Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) who fights hard for the Nation's Capital as well as the rest of this Nation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to respond to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) by reminding him that a considerable number of people are out of work; the stock market is certainly not in a bullish mode. It is bearish, to say the least; and it is certainly down, although I do not know whether that is the best barometer, but when it comes to whether or not this House has really been about the business of helping people with their health care and with the workers in this country, even when the gentleman mentions 9-11, and, yes, I agree that we did a tremendous job in a bipartisan fashion in speeding along some relief for some, but those airline workers, many of them still have not received any of the benefits that were offered by Congress at that time. Thus I say not only have we not done everything we are supposed to do first fiscally by law, we also may have done some things that made this economy worse; and I for one stood in opposition to many of the tax cuts offered by the other side, and I would feel that if we look at it carefully, we will know that it had a devastating impact on this economy. Mr. Speaker, Democrats want to give Americans a clear choice. Democrats stand for increasing the minimum wage, extending unemployment benefits for laid-off workers, and making sure our highways are adequately funded. Republicans stand for more tax cuts. That is what they have been bandying about here for a couple of weeks about trying to bring out something here called an economic stimulus package that was nothing but some more tax cuts for some who are wealthy in our society and letting tax evaders move to Bermuda while our Nation is at war. There is a clear choice. The numbers do not lie, Mr. Speaker: 8.1 million Americans are looking for work but cannot find it; 2.9 million have been unemployed for more than 15 weeks. Poverty has risen while our economic growth has declined. Democrats think we should do something about this. The Republicans evidently do not. There is a clear choice. If the previous question is defeated, we will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow us to vote on three amendments. Number one, to increase the minimum wage to $6.65 an hour over 2 years, and I say to anybody that has people in their district that are working on the minimum wage, you multiply $6.65 times 40 hours and see if you can live with your family on such a meager amount of assistance. Two, we are going to seek to give an additional 13 weeks of unemployment benefits to our workers; and, three, to retain the fix for highway spending that was inserted in the CR last week while striking the language that would have limited overall spending for fiscal year 2003 to $27 billion. These are priorities to Democrats and evidently afterthoughts to my Republican colleagues. There is a clear choice, Mr. Speaker; and I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson), who has been a leader in trying to help the neediest children in this land. (Ms. CARSON of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as I heard the gentleman speak, I expected the Royal Family to show up any time here on the floor, but I am sure that that is not going to be the case. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to respond to my colleague from Connecticut, who very movingly points to things that we have done and that the other body has not done. But I note that she made no mention of the fact that our exacting responsibility is to pass appropriations measures, and my last count was that we have not done all of the appropriations at this time. Now, I do not think that is the responsibility of the chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), or the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), in the sense that they did not do their job. I think it is the fact that the Republicans are in disarray and cannot seem to get those appropriations measures here to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), my good friend and the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Washington, my namesake, for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, the House engages in a very important debate today. It is a debate about priorities like the economy, Social Security, and education. More fundamentally, it is a debate about whether the American people will have a Congress that does the job it was elected to do. Nearly 2 years ago, Republicans took control of the Federal Government in Washington. They quickly forced through their own very partisan, very ideological economic plan, one centered around big budget-busting tax breaks for some of the wealthiest in our society. Mr. Speaker, what has happened since the Republican economic plan passed? Long-term unemployment is at an 8-year high, and nearly 2 million Americans have lost their jobs. Consumer confidence is at its lowest level since November of 2001, and prescription drug prices are still sky high, leaving senior citizens unable to afford vital prescription medicine. Corporate scandals, the massive criminality at Enron, WorldCom and the like, have rocked the economy and devastated the retirement plans of millions of Americans; but my colleagues, the House Republicans, overwhelmingly voted against real pension protection legislation a few months ago, blocking Democrats' efforts to protect Americans' retirement plans. The DOW has hit a 5-year low. Overall, the stock market has lost $4.5 trillion in value since Republicans took control in Washington last January. How have Republicans responded to the weakest economy in 50 years? Well, the President is busy traveling the country on a record-breaking fund-raising binge. And let me add a footnote right there, because a lot of people talk about the previous President having done the same thing. But during that same period of time, he managed somehow or another to deal with the economic undertakings of this country. Instead of working with Democrats, the President is traveling rather than seeking to stimulate the economy. He is busy raising money to stimulate Republican campaigns. And I would add a footnote there. That is his right and his prerogative, but it should be his absolute responsibility to ensure that the economy is strong. Also, Republicans are pulling out all the stops to do as my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) says: cut and run before the public realizes that they really have done nothing to address the economic mess they have created. Simply put, they are more interested in saving political skins than in saving the American economy, or at least that is how it appears to me. One week ago, I came to this Chamber and made the following statement: ``Somewhere along the lines we are losing our rudder; and we have things that need to be done, and Republicans need to do it and Democrats need to do it. Liberals need to do it and conservatives need to do it on behalf of this country. We cannot continue down this path.'' Well, guess what? We are continuing down this path, and I feel that this must end and it must end now. The majority, not content with doing nothing, will not even allow our colleague, the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson), for example, to offer her amendment, which would bring needed Federal dollars for children's health care needs. I consider this to be shameful. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule and a similar vote on the underlying continuing resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, my colleague is not going to answer my question. They did not need a budget resolution, as argued that we needed, in order for us to go forward with the Defense bill today. The answer to that is, no, we did not. The answer to are we going to take up appropriations measures next week, absolutely not. We are going to come back here and do another CR, and we need to get on with it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, did my colleague not just say, though, that that was the purpose of the CR?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I was going to ask my good friend and namesake, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), whether or not we needed a budget resolution to pass the Defense bill today. We did not need one. And are we going to take up appropriations measures next week when we return?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would the Speaker be so kind as to inform us as to the amount of time remaining on both sides?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, less than 40 minutes ago we were in the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), myself, all of us were there to pass a rule. We passed a rule. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) was there. The ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) was there. We passed a rule that allowed that we would have a continuing resolution until the 22nd of November. I came down here to the floor of the House and began talking with Members indicating that we would have the CR until the 22nd, and lo and behold, telling them that it is distinctly possible that we may be back next week or at some other point in time; but then I hear the Clerk read and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) stand up and say that it has changed. What has happened in this institution? Do we have a phantom Committee on Rules somewhere? Why is it that I continue to go upstairs thinking that I am participating in a process of importance? Somewhere along the lines we are losing our rudder; and we have things that need to be done, and Republicans need to do it and Democrats need to do it. Liberals need to do it, and conservatives need to do it on behalf of this country. We cannot continue down this path. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my very good friend.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report of H.R. 3295, the Help America Vote Act. I begin by thanking my good friend from Maryland, Mr. Hoyer, for keeping this issue at the forefront of this body's agenda. Given the daunting task of bringing this conference report to the floor, the gentleman from Maryland has remained the voice of justice for the tens of thousands of Americans who had their right to vote stolen from them on Election Day 2000. I thank him for his work and leadership on this issue and so many others. Additionally, I commend the chairman from Ohio, Mr. Ney, for his continued efforts to get this bill to the floor. Even while Members of the chairman's own party were fighting against this bill and the President still refuses to make election reform a priority, I have never doubted the chairman's sincerity and resolve to get this bill passed. Mr. Speaker, 628 days have passed since Election Day 2000 and, until today, Congress has remained largely silent. Just last month, in Florida, my constituents reaped the first-hand benefits of Federal inaction. On November 5, voters throughout this country will be returning to the same broken election system of 2000 because it took Congress nearly 2 years to act. So, while I will ultimately support this conference report, I cannot come to the floor today with the same jubilation and admiration for this bill that some of my colleagues have. Frankly, we should be ashamed of ourselves. While we improved our homeland security, we neglected the integrity of our democracy. The conference report that the House is considering has many qualities that hold true to the title's implication. That is, the bill actually helps Americans vote. Improving voter accessibility, establishing statewide voter registration lists, determining what constitutes a vote, increasing voter education and poll worker training, and providing States with the dollars to meet these standards, are just a few of the good qualities of the report. However, this bill is not perfect by any means. The ID provisions in the report drastically alter voter registration and absentee voting procedures. The inclusion of these provisions will ultimately discourage and intimidate first-time and veteran voters alike. Further, the opt-out until 2006 provisions provide States with an opportunity to delay reform until after the next Presidential election. After the last election, I expected these provisions to be removed. But they weren't. Mr. Speaker, the passage of today's conference report is merely the first step in true election reform. Congress must now put its money where its mouth is and appropriate the $3.9 billion authorized in this report. Unfunded mandates are just lip service, and States need our help. If Congress fails to fund election reform in 2003, 2004, and 2005, then we can count on many states opting our until 2006. This places the reliability of our election system in jeopardy for 4 more years. As I have said so many times before, we must never again find ourselves questioning the methods by which we choose our elected officials. Hopefully, we never will. After all, help is on the way-- though it may take a few years to get there. I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we are about to set the course for our nation's foreign policy that will impact the rest of this century, and we are about to decide the destiny of many of our young men and women. There is not doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein poses a real threat to the United States. He has violated every U.N. Security Council Resolution and has committed unspeakable atrocities against his own people. If there is an axis of evil, then Saddam Hussein is its lynchpin. However, the question before the Congress today is not whether or not Saddam Hussein is a threat. The question is what do we do about it? And when? And how? To begin, war must be the last option, not the first solution. We must demonstrate to the world that we will continue to exhaust diplomatic and peaceful options to protect our security and national interests. As a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, we must demand a Resolution that allows unhampered--any time any place--access to any and all areas within Iraq for inspection, and we must equip the inspection teams with thousands of coalition forces to ensure both their protection and the United Nations' commitment to peace. A preemptive strike will have serious repercussions on the entire Middle East region. While the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is obvious, it is equally obvious that any aggressive actions taken by the United States will prompt Saddam Hussein to strike back not only on the U.S. directly, but also on our allies and interests in the region, and specifically, Israel. The provocation of an Iraqi strike by the U.S. is the last thing we should be doing as Israel continues to seek peace with the Palestinians, Syria, and Lebanon. Should Iraq attack Israel, as it did in 1991, Israel will respond--and who can blame them? This won't be a war that Israel has asked for, but it may well be one they are forced to engage in. I do not want to have to explain to my constituents why I voted for a war that guarantees the injury or death of Israelis. While there is not doubt in my mind that the U.S. can prosecute a war to successful conclusion, I remind the Commander in Chief that the men and women of our Armed Forces are already fully engaged in a war on terrorism. In addition to that war, we have military commitments in Japan, Germany, and South Korea. We also have over 3 thousand troops in Bosnia and Herzegovina, almost 5 thousand in Saudi Arabia, over 4 thousand in Kuwait, and another 5 thousand in Serbia, to name a few. How will a war with Iraq, and make no mistake, this will be a full-fledged war, affect our peacekeeping and peace enforcement obligations in these and other parts of the world? H.J. Res 114 lacks even the barest essentials for good foreign policy and is bereft of any consideration of global politics. It does not include any short or long term planning. I submitted an amendment in the nature of a substitute that authorized the use of U.S. Armed Forces against Iraq, and my Resolution included a number of preconditions that the President would have been forced to follow, prior to receiving authority from Congress to engage U.S. troops in war. Those preconditions included verification that all peaceful means to obtain compliance with U.N. Security Council Resolutions have been exhausted, a commitment that the war on terrorism remain the nation's highest priority, a plan for stabilizing a free Iraq, and a commitment to protect the health and safety of the Iraqi people. I am sorry that the full House was not to permitted to vote on my proposal. We are about to determine the destiny of far too many of our nation's young men and women. We must be absolutely certain that peaceful options have been exhausted and that we have achievable goals for stability in the region. I am not yet certain that we have these plans or have exhausted these options. I will not support H.J. Res 114, or any other Resolution that authorizes a preemptive military strike against another nation, until these preconditions have been met. I urge my colleagues to adhere to these same standards.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, from September 20, 2002 through October 8, 2002, I was absent from the House of Representatives proceedings because I was fulfilling my duties as a member of Helsinki Commission and Vice President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. While serving in this capacity, I missed rollcall vote Nos. 424 through 447. Had I been present for these votes, I would have voted the following way: No. 424, ``yes''; No. 425, ``yes''; No. 426, ``yes''; No. 427, ``no''; No. 428, ``yes''; No. 429, ``no''; No. 430, ``no''; No. 431, ``yes''; No. 432, ``yes''; No. 433, ``no''; No. 434, ``no''; No. 435, ``no''; No. 436, ``no''; No. 437, ``no''; No. 438, ``no''; No. 439, ``yes''; No. 440, ``no''; No. 441, ``no''; No. 442, ``yes''; No. 443, ``yes''; No. 444, ``yes''; No. 445, ``yes''; No. 446, ``no''; No. 447, ``yes''.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for yielding me time. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the closed rule for H.R. 4600. This is an extremely complex piece of legislation and certainly one that requires a full and open debate. The closed rule denies us a much-needed opportunity to discuss its pros and cons. To start, I have received, as I am sure other Members have, a number of phone calls from physicians in the district that I am privileged to serve urging me to support this legislation. Most of them expressed their readiness to close their doors because of the high premiums they currently pay for malpractice insurance and erroneously, in my judgment, believe that H.R. 4600 will relieve them of high malpractice insurance premiums. There is no question that medical liability insurance rates are out of control and doctors, as well as other health care providers, often abandon high-risk patients for fear of being sued. However, what many, if not all, of the physicians who have called my office fail to realize is that H.R. 4600 will not lower doctors' premiums. Despite a wide consensus, skyrocketing premiums are not due to bad politics. Hiked premiums are the result of insurers' failed profits on their market investments. When insurance companies began to make sound investments with the insured's money, and when our friends on the other side of the aisle allow an open rule so sensible amendments from Democrats and Republicans can be heard, then and only then will premiums be lowered. The fact is, this bill would restrict the amount of money that malpractice insurance companies will have to pay. But nowhere in this legislation, and I invite my colleagues on the other side to point to the place, nowhere in this legislation are any of these savings going to be passed along to physicians. Had this been an open rule, we could offer amendments similar to that of my colleague the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) that would require savings realized by the insurers as a result of the $250,000 cap be passed on to health care providers in the form of lower premiums. There are other Members who are going to speak here that had this been an open rule, their amendments would have been included as well. Medical malpractice is the fifth leading cause of death in the United States, where an estimated 98,000 people die annually in United States hospitals because of negligent medical errors. The medical malpractice system is important because it compensates victims injured by negligence, deters future medical misconduct, punishes those who cause injury and death through negligence and removes and informs the public of harmful products and practices. While a $250,000 cap on punitive and non-economic damages may suffice for the men and women on the other side of the aisle, my constituents and all Americans deserve more. This is a one-size-fits-all bureaucratic approach that objectifies victims and the uniqueness of their suffering. I told the story yesterday of my grandmother's death. In the ``halcyon'' days of segregation, when she died at the hands of a physician, we could not sue for the reason we were black. That is not the issue here. But I can tell you this, there was no price that anybody could have put on my grandmother, and there is no price that anybody can put on your sister or your brother, whether you are a doctor or a lawyer or an insurer. This bill sends a clear and distinct message that lawmakers are more concerned with abating insurance companies' malpractice problems instead of reducing the pain and suffering of the American people. Let us call this bill what it really is, and that is another poor attempt by my friends on the other side to give financial breaks to their corporate friends. One would think that they would learn from previous incidents of corporate mishaps; but I guess, Madam Speaker, some things never change. Madam Speaker, H.R. 4600 is a health care immunity act that benefits insurance companies, HMOs, manufacturers and distributors of defective products and pharmaceutical companies, not physicians. It is a tort reform effort of the worst kind. Stunting the judicial process by disallowing the public to litigate unrestricted malpractice suits is not only biased, but it is un-American. I am in strong opposition to this measure. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased and privileged to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), my good friend.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. No reflection on my young colleague from Illinois, but as a 40-year lawyer and one involved in the process, I find it difficult to believe that I participated in something dealing with the elimination of contraception, because I protected the rights of women who were victims. My belief is it is the right-to-life group that had as much to do with the elimination of contraception. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), my distinguished friend and colleague.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am privileged to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), who has a considerable amount of experience in her State, as I do in mine, with this problem.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend and thoughtful legislator, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).