on expired visas, some with visas that had been approved, and probably one or two with fraudulent visas. What in the world did driver's licenses have to do with it? Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this rule and H.R. 418. And once again we see debate limited on this legislation for no reason. The bill is the only item on our legislative schedule today, yet debate on this bill has been limited to less than 2 hours. In fact, the number of proposed amendments has been sharply limited as well. Only a fourth of the amendments submitted to the Committee on Rules will be allowed on the floor today, and what possible reason can the majority give for limiting debate in this matter? Surely, given the drastic nature of the changes to our asylum laws contained in H.R. 418, it is in the best interests of the country to hold an open debate on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday, the chairman of the Committee on Rules sent out an announcement notifying Members, as is his responsibility, that all their proposed amendments to this bill were due in the Committee on Rules by noon on Tuesday, February 8. All Members who submitted their amendments, Republicans and Democrats, followed this rule; all Members, that is, except the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner). Later Tuesday afternoon, after the deadline had passed, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) submitted an extensive 18-page amendment that made significant changes to the bill's already controversial asylum sections. Members had never seen this language before, and of course, no subcommittee or committee had a chance to review it or mark it up. In the short time we have had to review this new language, it appears to be more controversial than the bill's original provisions. It appears to make it easier for an immigration judge to reject on asylum seeker based on subjective and cultural factors that are notoriously unreliable indicators of credibility. It also allows a person to be denied asylum based on any inconsistencies or falsehoods in their testimony, whether or not these inconsistencies are relevant to the person's claim. I continue to harp on the fact that it does not protect children who are here and in need of asylum consideration. It does not protect women who are in forced slavery and prostitution and are raped. It does not protect them at all with reference to any asylum claims. And it places in the hands of one judge the judging of their credibility. The other thing ignored is the difficulty that the criteria set forth in H.R. 418 present to asylum seekers, legitimate asylum seekers, to collect information regarding their birth records. In the district that I represent, more than a quarter of the work done in the district offices involves immigration, and one of the things that we find it difficult to accomplish is to have the people in a timely manner who are seeking status and naturalization in this country collect their birth records and records of a variety of things in their communities that simply are not there and are unavailable, and therefore their claims are delayed repeatedly. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad amendment, and Members should have more time to study it. What is worse is that Members today will not even have the opportunity to vote up or down on it. This rule makes it a part of H.R. 418. It is called ``self-executing.'' It sounds like a cute way of circumventing the democratic process to me. Stifling free speech is downright un-American. One cannot fail to see the irony here. Right this minute our troops are in harm's way to further democracy in a far-off country, while democracy here in the halls of Congress is being shoved out the door. When the opportunity for a free debate is squelched, America loses, democracy loses. There is nothing to be gained by limiting ideas; and that is what we have here today, the limiting of the ideas of the majority. They should not and it is wrong for them to shut the American people out. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 418 also allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive all laws necessary for the construction of the San Diego border wall. None of us are of a mind to believe that the completion of the 3-mile gap in that wall should not be undertaken. But giving the Secretary the power to override all Federal laws that interfere with this project sets a horrible precedent. These laws exist for a reason, be it to ensure the safety of the environment or to safeguard important cultural artifacts. Mr. Speaker, how many more laws will we override in the name of homeland security? None of us would argue that we should not do everything to protect the homeland, but rightly we should not argue to ignore the laws that also protect us in this homeland. The data collection envisioned by H.R. 418 troubles me a lot. In this age of diminished personal privacy, this bill throws around terms such as ``mandatory facial image capture,'' and ``electronic storage of identity source documents,'' without fully explaining, and it is not explained; and I ask anybody to explain it on the majority side, certainly for the American public, explaining fully how all this captured data will be used and by whom. I represent a district that, like America, is comprised of immigrants. Many of the people of the 23rd Congressional District of Florida came to America as asylum seekers themselves. They came from places where notorious persecution and violation of human rights occurred, like Haiti and Cuba; and they have worked hard, as many immigrants in this country who sought asylum, to create a new life for themselves and their families. Whether they came 5 years ago or 50 years ago, they know others like them will continue to come to our shores fleeing persecution and desperation, seeking hope, protection and the promise of a better future. We have a moral responsibility to help them make it. It has not been lessened any more after 9/11 than it was before. The immigrants who founded this country had that moral responsibility, and throughout our history we have waxed and waned with reference to that moral responsibility. Last night, I watched the so-called ``fair and balanced'' Fox programming, and on that programming it happened that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) was one of the guests. He made a sterling presentation. He did not falter in any of his principles with reference to this matter, and he went forward in a dignified manner to answer the questions asked. He did say, I believe, and he has not said that this measure is something that he does not think will help secure the homeland, as my colleague from Texas has just said. But let me quote the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) from last night. He said, ``The key to protecting our homeland is enforcing the immigration laws.'' Let me repeat the quote: ``The key to protecting our homeland is enforcing the immigration laws.'' Now, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) knows that President Bush has proposed a budget that, rather than fulfilling what we said would protect our homeland by having 2,000 border patrol persons and an added number, 800, INS, or BICE, their new name, to their rolls so that we could enforce the immigration laws, what do we get in the proposed budget? Two hundred border patrol guards and 143 personnel for the Immigration and Naturalization Service. What I am saying is let us put our emphasis where it ought to be, and let us not divert ourselves in this manner, and certainly let us not continue to shut all of those organizations, from the Governors Association all the way back across the board that are opposed to this law, let us not shut them out from having an opportunity to present themselves at a hearing. Let us not shut out the people here in the House of Representatives, some 41 who are newly here who have no idea what we did with reference to this matter last year and have not had time in order to be able to review it, sufficient to be able to make arguments on behalf of their constituencies in a satisfactory manner. Let us not shut out the American public by continuing to not allow for open debate. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule and H.R. 418. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and this ill-conceived legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I remind my colleagues that there was no hearing with reference to this matter. There are 43 new Members in the House of Representatives who have absolutely no opportunity to have voiced themselves regarding this matter. There is a new Committee on Homeland Security that is now permanent, rightly so. There was no hearing there. The gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Sensenbrenner) manager's amendment came to the Committee on Rules 2 hours before we had an opportunity to see it, and I would urge in the House how many have read it even at this point. More importantly, Mr. Speaker, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, BICE, in the authorized budget that we presented to the President, it required 800 new officials for that agency. Only 143 are in the President's budget. I also include for the Record the National Conference of State Legislatures' letter in opposition and the National Governors Association and American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators' opposition to this measure. Additionally, there are others who are too numerous to mention without great prolixity, but I will cite in the Record some of the organizations that oppose this measure: the AFL-CIO; the American Jewish Committee; the Anti-Defamation League; the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund; Catholic Charities USA and Catholic Bishops; Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society; the Irish American Unity Conference; the Korean American Coalition; the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and a footnote, all of the colleagues in the House that are Latino and African American have signed on to a letter opposing this measure; the National Conference of State Legislatures that I just mentioned; the National Council of La Raza; the Service Employees International Union; the Arab-American Anti- Discrimination Committee. And, Mr. Speaker, the Republican Liberty Caucus opposes this measure. And in addition, thereto, in case someone thinks that there are a whole bunch of left wing crazies that are out here trying to protect the personal rights of individuals, the Gunowners of America Association opposes this measure and the American Conservative Union. I would think, then, that those 100-plus organizations should give us a lot of food for thought before we proceed. Identity Security, Driver's Licenses and State Identification Cards official policy statement States traditionally have maintained authority over the issuance of driver's licenses and state identification cards. The principal purpose of the driver's license is to certify individuals to operate a motorized vehicle and to secure automobile insurance. Driver's licenses also are used for numerous other purposes, including proof and verification of identity and as documents to qualify for a variety of commercial, financial, educational, governmental and other services. The driver's licensing process and related regulatory activities are crucial for maintaining public safety, bolstering security, and reducing fraud and counterfeiting. States have renewed their scrutiny of driver's licenses and have enacted and considered legislation to strengthen application processes, require expanded proof of identity, modify qualifications for license and identification card approval, deter fraudulent activity, and bolster privacy protections. Although states retain authority over the driver's license application and issuance processes, Congress recently passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 to overhaul the nation's intelligence systems. This legislation included federal standards for state issued driver's licenses and personal identification cards that the states must enact or face the refusal of federal agencies to accept these documents for any official purpose. Although NCSL opposed this federal mandate, NCSL worked with Congress to ensure that state elected officials are included on a negotiated rulemaking committee, which will devise the federal standards, to apply the standards only to newly issued documents, and to require the Secretary of the Department of Transportation to identify the cost of the federal standards on states prior to their implementation. NCSL is committed to preserving the congressional intent of the Act by ensuring that state legislatures are represented on the negotiated rulemaking committee. NCSL strongly believes that the negotiated standards should provide states with maximum flexibility within the framework of the federal Act to implement the standards. NCSL encourages the Secretary of Transportation to exercise his authority under the Act to grant states extensions of the effective date if they make reasonable efforts to comply, and NCSL is committed to working with Congress and the Secretary to delay the implementation of the Act if Congress fails to appropriate funds to implement the standards. NCSL further encourages the Secretary to exercise his authority under the Act to include individuals from organizations that represent civil liberties and privacy interests on the negotiated rulemaking committee. Although there is a need to strengthen the driver's license application process and to address inadequacies, states remain best positioned to accomplish these goals. States have direct experience with driver's license formatting, identity verification procedures and systems, customer service, qualifying and insuring drivers, testing potential and licensed drivers, and driver training. State laws and regulations guide these activities. States also are mindful of needs to protect consumers, taxpayers, business concerns and privacy, all of which must be taken into account while enhancing security and public safety. Any federal standards should be narrowly limited to those areas enumerated in the federal Act and should in no way limit the ability of states to innovate to strengthen the integrity of document verification and issuance. NCSL supports the innovative efforts at the state level to address security concerns with driver's license issuance. Currently, individual states are considering legislative and regulatory actions, interstate compacts, model legislation, intergovernmental agreements, data sharing, standards development through recognized standards-developing entities, and enhanced legislative and executive branch coordination. NCSL will provide organizational support to states as they opt to pursue any or all of these or other avenues to reform. NCSL will oppose any federal legislative or regulatory effort to require states to adopt specific model legislation or participate in an interstate compact. NCSL believes that the federal government does have a significant role in assisting states with matters regarding non-citizens and their qualification for and use of state- issued driver's licenses and identification cards. States need direct links to verifiable, timely and accurate date regarding status, duration of stay, application for change in status and related information. The expanding number of visas, backlogs on applications for status changes and inability to either access or navigate Department of Homeland Security data systems are among the problems requiring resolution so that states can administer non-citizen applications for driver's licenses and identification cards. Without these changes, states cannot be expected to, nor be held accountable for, providing enhanced security in their driver's license application and issuance processes.* This discussion has rekindled debate and concern about the development of a national identification card or national driver's license. NCSL continues to believe that there is no compelling reason to establish such national cards or licenses and will work with Congress and federal officials to ensure that such an establishment is not achieved--either intentionally or unintentionally--through legislation, regulation or rulemaking process. NCSL believes that states must establish am ore cooperative working relationship on this issue with the federal government. Therefore, NCSL supports a federal role in providing technical support, highlighting successful models, facilitating discussion and providing necessary funding for changes made at the discretion of the states. NCSL is opposed to any further federal attempts including coercion or direct preemption, to usurp state authority over the driver's license process or diminish the validity or usefulness of licenses awarded at the state level. NCSL urges the federal government to respect the provisions and intent of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this rule and H.R. 418. The anti- immigrant provisions contained in this bill are unconscionable. We are a nation of immigrants, a nation that people, from time immemorial, have journeyed to for freedom. As Ronald Reagan said, ``America is a shining light on the hill.'' Well, apparently, Mr. Speaker, today that light is red. We find ourselves in the second week of the second month of this legislative session, and we have yet to have a bill come to the floor with an open rule. And I remind the majority that that is shutting America out with reference to this debate. We are here today without a final rule because of a lack of agreement on which amendments to allow. Well, I have a simple solution, one that should be obvious to all of us. I say, allow all amendments to be brought to the floor for a full and free debate by the House of Representatives as envisioned by this Nation's Founding Fathers who were immigrants. Let Congress work its will on this legislation. To stifle debate on a bill as ill conceived as H.R. 418 is undemocratic to the core. Mr. Speaker, there is no reason for hesitation. This is the only bill of substance on the House's agenda this week. We have the opportunity to conduct an open debate on each radical section of this bill. As a country that prides itself on spreading democracy throughout the world, we must practice what we preach. Allow the people to have their say by bringing H.R. 418 to the floor with an open rule. Do not shut America out. The changes to asylum law contained in H.R. 418 will not improve our homeland security. Terrorists do not have the right to seek asylum in our country and are already prohibited from doing so, but those who would legitimately seek refuge at our shores ought not to be turned away from our golden door through this bill's misguided attempt at curbing immigration. Nor will erosion of our personal privacy improve our security. The collection of unnecessary personal information by State agencies in an attempt to discern each and every person's immigration standard goes against the very freedom this Nation was founded on by immigrants and must be rejected. Our Nation's security is of paramount importance; but in an effort to achieve that goal, let us, a thriving Nation of immigrants, not turn our backs on our history and our future. So before we replace the Statue of Liberty's torch with a ``Do Not Enter'' sign, let us reconsider in the most open of debates what that says about our great Nation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I gather those unfriendly nations were like Saudi Arabia where 15 of the 19 hijackers came from. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), who lives in south Texas and is on the Texas-Mexican border and may have some experiences in this regard.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia and I are on the Committee on Rules, and we know this measure did not come up until 2 hours just before we went in there. We also know there were no hearings. We also know that the 9/11 Commission went much further than what the gentleman presented here today. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, to give a more exemplary outline of what transpired.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) whether he is on the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to my good friend from Massachusetts, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would say to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) I have not had an opportunity to talk to him, and I simply want to point out to him that all of us that have feelings regarding States' rights line up in many respects alike. But the gentleman needs to know that the National Governors Association and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, the National Conference of State Legislators all oppose this legislation. And the primary reason that they do would be, had I known the gentleman 20 years ago, or 10 years ago, he would have been arguing that the Federal Government is sending unfunded mandates to the States. Well, welcome to the Federal Government. This is an unfunded mandate. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 4 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). (Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), my very good friend.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), my good friend, the ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express great sadness about the tragic death of my good friend, former Broward Circuit Court Judge Henry Latimer. Known by his friends as ``Lat,'' Henry Latimer was an extraordinary gentleman who achieved great success as a teacher, lawyer, judge, and trial attorney. Growing up in Jacksonville's projects, he attended segregated schools and was initially unable to supplement scholarship offers he had received from colleges around the country. Instead, he chose to serve in the United States Marines for 3 years and went on to teach economics and history at Dillard High School in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. His achievements are too numerous to mention without great prolixity. Many, as I, relied on him as a mentor and friend. Judge Latimer and I became close personal friends in law school and while he was serving on the bench and in our fraternity. He has been an invaluable source of support. He has made profound contributions to the legal community in Florida as exemplified by his impressive achievement. I will greatly miss his wise counsel, compassion, and unwavering personal support during the good times and the bad. As a friend, the loss is simply immeasurable. Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by again expressing my great sadness on the behalf of the House of Representatives. I offer my deepest sympathies to Judge Latimer's family: his wife, Mildred; and his two daughters and other family members.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume; and I thank my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), for yielding me the time. It is a new year, Mr. Speaker, a new Congress and new Presidential term. We have heard new commitments to work across party lines and calls for civility and camaraderie in the halls of the Capitol. We have heard the President speak of a more civilized Washington and a bipartisan approach to the legislative process. Then and now Congress starts its work. The rhetoric starts; reality sets in. We are not even 2 full weeks into the House legislative calendar, and it is starting to sound like the same old song and dance. Any way we look at it, Mr. Speaker, process or policy, the House is off to a bad start. It is the first day of normal legislative business in the 109th Congress, and the House is already considering a restrictive rule for a bill that has not gone through proper House procedures. New Congress Members just coming from parliamentary procedure training session must be doing a double-take. They just spent a week in a refresher course on how a bill becomes a law. Then, all of the sudden, that process has not been followed on one of their first votes. I guess I was confused, too, and what I can say to them is, Welcome to Washington. The proponents of the underlying legislation will try to argue that it is not a new bill because it was first introduced in the 108th Congress. While that might be true, the Committee on Financial Services did not act on the bill in the 108th Congress, and it has not acted on it in this year. I ask, why is the full House considering a relatively controversial piece of legislation without any committee action? Why the rush? Why set such a precedent for the 109th Congress' beginning? The Committee on Financial Services, the committee of jurisdiction for the underlying legislation, will not even organize itself until next week, let alone hold a hearing or markup on my good friend's, and he is my good friend, the gentleman from Delaware's bill. Think about it this way: the first bill that the House is considering in the 109th Congress under normal rules actually makes it harder to pass legislation and create laws honoring our country's greatest heroes. Just like Social Security, some of my Republican friends are trying to create a problem where one does not exist. As the gentleman from Texas already noted, the rule does make in order two amendments offered by my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley). The first Crowley amendment increases the total number of medals of honor to be permitted awarded from four to six per Congress. The second Crowley amendment provides for an equitable distribution of gold medals between the majority and the minority. While I intend to support both of these amendments, and certainly appreciate them being made in order, the Committee on Rules failed to make in order a third Crowley amendment which would have maintained the status quo. That amendment would have ensured that worthy groups or individuals and organizations remain eligible to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor. The Committee on Rules also rejected along a party-line vote an amendment to the rule which would have made it open to all germane amendments. If the underlying legislation were to become law, President and Nancy Reagan never would have received the medal because they received it as a couple. Neither would Dr. Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King, Joseph DeLaine and Harry and Eliza Briggs, Billy and Ruth Graham, President and Betty Ford, the Navajo Code Talkers or the American Red Cross, just to name a few. Can anyone in this body honestly suggest that the individuals aforementioned and organizations are unworthy of this institution's top award? Is there an epidemic of distributing too many Congressional Medals of Honor to unworthy recipients that somehow or another has escaped at least me in knowing about them? Mr. Speaker, I am not worried about Congress going on a spree to award the Medal of Honor to unworthy recipients. The rules applied by the Committee on Financial Services to even consider a bill awarding the Congressional Medal of Honor are so stringent that the integrity and prestige of the award will always be protected. On the contrary, if today is any indication, perhaps we ought to be just a bit more concerned about the integrity of procedure in the House of Representatives than about the integrity of a system that is dependent upon bipartisan cooperation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. If the gentleman would yield, I appreciate my good friend's good suggestion, and I am prepared to begin yielding time to colleagues who are present to begin speaking. Mr. Speaker, with that understanding, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to announce that we have no further speakers, and I would say to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas, we yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz death camp by Allied Forces, this week in 1945. Soldiers of the Soviet Union found only a few thousand prisoners remaining, most of them too sick to leave, the rest taken away on a forced death march. It is said that when soldiers and prisoners first stared at each other across the barbed wire, some laughed, some cried, and others just gazed at each other in disbelief. Madam Speaker, it has been 60 years since that day, and we are still in disbelief. Despite all that we know of the Holocaust from books and movies, academic studies and personal memories, we still wonder why, why Auschwitz could have happened. Why was the world silent in the face of such evil? Why did fellow human beings perpetuate such a totality of destruction on innocent men, women, and children? Perhaps there are no definitive answers. It is rather for us to learn from these questions how not to ever let it happen again. The Allied forces who liberated not just Auschwitz but concentration camps throughout Europe, all shared in the experience of entering a different world, a world where death was the future and life the past. It was their compassion towards the Nazi's victims that enabled the beginning of the survivor's long journey back to civilization, back to justice, and back to humanity. To them we owe a great debt of gratitude. Out of every historical wrong there comes some right, and the Holocaust is no exception. We have been taught in the last 60 years a great deal about humanitarianism, human dignity, the need for hope, and the will to survive. Holocaust survivors have reminded us not only about what we've lost but also about how important it is to remember. The State of Israel was formed in the wake of this tragedy, and so many other organizations dedicated to the pursuit of freedom, equality and tolerance have since been founded. Madam Speaker, today is a time for reflection, but it is not enough today to simply remember. The Holocaust has affirmed in us a commitment to prevent the use of genocide as a tool of war, a tool that unfortunately has been used many times since Auschwitz was liberated 60 years ago. It appears that barbarity, wanton murder, and senseless annihilation know no statute of limitations, and we would be betraying the memories of the millions who died if we continued to justify and excuse our disengagement from that reality. We must continue to fight hatred and intolerance wherever it exists, for human freedom depends on the presence of justice, the justice that was denied to so many during the dark days of World War II. To ignore that lesson is unforgivable. Today in Darfur, in the Sudan, genocide is taking place. Though not yet on the scale of the Nazi Holocaust, this conflict has engulfed millions of people and cost hundreds of thousands of lives. Innocent people are today being murdered, starved, and driven from their homes simply because of the color of their skin. Though the United States has acknowledged that this is genocide, we have failed to act. Shame on us for failing to absorb the lessons of the Holocaust. How can this Congress commemorate the liberation of Auschwitz while turning a blind eye to the terrible crimes being committed in Darfur? How dare we honor the memory of those who died with only our words and not our deeds. Madam Speaker, I cannot simply commemorate one terrible event without insisting that we must prevent others like it. History will long record the sins of those who failed to act to stop the Holocaust. Shame on us for allowing history to record that failure yet again.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 60th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge during World War II, and I rise today in recognition of this courageous and crucial battle, fought by our brave soldiers more than half a century ago. On December 16, 1944, during the coldest, snowiest weather ``in memory'' in the Ardennes Forest on the German/Belgium border, the German War Machine started their infamous ``Ardennes Offensive.'' Even though the German Offensive achieved total surprise, nowhere did the American troops give ground without a determined fight. Within 3 days, the unwavering American stand and the arrival of dominant reinforcements insured that the German goal was far beyond reach. In all, 19,000 American soldiers perished during this momentous battle. The soldiers often fought in zero-temperature conditions and driving snow, which prevented them from seeing more than 10 yards in front of them. With equipment and uniforms that were designed for warmer times, frostbite became a terrible reality and a frequent occurrence. Because soldiers were often cut off from their divisions in foxholes, the wounded, in some cases, literally froze to death. To this day, our soldiers' sacrifice remains immeasurable. The Battle of the Bulge ended in the last few days of January 1945, when American troops made their way back to the original lines. But for many of our brave veterans this terrible battle has never ended. I stand here today in recognition of the sacrifice and commitment of our brave veterans. After 60 years, our gratitude could never be put into words, although our determination to provide them with full recognition of their service remains everlasting. Mr. Speaker, on the 60th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge, I am honored to recognize the service and gallantry of our veterans who fought in this epic battle.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me this time. It is the 11th hour and the deals have been struck. Most, if not all, of us want to go home. Certainly the majority does. So we find ourselves again being asked to override regular House rules and vote on legislation which I defy anybody to tell me that 99 percent of us have read. I am talking about 99 percent of the Members of the House of Representatives have not read this legislation. There is no reason why we cannot consider the omnibus appropriations bill tomorrow or Monday or Tuesday. There is no reason why all of us in the body and, most importantly, the American people should not have at least 24 hours to try to read how we are spending their money before we spend it. I realize, Mr. Speaker, that most of the Members will support this measure. But I am opposed to the process by which it has come together floor today. And in just a few short hours, Members of this body will be asked to approve a bill that spends nearly $400 billion of Americans' hard-earned tax dollars without being afforded the opportunity to actually read the bill. That is just not right. The bottom line is, Mr. Speaker, one party controls Washington, D.C.'s political circumstances. One party controls the House, the Senate, and the White House. One party has controlled Congress' legislative agenda and one party has controlled this year's appropriations process. I ask the American people what have they done for them this year? In a word, if I were answering, it would be not much. Despite escalating gas prices and continued reliance on fuel needs from the volatile Middle East, has Congress enacted a comprehensive energy bill? No. Bridges and tunnels and highways around America are literally crumbling away due to years and years of neglect. And despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of jobs are on the line, has Congress passed a transportation bill? No. Welfare reform? Still on the starting blocks. Patient's bill of rights? In intensive care. Fully funding education programs like No Child Left Behind? Still waiting at the schoolhouse door. Getting our first responders the tools and equipment they need to protect the homeland? Do not hold your breath. As far as I can tell, the only thing that the ruling party can do successfully is explode the national debt and burden our children and grandchildren to fix the mistakes we make on a daily basis around here in the House of Representatives. Enough already. So we will go home today or tomorrow after having worked fewer days in this session of Congress than in any previous Congress in nearly the last 60 years. These really are the best words that I can use to describe this situation. The rule is a disservice to the Members of this body. More importantly, it is an affront to the people whom we represent. This process smells and the odor wafts from sea to shining sea. I understand the circumstances at the end of the session deadline of which the majority speaks, but I ask why the rush? Why run this House in such a disorderly way? The precedent that we continue to set with this kind of action will haunt us and our successors for many generations. It is up to the majority to step up to the plate and attempt to restore integrity to the process this body practices. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), minority whip.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)