Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Miami, Florida (Mr. Diaz- Balart), for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, today's rule is a fair one. It is an open rule, and it is one that I will be supporting. I only wish that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would make it a habit of bringing these types of fair and open rules to the floor. Mr. Speaker, the National Sea Grant College Program was established in 1966 to improve the science, conservation, and management of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources through the use of academic grants. There are currently 30 designated sea grant programs which utilize a network of 300 universities and scientific institutions. Those of us in the Florida delegation know all too well the benefits that have come as a result of the national sea grant program. Primarily housed at the University of Florida, Florida's Sea Grant College Program currently enjoys the support of 15 Florida universities, both public and private. Included in this 15 is my alma mater, and that of the gentlewomen from Florida (Ms. Brown) and (Mrs. Meek), Florida A&M University. In addition, Florida Atlantic University, and I am proud to say that I will be receiving an honorary doctorate from that institution soon, the University of Miami, Florida State University, and Nova Southeastern University, that is in my district and that of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch), all are active participants in the Sea Grant College Program, as well. A footnote there: I overlooked the fact that that university, as well, is in the district of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw). Under the National directorship of Dr. Fritz Schuler, the National Sea Grant Program has continued to grow every year since its conception. Florida universities are privileged enough to have people like Jim Cato, William Seaman, and Ed Harvey working for them. I applaud the hard work of these individuals and their colleagues and commend them for a job well done. H.R. 3389 reauthorizes the National Sea Grant College Program from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2008. It sends a clear message that the National Sea Grant College Program is one that must be sustained. Provisions in the bill increase current funding in the program every year. Further, the bill reauthorizes the Coastal Ocean Program, providing $35 million per year through fiscal year 2008. This is a program that the people of our respective districts, and certainly mine, benefit directly from. I applaud the good work done by the Committee on Resources and the Committee on Science for continuing this much needed program. I commend the work done by the two committee chairpersons, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), as well as the ranking Democrats, my good friend, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall). Finally, the bill includes a provision requiring equal access for minority and economically disadvantaged students. Such provisions in many of our bills make it possible for minority and economically disadvantaged students to achieve in areas and fields where they might not otherwise succeed. I applaud my colleagues for including this provision in H.R. 3389, and I urge them to never forget the immediate and long-term benefits of these practices. In closing, Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule. The substitute is a fair substitute, as is the amendment being offered by my colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 449, a resolution which calls for the establishment of a temporary Select Committee on Homeland Security. The committee will review the recommendations of standing House committees and create a comprehensive bill for House floor consideration. The President's goal and the ranking member's goal, the minority leader's goal is to sign this bill into law on September 11, 2002. This is a goal, Mr. Speaker, that I believe is attainable, but difficult to do. There are an estimated 33 subcommittees that can legitimately claim jurisdiction over the President's proposal to establish a Cabinet-level department. Under H. Res. 449, the select committee wil be composed of only nine members. My concern is that a nine-member select committee is too small to incorporate the expertise that will be required to consolidate the recommendations of the standing committees. These nine members will be required to have expertise in areas as far ranging and diverse as government reform, intelligence, transportation, agriculture, and chemical and biological warfare, just to name a few. This is an awesome task for nine mere mortals. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the President's initiative to create a new department which consolidates national security missions is long overdue. The concept is not a new one. Actually a plethora of legislation, including a proposal which I introduced, H.R. 3078, has been brought forward. My bill would have established the National Office for Combating Terrorism. It includes an initiative to develop policies and goals for the prevention of and response to terrorism and for the consolidation of local, State and Federal programs. I am pleased to see that the administration is incorporating some of our ideas into a comprehensive plan to streamline the workings of the executive branch, and let us have on notice that it took the administration quite some time to come to this view. I share the concerns of the President and the rest of the Nation. We need to consolidate our efforts to ensure that we are prepared for terrorist threats or attacks. However, we must balance this priority with caution and common sense. We must not lull our Nation into a false sense of security by implying that we have fixed a problem that indeed we have not. The threat of another terrorist attack is foremost in our minds, and in our rush to protect ourselves, the President has requested that we complete this legislation as quickly as possible. Including weekends and holidays, September 11, 2002, is 82 days away. Even if we remained in session for our scheduled August recess, I believe that this time frame is hard to achieve. It will take nine members more than a few weeks to design a Department of Homeland Security capable of reducing America's vulnerability to terrorism and preventing future attacks against the United States. Mr. Speaker, I have a word of caution for my esteemed colleagues: If we do not take the time to do it right, we will have to make the time to do it over.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today to offer a motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 3295, the Help America Vote Act. As we all know, conferees are currently involved in negotiations on the many tenacious differences that exist between the bills passed by each Chamber. My motion to instruct will help provide guidance on what I consider two of the more critical differences that exist between the bills. Section 1 of this motion instructs House conferees to insist on the date requiring States to conform to minimum national standards of November 2004 contained in the House bill. This is in contrast to the even more delayed 2006 effective date in the Senate bill. Currently under the House bill, States must conform to all minimum national standards within 2 years of the bill's enactment. In the special circumstances where a State can demonstrate to the Department of Justice that the State cannot meet the 2-year requirement, it can receive a waiver until November 2004. Under the Senate bill, States are not required to conform to the minimum national standards until January 2006. Realize, Americans will return to the polls in November 2004 to elect a President. If the Senate's effective date becomes law, then we may very well face the same election day controversies that engulfed this Nation the last time we tried electing a President. Section 2 of this motion instructs conferees to disagree with the safe harbor provision contained in section 104(b) of the Senate amendment to H.R. 3295. Under a provision added in the Senate by amendment, States which receive Federal funds under the bill are assumed to be in compliance with the bill's minimum national standards. Under the Senate amendment, States are provided with safe harbor until 2010, or 8 years from now, from being scrutinized or prosecuted for not complying with the minimum national standards in the bill. The one exception is that States can be prosecuted prior to 2010 for failing to conform with accessibility provisions in the bill as they pertain to individuals with disabilities. If this provision becomes law, then we are giving States zero accountability until 2010 as they go about spending Federal dollars to conform their election systems. This is a horrible and dangerous path to embark on. If there is no enforcement until 2010, then States are essentially given the green light to nonconformity until 2010 despite any other provision in the bill. Mr. Speaker, this morning I checked the website of the ranking Democrat of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). His website noted that 515 days have passed since the election day 2000 fiasco. Five hundred fifteen days, Mr. Speaker. In mentioning this number, I remind my colleagues and the American people that on a Federal level, our election system is no better off today than it was on election day 2000. Though some States have taken it upon themselves to reform their election laws, the clear majority have not. For those which have, like my home State of Florida's baby steps, the need for financial assistance and Federal election reform is real and immediate. The House did the right thing in appropriating $450 million for election reform in the supplemental. I note that appropriating before authorizing when it came to election reform is something that I called for more than 1 year ago. However, as I said then and I will say again today, $450 million is not enough money. We should all be thankful for the hard work currently being done in the election reform conference committee by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) as well as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and all of the conferees. Their leadership in the election reform arena, even during times when many in this body did not want to see any bill, is widely known and much appreciated and I say to Bob and Steny how much I genuinely appreciate the concrete efforts that they put forward to produce a measure here in the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the absence of new election laws is as much of an embarrassment today as it was 2 years ago. All too many facts point to the need for Congress to act today. The fact remains that election laws today are the same flawed laws around the country that were in place on election day 2000. The fact remains that while we know what problems exist and we know how to fix them, Congress' response to date has been inadequate at best. The fact remains that voters in many States have already voted in this year's primaries on the same broken system, and I might add that occurred in Florida, that failed them 2 years ago. Even in Florida, some of the newer systems being offered have shown that they have flaws. Therefore, we need to be about the business of trying to get this whole matter straightened out. Another 12 States will be returning to the polls within the next week to vote with the same faulty technology. Confidence in our election system is the linchpin of our democracy and we must do anything and everything to restore that confidence with the American people. Contrary to what many argue, election reform is much more than just a civil rights issue. Rather, the need for election reform is a challenge to our democracy. It is a challenge that we cannot back down from and it is a challenge that we will not back down from. My motion to instruct ensures that real and comprehensive election reform occurs before the 2004 presidential election. In addition, it ensures that the Department of Justice can hold States accountable in cases where they fail to conform to new Federal election laws prior to 2010. I urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Cleveland, Ohio (Mrs. Jones), who hosted a forum on election reform in her city.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 8\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on House Administration, a leader on election reform and other matters in this House.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the gentleman's comments.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Miami, Florida (Mrs. Meek), my good friend and colleague, who has been a leader in this fight from November 2000, and even before then when we recognized that there would be significant problems.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time, which I shall not use, again to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and I especially am indebted to the gentleman from Maryland not only for his gracious comments, but for his mentoring with reference to matters that he and I are working on overseas; and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) for agreeing with me in spirit with reference to this matter. We appreciate that spirit. Perhaps had the gentleman from Ohio been with me in Florida, you would understand how spirited I am with reference to all of these matters. Speaking of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe that the gentleman from Maryland is leader par excellence in, and I happen to, because of him, be an elected officer in that organization, immediately following the election just passed, I went to a meeting in Europe, and many of our colleagues, the gentleman from Maryland was unable to attend that particular meeting, but many of our colleagues in Europe were waiting for me to walk into the room so that they could ask me about those free, fair and transparent elections that took place in the State of Florida. In many instances, including good friends from England, they found it amusing that we had these problems and I know are going to find it equally amusing that we have not settled this controversy with reference to the legislation federally that we should have passed. This place continues to amaze me on a day-to-day basis. I come in here and we have these knee-jerks on what is going on now. Now, we have had some serious interventions in this country: 9-11, to be sure; the economy overall is something that all of us are concerned about. Today's flavor is prescription drugs. Next week it will be fast track. And during all of that time, election reform has been sitting around here. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), other people; the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the chair of the Black Caucus, and I, all of us waiting and yelling that we need to do something, and yet we find ourselves in the position of asking no more in this particular motion to instruct the conferees than what we already passed in the House of Representatives and insisting that that language, which was offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and those of us that cosponsored it, be included in the ultimate bill. Quite honestly, the House measure, in my judgment, is the more enlightened of the two, but our failure to undertake it is a lack of enlightenment on all of our behalfs. All of us ought to find this noncontroversial, and I would ask our colleagues who are listening back in their offices to support this motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7(c) of rule XX, I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 3295 tomorrow. The form of the motion is as follows: Mr. Hastings of Florida moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendments to the bill H.R. 3295 be instructed (1) to insist upon the provisions contained in section 504(a) of the House bill (relating to the effective date for the Federal minimum standards for State election systems); and (2) to disagree to the provisions contained in section 104(b) of the Senate amendment to the House bill (relating to a safe harbor from the enforcement of the Federal minimum standards for State election systems for States receiving Federal funds under the bill).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 406, a resolution commemorating and acknowledging the dedication and sacrifice made by the men and women killed or disabled while serving as peace officers. Each day more than 700,000 peace officers patrol the streets and borders of this nation. They work tirelessly to stamp out crime, eradicate drugs, and preserve civility. They knowingly and willingly make a commitment to uphold the law of this country at any cost. There are truly no words to express my gratitude to the commitment peace officers make day in and day out, but these will have to do. Because of these noble men and women, Americans can sleep better at night knowing that their streets are safe and borders are secure. On September 11, our nation lost 70 peace officers in a single act of violence, the largest number of law enforcement officers our nation has ever lost in a single act. However, we can rest assured that more than 740,000 peace officers continue to work on the behalf of the American people. They have vowed to ensure peace and will not rest until that promise is made true. In appreciation of peace officers efforts, Congress has recognized May 15 as the day in which we will nationally acknowledge the men and women who gave their life or way of life for peace. By enacting H. Res. 406, Congress joins the families of more than 14,000 fallen law enforcement officers since this countries birth. 14,000 officers that gave their life so Americans can preserve their way of life. There is truly no greater gift. Therefore, Mr. Speaker I stand before you today to show my enthusiastic support of H. Res 406.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a speech that I should not have to make. I rise to discuss a constitutional amendment that should not have made it to this floor. In short, this debate is a waste of my time, your time, and the American taxpayer's money. Let me be more specific. H.J. Res. 96, the Tax Limitation Constitutional Amendment, has been brought to the House floor for a vote seven times in the past seven years. Each time, year after year, it has failed to gain the \2/3\ majority needed to pass. I expect that this year will be no different. But let's suppose that this year is different. Let us imagine that some of us decide to give in to political expediency and decide to vote for a constitutional amendment that will impair our legislative duty to determine the proper tax rate for the American people and for our government. Would it pass the other body? Undoubtedly, no. Would it pass the state legislatures? Doubtful. Why then do the Republicans continue to bring this legislation to the floor? Do my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe that we do not have more important things to talk about? That homeland security and the reorganization of our intelligence community can wait another day or even another hour for us to waste our time on this worthless amendment? That the hundreds of thousands of Americans who are out of work right now and about to run out of temporary unemployment relief can hang on a few more days while we entertain the pigheaded decision to reintroduce this legislation for the seventh time in so many years? Maybe some of my colleagues suppose that in defiance of precedent and simple math that this amendment will miraculously pass this year? I guarantee you it will not. That said, I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against this amendment and to refrain from wasting our time and the time of the American people with this legislation in the future.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the creation of a new cabinet-level federal Department of Homeland Security. This long-overdue initiative, designed to streamline current government activities, is an important first step in our nation's war on terrorism. In October of last year, I introduced H.R. 3078, to establish the National Office for Combating Terrorism. It included an initiative to develop policies and goals for the prevention of and response to terrorism, and for the consolidation of federal, state, and local government programs. I am pleased to see that the Administration is incorporating my ideas, along with those of my colleagues, into a comprehensive plan to streamline the workings of the Executive Branch. The new Department will have four separate divisions to deal with threats to our nation. Within each division, the missions and functions that are currently spread out amongst a dizzying array of federal agencies will be consolidated to avoid duplication and redundancy and ensure that the Executive Branch of government actually supports the tax payers who support it. The concept of consolidating the efforts of federal, state, and local agencies is not a new one. I recently introduced H.R. 4754, the National Drought Preparedness Act. My legislation will bring together representatives from federal and state agencies to create planning models and preparedness plans, in much the same way that the new Department of Homeland Security would operate. I applaud this important initiative and urge my colleagues to work towards quick passage of legislation for the creation of this new Department.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. The Democratic substitute helps people right now. The Republican bill might help people 10 years from now. The chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means admitted as much to the Committee on Rules Tuesday night. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes, and I would first like to thank the gentleman from Washington, on the basis of age the junior Mr. Hastings, for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, today, this body has the opportunity to send a message loud and clear to Republicans: Playing politics with Americans' lives is no longer an acceptable practice. When this body passed a $1.6 trillion tax cut that disproportionately benefitted the wealthiest of Americans, it laid the foundation for the deterioration of our strong economy which previously had been capable of coping with even the most dire of circumstances. We were wrong when we passed the tax cut then, and we are wrong today in trying to make a huge portion of it permanent. This is fiscal mismanagement of the highest order and rank politics of the lowest kind. Go ahead and call me a modern day Robin Hood, looking out for all the human needs of all Americans, or just call me fiscally responsible; but repealing the sunset for the estate tax is the next phase in the majority's efforts to provide tax cuts to the wealthy at the expense of 99 percent of this country who will not benefit by this legislation. Realize, Mr. Speaker, that less than one-half of 1 percent of all estates would be helped by a repeal of the estate tax. And even these estates would pay significantly less in taxes because of the lower rates and higher exemption that is already in place. Those who would benefit, and I impute no motive if this bill passes today, on present- day income, President Bush's family stands to gain $5 million, Vice President Cheney's family stands to benefit anywhere from $9 to $40 million, the former Enron chairman Kenneth Lay's family stands to benefit $59 million, and the families of the entire Bush cabinet together stand to gain as much as $332 million. According to the Wall Street Journal, not a paper that I frequently cite or that I am frequently cited in, the Republicans could make permanent any of the other tax cuts included in last year's tax bill and they would help more people and cost Social Security less than the total cost of repealing the estate tax. Mr. Speaker, if our economy was growing like it was before last year's obese, obtuse, and downright obnoxious tax cut, I would be the first one to support cutting taxes. But our economy is not growing. In fact, it is hurting. So I ask this: How can we possibly continue to fund a war on terrorism that may never end, ensure the solvency of Social Security, keep our schools from crumbling, provide adequate care coverage for all children, and cut taxes at the same time? The simple answer is that we cannot. It is just not fiscally possible. As a matter of fact, today President Bush will make an address to the Nation in which he will call for the establishment of the Homeland Office of Security as a Cabinet-level position. I advocated this in legislation as many as 8 months ago, but President Bush, in order to achieve this as I did when I advocated it, is going to require more resources. 8.1 million Americans are unemployed, and more than 116,000 people lose their jobs every month, 9,000 in the last 2 days. Equally, displaced workers, as a result of September 11, still have no health care coverage, and the unemployment insurance coverage that Congress extended last year is once again about to expire. How about helping the unemployed? Other pressing needs? The uninsured. Currently 38.7 million-plus Americans, or more than 14 percent of all our total population, have zero access to health care. The majority of them are children and seniors, and more than two-thirds of them fall under the poverty line. How about helping the uninsured? Want more? What about a prescription drug plan for seniors? Last year Congress authorized $300 million for such a plan. However, it never delivered. How about helping seniors? Still not convinced? Do not even get me started on what we did not do for election reform. Mr. Speaker, we have got serious problems in this country that demand serious solutions. Tax cuts to the rich never have been and never will be the solution to our problems. Aiding the poor, the young, the elderly, the infirm should be the role and the responsibility of each political party. Rather, helping those who need help is a role of a responsible and decent government. If this body fails to recognize this guiding principle, then we are failing those that we are here to serve. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, that this measure affects less than one-half of 1 percent of all taxpayers.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) that the moral argument falls on deaf ears from this gentleman from Florida when we have hungry children, seniors and people that are infirm that are unable to proceed in life in a meaningful way. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker. Let me see if I can set this thing straight. I represent an area that has 50 percent of all of the winter vegetables grown. Not one single family farmer has indicated to me that this measure is going to benefit them in any way. I also represent the third highest number of small businesses in the United States of America who receive the first highest number of grants. Government investment is helpful in stimulating this economy. Enough of this foolishness. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

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

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