Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support of Federal and State funded in-home care for the elderly. this legislation essentially highlights the inadequacies seniors face with electing in-home care. By increasing financial assistance for in-home care, establishing fee payment guidelines, implementing better schooling for in-home aides, and assembling a supervisory board of care givers, we can help to ensure that the quality of care elderly receive in home is as adequate as hospitalized attention. Mr. Speaker, this is an important resolution for two crucial reasons. First, it allows the elderly to remain independent and sustain viability during the last years of their life. Supporting studies show that seniors who receive in-home care have greater life expectancies than seniors who are moved from everything that is familiar to them and placed in nursing homes. Second, this resolution would encourage increase employment opportunities in the nursing and in-home care industries. By implementing government funded in-home care to equal that of nursing home care, more seniors will elect being nursed a home, which in turn increases job opportunities. All of which we can achieve through raising the quality of in-home care. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. As members of Congress we have a great opportunity to make a positive impact on this issue, an issue that is of concern to many of our grandparents, parents, and will be of concern to us. I look forward to working with my colleagues and moving this resolution forward.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 25, a resolution commending those who give their time and talents to supporting mentoring programs. I support the efforts to promote greater awareness of the need for youth mentors and the increasing involvement with youth through mentoring. 17.6 million young people, nearly half of the youth population, want or need the help of mentors to help them achieve their full potential. Currently only 2.5 million young people are in formal mentoring relationships, leaving 15 million young Americans without the aid of mentors. Every child in our community should be given the opportunity to achieve their full potential. The role of mentors in a child's development cannot be understated. Mentors serve as role models, friends, and advisors helping our youth to develop important social skills, enhance emotional well being, improve cognitive skills, and plan for the future. A mentor can provide crucial guidance, and encouragement, which motivates and nurtures our youth. Mentoring projects could be used to help control and lower the national high school dropout rate, which continues to be a major problem. An estimated 300,000 to 500,000 students in grades 10-12 leave school each year. If used effectively, I believe that mentoring programs could significantly lower the nation's high school dropout rate. This month is National Mentoring Month. We must take this opportunity to recognize the importance of youth mentors and work to embrace and promote mentoring activities and programs. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the efforts of the many mentors who provide the youth of our communities with the invaluable gifts of education and self-confidence.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Mr. Obey's motion to recommit this CR. By now, we've all read or heard about the Hart-Rudman Independent Task Force report stating that the United States remains ``dangerously unprepared'' for another terrorist attack. The Task Force determined that first responders are not prepared for a chemical or biological attack, their radios cannot communicate with one another, and they lack the training and protective gear to protect themselves and the public in an emergency. As the Task Force report stated simply and chillingly--``The consequence could be the unnecessary loss of thousands of American lives.'' I am outraged that this President, who declared war against terrorism, is itching for a war with Iraq, and started sowing the seeds of conflict with North Korea with his ``axis of evil'' speech, is now telling the American people that we can't afford to invest in homeland security. It stands to reason that the closer our nation gets to war, the greater the threat of another domestic terrorism attack becomes. When your national security policy stumbles from a vague declaration of war against an ideology, to crying foul before the first IAEA inspector enters Iraq, to antagonizing national leaders with name- calling, you can't afford not to pay for homeland security. Federal funds are desperately needed to equip firefighters, protect our ports and borders, enhance airport security, defend against agricultural terrorism, and protect our critical infrastructure. I'd like to quote, if I may, a letter I received from the Mayor of the City of Oakland Park, Florida. ``I am writing to express my deep concern that funding for first responders, promised nearly a year ago, has still not been provided to America's cities, towns and villages.'' I have received similar letters from community leaders throughout my District, and when they write expressing concerns about homeland security, they have my undivided attention. I would venture to guess that most of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have received similar letters as well. I urge you to support Mr. Obey's motion.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Congress 2006 Commission Act. My bill establishes a congressional commission to examine the current size of the U.S. House of Representatives and recommend to this body, if applicable, a size increase. Additionally, the Commission is directed to examine and consider alternatives to the current method by which Representatives are elected. Methods such as cumulative voting and proportional representation would, without doubt, result in a more diverse House of Representatives, as well as greater participation in the legislative process by Americans of all shapes, colors, and backgrounds. Under the Constitution, the size of the House of Representatives can be as small as 50 Representatives and as large as one Representative per 30,000 people, or the equivalent to 9,380 Members, based on the 2000 Census. In fact, every decade from 1790 to 1910, following the release of the census, the House of Representatives passed apportionment acts, increasing the size of the House to reflect population increases as well as the introduction of new States to the Union. The current House size of 435 was established in 1911. Congress passed a law in 1929, setting the size limit at 435. The House's size was temporarily increased to 436 in 1959, and 437 in 1960, when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the Union, respectively. But in 1961, the size of the House was reapportioned back to 435. In the past 90 years, U.S. population has more than tripled, but the size of the House of Representatives has remained the same. In the past 90 years, four States have joined the Union, but the size of the House of Representatives has remained the same. In the past 90 years, the United States has become the second most underrepresented democracy in the entire world, but the size of the House of Representatives has remained the same. In fact in the past 90 years, Congress has addressed permanently increasing the size of the House of Representatives only once. When I was first elected in 1992, I represented roughly 589,000 South Floridians. Today, each of us now represents nearly 663,000 or 12.5 percent more people than 10 years ago. In 1982, each Member of the House represented about 534,000 and in 1972, the number was a mere 482,000 or 38 percent fewer people than today. This means that we represent well over 100,000 more people today than did our predecessors--and some Members still serving today--20 years ago. Frankly, at some point Members in this body are going to have to accept reality and begin asking, ``As Representatives, are we as effective today as the Representatives of the 1970s when they had fewer people to represent?'' Mr. Speaker, the 108th Congress is the third Congress that I have introduced this legislation, and in light of the 2000 biennial census, it is clear that, to better serve our constituents, we should represent fewer. Indeed, the effect that an increase in the size of the House of Representatives will have on the American political system is obvious. Increasing the size of the House will result in a reduced amount of campaign spending, smaller congressional districts, more personal interaction between Members of Congress and their constituents, and most importantly, better representation for the American people. I ask my colleagues for their support and cosponsorship of this bill, and I urge the leadership to bring it to the floor for an immediate vote.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, a study conducted by the National School Safety Center on School Associated Violent Deaths notes that between 1992 and 2001, 33 teachers, school administrators, school employees, or volunteers, were fatal victims of school violence. This means that during that nine-year period, a teacher, school administrator or some other school employee in America was killed while performing the duties of his or her job every fourteen weeks. A similar study done by the U.S. Department of Justice last year stated that teachers, school administrators and other school employees accounted for nearly 10 percent of all fatalities from school violence on campuses nationwide. Even more disturbing is that the majority of faculty fatalities occurred when a school employee attempted to stop a fight or some type of disagreement between students or other faculty members. In trying to stop school violence, these school employees became victims of school violence themselves. On May 26, 2000, my district was struck with horror when a thirteen year old student walked into Lake Worth Middle School and shot and killed his teacher, Mr. Barry Grunow. While this tragic event once again raised the important issues of school safety, gun control, and the minimum age at which a child can be tried as an adult, to the Grunow family, the tragic death of Barry Grunow has meant much more. In addition to the painful loss of a father and husband, Barry Grunow's death had a long-term affect on the entire Grunow family. Barry's death meant that, within six months, the entire Grunow family would find themselves without health care coverage; Barry's death meant that the Grunow family would incur added and unexpected expenses; and, ultimately, Barry's death means one less income that can be used to support Pam Grunow and her two children in the years to come. In Spring 2001, the Florida State Legislature passed and the Governor signed the Barry Grunow Act, a measure that provided death benefits to the spouses and children of victims of school violence. Today, I come to the floor of the House of Representatives to say that it is time for Congress to follow Florida's lead and pass a similar measure. I rise today to reintroduce the Teacher Victims' Assistance Act of 2002. The 108th Congress is the second consecutive Congress that I have introduced this legislation. Similar to Florida's Barry Grunow Act, the Teacher Victims' Assistance Act places teachers, school administrators, school employees and school volunteers in the same high-risk category in which we currently place many of country's most important role models. My bill provides the spouses and children of educators who are killed as a result of school violence with the following death benefits: a one-time death benefit of $75,000, $1,500 to be used to assist with any funeral expenses, $900 per month in living assistance to the victims' surviving spouse, $225 per month in living assistance to each dependent of the victim until the age of 17, $7,500 per year, for up to five years, for each dependent to be used to pay for college or other forms of higher education before the age of 25, opportunity to enroll in the Medicare health benefits program, and exempts the family members from having to pay any accumulated income tax by the victim as a result of school employment. Mr. Speaker, never before has Congress made the historic statement that we need to compensate the families of educators who are victims of school violence. Many of us understand that violence in our schools is virtually impossible to eliminate completely. However, it is possible for Congress to ensure every educator in the country that if another school shooting such as those which occurred at Lake Worth High School, the future of educators' families shall never be in jeopardy. The Teacher Victims' Family Assistance Act of 2003 makes such a commitment, and I urge my colleagues to pass it immediately.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution condemning the current political unrest in Venezuela. I wish to express my strong concern about the direction of the government and its alienation of a large part of the citizenry. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call also for new national elections in that country. Venezuela is an important member of the community of nations in this hemisphere. Venezuela is the world's fifth largest commercial supplier of oil and the only Latin American member of the OPEC. Venezuela is the fourth largest supplier of oil to the United States. The continued strike by workers in the petroleum industry in Venezuela has contributed to the rise in the price of crude oil on the world market, thereby affecting a major source of energy for the United States. If the current political unrest and economic instability in Venezuela is not corrected, it could have further negative impact on the price of oil on the world markets. This country, and indeed this region, which seemed to hold so much promise as a nation on the cusp of a new era, and was at long last emerging from a long dark period as a ``military controlled ghetto,'' seems to be slipping once again into an era of ``strong man'' rule, and a state that embraces socialist dogma. America must be more than an island of hope and beacon of opportunity in a region where there is low expectations, and so much unfulfilled potential. We must continue to show leadership in the region. The Administration must follow through with vigorous support of the Summit of the Americas agenda and get on about the business of assisting all the countries in the region to develop their economies and strengthen their political institutions. The House of Representatives must support our neighbors in this hemisphere and support them in the continuing struggle to become full democracies with strong economies. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and call on the leadership to act swiftly in bringing this to the floor for consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce and discuss a Concurrent Resolution concerning North Korea. It calls on North Korea and the United States, in a demonstration of good faith, to return to an interim level of compliance with the Agreed Framework. Once both nations have agreed that this is an acceptable starting point, diplomatic negotiations can begin, and we can work together to develop a more comprehensive and mutually acceptable agreement or treaty. Last year, when North Korea admitted that it has been operating a covert nuclear weapons program, I immediately introduced a Resolution condemning those actions and calling on North Korea and the United States to honor their commitments in the Agreed Framework. The existence of a North Korean nuclear weapons program constitutes a real and imminent threat to the populations of South Korea, and Japan, and certainly to the U.S. forces stationed in those countries. I was certain then, as I am now, that our wisest course of action was to meet our obligations under the Agreed Framework and continue monthly heavy fuel oil shipments to North Korea. I was also certain that if we did not honor our commitments, tensions between our two nations would rise at an alarming rate. Regrettably, my Resolution was neither considered nor adopted in the 107th Congress. And indeed, the situation with North Korea has gone from bad to worse. I have watched incredulously as this Administration has stumbled again and again, making a bad situation worse, because it has failed to develop even the rudimentary beginnings of a policy to deal with North Korea. Enough is enough. Between our poorly defined declaration of war against terrorism and our imminent war with Iraq, we have all the conflict we can handle. The crisis in North Korea is a serious one, and I don't for a moment believe that resuming an interim level of compliance with the Agreed Framework will be the end of it. However, I do believe that we must do something to resolve this impasse and we must also do something to garner support for those nations most effected by North Korea's nuclear weapons capabilities-- South Korea, Japan, and China. If, in a show of good faith, we resume our obligations, we will be much more likely to have the support of those nations if sanctions are necessary in the future. The responsibility for complying with treaty obligations rests with the two nations that signed the Agreed Framework--the United States and North Korea. The responsibility for certifying that North Korea is in compliance with its portion of the Agreed Framework rests with the IAEA. The responsibility for determining appropriate sanctions if North Korea fails to comply with its portions of the Agreed Framework rests with the United Nations. It's that simple. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I believe it will establish our nation as a leader in seeking diplomatic solutions to complicated problems and will be the first step in a developing a policy with North Korea that is achievable, attainable, and supportable by other nations as well.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. The gentleman from Wisconsin has given us an explanation with reference to what is transpiring. When I came to this body, I had no idea that I would have the privilege to serve on the Committee on Rules. When I was given that opportunity, it became the proudest moment in my limited congressional career. Last night, before we left here, I became rather distressed that the majority does not see fit to grant the minority privileges that the minority at another point in time argued that they should have, I remember very distinctly. I have great respect for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Certainly, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations is a friend of mine, and I have immense respect for him, his fairness and his ability. But the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is not the person that is in control of the situation with reference to the rule. The chairman of the Committee on Rules also is a friend of mine, and I am not certain that he is in control of what is transpiring with reference to the rule. What is happening here is we are giving back-room deals new meaning. In essence, what my colleagues have done, if we were to take 10 people, as one Member of Congress here said today, she described it as though we had 10 people and my colleagues put a gag on four and a half of them, so that nearly one-half of America is being denied an opportunity to go forward and put ideas on the table for this body to work its will. That is not fair. Thus my colleagues will find that there are some of us who, different than the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) described when he said we are unhappy, some of us are outraged and plain mad about the circumstances we find ourselves in. In fact, what my colleagues are allowing with these two continuing resolutions is absolutely no debate of consequence with reference to matters of immense and enormous magnitude for the good of this country. Among the things that we say all the time, and on yesterday proudly all of us admired, as we do admire the Speaker of the House, when he cited certain portions of the Constitution that all of us know so well, among those things was to promote the general welfare. Well, we cannot promote the general welfare with dynamic scoring when we are hiding the deficit with creative math. We cannot promote the general welfare when we find ourselves taking ``Jefferson's Manual on Parliamentary Procedure'' and pitching it into the Potomac River. We did not have hearings last night. A train hit those of us in the minority in the Committee on Rules, and a train is hitting every member of the minority as well as the majority. My colleagues hurt themselves as much as they hurt us when they do not give us an opportunity to make an adequate presentation on matters of health, on matters of education, on matters of homeland security; and I could go on and on. Everybody knows what my colleagues did when they took over the House of Representatives, and they did it by arguing against what the Democrats did that was so wrong then: closed rules. Yet every time we look up, all we see is no opportunity for amendments, no opportunity for supplementals. Nothing in the way of decency is coming forward. I am outraged.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce the Small Business Drought Relief Act. The bill provides small businesses that depend upon water supply as a means of income with the opportunity to qualify and apply for disaster assistance from the Small Business Administration when drought affects their ability to earn income. This is the second Congress that I have introduced this much needed legislation, and the need for its immediate passage is greater today than ever. As the clear majority of Members can attest to, the past two years have been two of the driest years in the history of the United States. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency recently noted that 2002 was the second warmest year on record for the globe. In the western parts of United States, record low waterfalls were a plenty. On multiple occasions, more than half of the country was in moderate to extreme drought. Then, when Congress adjourned late last year, thousands of farmers and small businesses fell victim to partisan politics and were left without emergency assistance from the 2002 drought. Under current law, small businesses whose income depreciates as a result of diminishing water supply are unable to even apply for SBA loans. Often these businesses are family-owned and family-run recreational or commercial fishing firms. The majority of them are dependent upon water resources, whether lakes, streams, or rivers, for the ability to operate their businesses. When water levels drop to unbearable points, aside from the obvious water supply issues, boats are unable to make it into lakes and rivers, commercial fishing ceases to exist, and businesses often lay off workers and close their doors for good. I became more acutely interested in drought relief the summer of 2001 when Florida found itself in the most prolonged drought it had seen in nearly 20 years. The water level in Lake Okeechobee, our country's 2nd largest fresh water lake, and located in my District, had decreased by nearly 25 percent. Not only did the water shortage in the lake cause problems for agriculture and water management, but it also destroyed the economic well being of small businesses around the Lake who depend on it for income. Realize this too, the clear majority of these businesses are owned by minorities or families who struggle every day just to get by. As I began to try and help the towns and businesses surrounding the Lake in locating temporary assistance, even if it was only low interest loans, I found that unless a firm was involved in agriculture, assistance is virtually impossible. When it is possible, the bureaucratic red tape applicants must cut through is so discouraging that they don't even try. The issue at hand, Mr. Speaker, is that droughts are major natural disasters. The Stafford Act says it is, as well as the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Defense also say it is. Congress said it as recently as 1998. But for some reason, the Small Business Act does not include drought in its definition of disaster. Frankly, this oversight is a disaster of its own. Today, Mr. Speaker, I am reintroducing a bill which will reconcile the oversight made by our body's predecessors and ensure that businesses who suffer from drought will live to see another day. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I urge the leadership to bring it swiftly to the floor for a vote.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my total support for the people and the newly elected government of Kenya. The hard work and perseverance on the part of the people of Kenya is commendable, as they march along the difficult road of peace and democracy. In much of the developing world, we have witnessed, time and again, countries whose efforts have fallen short of that needed to fully implement a democratic tradition. The determined Kenyan voters ignored unseasonably heavy rains and provided a solid mandate to the new president, the parliament, and local councilors throughout the country. It is refreshing to see the change of government at the ballot box of free and fair elections and not at the end of rifles. Local and international observers who witnessed the election of President Mwai Kibaki described it as the fairest in Kenya's 39-year history. I urge this body to support and commend the Kenyans for the positive measures they have taken to establish a solid democratic foundation. This body, the House of Representatives, along with the Senate and the executive branch should provide assistance to this country as it continues to build its economy and political institutions.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to honor the memory of our colleague and good friend Congressman Wayne Owens. His death on December 18, 2002, was, indeed, unexpected. Today, we are left with a void that will undoubtedly remain unfilled for a long time to come. A four term Member of Congress, Wayne Owens experienced this institution from the inside during two very trying times in American history. As a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, in 1973, Congressman Owens voted to recommend the impeachment of then President Richard M. Nixon. Additionally, in 1991, during his final term in the House of Representatives, Congressman Owens joined with 44 of his Democratic colleagues to sue then President George H. W. Bush to prevent him from taking offensive action against Iraq without first obtaining a Congressional declaration of war or ``other explicit authority from the Congress.'' While the suit only succeeded to delay war for a brief period, it reaffirmed the Congress' constitutional authority to make war. Congressman Owens remained a continued advisor to many of us still serving today long after he left the House of Representatives in 1992. In 1989, Congressman Owens co-founded the Center for Middle East Peace and Economic Cooperation where he quickly became a leading voice advocating a peaceful solution to a historically deadly conflict. Many of us were often left in true admiration of his passion and commitment to educating policy makers and public citizens that peace in the Middle East is not a pipe dream, but rather a real possibility. During my tenure on the House Committee on International Relations, I often sought Congressman Owens advice and guidance, especially when considering legislation affecting the Middle East. While Middle Eastern leaders continue down the difficult path toward peace, Congressman Owens' voice of reason and understanding will truly be missed. Mr. Speaker, the United States must work harder to fulfill the aspirations of peace that Wayne Owens sought for so long. Peace in the Middle East is not a pipe dream. Wayne Owens knew that and the Center that he founded is evidence. Without doubt, it would be a fitting legacy to the memory of Wayne Owens for Middle Eastern leaders to recommit themselves today to a life of peace, harmony, and coexistence. Congressman Owens wouldn't have wanted it any other way.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Rules for yielding me time and I thank my colleague and neighbor from Florida for his comments. Mr. Speaker, this important legislation helps ensure the security of our Nation's ports by establishing a comprehensive national antiterrorism system to reduce the vulnerability of ports and waterways against a terrorist attack and a transportation security incident. Additionally, the conference report authorizes funding for these new antiterrorism fighting provisions as well as the planning and implementation of security plans and response efforts at all of our Nation's ports. It authorizes additional funding to the Coast Guard which is much needed, and it establishes a nationwide security ID program for all U.S. ports. Perhaps most importantly, the report outlines the responsibilities of various Federal agencies, local law enforcement, and private companies in the day-to-day security operations of ports in the case of any unforeseen event. Following September 11, as a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and Committee on Rules, I was and remain an outspoken critic of the lack of coordination between Federal agencies in times of crises. I am happy to see that the conference had the foresight and wherewithal to provide guidance to the many agencies affected by increased port security. Perhaps our airports and the Transportation Security Administration could learn a few things from this report. Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that I find myself managing this rule with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart). I think the gentleman would agree that there is no region in the country that is home to three major international ports in such close proximity as South Florida. And the rest of Florida, if we take into consideration the Tampa Bay area, the Pensacola Bay area, Jacksonville and Port Canaveral, then Florida obviously is critical when it comes to port security. Further, there are no ports that have done more security improvements in the last 18 months than Port Everglades, the Port of Palm Beach and the Port of Miami, all three of which are located in the counties the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) and I represent. While the underlying report is good, it would be irresponsible of me to continue without noting two of the major flaws I believe still exist in the legislation. First, ports who had planned for or implemented new security measures prior to September 11, 2001, that bring the port into compliance with provisions of S. 1214 should be able to be reimbursed for their expenses. The underlying report does not allow for this to occur. Case in point, Port Everglades. As one of the largest cruise ships and container ports in the Nation, Port Everglades recognized the need to improve its security long before September 11, 2001. Nearly 2 years ago, the port invested millions of dollars into establishing a new security plan. In fact, in June of 1999, the Presidential Commission on Seaport Crime and Security visited Port Everglades and recognized many of the port's ``best practices'' as examples for ports throughout the country to follow. Prior to September 11, the Port Everglades security improvement plan was to be implemented over several years. However, in response to September 11, Broward County, Florida, made security at Port Everglades its top priority. The County is committed to spending more than $25 million for security improvements at the port in fiscal year 2003 alone, and the Ports of Palm Beach and Miami have similar investments in progress. Under the report, Port Everglades will be able to be reimbursed for the security improvements it has made since September 11, as well as those it will make in the following year. However, I am appalled that Port Everglades, as well as the Ports of Palm Beach and Miami, will not be eligible to be reimbursed for the planning and implementation of various security improvements that they made prior to September 11, 2001. South Florida's three major ports and some others around the Nation were ahead of the game and made security improvements 18 months ago that Congress is just now getting around to requiring today. Specifically, Port Everglades is an example of the intuitive thinking that ports should have been doing a long time ago, and to penalize it for being ahead of the game is just plain wrong. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, I have major reservations about the level of funding authorized in the report. Clearly, the amount authorized is not enough to meet the security needs of our Nation's ports. In the next 18 months, South Florida's three international ports will spend more than $60 million on security improvements. Under the 50/50 or 75/ 25 cost-sharing agreements laid out in the report, Port Everglades, Port Palm Beach and Port of Miami could easily command nearly half of the total amount authorized in this legislation. Realistically, the $75 million authorized in the report just is not enough to fund security improvements for all U.S. ports. I encourage my colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations to consider this reality when appropriating funds over the next 6 years. In the end, Mr. Speaker, this rule is typical of one for a conference report, and I will be supporting it. Additionally, I will also be supporting the underlying conference report. I urge my colleagues to do the same, but, as I previously mentioned, the report has flaws and Congress must remain intent on revisiting these issues that are critical to our Nation's security. 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, would the gentleman from Florida agree that Port Everglades and Port Miami are deserving of consideration?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. And that the funding level, although we have problems in the Nation, may not be enough to cover the ports of the United States?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss a very serious issue--the failure of North Korea to comply with a number of non-proliferation treaties, agreements, and resolutions, and the absence of any well-defined U.S. policy with that country. The history of nuclear weapons proliferation in North Korea is a lengthy one, going back over a decade and a half when North Korea signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. When it signed that treaty in 1985, North Korea agreed not to manufacture or acquire nuclear weapons, and also agreed that the International Atomic Energy Agency could conduct inspections to verify fulfillment of those obligations. When that Agency discovered anomalies in North Korea's nuclear facilities in 1993, inspectors were no longer allowed into the country. Seeking to end the stalemate, the U.S. and North Korea signed the Agreed Framework in October, 1994. Under the terms of the Agreed Framework, the U.S. created an international consortium, which would provide North Korea with alternative sources of energy in the form of heavy fuel oil and a modern nuclear power plant. In return, North Korea pledged to freeze its existing nuclear program and allow inspectors back into the country. Shortly after the Framework was signed, the consortium, the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization, was created. Despite the fact that the U.S. and its allies have spent over $1.3 billion to finance reactor construction and provide heavy fuel oil to North Korea annually, they have consistently failed to allow inspections of its nuclear facilities. Then last month, North Korea admitted that it has been operating a covert nuclear weapons program. The existence of a North Korean nuclear weapons program poses a real and imminent threat to the populations of South Korea, Japan, and North Korea, and to the U.S. Armed Forces stationed in that region. The time has come for the U.S. to establish an effective policy regarding U.N. member states and their obligations towards world peace and disarmament. Today, I am introducing a resolution, condemning the government of North Korea for its failure to comply with the non-proliferation treaty and the Agreed Framework. First, my resolution calls on North Korea to honor its commitments under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Agreed Framework. Those commitments include freezing its nuclear programs and allowing the IAEA to carry out inspections. It also commends the members of the KEDO international consortium for honoring and upholding their commitments to advance the implementation of the Agreed Framework. Second, my resolution calls on the IAEA to report to the U.N. General Assembly, one year from the date of the Resolution, on the status of North Korea's compliance with inspections. If the IAEA report indicates that North Korea has still not allowed inspections, members of KEDO are called on to suspend all funding for construction, suspend construction of the light water reactor, and suspend shipment of heavy fuel oil. And finally, the Resolution calls on the leaders of Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, and other concerned nations to support that potential suspension. I believe that this Resolution is an important first step in achieving the non-proliferation treaty goal of nuclear disarmament. I do not recommend, as many have suggested, simply declaring the Agreed Framework null and void. I believe that ``suspending'' our participation until North Korea complies with its obligations sends an important message. That message is--we honor our commitments, we expect you to honor yours, and we believe that diplomatic and peaceful solutions, with the full support of other concerned nations, are the optimum means for attaining the objectives outlined in the Non- Proliferation Treaty. Realize, this is only the first step on what will be a long and arduous path. This Resolution allows diplomatic discussions and negotiations to continue, it also allows our Secretary of State to garner support from members of the U.N. Security Council and other concerned nations to join in commitments to the non-proliferation treaty. I have specifically not included any language in the Resolution on actions that might be taken after one year if inspectors are still not allowed into North Korea. It is more appropriate to leave that decision to the member nations on the U.N. Security Council. There are nearly 38,000 U.S. Armed Forces currently stationed on the Korean peninsula, and another 40,000 stationed in Japan. We have a lot at stake as a nation in ensuring a peaceful solution to this issue. At the same time, we must take steps to overcome this impasse. It is not reasonable for the United States to continue unilateral compliance with a bilateral Agreement. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I believe this resolution will guide our nation towards implementing a policy that is achievable, and attainable, and supportable.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations and my good friend.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), my good friend.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule and the underlying resolution. Tax cuts to well-off people in our country, environmental rollbacks by the dozen, awarding corporate irresponsibility and neglecting the needs of America's senior citizens and veterans are only a few of the highlights that the 107th Congress has to speak of. As one colleague put it yesterday, ``It's been an awfully long day to do nothing.'' Mr. Speaker, simply put, America has needs and today's continuing resolution does not meet them. The spirit in which the resolution is coming to the floor and the message that it sends is cut and run politics of the highest kind. There is a reason that this is called a Lame Duck Congress, because legislation like this is just lame. As my colleagues know, today's CR funds the Federal budget until January 11, or thereabouts, 2003, without increasing spending in areas that we know we need increases. With a possible war with Iraq on the horizon, should not this body, which is led by the President's party, spend time figuring out a way to pay for a war that the President has been asking for and that many Members voted for? In a few hours, many expect that the House and Senate will each pass a bill establishing a new Department of Homeland Security. Listen up America, one caveat though: we are not going to fund the new Department until, according to the CR, January 11, 2003, at the earliest. Additionally, the CR does nothing to protect the thousands of Member projects that cities and counties and constituents are depending on, including projects in the appropriations bills that Congress has already passed, the two of them. Finally, the CR provides no PAYGO provisions, thus solidifying what the minority has been saying for more than 1 year: good bye, surplus; hello, deficit spending. To date, Congress has neglected its constitutionally mandated responsibility of funding the Federal Government and has passed, as I earlier stated, a meager two of the 13 appropriation bills; and now we want to go home. Mr. Speaker, what about homeland security and our national defense? What about prescription drugs? What about Social Security? What about extending unemployment benefits? What about an energy bill? What about the veterans measures that are not passed? How many of those measures have gone by the board? What other health considerations are we not considering? Long-term unemployment is at an 8-year high in this Nation, and nearly 2 million Americans have lost their jobs. Consumer confidence is at its lowest levels since mid-2001, and prescription drug prices are still sky high. Mr. Speaker, I do not have to look around for anybody about that. I have been dealing with my mom's failing stages of her health; and on two different occasions since we were in recess, I paid $983 for prescriptions, and all she has is Social Security and Medicare. So, firsthand, I think we should do for the American citizens what is needed in the area of prescription drug prices. We leave seniors unable to afford their vital prescription medicine. Think about it, the House took most of January off this year, all of August, most of October; and now we are poised to give ourselves a month-and-a-half Christmas vacation. The American people are not paying us to work 2- or 3-day work weeks, and they are certainly not paying us to work 8 out of 12 months. Could my colleagues imagine if we tried to run a business this way? No wonder the American people have such dismal opinions of the Federal Government. When the going gets tough, the tough get out of town. Mr. Speaker, we were elected by the American people to Congress to do a job. Evidence today and every other CR that the House has been forced to pass in the last month are not the way that we should be going. I am convinced that the Republican leadership is really in the final analysis not interested in doing the job having to do with the things I spoke of earlier, or at the least doing them right. The leadership of this body for the most part is not going to change very much in the 108th Congress. Republicans are still going to be in the majority, and I congratulate my friends in that regard. And Democrats are going to still be in the minority. With or without recriminations, those that were elected and reelected are to be congratulated as well. So why is the majority trying to go home when the work of the 107th Congress is not done? Perhaps the American people need to be asking the same question. Now is not the time to go home and leave today's problems for tomorrow's Congress. The American people cannot run a budget like this in their house, and we should not be trying to run one like it in America's House. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and to reject the underlying resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have one final speaker, and I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the 11th-hour version of the Homeland Security Act. When the House originally debated this legislation last August, more than one hundred amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee. Barely \1/4\ of those amendments were considered in order, despite recommendations from eleven congressional committees. Now we've been presented with a new, 484 page version of the bill, and are not being given any time to assess its merits and flaws. During our first debate, I introduced an amendment that protected the Equal Employment Opportunity and whistleblower rights of civil servants. My amendment was unanimously approved, a clear indication that federal workers' rights are an important concern for this Congress. In fact, this issue was so important that it caused the first bill to get bogged down in the Senate for more than three months. Although I note that the protections in my Amendment have been included, the new version gives the Secretary the authority to establish a ``contemporary'' human resources management system, but does not define the word ``contemporary'' in this context. This authority will affect the 170,000 federal workers who will transfer to the new department and deserves careful scrutiny and debate. Another disturbing item in this bill is the unprecedented authority of the new Secretary, who will be able to transfer funding between departments in the new agency without any congressional authority or oversight. In other words, Congress can approve appropriations for one program, and the Secretary can arbitrarily decide to spend those tax dollars on something else, without congressional approval. This initiative sets a rather alarming precedent for the entire executive branch of government; one that deserves our full and careful attention. Either we're going to create a new department, or we're going to change the civil service laws and revamp the Executive branch of government. I don't believe we should attempt to do both in one piece of legislation. The American people are counting on us to create a new department that will reduce our vulnerability and prevent future terrorist attacks. They are also counting on us to do this in a fiscally responsible manner. The earliest the new department would be funded would be January 11, 2003. If we have a year, then let's take a year and do this right. Let's make sure that the new department will deliver what it promises, and let's make sure we know what it will cost. The Homeland Security Act, as written, is not ready for prime time. We have been given no time to review the bill, and no opportunity to debate the bill and no option to amend the bill, but we are being asked to approve the bill. Although there are differences between the first and second versions, different, in this case, does not mean better. As I said in my floor statement three months ago, if we don't take the time to do this right, we're going to have to make the time to do it over, and here we go again . . . Let's give this legislation the time and attention it deserves and create a Department of Homeland Security that will do what we need it to do. We must have Homeland Security legislation that actually improves our homeland security, not just creates a new federal agency with new civil service rules and unmonitored spending authority for its Secretary. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution condemning the recent terrorist bombing in Bali, Indonesia. Further, I wish to express my strong and utter disgust with the actions of those who bombed the nightclub in Bali, last weekend. This resolution is offered to condemn the violent bombing of last weekend and urged that we continue our efforts in the war against terrorism that we began a year ago. This resolution offers support to the government of Indonesia in its efforts to find and bring to justice those the perpetrators, organizers, and sponsors of the attack. I rise to pay tribute to the many lives lost in the recent incident of October 12, 2002 in Bali. The unspeakable level of terror heaped upon the Americans and vacationers of other countries, some of whom are among our closest allies, must be dealt with. For the last year, the United States has been engaged in an International War on Terrorism, and we have received broad support from countries across the globe. This act reminds us that we must keep our eye on the ball and continue to engage those who would deliver terror upon our cities and citizens. Mr. Speaker, the Resolution I am introducing today expresses the condolences of this body to all those who lost loved ones and family members in the heinous act and we should not ever forget them. Saturday's bombing is a reminder that the war on terrorism truly is a global war. It reminds us that terror has no face, nor no borders. The House of Representatives must stand behind the people of Indonesia during this trying time as they fight their own war on terrorism. I urge my colleagues to support my resolution and call on the leadership to act swiftly in bringing this to the floor for consideration.