Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this morning's papers carry, among others, the following stories: --The New York Times reports that ``The 9/11 Commission is Said to Sharply Fault Role of Congress''. --The L.A. Times has a story titled, ``The State Department Seeks Shift in Iraq Effort''. --The Sun Sentinel reports that the American death toll in Iraq has reached 900. --The Washington Post covers military recruitment, concluding that the pool of future recruits has dwindled to its lowest level in three years. --And, all these papers and others have stories on the poor shape of the economy and the hardships that the American people are facing. So, I ask: don't we have better things to deal with two days before going into recess. Is there any sense of responsibility in this Republican Congress? This bill, more than anything else, is about the politics of a national election. The White House political machine is in full gear, playing to the lowest denominator to reinvigorate the xenophobic and intolerant wing of the Republican Party. Recognizing that they lack the votes to pass the discriminatory Federal Marriage Amendment, the Republican House leadership is now focusing on slamming shut federal courthouse doors to gay and lesbian Americans. This bill is at its core a bar on redress for violations of fundamental rights. If Congress by statute can end run the Bill of Rights, no rights to liberty, due process, or equality under the law are safe. Further, it would set the terrible precedent of barring citizens from challenging government infringement of fundamental rights in federal court. For more than 200 years the federal judiciary has been a check on legislative and executive action. By eliminating an entire subject from the courts' jurisdiction, this legislation threatens to upset the delicate balance between the branches of the federal government that has served our nation well. Indeed, passage of this legislation would represent one of the broadest attacks on the separation of powers in American history. Once again, it's proven that the most unpopular and vulnerable members of society are all too often the first targets of government repression. But once the federal courthouse door has been slammed shut to one group, it won't be long before others are similarly excluded. I am reminded of an incisive quote by Holocaust survivor Ellie Wiesel. He said, ``They came first for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.'' I am here to strongly oppose this legislation. I can remember of one other group in America that had to wander every county courthouse in the country to try to vindicate their rights under the Federal Constitution. Blacks have experienced the injustice, abuse, and disgrace that the Republican Party is promoting with this bill. For example, after the Supreme Court's 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision that school segregation violated the Constitution, racist lawmakers furiously sought to exempt federal courts from ruling on public education laws. I became a public servant with the express mission of preventing one of the worst chapters of American history from repeating itself. Therefore, I oppose this rule and the underlying bill, and ask--beg-- my colleagues to act responsibly and protect the constitution by voting no.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my colleague, my friend from south Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), for yielding me the time. While the two of us, my colleague and I, may have ideological differences from time to time, we are united in our support for the Coast Guard and the sometimes thankless work that they do every day to protect the ports and shores in our home State of Florida, as well as throughout this Nation. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report to the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act. As my colleague from the majority previously mentioned, the conference report authorizes nearly $8.2 billion in fiscal year 2005 for the Coast Guard. This amount is $169 million more than originally approved by the House last October and more than $400 million above what was approved by the other body. These increases are clear indications of this body's commitment to the Coast Guard's pressing needs. The conference report also includes $1.5 billion for the Coast Guard's acquisitions, construction and improvements account, a $550 million increase above what was requested. This increase is to be used by the Coast Guard to improve its Integrated Deepwater System, as well as assist the Coast Guard to reduce the list of unfunded shore facilities that has grown significantly over the past 5 years. Furthermore, the conference report increases the number of commissioned officers and includes significant authorizations which will assist the Coast Guard to better meet our port and maritime security needs. The Department of Homeland Security is also directed in the conference report to provide Congress with reports regarding joint operational centers for port security and port compliance with security standards. I mention these two reports because of the great work that is being done in my home county, Broward County, at Port Everglades. There are few ports in the country as innovative as Port Everglades when it comes to security. The Port of Palm Beach, located in the district I represent, has also made significant security improvement as a direct result of the port security grant authorized by this conference report. Mr. Speaker, 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 mine and my colleague's, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), home State of Florida where the Coast Guard plays an integral role in patrolling our shores and protecting our citizens. The increase in funding provided in the underlying legislation for this important grant of the United States Armed Forces serves as a statement about the role of the Coast Guard in our global war on terrorism. Reports have shown that America's ports remain susceptible to attack and infiltration by America's enemies. In the last year alone, south Florida's three major ports handled more than 13.2 million tons of cargo. In all, well over 1.5 million shipping containers were processed by south Florida longshoremen during the last year. Certainly, these statistics highlight the pressing need to increase the number of Customs agents working in America's ports, but they also suggest that the roles of the Coast Guard and Federal Maritime Commission in protecting our ports are greater than ever. Mr. Speaker, when Congress created the Department of Homeland Security, it recommitted itself to the security of America. The conference report for the Coast Guard Authorization Act is an extension of that commitment. I urge my colleagues to support the underlying conference report. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the chairman has certainly given us an enlightened view of the universe. I want to remind him that the Vatican did not agree with much of what he talked about. But Ptolemy, I did not know he was going to wind up being here with us on this important subject. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), a good friend of all of us, to enlighten us perhaps in yet another of the universal aspects of this business. (Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS 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 thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, while I would prefer that this be an open rule, I rise today in support of the rule, as it makes in order those amendments which were submitted yesterday evening during the Committee on Rules hearing. I note that this is the 149th rule that this body has considered in the 108th Congress. Of those 149 rules, 18 have been procedural. Of the remaining 131 rules, 106, or more than 83 percent, have been closed or restricted. One can only hope that the majority will use this rule as the template for future rules. As my colleague from the majority pointed out, the underlying legislation blocks the implementation of new accounting standards recently proposed by the Financial Accounting Standards Board. These new standards would require companies to deduct from their profits the value of the stock options they issue to employees and executives. Supporters of the Stock Option Accounting Reform Act will note that their bill includes a compromise, requiring the inclusion of stock options afforded to a company's top five executives in that company's profits. The Wall Street Journal, however, has noted that such disclosure would not adequately reflect a company's true profits. Top executives of companies which offer stock options to their employees typically only receive 2 percent of the options that are issued. Another study found that in the year 2003, only 18 percent of the options provided by the S&P 500 companies went to the top five executives. The standard included in the underlying legislation potentially leaves anywhere between 82 and 98 percent of a company's stock option expenses hidden from the public. This failure to disclose runs the grave risk of inflating a company's profits and misleading investors. For example, if this bill were law in 2003, Intel would have deducted $3.5 million from its 2003 profits, although it actually doled out more than $990 million in options. Investors have a right to know the true profits and total expenses of the companies in which they invest. The underlying legislation fails them, in my judgment, in this arena. In addition to my concerns about the policy of the underlying legislation, I am equally concerned about the implications of Congress overriding the rulings of the Financial Accounting Standards Board, an independent governing authority. I echo the comments that have already been made by the chairman of the Senate's Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, who has noted that Congress has no business undermining the Accounting Standards Board. Independent boards, such as FASB and the Securities Exchange Commission, exist to ensure the veracity of the financial services industry. Efforts on the part of Congress to undermine their decisions compromise the integrity and reliability of the industry. When congressional pressure, political ideology, or legislative fixes play a role in the decisions of boards such as the FASB and SEC, these boards will cease to be independent. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), ranking Democrat of the Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises Subcommittee, as well as the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) will offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute that I intend to support. Their substitute recognizes the roles of the FASB and SEC as independent boards, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, Congress has a role to play to regulate and observe the financial services industry. The underlying legislation, however, runs the risk of crossing the line that currently exists. I urge my colleagues to strongly consider the implications of the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, just so that we can accurately record it so that I may dispense time on our side, how much time remains for both sides?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), my good friend, who is an original cosponsor of this legislation; and she and I came to Congress together, and she has worked actively. The first bill that she introduced was a measure dealing with what we are discussing today.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), my good friend, who represents the financial district of this country.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), my good friend.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for the time. Mr. Speaker, this rule is typical for most appropriations bills, and I would support it. I rise today, albeit reluctantly, in support of the District of Columbia appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005. Mr. Speaker, as there is no perfect legislation and certainly not when it comes to funding matters, I would be remiss if I did not say that the bill includes provisions that are controversial and detrimental, in my view, to the District's residents and the country as a whole. I do not have to tell any of my colleagues about the uniqueness of the District of Columbia as a Federal city. It is the only place in the Nation where constitutionally Congress can exercise micromanagement at the highest and lowest levels. It is the petri dish of the country where the ideological differences of those in this body wreak havoc on the lives of some 560,000-plus District of Columbia residents. Taking into consideration the fact that the District of Columbia has no voting representation in Congress, we should be mindful of the privileged duties and be careful not to put our own parochial agendas on the table when considering this legislation. The underlying legislation includes a direct Federal funding increase for the District of $18 million over last year. A large part of the increase will go towards paying the cost of the District's court system as well as related criminal justice programs. The bill also provides for direct appropriations for the Resident Tuition Support program and $13 million for District of Columbia charter schools. It also includes $14 million for school vouchers, despite the fact that a significant portion of the funds appropriated last year for this controversial program went unused. The underlying legislation also includes legislative riders that prohibit the use of funds for abortions, registering same-sex couples. And for the distribution of clean needles and syringes. This bill has quickly become a smorgasbord of controversy. Hot-button social issues should not enter into play when considering the needs and lives of the residents of the Nation's capital. It is high time that we as lawmakers in this great body stop playing political chess games with our responsibility to this process. We should allow the people of Washington, D.C. to govern themselves. Funding for the education of the Nation's children and the overall healthy well-being of its citizens should be our primary focus and goal. The District of Columbia appropriations bill is not the stage to act out experimental projects that will not necessarily prove beneficial in the end. We must be mindful of the District's citizens that we have been given charge of. They are silenced in this process by the Constitution, and we must be responsible in our actions on their behalf. I urge my colleagues to consider this responsibility when voting on the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who knows more about this appropriations measure and about the things of which I just spoke.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me this time. I would say to my friend, and he is my friend, that I think he is very wrong in offering this particular measure. We in the United States go all over the world telling people about free and fair elections and about transparency in that regard. I, along with other Members of this Congress, have traveled throughout the world monitoring elections on behalf of a variety of organizations that do not necessarily come under the aegis of the United Nations. I would say to the gentleman, I was last week elected as president of the Organization For Security and Cooperation in Europe. That organization is one of the lead organizations in the world on election monitoring. Members from this body under the aegis of that body have gone to the Ukraine, to Belarus. Soon we will be going to Kazakhstan. I have gone to Russia. I was welcomed, when Russians awakened on that morning and had their Danish and their coffee, at the election polling place; and, surprisingly, I found that a great deal fairer in some respects than what I saw in my own county when you were there in 2000. I suggest that if one were not there for any other reason other than to observe an election, it would be foolhardy for us to not take into consideration the importance of encouraging free and fair and transparent elections, and what better way than to tell the world we are wide open for your peerage into the freest and fairest system in the world. Mr. Chairman, I yield back and am prepared at the appropriate time to yield to additional Members.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my gratitude to the men and women of the Intelligence Community for their service to our country. Indeed, hey are our nation's greatest intelligence asset. I also rise to express my continued concern over the Intelligence Community's ability to attract and retain a quality workforce that reflects the ethnic and cultural diversity of the United States. Doing so is required to ensure the Intelligence Community is properly postured to meet the formidable global challenges of the future. Data collected by the Intelligence Community demonstrates that the proportion of women and minorities in the Intelligence Community continues to be significantly lower than their representation in the general Federal government and private sector workforce. While some improvements have been made by individual agencies in select areas, one fact remains--Women and minorities remain underrepresented in core mission areas, management and senior ranks of the Intelligence Community. This is unlikely to change given the respective representation of women and minorities in student and career development programs, and feeder pools. Meaningful steps, including investment in untraditional initiatives, will be required to reverse this trend. I commend outgoing Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet for taking the first in a series of needed steps--the convening of a panel of distinguished individuals with extensive Federal government and private sector experience. I look forward to reviewing the panel's findings and recommendations, and to working with the new Director of Central Intelligence and individual agency directors to ensure implementation of constructive programs to improve the Intelligence Community's ability to attract and retain a diverse, highly-skilled workforce.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the long and dedicated service of Sister Jeanne O'Laughlin, who will step down as president of Barry University on June 30, 2004. Mr. Speaker, Sister Jeanne has been an exemplary leader at Barry University since taking office 23 years ago, in 1981. A tireless and enthusiastic promoter, she has helped to raise more than $200 million for her school, sometimes through humorous means, such as competitive ballroom dancing and singing at a fundraiser aboard a yacht. Sister Jeanne has made an enormously positive impact on the academic environment at Barry University. At the time of her inauguration, Barry University had 1,750 students. It now boasts 9,042, the fourth largest private university in Florida. Sister Jeanne has presided over an increase in the number of academic schools from five to ten, and the construction of 38 additional buildings on campus. Her multiple awards, achievements and honorary degrees, too many to list here, testify to her boundless energy, her spirit of goodwill, and her commitment to excellence in education. Her work on behalf of women's rights, the homeless, safe and drug-free school communities, hurricane reconstruction efforts, children, and numerous other organizations has had a lasting impact in South Florida. Simply put, her efforts have touched hundreds of thousands of lives. Mr. Speaker, Sister Jeanne more than deserves our admiration and respect for her dedicated and compassionate public service. She is an example to educators everywhere, and, really, to us all as individuals, that superior results arise when you put your heart and soul into something you believe in. As Sister Jeanne has said, what she is ``most proud of in my 23 years at Barry University are the experiences that I've had with the people who have been in my life.'' I wish to congratulate and thank Sister Jeanne O'Laughlin, and I wish her the best of luck in all of her future endeavors.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 40th anniversary of the devastating murder of three courageous civil rights heroes. We must preserve the memory of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner, who boldly fought for African American suffrage and helped strengthen the historic alliance between African Americans and Jews. The initial disappearance of these three leaders spurred new efforts to register African Americans to vote. Later on, national indignation over their murders provided the final impetus for the passage of President Johnson's 1964 Civil Rights Act. Together with the Voting Rights Act passed the following year, legally mandated segregation in Mississippi and throughout the South was abolished. The Congress of Racial Equality, (CORE) called the summer of 1964 ``Freedom Summer'' and led a massive voter registration and desegregation campaign in Mississippi. This summer was filled with the promise of implementing successful civil rights reforms. On June 21st as part of the Freedom Summer activities, Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner drove to Neshoba County to express sympathy with the congregation of Mt. Zion Church, which had been recently demolished by the Klu Klux Klan. In a conspiracy between elements of the local law enforcement and the Ku Klux Klan, the activists were arrested, and upon their release taken to a remote area, brutally beaten, and shot to death. James Chaney, an African American civil rights worker from Mississippi, had recently begun to volunteer at the new CORE office in Meridian, Mississippi. Chaney had rapidly become the chief aide, guide, and companion to the CORE director, Matt Suarez. He was only 21 when he was murdered. Andy Goodman, a white, Jewish, civil rights worker from New York, had arrived earlier that morning in Mississippi to participate as a volunteer in the Mississippi Summer Project. Goodman was known as an intelligent, unassuming, happy, and outgoing youth, and had arrived excited and anxious to improve the rights of African Americans. He was only 20 when he was murdered. Michael Schwerner, another white, Jewish, civil rights worker from New York, was on a mission in Mississippi to reorganize the community center as well as other programs. Schwerner was the first white civil rights worker to be permanently based outside of Jackson, Mississippi. Although he came under attack, including hate mail, threatening phone calls, and police harassment for his determined efforts to register African Americans to vote, his dedication to fostering tolerance was unwavering. He was only 24 when he was murdered. Since their tragic murder, the family members of these three activists have continued to preserve both their memory as individuals and their legacy within United States history. To honor the 25th anniversary of the murders, their family members spoke at an African American--Jewish communal relations Seder. James Chaney's brother, Ben, has dedicated his life to ensuring the civil rights of all Americans. This year, as founder of the James Earl Chaney Foundation, he created the Freedom Summer 2004 Ride For Justice. The 20-bus caravan embarked on June 10th and is currently traveling around the country to visit a variety of historically important civil rights memorial sites, including the grave of his brother. Ben is also continuing the mission of voter registration for which the three men were murdered. These three civil rights workers are among the few of the brave leaders who led our country out of the darkness of intolerance and discrimination, allowing future generations to live without fear. All of us as Americans must take the time today, and every day in the future, to make a firm commitment to honor their memory by fighting even harder to safeguard the ideals for which they stood. We can learn from what they embodied and continue their work to stamp out prejudice forever. It is our duty to remember by guaranteeing that the African American voice be heard through the ballot box. We must preserve the historic ties of oppression that bind the African American and Jewish communities together. For the three who died, we will still continue the struggle for justice. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reflect on the passing of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner, and to honor them by promoting tolerance and preserving the civil liberties and right to equality to which every American, regardless of their race, gender, ethnicity or religion, is entitled.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), my friend, for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule and the two underlying resolutions. Let me say that one more time: the two underlying resolutions. It is double-coupon day here in the House of Representatives. In two separate instances today, Republicans are forcing the House to consider two bills under one rule. Adding insult to injury, every rule we will consider today is closed, and none of the underlying bills have been considered in substantive part by the respective committees of jurisdiction. With the exception of two manager's amendments, this rule allows for zero amendments to either bill. Zero amendments for the people's House to consider. Zero amendments to improve two bills that incorporate in the main only the ideas of their two sponsors without the input of anyone else. The majority has skirted the legislative process, shut Members out, and stifled debate before it even begins. All this so it can pass a few politically driven bills that do nothing to address escalating gasoline costs and have zero chance of becoming law. Even the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), said last night in the Committee on Rules that he thought bringing these bills to the floor prior to committee consideration was shortsighted. Just last week, Congress heard calls from the American public to set aside its differences and work in a bipartisan fashion. How short Republican memories are. The rule we are considering at this moment is almost oxymoronic. On one hand, the rule provides for consideration of a bill addressing renewable resources. On the other hand, the same rule provides for consideration of another bill that authorizes drilling for nonrenewable resources in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, one of the country's most pristine areas. Republican policies just do not make any sense. While I certainly commend the majority for finally jumping on the renewable resource band wagon, their approach toward energy policy greatly misses the mark. Each energy-related bill this body is considering today focuses on increasing production, while doing nothing to curb consumption. These bills abandon our responsibility to protect the environment, and they lay the groundwork for the construction of a new wave of refineries and energy plants in low-income and historically underserved areas, without protecting the health and well-being of the residents of these communities. The Renewable Energy Project Siting Improvement Act and the U.S. Refinery Revitalization Act, which will be considered under the next rule, unjustly streamline the Federal authorization process for new refineries by targeting low-income and high unemployment areas for new sites. I offered an amendment to the U.S. Refinery Act last night in the Committee on Rules that would have required the Secretary of Energy to just consider any adverse effect that the siting of a new refinery would have on the community in which the site would be located. It also required a 90-day public comment period to ensure that those living near a future refinery site be given an opportunity to voice their concerns. Mr. Speaker, we all know the effects that Superfund sites have had on underserved communities. We have all heard the stories of cancer, birth defects, prolonged illnesses, and death caused by contamination at these sites. Today, this body is laying the foundation for a new wave of Superfund sites and all of their downfalls. My amendment was fair and responsible to those who will be most affected by a new site. But as they so often do, the majority denied the House from considering a common sense amendment. In this case, Democrats are only secondary victims. The real victims are those who could soon find themselves living next to a new refinery which the Federal Government encouraged an energy corporation to build. Moreover, under this scenario, Congress is not taking the necessary steps to consider the health needs of those living in that community. Mr. Speaker, Congress has a responsibility to the American people to develop and implement a responsible and long-term energy plan. Democrats agree with Republicans on this. However, Democrats also believe that all of us, from both sides of the aisle, need to be involved in the discussion. Our long-term energy plan must focus on reducing consumption instead of increasing production. America's energy woes will continue until we change America's mindset. Mass transit, hybrid automobiles, increasing CAFE standards, and significant involvement in renewable resources are the only way we will accomplish this. I was saying to staff working with me that 40 years ago I ran for the State legislature in Florida, and what I was advocating at that time was not rocket science. Forty years ago I talked about us having mass transit and using solar energy and using wind and renewable resources. Forty years since I now am in the House of Representatives and what we were still doing is talking rather than acting on the consumption side trying to reduce same. None of the underlying pieces of legislation address any of these issues and the process in which they are being brought to the floor is downright reckless, and we continue this policy which began a few weeks back of bringing up separate bills under the same rule. Any bill, any bill that blocks Members of the House of Representatives, the people's House, from offering an amendment is closed. And Republicans have made it clear that debate on the House floor is not open for business. I think that that is a mistake on their behalf and I hearken back to my friends in the majority and how it was that they railed against Democrats in another era for closed rules. That is all you could hear on talk radio, closed rules. Well, I can tell the American public that all you are getting from this Republican majority are closed rules, which shuts out debate not only of Democrats but Republicans. This is the people's House and closed rules do not give the people their voice. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying pieces of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume merely for the purpose of pointing out to the chairman and my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), that House Democrats were not permitted to be involved in the conference, House Democrats, not the other body. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Were Democrats permitted to attend the conference that the gentleman continues to say was reported out, House Democrats?