Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am more than pleased to yield such time as he may consume to my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, first I would like to offer an apology to my good friend from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart). I indicated to him that we had but one speaker, but that was before two others showed up. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 552.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in full support of the conference report for H.R. 2215, the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act. As my colleagues know, H.R. 2215 passed the House of Representatives in July, 2001, by a voice vote. I am quite certain that my colleagues will join us today and approve the conference report in an overwhelming way again. Madam Speaker, while sitting in the Committee on Rules yesterday afternoon, and in reviewing the conference report, I am in true admiration of the bipartisanship that was shown by the committee's chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). I applaud the bipartisanship that the two of them showed while working on this report, and thank the conferees for their inclusion of many Democratic amendments. As the House works on a variety of contentious issues in the coming days, I urge my colleagues to heed the bipartisan lessons of the chairman and ranking Democrat of the Committee on the Judiciary. Many Members of the House were here this morning and spoke about the words that are being slung around on homeland security, and faulting the other body for delays in that regard. I would remind my colleagues that we have not completed the appropriations process, and all of us need to be about that business. Madam Speaker, H.R. 2215 authorizes funding to the Department of Justice for the current fiscal year and the following one, which begins next Tuesday. In addition to authorizing dollars to the Department for the salaries of the Federal judges, attorneys, and support staff, the report also authorizes funding for many important programs utilized by millions of Americans every year. As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) says, he and I are happy to report that the Southern District of Florida will be the recipient of one of the judges authorized under this legislation. Additionally, H.R. 2215 serves as a commitment to keeping drugs off of our streets and out of our schools. While much of the Nation focuses on the war on terrorism and a possible war with Iraq, we cannot and should not forget a war that we have been fighting for more than three decades: the war on drugs. As we seek to stabilize Afghanistan, we cannot and should not forget that prior to and during Taliban rule, Afghanistan was one of the world's largest producers of poppy, an integral ingredient of heroin. Thus, economic stability in this renewed democracy must provide alternate means of income to Afghans who once depended on poppy sales for a living. Further, we cannot and should not forget that the war on drugs has no definitive end. The dollars authorized in this bill, albeit limited, serve as Congress' continued commitment to fighting the war on drugs. I do, however, urge the authorizing committee to increase spending for this fight in the coming years. In my lifetime in south Florida I have seen hundreds of lives ruined and ended because of drugs. We cannot allow this trend to continue into the 21st century. Madam Speaker, in addition to authorizing funding for the war on drugs, this legislation also funds the Immigration and Naturalization Service, an agency that my office works with every day. Nearly 30 percent of everything we do in the Fort Lauderdale office deals with immigration. While Congress continues to address the obvious shortcomings of this poorly funded, understaffed, and overworked agency, the United States remains a Nation created by immigrants. Those who enter our borders legally and pose no threat to our security should be afforded equal opportunity to excel and prosper. They should enjoy the benefits that those of us born here take for granted. To many, the United States remains a land where the streets are paved with gold. It is those we let in legally, not those we do not, who will help us extend this street of gold to the rest of the world. Finally, among many things, the conference report also establishes a national Violence Against Women Office. This is a plan that I and many of the Members have supported for years. Domestic violence remains a disgusting reality in our society, and the establishment of this office is a step in the right direction toward protecting women and punishing those who believe violence is an acceptable practice. Madam Speaker, the Department of Justice should always be America's voice of justice. Though I do not always agree with its policies today, or its practices, I do agree with its charter. This conference report is a good one, and so is the rule. I urge my colleagues to support both of them. Additionally, prior to the consideration of the rule, my very good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden), will make a motion for the previous question. I ask my colleagues to consider his motion, as well. General Leave

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, in closing I will invite the Members' attention to the matter discussed earlier by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden). Defeating the previous question as proposed by the gentleman will allow us to permanently extend Chapter 12 protection for farmers. The House has already voted on three separate occasions in this Congress to extend these bankruptcy protections for farmers. Sporadic and temporary extensions leave farmers uncertain of their future. Even as they face record drought, and the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg) from the other side and I have a drought bill that a substantial number of Members have joined on that we consider critical for our Nation's farmers, and when they experience poor harvest in many regions of the country. In the absence of Chapter 12, farmers are forced to file bankruptcy under much less favorable terms. Permanent extension as proposed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden) will ease these pressures. I ask our membership to defeat the previous question. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), my good friend. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

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 yield myself the balance of our time, and I probably will not take it all. I do ask a question, if this bill is supposed to be the end all, be all, then will someone please explain to me what would have been wrong with accepting the amendments that were very thoughtful, that were offered by Members of the House of Representatives, most of whom were Democrats? No, they did not get that opportunity. I do not know whether the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) cares to indulge in this particular colloquy or any other Republican or any Member of the House of Representatives. I ask my colleague from New York when he closes to point to the place in this legislation where savings are going to be passed to physicians. Let me give my colleagues what may not appear to be an exacting analogy. We pass a significant number of subsidies for farmers in the United States of America and I support those. We supported subsidies, for example, for the sugar industry and for wheat, but nowhere after those subsidies where sugar went down or wheat went down did we see Corn Flakes or candy go down. The consumer gets slapped every time, it does appear. Let me set the record straight. This is modeled on California, and we have more Members from California in this House of Representatives than from any other State in the Nation. We had the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) come down here to talk about California. Let me tell my colleagues what they are not saying about MICRA, it is referred to. The California experience is perhaps in many respects the most telling fact having to do with this legislation since it is modeled on California. In 1975, California enacted into law the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, and this is the act after which many of the provisions of H.R. 4600 are modeled after, including caps on noneconomic damages, collateral source offsets and limitation on attorney's fees. Despite these reforms in California, premiums for medical malpractice in California grew more quickly between 1991 and 2000 than in the Nation, 3\1/2\ percent versus 1.9 percent respectively, and between 1975 and 1993, California's health care costs rose 343 percent, almost double the rate of inflation. Not only does the evidence show that California's tort reform has failed to lower premiums for physicians, it also shows that California's insurance companies are reaping excessive profits in the aftermath of tort reform. In 1997, California's insurers earned more than $763 million, yet paid out less than $300 million to claims. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) offered an amendment yesterday that would direct insurers to use any savings received as a result of H.R. 4600 to reduce the premiums they charge their health care providers. If within 2 years of that enactment, his legislation called for insurers not realizing cost savings, then the provisions of H.R. 4600 relating to liability lawsuits and liability claims would not apply to any lawsuits and claims against providers insured by the insurance companies. That was defeated in the Committee on Rules by 2 to 8 and never will see the light of day here, a measure that would have given an opportunity for physicians to receive the benefits that would be saved. I want to harken back to 1993 when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle very skillfully built an infrastructure on radio and all I could hear, I was a new Member of Congress, all I could hear was the Democrats are having closed rules. People that did not even know what a rule was were calling in to the talk shows and saying those Democrats are horrible about closed rules. So little did I know that time would pass and I would become a member of the Committee on Rules, and what I am experiencing and what we experienced here today is a closed rule. If it was bad in 1993, it is bad in 2002. What closed rules have done and what they are doing is stopping the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), who we heard from, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell). Very thoughtful amendments, that if this body worked its will could have gone about the business of attending to. I am a lawyer for 40 years and I am proud of that, and what I learned in law school in torts, written by some of the more brilliant persons in the world, including those founders in England that gave us this great judicial system that we have, and that is that that process of punitive damages is embedded in our laws to make sure that people do not act grossly negligent. That said, most physicians, most health care providers are honest. There is nothing that is going to stop the bad physician from being bad in this particular measure, and punitive damages are what alerts the entire profession that they need to be careful. It is just that simple. I invite my colleague from New York to show me where the insurance companies are going to pass on to the physicians any savings and where H.R. 4600 does anything to lower insurance premiums. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the HERO Act, the Homeland Emergency Responders Organization Act. This Act will establish the Office of National Preparedness within the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The HERO Act will improve the ability of first responders to prepare for and respond to terrorist attacks by getting grants to them directly through this new Office. In the past several months, I've received numerous letters and calls from state and community leaders on the critical issue of homeland security. Two overriding themes have surfaced again and again: We must allocate more resources to homeland security. And, those resources must go directly to cities and other local governments. I believe that the best ideas on how to make the hometown more secure come from the hometown. The HERO Act is a federal grant program that will improve the readiness of first responders at both the local and state levels. Since it utilizes an existing agency--FEMA--and its regional offices, federal grants will get to those who need them most, when they need them most-- NOW! The Director of the new Office will make grants available to first responders through each of FEMA's 10 regional offices. Each of these regional offices serves several states, as well as Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana's. Eligibility for grants will be based on criteria such as population density and proximity to international borders. Dispersing funds directly to first responders, like the Broward County Sheriff's Office or the Hollywood, Florida Police Department, will enable local communities to concentrate on their highest priorities--training, purchasing communications equipment, or upgrading emergency operating centers. The new Office will also distribute grants to each of the 50 states. The state grants can be used--to establish or upgrade state-wide emergency notification systems, plan terrorism response exercises, or to coordinate inter- and intra-state antiterrorism programs. First responders in cities and towns across America need our help to make the homeland more secure. They, in fact we, can't wait for a new agency to be approved, and then created, before we take the first steps towards a more secure homeland. Local communities need our help and support now. I am looking forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to move this bill as quickly as possible. Time is of the essence. Let's make the homeland more secure.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a Joint Resolution. It authorizes the use of U.S. Armed Forces to defend our national security interests against the threat posed by Iraq. However, this Resolution does set some definitive conditions for the President prior to engaging the U.S. Armed Forces. It requires the President to exhaust diplomatic efforts to obtain Iraq's compliance with the U.N. Security Council Resolutions. It also requires the President to present the Congress with a comprehensive plan of how stability will be maintained in the region in a post-strike environment. The young men and women of our Armed Forces are already fighting a war on terrorism. Before we expand their role, and send them even deeper into harm's way, I want assurances that we have explored and exhausted every avenue for a peaceful and diplomatic solution. I also want assurances that we have a plan for maintaining stability in the region once we declare victory. Let me be perfectly clear. I am well aware that for more than a decade, Iraq has violated virtually every U.N. Security Council Resolution. With each violation, the threat to international peace and security becomes more ominous. I believe that Iraq not only poses a threat to our national security interests, but also threatens the stability and security of the entire region and indeed, the world. It is becoming more and more evident that we must be proactive in defending our nation. We know that the United States is a terrorism target, and we know that Iraq constitutes a real and imminent threat against our national security interests. However, only Congress has the authority to declare war. The Congress must be convinced that every conceivable option has been explored. The Congress must be convinced that the post-strike plan for maintaining stability in that region is achievable. The Congress must agree that a preemptive strike is our only course of action. I urge my colleagues to vote for this Resolution.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to instruct election reform conferees being offered today by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the chairman of the Democratic Task Force on Election Reform. I appreciate the gentlewoman's work that she has done in the past on election reform, and I applaud the work that she continues to do on this issue that continues to burn at the heart of every American. In all candor, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) are to be complimented by all of us, as well as the persons that have been mentioned heretofore, and all of the members of the task force that worked with them in developing our position. I am a bit put out that in this same body where all of us stood with former Vice President Gore presiding, all of us that were here on that day to say that an election had been free and fair, are somewhere now scattered throughout Washington, and I recognize that Members have other agendas, but I am alarmed that this room is not full. In Florida, my constituents are reaping the firsthand devastation of Federal inaction. During Florida's primary election last Tuesday, 14 counties in Florida faced similar problems to the ones that we faced on Election Day 2000. Ranging from malfunctioning voting equipment to uneducated poll workers, voters in my State never had a chance to benefit from the provisions that the House approved with the assistance of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) in the Help America Vote Act. Instead, last Tuesday was, to quote an overworked phrase, deja vu all over again. While Florida voters were robbed once again, Congress remains silent. After the election in 2000, Governor Bush and President Bush said that that would never happen again. The President has every right to do as he is doing, traveling around the Nation to put his case before us as we move toward November. But not one peep has come from this President. I have heard about Iraq. I have heard everything about a defense authorization bill. We are here doing this in an effort to not be doing appropriations. We have not done but five of 13 in the House and this President has not signed one single solitary appropriations measure. I doubt very seriously if we will. When history judges the work that the 107th Congress has done, it will undoubtedly view the debate we are having right now as the landmark failure of this body. Who would have ever thought that after the sham and debacle of an election we had in 2000, that a Member, Republican or Democrat, would ever need to come to the floor of this body urging House and Senate conferees to reach a deal on an election reform package? I hope that my colleagues realize, and I am sure they do, that the calendar records 606 days have passed since Election Day 2000, while this body has spent time cutting taxes as we did yesterday and in some resolution we are going to bring up tomorrow to remind the Senate that they are supposed to make permanent some tax cut while we go forward talking about a war and not finishing up the war on terrorism and having all sorts of things from prescription drugs to everything facing us in our body politic. No doubt what we are more about is rewarding the wealthy corporate persons and furthering corporate irresponsibility. This body has neglected to do anything to reinstate integrity in the American election process. Elections are the foundation of our representation. Representation is the foundation of our democracy. Thus, we must never find ourselves again questioning the methods by which we choose our leaders. I say, if the House can create a Department of Homeland Security in one month, then the election reform conference committee can certainly reach an agreement in a year. Mr. Speaker, as I was walking over to the Capitol this afternoon to speak in support of the gentlewoman from California's motion, I was trying to think of how many times I have spoken out for election reform. Quite frankly, I cannot remember; but I know it is too many times. Too many times have the American people's cries for fairness and democracy in our election system gone unanswered. Too many days have passed by since our last Federal election left former President Jimmy Carter proclaiming, ``If the Carter Center were to grade the American election system, it would fail.'' Too many opportunities have passed when Congress has gone home early for the week before assuring Americans that their votes will always count. Before long, we will be saying that too many elections have occurred while Americans continue to vote on an election system that we know is broken. That is a notion that I am not willing to even consider and neither are the American people. If we fail to act, it is an outrage.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule and to the underlying bill, H.R. 1701, a bill to amend the Consumer Credit Protection Act to establish Federal disclosure requirements for rental purchase businesses. Traditionally, rent-to-own businesses cater to low- and moderate- income individuals who either do not have the money or do not have the credit to purchase goods for their homes. These individuals turn to businesses such as Rent-A-Center or RentWay with the idea that renting is a reasonable alternative to purchasing their household goods; and although this may be true in some instances, that is not always the case. Mr. Speaker, to quote the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), who will speak on her own measures that she offered, one of which was accepted, three that were categorically rejected, she said this is special-interest legislation at its worst. For a number of reasons, this legislation fails to protect those consumers who depend on rental purchase businesses from being taken for a ride. And while the measure does implement necessary contracts, store tag, and advertising disclosure, it fails by preempting existing State consumer protection laws that treat rent-to-own transactions as credit sales and, therefore, require the disclosure of the cost of credit and annual percentage rates. A footnote right there, Mr. Speaker: in some of these failed disclosure situations, triple digit interest rates are being charged to people. This bill might have had a chance of being a great piece of legislation, had the four amendments of my good friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), and the second amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) been accepted; and I was in full and complete support of both being allowed. As a result, this legislation in my judgment is not worth the paper it is drafted on. It is not curative. When the question was put yesterday to the relevant subcommittee chairman, who I am sure will speak and thus speak passionately regarding this matter, when the question was put to him whether or not it was curative, he stated that it was ``helpful.'' Worse yet, the Committee on the Judiciary chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), is quoted as saying, ``The bill is unnecessary and unwise and is a misguided attempt to preempt the existing law of virtually every State.'' The regulation of the rent-to-own industry is a State issue and all those who disagree, in my opinion, are misguided too. How can H.R. 1701 fulfill its stated purpose to protect consumers against unfair rental purchase agreements and predator financial services if it does not require rent-to-own businesses to disclose the interest rates in the leasing contract? Would any of us accept a bank loan without the APR being stated in the contract? Mr. Speaker, one of our duties as Members of Congress is to make accessible the highest quality of life for all those who live within our great country's borders. H.R. 1701 would work against that continuous goal, if passed as is; and I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 1701 and against this closed rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to add emphasis, in closing, to what the gentlewoman said. She had one amendment that brought to the attention of this body that when a person that is renting pays 133 percent of the total purchase price that they would own the property. Now, any of us that pay 133 percent of something ought to at least own 75 percent of something by the time that we do that. For us not to have made that amendment in order, in my judgment, is a mistake. 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. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague on the Committee on Rules for yielding time to me. I was hoping the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) would stay so I could help to educate my good friend, the gentleman from Florida. Perhaps he will hear it back in his office. He began his remarks by indicating he does not understand. What part of, if you have no tax liability, this bill provides no relief, does the gentleman not understand, I say to the gentleman, or any of the other Members that rise in support of this measure? I am in opposition to the closed rule for the so-called Back to School Tax Relief Act. As soon as I hear that the teachers in my district, along with teachers and parents throughout the country, are voicing strong opposition to an education bill, that bill gets my full attention. The teachers of America have good reason, as do parents, to be wary of this particular measure. Under the pretense of offering tax benefits to low-income families, this charade, I repeat, charade, and footnote right there, this is not going to become the law this year, and if it is, that my colleagues on the other side are setting the stage for something that is going to pass at some point in the future, then say that; but do not give the impression here on this floor that this measure is about to become the law. It is not going anywhere. As matters go, this tax relief bill could cost the American taxpayer close to $5 billion over the next 5 years. That said, what happens when we take that out of the Federal Treasury is there is no additional money for States and localities, so some of the same parents and some of the other parents who have no relief here at all are going to wind up paying more real estate taxes. To add insult to injury, the actual educational benefits are negligible, and the actual number of families who might benefit is amazingly small. This bill will allow two-parent families with incomes of $40,000 or less and one-parent families with incomes of $20,000 or less, almost all of whom have no tax liability, to claim deductions for educational expenses in public, private, religious, or home schools. The fact is that most families in this tax bracket clearly do not have a tax liability and would not benefit from this bill. I know that supporters of this bill claim that it provides educational tax benefits to all low-income families. The truth is that this bill would provide educational tax benefits to a few families in America who choose to send their children to private school. Make no mistake, this bill allows tuition deductions; and it is little more than a private school voucher bill. They can put a diamond tiara and a ball gown on an elephant; but when all is said and done, it is still an elephant. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) pointed to a measure that would help these parents. That is the measure offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), that would add to renovation and modification and new school construction. If that is not something that is important, I do not know what is. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today I voice my full support for H. Res. 513. This Resolution is timely and presents an historic opportunity to recognize the long-standing and enduring relationship between Ireland and the United States of America. This Resolution serves as a reminder of the very strong bond that exists between our two peoples. Our two governments have long recognized and supported a free, fair, market economy and the principles of open markets that are such an inherent part of our free enterprise systems. These same principles served to maintain and strengthen our democratic form of governments. Ireland's democratic government and market economy were rewarded with external investment from the United States, Europe, and Asia that flowed into her teeming high technology economy. Since September 11, 2001, when the United States was attacked, it has been forced to assume a new role as it has engaged in a new war on terrorism. This is a war, which, as so many of us have previously stated, is dependent upon the support we receive in the international community. This resolution also serves to recognize the importance of friends and allies such as Ireland, that share our beliefs in strong market economies and the role such economies play in our current war against terrorism. As one of America's great presidents, John F. Kennedy, said during a speech in Dublin in 1963, ``We need men who can dream of things that never were.'' These words serve as a call to us to face a new challenge in our time. Mr. Speaker, in recognizing our relationship with Ireland, I believe that the economic and political success of Ireland and the Irish people combined with a longstanding relationship with the U.S. will serve as a model for peace and increased economic growth in a peaceful Northern Ireland. Private sector innovation and leadership will help to resolve conflict and increase understanding between all parties in the region.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of H. Res. 94, a resolution honoring the contributions and accomplishments of tennis stars Venus and Serena Williams. To say that Venus and Serena Williams are trailblazers would be an enormous understatement. The first sisters ever to be ranked number one and two in women's tennis, they have achieved a feat worthy of congressional recognition and international praise. The Williams sisters first came to the public's attention in 1997 shortly after they began their road to becoming a tennis powerhouse. During that year, the sisters lost nearly every game they played and despite the media attention and the multi-million dollar endorsements, a long-term career in tennis looked bleak. However, within five years these two young ladies managed to propel themselves to arguably become the best women tennis players and most recognized of all time, winning more than seven Grand Slam titles between the two of them. Mr. Speaker, in their efforts to establish themselves as great athletes, they also established themselves as great role models. Through the Venus and Serena Williams Tutorial/Tennis Academy each year their foundation helps more than 40 inner city kids through the workings of after school programs, summer tennis camps, mentoring, and cultural enrichment education. As a result now more than ever, young African American children are playing sports and participating in programs traditionally played by whites. With Venus and Serena's performance at the U.S. Open this week, I cannot think of a more fitting time for this resolution to come before the House of Representatives. They have shown and continue to show their dedication to their career and community. They are young leaders who have vowed to take the world by storm, working to defeat everyone in their path so they may reign as tennis champions.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Small Business Drought Relief Act. This legislation provides small businesses who 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. It serves as a companion bill to a similar bill introduced in the Senate. 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 interested in drought relief last summer 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 are 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 introducing 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, a recent 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, have been fatal victims of school violence. This means that during that nine-year period, 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 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 Grungow. 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 Grungow family, the tragic death of Barry Grungow has meant much more. In addition to the painful loss of a father and husband, Barry Grungow's death had a long-term effect on the entire Grungow family. Barry's death meant that, within six months, the entire Grungow family would find themselves without health care coverage; Barry's death meant that the Grungow family would incur added and unexpected expenses; and, ultimately, Barry's death means one less income that can be used to support Pam Grungow and her two children in the years to come. In Spring 2001, the Florida State Legislature passed and the Governor signed the Barry Grungow 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. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Teacher Victims' Assistance Act of 2002. Similar to Florida's Barry Grungow 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 18, $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 2002 makes such a commitment, and I urge my colleagues to pass it immediately.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. My good friend from Alabama makes a great suggestion, but an even greater suggestion would be for us not to be in the dead of night undertaking this extraordinary work. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and in strong opposition to the underlying conference report. It is the conference report on what is called TPA. Yes, TPA. By my way of thinking, that ought to stand for Thoughtless Political Action, because that is precisely what this House is prepared to do. I hope the American worker is braced for the sucker punch they are about to receive. I said exactly 1 month ago that it is no wonder that the American people have such disdain for politicians. Well, this conference report bears that out in spades. Like the bill last month, this conference report is another perfect example of backroom deals gone bad in the dead of the night, legislating under the cloak of darkness, and accountability at its most pernicious. On December 6 of last year, with the number of unemployed Americans totaling more than 8.25 million, the majority made a series of back- door deals to secure trade promotion authority for an administration which in my judgment has yet to prove to Americans that it really cares about their jobs. All of this was done under the pretense of furthering U.S. business interests abroad. At least the majority can rightfully argue that TPA does further U.S. interests abroad. Too bad this expansion is done at the expense of the American worker as well as the environment. Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues fully understand that since the current administration took office, an average of 157,000 Americans are losing their jobs every month. Tonight, the majority is again poised to eliminate tens of thousands of more jobs under the pretense of United States trade promotion. Knowingly eliminating any job at a time our economy has proven that it is incapable of re-creating that job is not an option that Congress should entertain. We really ought to be ashamed of ourselves for even considering this kind of measure. You see, Mr. Speaker, this body knows that trade agreements cost American jobs. In fact, 420 of us agreed to this conclusion when the House overwhelmingly extended trade adjustment authority in June 2001. Yet the TAA provisions in the conference report are a reckless disregard of the obvious. Aside from the inept direct financial assistance available to displaced workers, the conference report has reduced the Senate-passed TAA proposal on health care to a tax credit that covers a meager 65 percent of the cost of a worker's premium. Realize, the Federal Government pays 72 percent of Members' health care premiums, and it is preposterous for us to expect the unemployed to pay any more than we do on health care. But all of this does not even matter if the Treasury Department does not establish the guidelines for a complex TAA program, or if States do not release the TAA funds once they have been administered. It is funny how language ensuring the distribution of TAA funds is mysteriously missing from this report that was on the Internet at 4, or at 7:15, take your pick. The majority maintains that it is obvious that States will release the funds. I say if it is so obvious, put it in writing. Realize, providing open-ended authority to the President without requiring that environmental, labor and agricultural standards be included in any trade agreement is nothing short of hammering another nail in the coffin of hundreds of American industries nationwide. I support free trade. I have in the past and I will again in the future. However, any free trade agreement must also be a fair trade agreement. Through the eyes of a farmer, it is outrageous to expect the American agricultural industry to compete with South American, Central American or Asian agricultural industries who are not required to pay their workers a living wage and are not held to the same environmental standards as farmers are here in the United States. Don't believe me? Look at what NAFTA did. I voted for that measure, and it is the worst vote I have cast in this body. Just look at what it did to my home State of Florida, specifically the agriculture industry. From citrus to sugar and from rice to tomatoes, Florida's agricultural industry has lost thousands of jobs as a direct result of NAFTA. The tomato industry went basket belly up after dumping. While Mexican farmers have profited, and I hold no grudge against them, companies have closed; and Florida farmers no longer have jobs or farms. Mr. Speaker, we can continue to stay here in the middle of the night and play politics with Americans' lives under the pretense of U.S. trade promotion, or we can get serious about securing the future of American jobs and industries. This report does not re-create the 364,000 jobs which were lost in the month of June, and it certainly does not re-create the 1.7 million jobs we have lost since September 11. This report does not ensure the future of United States agriculture, and it definitely does not ensure the future of the U.S. steel and textile industries. It is one thing to talk politics, and it is another thing to talk policy, but when the politics begin to interfere with the policy and that policy interferes with American lives and livelihoods, then we have a problem. Tonight, Mr. Speaker, we have a problem. This report lays the foundation for hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs to be shipped off to foreign countries with no guarantee that displaced American workers will be compensated. The environmental and labor provisions that do exist in the report are as disingenuous as the pretenses with which the majority brings this legislation to the floor this morning. This so-called Trade Promotion Act does indeed grant some significant benefits to some workers. Regrettably, not the workers who pay our salaries with their hard-earned tax dollars. There is nothing in this bill that promotes the interest of the American worker. Nothing. This bill does so little for the American worker, under the guise of doing so much, that I recommend changing the name TPA to the Trade Pretense Act. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on the conference report. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

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