Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), my good friend.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), my classmate and good friend, former Secretary of State of the State of Ohio.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule; and my amendment will provide that as soon as the House passes this rule, it will take from the Speaker's table and immediately consider the Senate-passed version of H.R. 1308, which restores the refundable child tax credit that was removed from the recently passed Republican tax bill. Let me make very clear to my colleagues in the House that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act. A ``no'' vote will allow the House to vote on H.R. 2143 and on the Senate-passed version of H.R. 1308 as well. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House from voting on this badly needed tax package to provide real relief to America's working families. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can send this bill to the President today. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and a description of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003. As of February 2003, there were 37,000 non-citizens serving on active duty in the U.S armed forces. Moreover, almost 12,000 foreign nationals were serving in the selected reserves, and another 8,000 were serving in the inactive National Guard and ready reserves. Their red, white, and blue patriotism has contributed extraordinarily to national security. Every single one of these heroes, courageous defenders of lady liberty--from the Philippines, Mexico, Jamaica, Haiti, among many other source countries--deserves an expedited procedure for citizenship. Mr. Speaker, as of February 2003, there were 1,663 non-citizen members of the U.S. military whose unit was stationed in Florida. Every single one of them has made the commitment to risk his or her life to defend the United States of America. Volunteering to serve in the U.S. armed forces exemplifies one of the important roles of a citizen. On April 14, 2003, Captain Armando Ariel Gonzalez, a Florida non-citizen resident, was killed in a non-hostile accident when a commercial refueler collapsed at a supply area in Southern Iraq. Once more, I wish to express my deepest condolences to the Gonzalez family, and at the same time offer all my support and prayers. This tragedy only crystallizes the great risk and danger the brave members of the all-volunteer military experience in the name of the people of the United States. We must never forget that the peace and prosperity that we enjoy are founded on the ultimate sacrifice made by all those who have lost their lives in war throughout our nation's history. We have witnessed the commitment of non-citizen soldiers to the United States during the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. They have earned our gratitude and admiration. We must now accord them our appreciation and respect. I support The Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003 because it, (a) Ensures the ability of lawful permanent resident spouses, unmarried children, and parents of soldiers killed as a result of service in the U.S military to apply for citizenship; (b) Speeds up the naturalization process by allowing military members to naturalize after serving one year in the military, waive naturalization fees, and allow naturalization interviews and oath ceremonies to take place abroad, and (c) Waives posthumous citizenship fees. I am pleased with the bill proposed today, but urge my colleagues to further facilitate the naturalization process to these heroes and their loved ones.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 177. This resolution acknowledges the accomplishments of the U.S. armed forces and expresses the deep gratitude of the nation to the 21 steadfast allies and coalition members in Afghanistan and Iraq. It also commends Defense Department civilians and contractors for their work and support. It is a privilege to take a few minutes to pay tribute to the men and women who distinguish themselves daily in selfless service to this nation. More than 1.4 million men and women make up America's active and reserve forces, and over 300,000 of them are deployed for military action in Afghanistan and Iraq. In addition to their duties as soldiers, members of the armed forces also serve as our nation's unofficial ambassadors.-They represent the very best of what this nation stands for--honor, loyalty, and a commitment to enhancing freedom and democracy throughout the world. The men and women now serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have the unique opportunity to demonstrate to the world that the United States cannot only win wars, it can help emerging nations become self-governing as well. Maintaining the peace and nation building in these two countries promises to be a lengthy and time-consuming process. I am pleased to offer my support to this resolution and call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reaffirm our commitment to our nation's goals in these two countries. H. Con. Res. 177 also conveys the deepest sympathy and condolences to the families of service members killed or wounded during these operations, and calls on communities across the country to prepare appropriate ceremonies to commemorate with tributes and days of remembrance their service and sacrifice. Sixty-seven United States military and civilians lost their lives in Afghanistan and 140 died in Iraq so far. By any measure, their contributions, in terms of human sacrifice, are immense. As a nation we share the sense of loss that their families are experiencing. We must never forget that the peace and prosperity that we enjoy are founded on the ultimate sacrifices made by those who have lost their lives in war throughout our nation's history.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I rise today in support of H. Res. 201, which commends American business for its support of U.S. Reservists and National Guardsmen called to active duty. Nationwide, Reservists are averaging far more number of days either deployed or away from home than at the height of the Gulf War in 1991. They are being called up more often, are serving for longer periods of time, and are absolutely vital to our national military strategy. The U.S. military does not undertake any sustained operations anywhere in the world without using the National Guard and Reserve. Over 216,900 reservists have been called to active duty since 9/11, with most having to temporarily leave their civilian jobs to serve. Although their jobs are assured when they return, for their employers, war means having to continue business without key employees. Small firms in particular must make extraordinary sacrifices when they lose one of their most productive workers. Yet, despite these hardships, many companies continue to support these employees and their families while they serve their nation. H. Res. 201 expresses the sense of the House that our nation's businesses and business owners should be commended for their support of our troops and their families as they serve our country. It is important to acknowledge the sacrifices and contributions made by American business in support of the Reservists and Guardsmen they employ. Many of these companies, without legal obligation to do so, continue to pay reservists the difference between their military pay and what they earn on their civilian jobs. Many also continue to pay health and insurance benefits for those employees and their families. Members of the guard and reserve can't do their job without the support of their family and employers. It is fitting that we take this opportunity to acknowledge the contribution that American business, both corporate and family-owned, is making to the defense of our nation and to our national military objectives.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), my good friend. (Mr. FILNER 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. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for yielding me time. I rise in strong opposition to House Joint Resolution 4. I firmly believe that passing this constitutional amendment would abandon the very values and principles upon which the country was founded. Make no mistake, I deplore the desecration of the flag, and I am absolutely certain that 440 Members of the House of Representatives deplore the desecration of the flag. Those who burn or otherwise desecrate the American flag tread on a symbol cherished by nearly every one of our citizens in this great country. While I am appalled at the notion of someone desecrating our flag, I am more concerned with tampering with the Constitution. The true test of any nation's commitment to freedom of expression lies in its ability to protect unpopular expression. In 1929, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that it was the most impressive principle of our Constitution that it protects not just freedom for the thought and expression we agree with, but freedom for the thought we hate. The passage of this amendment would provide a dangerous precedent for future attempts to amend the Constitution, putting the essential freedoms it upholds at risk. If Congress amends the first amendment, something that has never happened in our Nation's history, it will open the door for other exceptions to liberty. Ultimately, we must remember that it is not simply the flag we honor but rather the principles it embodies. To restrict people's means of expression would do nothing but abandon those principles; and to destroy those principles would be a far greater travesty than to destroy its symbols. I repeat a portion of that paragraph: to restrict people's means of expression would do nothing but abandon those principles, and to destroy these principles would be a far greater travesty than to destroy its symbol. Indeed, it would render the symbol meaningless. Mr. Speaker, we are too secure as a Nation to risk our commitment to freedom by endeavoring to legislate patriotism. The flag burning amendment is one more example of the Republican tendency to play the patriot card, to distract the people from the consequences of their policy. And I wish to underscore that because there are no people in the House of Representatives who are not patriots. And there is no one here any more patriotic than anyone else. And for that reason alone we should not be toying with patriotism principles. There are more important matters that Congress should be attending to. The way President Bush has shortchanged our veterans, we could deal with that, who have fought in defense of all that Old Glory signifies, the way that he has done this is an outrage to all my colleagues and they should be prepared to fight about it. Why are we spending time arguing about the physical desecration of the United States flag instead of voicing anger about the disservices done to what the flag stands for? One would like to believe veterans this year would receive more than a Top Gun flash visit. As a grateful Nation, we should ensure that all veterans have adequate access to health care and timely benefits. In my district alone, veterans are being told that they are not going to be able to get benefits, and we have some new super eight province that we have established that if their income is at a certain level they will not qualify. Those are some things that I believe we must seriously look at. I also think we must seriously reexamine the President's budget priorities that cause this Congress to provide inadequate funding for those in uniform so as to allow tax cuts that will mostly advantage some few wealthy Americans. And since veterans health services have not been appropriately funded, the Bush administration has proposed to increase co-payments for prescription drugs and to charge high annual enrollment fees. I oppose this proposal, as I am sure many Members on both sides of the aisle do, which punishes those in need by charging them money they do not have to pay for services they do need but cannot pay. Current Secretary of State, the retired four star Army general, Colin Powell, that so many people tout so often and a few denigrate, voiced opposition to a similar flag amendment in the year 2000. Here is what Secretary Powell said at that time: ``The first amendment exists to ensure that freedom of speech and expression applies not just to that with which we agree or disagree, but also that which we find outrageous. I would not amend,'' Colin Powell says, ``that great shield of democracy'' that stands right behind the Speaker of this House, ``to hammer a few miscreants. The flag will be flying proudly long after they have slunk away.'' That sounded so good maybe I ought to repeat it again: ``The first amendments exists to ensure that freedom of speech and expression applies not just to that which we agree or disagree, but also that which we find outrageous. I would not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer a few miscreants. The flag will be flying proudly long after they have slunk away.'' I thank Secretary Powell. This is a shallow amendment that addresses a nonissue. This is an unnecessary amendment that helps no one, but is likely to hurt us all. This is a dangerous amendment that should not be approved. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Robert Williams wrote an article recently, and he is one of the Tuskegee Airmen, and the title of the article was ``A Tuskegee Airman Salutes The Flag.'' He talked initially about how he became a fighter pilot in the Second World War. And then he goes on, and I am skipping his first three paragraphs, but I quote him: ``That is why I cringe when I see Congress preparing to pass a constitutional amendment that would rewrite the first amendment for the first time ever to ban a form of protest. It is particularly hard for me,'' Mr. Williams says, ``as an American war veteran to see this action taken in the name of patriotism. For while we as a country view our flag as the very essence of patriotism, it is, in reality, a symbol of that spirit. ``And if the proposed flag desecration amendment wins final approval, our flag will become a symbol without substance. Don't get me wrong,'' Mr. Williams says, ``no one endorses the idea of burning the flag or desecrating it in any way. It is, to me, a very repugnant concept. But I find more threatening the idea that we would change the Constitution every time some American came up with a new repugnant way to protest.'' He talks a lot about what it took to become an airman from Ottumwa, Iowa, and how he and his buddy applied on the same day, and he was, with empathy, told to give up. He did not give up, and he became a part of a proud fighter force in our Air Force, the Tuskegee Airmen. And he closes, and I am skipping a lot of what Mr. Williams said, he said: ``Today, as I sit and recall the terrible attacks that we endured just to get the right to fight for our country, I am more certain that the elimination of any right to freedom of speech is dead bang wrong. Protest, after all, takes many forms and many shapes. Some of them may be seen as distasteful by some Americans. But if we change the Constitution to outlaw these less than acceptable forms of protest, then what we are doing is just as repugnant as burning the flag itself.'' Thank you, Robert Williams. You know what we could or should be doing right now? We should be passing the 13 appropriation measures that is our mandate here in Congress. We should be providing proper health benefits, rather than turning veterans away, as they are in my district in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. We should be passing a prescription drug benefit rather than talking about desecrating the flag. We should be building schools for our children and grandchildren rather than leaving them deficits that will cause them not to even have school. We should be passing aid to public universities to stop tuition from going up the way it is in my State and 20 other States around this Nation. How about providing a child care tax credit for working families, like the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) came here and asked unanimous consent to do, rather than talking about flag desecration? We should be increasing the funding of the National Institute of Health research funds. We should be helping the Centers for Disease Control prepare us in the event there is a problem in this Nation. We should be passing pay raises for Federal judges in this country who too long have suffered at the whim of this United States Congress. We should be providing dollars for first responders in this country. We should be providing money for port security, better housing for veterans, paving roads, paying teachers; and I can go on and on. But what we come here with is a repugnant measure. All of us, every man and woman in this House, is patriotic, whether they voted for the defense measure or not. All of us are superpatriots in the sense that we provide service for our country. And each in our own way ideologically, left and right, black and white, rich and poor come here for the purpose of upholding that great symbol of ours, the flag. And I do not need anybody to tell me about patriotism. I lost relatives and friends in wars like every man and woman here has. And there are kids right now that would rather come home and know that we took care of some of those things that we needed to take care of rather than handle a handful of miscreants that might go out and foolishly burn a flag. There are laws, as one of our colleagues said, that takes care of that. Let those laws be sufficient for us. Let the flag reign supreme. Do not let it rain down the kind of desecration that not passing these measures would help us to do. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who serves on the Committee on the Judiciary with distinction. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the distinguished chairman that last quarter that he talked about in 2000, the tax measure had not been passed at that time, actually did not pass until June of 2001. I would also like to say to the chairman who said that he is proud to be a Republican, he was born to cut taxes, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) said. Well, I am proud to be a Democrat, and I was born to help those who cannot help themselves. When we talk about people who pay taxes receiving benefits, there are people in this country who want to pay taxes, but cannot get a job. Mr. Speaker, do my colleagues realize that this body will spend a meager 2 hours debating this tax cut? That is the House will dish out more than $2.4 billion to America's wealthiest for every minute it has debated this irresponsible proposal. Let me repeat myself for those who did not hear me the first time: $2.4 billion per minute of debate. Mark Twain said there are two things you should never watch being made: sausage and legislation. The development of the Republican tax cut plan exemplifies the similarities between the nastiness and ramdomness of sausage-making and law-making. Those on the other side of the aisle have dismembered competing packages into a speculative $318 billion collage. The tax cut conference report is incomprehensible, politically motivated, and fiscally irresponsible. Outside of these hallowed halls is a visitors' center that is being built. Right now it is a big old hole, and what the Republicans are proposing is a $1 trillion hole that is a great metaphor for that big old hole right outside. This ugly tax sausage is the product of the President and the Republican majority's troubling tax cut fixation. The tax cut conference report is a collection of various misplaced, gruesome, and dishonest provisions. The Frankenstein result is an offensive tax proposal with no legs to stand on, no eyes to see beyond the present, no voice of truth, and no heart with compassion for America's neediest. For President Bush and the Republican majority, tax cuts are a one- size-fits-all solution. Last year's obese, obtuse, and downright obnoxious tax cut was, according to the majority, correct for the then- existing surplus. This year while the economy is ailing, the President, House majority, and Senate majority all have professed that their own version of a tax cut plan will solve the current economic problems. Now we are being asked to subscribe to the untruthful claim that this fifth tax cut version more mangled and distorted with gimmicks than the previous four, will restart the economy. I ask that Members do not support this rule and underlying principle of the bigger the wallet, the bigger the benefit.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and the ranking member. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today to offer an amendment that preserves congressional oversight authority over Department of Defense actions. U.S. Code, Title 10, directs the Department of Defense to prepare a variety of reports annually, quarterly, and monthly. The Secretary has argued, and with some currency, that the task of preparing these reports is too time-consuming and manpower intensive. The Secretary now seeks to have the requirement to submit reports deleted. Mr. Chairman, I am all for efficiency in government, but let us be careful not to give away the House and the Senate. Mr. Chairman, included in the list of reports the Secretary of Defense seeks to delete from Title 10 are some that are critical for the House and Senate. We cannot abrogate our constitutional duty of checks and balances over the largest department of the Executive Branch simply because it takes time to prepare a report. My amendment retains three reporting requirements that I believe are extremely important to this body's oversight authority. The first directs the Secretary of Defense to inform the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Intelligence Committee on any actions taken consistent with activities outlined in the National Security Act. I can assure the Members, as a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, this information is of the utmost importance to us. The second is an annual report from the Secretary of Defense to the House Committee on Armed Services and the Senate Armed Services Committee as well as the House Committee on International Relations and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This report lists all humanitarian assistance activities of the Department, including the cost of those activities. The third report retained by my amendment requires the heads of each DOD department or agency to provide an annual report to the House Committee on Armed Services and the Senate Armed Services Committee on the management of the civilian workforce under their jurisdiction. With the sweeping changes envisioned for the DOD civilian workforce, who can argue that these reports are no longer important? I appreciate the Secretary's concerns. As a matter of fact, several of us met with Secretary Rumsfeld as he returned to the Department of Defense, and one of the questions that was put to him was what changes did he see this second time around. Very candidly and forthrightly he said the thing that struck him most is the number of reports that are required to be brought out by the Department of Defense. I have included in this amendment timely and relevant reports to Congress and excluded from it original versions that would have required more. We are about to write a very large check for the Department of Defense and rightly so, but at the end of the day let us make sure we know what we are paying for. I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) for his interest in my amendment, and especially I am grateful to him and his staff and the ranking member, and I believe that we have reached an acceptable compromise. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we have one more speaker, and we are waiting for her to return.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if it is that this bill will not destroy forests, then I do not know how to read. It is just that simple. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just to answer my friend regarding what he thought was a rhetorical question, what I merely was suggesting was that the majority's bill will eliminate forests and if it eliminates forests then there will not be any wildfires.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), for yielding me this time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this restrictive rule and the underlying bill. Typically during debate on the rule, the minority expresses its outrage at the process by which the underlying bill is coming to the floor. We talk about the limited time that we have had to consider the content of the bill as well as the lack of opportunities that we have to offer amendments. Today is no different. I again come to the floor in disgust by the majority's rule which makes in order a meager 1 of the 11 amendments that were offered by Democrats, many of which, I note, addressed some of the bill's most controversial provisions. These commonsense amendments held the potential to transform a controversial bill into one that the entire House can support. Instead, the American people will never hear a discussion on these amendments because the Republican majority has shut off debate. As I examined the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, it became increasingly obvious that the only ``healthy'' thing about this bill is the pocketbooks of the timber and logging industries and the only ``restoration'' that is being done is in the campaign coffers of the majority just in time for election day 2004. President Theodore Roosevelt, the Republican conservationist, told Congress in 1907: ``The conservation of our natural resources and their proper use constitute the fundamental problem which underlies almost every other problem of our national life.'' We are now faced with a vote clearly indicative of the concerns raised by President Roosevelt nearly 1 century ago. Whether we answer the challenge made by the late President or allow his legacy to fall victim to an influential timber lobby is a decision that Members will have to make later today. Republicans have crafted a bill that makes their approach toward curbing wildfires quite clear: if there are not any trees in the forests, then there will not be any forest fires. This approach is as infantile as it is misguided. The reality is H.R. 1904 opens up thousands upon thousands of forest acres to logging and destruction. With the passage of this bill, much of the 150 national forests spread across some 230 million acres of land initially set aside for protection nearly 100 years ago will again be under attack. The majority's drafting of a logging bill under the guise of wildfire prevention mocks the seriousness of the issue. In 2002 alone, wildfires burned more than 6.5 million acres at a cost to taxpayers of more than $1 billion. Hundreds of families were evacuated, and uncontrollable fires caused millions of dollars of damage and the death of firefighters. This bill not only loosens current law regarding the logging and controlled burning of our Nation's forests but it also eviscerates environmental studies and the ability of organizations and private citizens to submit appeals on the cutting down of as many as 20 million acres. Under the Republican bill, appeals are subject to unnecessary and unrealistic deadlines which insult the process. Federal judges are held to judicial deadlines that fail to consider caseloads and complexities of the appeal. The irony of a December 2002 White House press release entitled ``Reducing the Threat of Catastrophic Wildfires and Improving Forest Health'' is shocking. The release notes, ``The President's Healthy Forest Initiative will ensure that needed environmental reviews and public review processes are conducted in the most efficient and effective way possible.'' It continues, ``The Departments of Agriculture and Interior will propose steps to promote early and more meaningful public participation on forest health project appeals.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1904 certainly ensures that the public review process is efficient. It just eliminates the process before it even begins. Efficient? Yes. Democratic and patriotic? Absolutely not. Democrats, on the other hand, have submitted a fair, realistic, and noncontroversial substitute. It places priority on the protection of communities and water supplies most directly threatened by potential wildfires. And it requires that 85 percent of any funds appropriated under the bill are spent for projects in communities and watersheds. The Democratic substitute also protects community infrastructure and expands areas protected from logging under the bill. It does not alter current judicial review and appeals procedures, and it authorizes nearly $4 billion for hazardous fuels reduction work. The Democratic substitute is as strong as the majority's bill is in areas where our two sides agree. But, most importantly, the Democratic substitute is stronger in the areas where the majority's bill fails. Teddy Roosevelt once noted, ``Forests are the lungs of our land, purifying the air and giving fresh strength to our people.'' He continued: ``A Nation that destroys its soil destroys itself.'' This bill, Mr. Speaker, destroys our national forests and does little to preserve the strength of the American people. We must not allow the late President Roosevelt's warning to be realized by the 108th Congress. I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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