Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), my good friend from Chicago.

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 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1829, the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 2003. In 1934, Congress established Federal Prison Industries, a government corporation that employs inmates in Federal prisons to produce goods and services for the Federal Government. FPI employs 21,000 inmates in 111 prison factories to manufacture a number of products for the government. Prisoners manufacture such items as clothing, textiles, electronics, fleet management and vehicular components, graphics and industrial products. In return for cheap labor, inmates receive valuable job training opportunities that teach them the necessary skills that may help them become productive, hardworking citizens once they reenter society. Under current Federal law, FPI is a mandatory source of goods and services for Federal agencies. That means, Mr. Speaker, that any agency that wants to buy at least $2,500 worth of goods and services must first seek to do so through FPI. If FPI cannot process an order, the agency is then given a waiver to make the purchase from another source. Mr. Speaker, this legislation seeks to phase out, over a 5-year period, the preference given to Federal Prison Industries in contracts with Federal agencies. Supporters claim that it is unfair to exclusively employ prisoners when small businesses and private firms want to secure contracts with the Federal Government. However, I claim that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I claim that it is unfair to spend $587 million tax dollars to dissolve an effective and self- sustaining program. I claim that it is unfair to obligate an additional $75 million a year for the next 5 years to implement an educational and vocational program to replace the already successful educational and vocational program. I say that is a wasteful way to spend tax dollars. As a former judge, I know the importance of prison employment training programs. I personally witnessed the benefits of giving prisoners constructive work when incarcerated. While the FPI may be reform, I propose we seek other options. I propose we first ask the Bureau of Prisons what they think about reforming FPI. I propose we ask the Federal agencies that receive FPI products and services what improvements can be made. I am not convinced that H.R. 1829 is necessary or that it is the best solution in reforming Federal Prison Industries. Mr. Speaker, I will oppose H.R. 1829. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, Malaysia's Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad made repugnant anti-Semitic statements when addressing the tenth Islamic Summit Conference. Madam Speaker, I denounce and condemn this statement as dangerous, morally bankrupt and beyond the pale of civilized dialogue. His statement comes directly out of the Hitler playbook, and reflects centuries of anti-Semitism that have led to pogroms and genocide. Jewish, Muslim, or agnostic, black, white, yellow, or pink. We are all appalled by words and actions that spread hatred. Prime Minister Mahathir has a long history of making unambiguous anti-Jewish utterances and actions and he has time and again identified himself as an implacable enemy of Jews. Prime Minister Mahathir was an anti-Semite in 1970 when he wrote of the ``hook-nosed'' Jews. He was an anti-Semite in 1984, when he wouldn't let the New York Philharmonic play a composition by a Jewish musician, and in 1986, when he called Jews ``monsters.'' He was an anti-Semite in 1994, when he banned ``Schindler's List'' and in 1997, when he attacked George Soros as a Jew robbing his country. And, indeed, he is an anti-Semite today. In an interview with the Bangkok Post, Prime Minister Mahathir complained that his remarks had been taken out of context. ``They picked up one sentence where I said that the Jews control the world,'' he protested, declaring that the reaction proved ``they do control the world.'' On the contrary, the reaction of most of the international community reflects the obvious: Prime Minister Mahathir is a bigot; an irresponsible and incendiary, nauseating prejudist. Nevertheless, it got a standing ovation from the kings, presidents, sheiks and emirs--including key U.S. allies. I am disillusioned that the moderate voices in the Arab world also remained silent. The Egyptian foreign minister, Ahmed Maher, called the speech ``a very, very wise assessment.'' Asked by the AP whether he thought the speech was anti-Semitic, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said: ``I don't think so.'' In addition, I am especially outraged by the actions of French President Jacques Chirac and Greek Prime Minister Costas Simitis to block the inclusion of a condemnation of Mahathir's anti-Semitic speech in the official statement of an EU summit. Mahathir is retiring Oct. 31 after 22 years in power. Good riddance!

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the National Commission on Employment and Economic Security Act. More than 2.6 million Americans have lost their jobs since President Bush took office in January 2001. In fact, the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that in September 2003, 9 million Americans were officially jobless. Some experts, including the BLS, have suggested that the number of unemployed or underemployed is actually somewhere near 15.5 million. The BLS notes that approximately 6.5 million workers are underemployed or so frustrated at the current job market that they have given up looking for jobs. During times of high unemployment, Americans experience increases in domestic abuse, alcoholism, crime, illness, and in many instances, suicides. All of these increases stem not only from the loss of one's job, but also from the depression that develops as a result of extended unemployment. Realize, current U.S. public policy addresses the economic hardships that arise from unemployment through the unemployment insurance program. For a privileged few, the government even assists in providing health care to the unemployed. But what the U.S. government fails to do is provide assistance to the unemployed in dealing with the human dimension of unemployment. Perhaps this is true because the human factor does not allow for a one size fits all formula solution. Or perhaps it's because Congress never thinks about the human factor, labeling the unemployed as lazy and unmotivated, rather than the victims of economic situations of the times that they are. But for whatever reason, Congress has never addressed this very important tool in understanding the effects of long-term unemployment. That, Mr. Speaker, is completely unacceptable. The legislation I introduce today establishes the National Commission on Employment and Economic Security, a national commission to examine the psychological effects of extended unemployment. Specifically, the 15 member commission is instructed to examine increases in violence by employees and former employees in the workplace and in their private lives, the effects of well-paying jobs in the U.S., the psychological insecurity caused by the loss of a job, and make recommendations to the Legislative and Executive branches on actions to alleviate the psychological insecurity of the U.S. workforce. I am confident that this commission will provide Congress and the President with an array of policy recommendations on how we might best address the human factor of unemployment. The livelihoods of more than fifteen million Americans are depending on it. I ask for the support of my colleagues, and I urge the House Leadership to bring the bill to the floor expeditiously.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay commendation to Indian River Community College, which serves the east coast of Central Florida and many of my constituents. The school has developed an innovative program to combat a local, state and national problem--the critical teacher shortage. Indian River Community College pioneered the ``Bridge to Teaching'' program to recruit and train college graduates to embark on careers in teaching. In addition to the praise of local school officials benefiting from the recent graduates, the accelerated teacher certification program has been selected as a national model of ``best practices'' for colleges throughout the country by the National Council for Continuing Education and Training. For their commitment to quality programs and responsiveness to the needs of the community, Indian River Community College and its President, Ed Massey, deserve the congratulations of Congress.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the ranking member of the Committee on Rules for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is Halloween and scary costumes are the order of the day. What is going to be the scariest costume of them all? The schoolteacher outfit with 60 children to teach? The small business suit with the bankruptcy notice? Or the elderly costume with its inadequate health care? Without a doubt, the desert camouflage uniform of the U.S. military is the scariest costume of all. Without flak jackets, traveling in nonarmored Humvees and without jammers to block incoming bombs, United States soldiers were sent to battle unprepared for the postwar hostilities they encountered and ill equipped to defend themselves. And all of us have a responsibility to all of them. But they are living a nightmare. This is the consequence of rushing to war. Congress has been begging the administration for a comprehensive plan to stabilize Iraq and an exit strategy to bring our troops home. There has been no response. Instead, President Bush has presented us a bill that we are voting on soon demanding $87 billion, having not accounted in full for the $66 billion that was granted previously. The billions of dollars in this supplemental are not intended to get us out of Iraq. They are intended, in some respects, to keep us there, perhaps indefinitely. Realize what $87 billion could buy. To get some perspective here or some real-life comparisons about $87 billion and how it could benefit the American taxpayer: $87 billion is more than the combined total of all State budget deficits in the United States. $87 billion is approximately the total of 2 years' worth of all U.S. unemployment benefits. $87 billion is more than double the total amount the government spends on homeland security. $87 billion is 87 times the amount the Federal Government spends on after-school programs. The priorities of the President were those that in many respects were stripped out; but to add further insult to financial injury, billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent already on no-bid contracts for major U.S. corporations. In yet another tall tale from the administration, we were told that the funds for rebuilding Iraq must be in the form of grants to encourage other nations in the donor conference in Madrid the other day in rebuilding Iraq. Yet a total of $18 billion was pledged at the Madrid donors conference last week and $14 billion of that amount was in the form of loans. Therefore, there is no overarching reason for providing this money only in the form of grants. It is fundamentally flawed logic to expect the American taxpayer to incur a debt for problems America has not created. We are not rebuilding an Iraq that we destroyed. We are rebuilding an infrastructure decimated by Iraq's former dictator. What we owe the Iraqi people is an opportunity for a democratic way of life, and it is not unreasonable to expect them to shoulder the cost. Freedom and democracy never come cheap. They are exorbitantly expensive in terms of money and sacrifice. The continuing propaganda from the White House regarding Iraq is distracting our attention from Afghanistan and other countries. In my view, everyone should vote against this measure.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged at this time to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my good friend and colleague on the Committee on Rules.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the points that have been made are echoed all throughout this Chamber. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), for yielding me the time. I oppose this closed rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I wondered to myself last night as the Committee on Rules majority Republicans passed yet another closed rule which stifles debate and shuts off meaningful contributions from all of the Members of this Chamber, what is the problem? Congress has only had since January 3 of this year to complete work on the 13 annual appropriations bills, the so-called ``must pass'' bills that Congress works on every year. In case anyone is unclear, so far Congress has passed three of the 13 appropriations bills that must pass before September 30. Defense appropriations, done. Homeland security, done. And, of course, the bill which funds this very institution, Congress, done. Everything else, military construction; veterans affairs; labor, health and human services; commerce, judiciary; education, all just kind of out there somewhere in this vacuous air inside the Beltway. And the sad part? No one to blame but the party in control. Despite the fact that just yesterday I heard a Member of the other body blame former President Clinton, I do not think the American people are buying that. The fact is the last time there was single-party control of Congress at the beginning of President Clinton's administration, control of Congress and the White House, all 13 appropriations bills were passed by September 30. We had a balanced budget, and, oh, yes, we had budget surpluses as far as the eye could see. My, how times have changed. Well, thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, my good friends, the Republican Congress. Now, we have debt in our Nation as far as the eye can see, and, in many respects, disdain from a large portion of the rest of the world. In my view, the majority is the modern day reincarnation of Nero. The majority fiddles while the Nation burns, or, to put it another way, we are drowning in a sea of red ink. It will surprise no one, then, that I think we should not pass this rule. We should not pass the underlying legislation. We should stop working 2-day workweeks like we did last week, and we should stay here and finish our work; yes, work maybe even 7 days a week, until we do what the people have elected us to do. What a crazy suggestion. Enough already. Let us get to work. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

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 thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), for yielding me this time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. I believe I speak for every Member of this side of the aisle when I say that I appreciate the efforts of the majority to bring this bill to the floor today under an open rule and in a bipartisan manner. I only wish that more bills of significant importance in this body and to the country were considered in a similar fashion. Today's rule is an open rule, and Members are permitted to offer germane amendments to the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act. As my colleague previously mentioned, the underlying legislation authorizes $7.1 billion in fiscal year 2004 for activities of the United States Coast Guard and $18 million for the Federal Maritime Commission. The level of funding that the House is providing to the Coast Guard is a 4 percent increase over the amount that was appropriated for the agency under the Homeland Security Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004. The bill also provides the Maritime Commission with an 11 percent increase over last year's funding. In addition to funding these two important Federal agencies, this bill amends current law affecting the Coast Guard's requirement to fire warning shots, inspect foreign vessels, and collect user fees. The legislation increases the number of commissioned officers in the Coast Guard as well as the number of active duty officers. The bill also improves our ability to respond to oil spills by requiring that oil- carrying vessels develop oil spill response plans. And my goodness gracious is that too long overdue for our Nation and, indeed, the world? Mr. Speaker, the Coast Guard is charged with the responsibility of patrolling the 12,452 miles of coastline in the United States. Nearly 2,000 of these miles are located in Florida, in my district, as well as that of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), and the Speaker pro tempore's, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), where the Coast Guard plays, as we so well know, an integral role in patrolling our shores and protecting our citizens. The increase in funding provided in the underlying legislation for this important branch of the United States Armed Services 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. And it does not go insignificantly or symbolically mentioned that I, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), and the present Speaker pro tempore, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), all three of us on the floor at this time, represent three major ports: Port Everglades, the Port of Palm Beach, and the Port of Miami. Those three ports alone handle 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 the Federal Maritime Commission in protecting our ports are greater than ever. Mr. Speaker, when Congress created the Department of Homeland Security, it not only reorganized the Federal Government, but it also recommitted itself to the security of America. The underlying legislation, which the House will consider later today, is an extension of that commitment. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of our colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, there has been much reaction, and justly so, to the virulently anti-Semitic remarks of outgoing Malaysian Prime Minister Mahatir at the recent Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) Summit in Malaysia. His remarks, crude, insensitive, and untrue, have been roundly condemned by many world leaders--though certainly not enough who were at the OIC Conference. Unfortunately, the publicity over his remarks has overshadowed another speech by a Muslim leader, Turkey's Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Abdullah Gul. That speech is more tolerant and farsighted. It speaks well of Turkey's current government and the policies it seeks to enact. Foreign Minister Gul argues that Islam, tolerance, and modernization are compatible, and highlights the Turkish experience. I believe the speech is well worth our colleagues reading, and I am pleased to bring it to their attention. Speech by His Excellency Abdullah Gul, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey, Delivered at the OIC Business Forum During the 10th Summit of the OIC Malaysia, 15 October 2003 Excellencies, distinguished guests, it is a particular honor and privilege to take part in this Welcoming Dinner among such a distinguished group of guests and speakers. I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation to the Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute for this well- thought occasion to discuss such a topical subject. Tonight I will briefly share with you Turkey's understanding and practice of the relationship between Islam and Modernization, and the challenge we face as Muslim societies. Let me start by challenging the choice of a word in the title of our dinner; ``Islam versus Modernization''. I would decline to see Islam and modernization as competing concepts. The Turkish experience and many other efforts in the Muslim world in political, economic and social development rest on the belief that it is perfectly possible to advance a society in all fields while Islamic faith and culture continues to play an important role in people's individual lives. Our challenge is to prove that traditional and moral values can be in perfect harmony with the modern standards of life. Not only that. Our values can contribute to and strengthen the modern world. They can even be enriching for modern societies. Excellencies, distinguished guests, I acknowledge that the contemporary Muslim societies, at times, have had temporary difficulties in coping with the universal developments in the fields of politics, economics, science and technology. Yes, they have not always attained the highest standards of democracy, equality, or social rights yet. However, the good news is that there is a growing awareness of the shortcomings and a desire to overcome them. There are even positive steps in this direction. Today's meeting is an example of this healthy debate. These are all important indications. I am confident that the new generations of Muslims, the youth, have the consciousness and the capacity to attain a glorious future which will surpass their history. Their history as cultivated, tolerant, developed and good governed people. Peoples which have developed sophisticated legal systems, free trade networks, health institutions and schools. Excellencies, distinguished guests, leaving aside the theoretical discussions on the issue, I would like to take this opportunity to brief you on our own experience. Our experience as a government, less than one year old. To many people, it seemed like a paradox: A government that was formed by a party known to be based on moral and traditional values was implementing a most spectacular economic and political reform campaign in Turkey; reforms that even astonished the liberals at home. There was nothing to be surprised about. We had put in front of us a mission to accomplish: We were to prove that a Muslim society is capable of changing and renovating itself, attaining contemporary standards, while preserving its values, traditions and identity. We acted on the premise that highest contemporary standards of democracy--fundamental freedoms, gender equality, free markets, civil society, transparency, good governance, rule of law and rational use of resources were universal expectations. We believed that Turkish people and other Muslim nations fully deserved to have these expectations met. We believed that our societies could only benefit from the realization of these standards. And indeed, Muslim societies have the necessary historical background and moral and spiritual strength to adapt themselves to modernity. We believed that encouraging political participation, increasing transparency and accountability would make regimes stronger in the long run. The result would be self-confident and cohesive societies which have an interest in peace and harmony. Our strength came from being eye to eye with our people. The big support we got during and after the elections showed our strong ties with our grassroots. Our experience has differed from the others by not relying only on the elites. We began our reform from the very day we formed the government: We decreased the number of ministries from 35 to 23, thus making the administration more streamlined and efficient. This was followed by a Public Administration Reform project aimed at the decentralization of most public services. This would give the Central Government more time and space to tackle the global issues while at the same time speeding up the delivery of the services. The Penal Code, the Civil Code and the Press Law are all being further modernized. During the eight-month times Turkish Parliament adopted there major political reforms packages. These were related to the process initiated by the previous governments to upgrade the Turkish legislation on fundamental rights and freedoms in conformity with Europe. Through the reforms and other measures, my Government achieved the following: Fundamental rights and freedom were extended to the most liberal standards. Some residual restrictions were removed. Additional facilities were provided for the fulfillment of cultural and religious rights. The principle of zero tolerance to mistreatment and torture became the basis of the relevant laws and their implementation. The civilian nature of the administration was consolidated in keeping with the European standards. We became party to international conventions against corruption. Full transparency of public expenses, including the military, was secured. Capital punishment was formally abolished. This decision was further consolidated by the ratification of the relevant Conventions. Economic reforms complemented the political ones. Priority was given to the rational and effective use of our resources. Having told all these, I do not mean that everything is perfect in Turkey. I believe that social and political development is a dynamic process. It can always be improved, bettered, deepened. The important thing is to give the societies the possibilities and instruments to renew themselves. The important thing is not to ignore the social expectations and sensitivities. On the other hand, we know that there is no single or a simple formula to achieve this goal. We need to act in recognition of our peculiarities and different historical experiences. Yet, as Muslim societies we share a common core that is rich and beneficial. This core is fully compatible with what we see as universal values. These values are ``universal'' because no one can claim monopoly over humanistic values that are the common inheritance of civilization. Islam has made highly significant contributions to this common civilization. Finally, I would like to reiterate my belief that the maladies of the Muslim societies can be cured. Shortcomings can be overcome. Institutions can be reformed. However, the problems that inflict some of the Western societies, like racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, materialism, violence, drugs, etc. seem to me most difficult to cure. This is another important challenge that should be tackled by all. May be as a theme of another meeting like this one. Thank you.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 106, a concurrent resolution that recognizes the 350th anniversary of Jewish life in the United States. The resolution encourages all Americans to celebrate September 2004 as American Jewish History Month. I am proud to represent notable Jewish American artists, musicians, doctors, spiritual leaders, entrepreneurs, lawyers, inventors, and authors that reside in South Florida. I wish to celebrate and honor 350 years of Jewish life in America with my Jewish friends, and, through this resolution, commemorate this landmark event with the Jewish community nationwide. Mr. Speaker, the success of the American Jewish community is testament to the basic American rights to liberty, opportunity, and inclusion. These men and women of Jewish descent have substantially transformed the Nation and its communities. American Jewish culture has played a critical role in the multi- dimensional evolution of this country. In part because of Judaism's emphasis on social justice and in part because of Jews' experience as a marginalized minority, Jews led many of the protest and social justice movements of the 1960s and 1970s. In turn, Judaism continues to respond to changes in American culture; feminism, environmentalism, and other social movements have influenced how many Jews practice their religion. The story of Jews in America is also the story of America itself. Thus, it is only fitting that this Congress recognize the enormous contributions of the American Jewish Community to our Nation by designating an American Jewish History Month.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the ranking member, for yielding the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule. Not only does this second rule prohibit further amendments to the supplemental, but it also shortchanges the substance of debate on a bill that costs $87 billion: $200 million per congressional district that will not be used to build schools, provide health care or improve the Nation's infrastructure. My objection to this rule is as much about substance as it is about process. It is as much about the needs of the American people as it is about the needs of the Iraqi people. It is as much about democracy as it is about tyranny. As we deliberate an $87 billion supplemental appropriations request from the President, House Republicans are saying that we cannot ask questions. We cannot ask what the money is going to be used for and how we are going to pay for it. We cannot ask because the Republicans do not know. They do not know because the President will not tell them. Mr. Speaker, if we allow the dictatorial Republican majority to decide what is worthy to debate, then the House will quickly become an insignificant Constitutional trophy sitting on the President's mantle. Do my colleagues realize that the other body has been debating this bill for 15 days? Some Senators have spoken more, each one, more than all of the Members of the House, while the House has not spent 15 hours, and we have more than four times as many Members. So I echo what Mr. Rush said last night: It ain't Christmas, it ain't New Years, and it ain't Easter. Why not work through the weekend and all the Members be heard? American troops will be working this weekend. Why cannot Congress? Our soldiers are fighting and dying, three last night, while Republicans are cutting and running. When Democrats ask questions about cost, strategy, and accountability, Republicans label us as unpatriotic. As I see it, the only unpatriotic thing about this debate is the majority's abandonment of the House's Constitutional responsibility to, as Mr. Madison put it, have a will of its own. As written, H.R. 3289 gives the President carte blanche to spend nearly $87 billion before he has explained how he spent $79 billion we appropriated a few months ago. As I said yesterday, we have seen what happens when we relinquish our oversight authority and fail to hold this administration accountable ahead of time for its actions. Last night, when America was sleeping, Republicans on the Committee on Rules dredged out the familiar formula of pushing their self-serving agenda by oppressing debate, deliberation and dialogue. There is an acronym in the United States Armed Forces that best describes what Republicans are saying to the American people today: The soldiers say BOHICA, B-O-H-I-C-A. Bend over, here it comes again.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the ranking member, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule and bill. Anyone who has read a newspaper or watched a news program can hardly argue that American troops need and deserve additional support. I have voiced my support for an amendment to this bill, several as a matter of fact, but more specifically one offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). That amendment will increase imminent danger and hardship duty pay for our military. It would increase the family separation allowance and add funding to a program that assists disabled service members who are returning to civilian life. The Spratt amendment will also eliminate the fees currently charged to hospitalized service members and several other vital themes for our military. That amendment was not made in order. However, because of my support for the members of the armed services, I cannot in good conscience vote in favor of this massive supplemental blank check, at least not until this administration is forthcoming in answering the questions that Congress has asked again and again and again. My good friend, the dean of the Florida delegation, the chairman of the appropriations committee and my good friend, the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations on yesterday both averred that they were unable to answer in detail how 79 billion taxpayer dollars are being spent. That is unconscionable, and not to mean that we did not have general understanding as to how the money was spent; but we as persons with oversight responsibility have a responsibility to have a detailed analysis. Thirteen months ago when we were debating a resolution on the use of U.S. Armed Forces against Iraq, at that time I offered an alternative war resolution, one with some definitive conditions. It called on the President to provide Congress with a comprehensive plan for the long- term cultural, economic, and political stabilization in a free Iraq. When I presented my resolution, I said, ``The young men and women of our Armed Forces are already fighting a war on terrorism. Before we expand their role and send them even deeper into harm's way, I want assurances that we have a plan for maintaining stability in the region once we declare victory.'' Mr. Speaker, I gave that speech on September 23, 2002. More than a year has passed. More than 320 U.S. troops have lost their lives in Iraq, and hundreds more have been wounded. I am still waiting for an answer. The only thing we have been told by this administration is that the next installment, this one, is going to cost American taxpayers $87 billion. We have already seen what happens when we relinquish our oversight authority and fail to hold this administration accountable ahead of time. There are far too many questions that need to be answered before we abrogate our responsibilities to the American taxpayer and simply hand over nearly $87 billion. For instance, where is the comprehensive strategy that will ensure our goals for the Iraqi people will be met? How long will it take to implement that strategy? How much is it going to cost the American taxpayer? And, finally, exactly how did this administration spend the $79 billion we already appropriated for this war? And just how much more are we going to do by way of supplemental without benefit of authorization, without benefit of clear understanding, without benefit of oversight responsibility.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2998, and am proud to say that I am one of 239 Members who have cosponsored this bipartisan legislation. I commend my colleague from Florida, Bill Young, for working with such diligence to bring this important legislation to the floor. In 1958, Congress initiated a system of charging hospitalized members of the armed forces for subsistence costs. H.R. 2998 will exempt members of the armed forces, hospitalized as a result of armed conflict or engaged in hazardous service, from incurring this charge. Although the FY 2004 Defense Authorization bill does put this exemption in place for 2004, H.R. 2998 amends Title 10 to make this exemption permanent. It is simply unfair and unjust that this additional burden is placed on the brave men and women who serve with such honor and distinction. This is, truly, the very least we can do for these brave men and women. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of this important change to Title 10.