Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to this rule that makes in order the Corporate Patriot Enforcement Act, offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney), who have worked hard on this measure, which was stripped from the bill in the Committee on Rules. Their amendment would prevent corporations from fleeing overseas to avoid paying their rightful share of income tax. It is outrageous, Mr. Speaker, that we are allowing American companies to move offshore strictly for the purposes of avoiding their tax obligation. They are not moving their entire company to Bermuda, Mr. Speaker, they are just planting a post office box in the middle of some sunny desert isle and calling themselves an overseas company. But are they relying on the Bahamian navy to defend them if they are attacked? Of course not. Are they relying on Bermuda to build roads that bring business to their doors or for the police to keep their companies safe at night? Of course not. Those public services they want to keep right on enjoying courtesy of the United States taxpayer. Well, that is wrong, and the majority knows it, and all Americans know it. We are in a time of war, Mr. Speaker. That is a fact. And if we are going to give this huge tax break to one-half of 1 percent of all the estates, then the least that we can do is to ask of the beneficiaries of this tax break to fulfill their lawful corporate tax responsibility. All of the money to pay for this tax break, Mr. Speaker, $99 billion over 10 years, is coming out of the Social Security trust fund. The majority does not think it has to be paid for. Well, that is wrong, and we want to give the Republicans one last chance to do the right thing. By defeating the previous question, we can tell the tax evaders to come home and protect Social Security. We can make everyone in this country proud knowing that we are all pulling together to pay our fair share. 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 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 the gentleman for yielding me this time. I would ask our friend from California what do 29 and one-tenth million dollars in Members' personal projects have to do with the war on terrorism? Like Americans all over this great Nation, I strongly support, as do all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, the expenditure of supplemental funds that will help our military win the battle against terrorism. However, I cannot help but note that in our patriotic fervor, we are jeopardizing the future for our children and grandchildren by passing on an additional $750 billion in debt. I can only hope that when history judges us and the decisions we make today are the bad ones we made yesterday, we are found wise and not ridiculous. In the area of the ridiculous, I have noticed several items within this supplemental that for the life of me I cannot tie to the war on terrorism. For example, do all of our colleagues know that there are these 25 plus million dollars in Members' projects? Do our colleagues know that the supplemental money that is out here is for certain hospitals and schools, but not for all of them? To paraphrase my good friend from New York (Mr. Rangel), are there any differences between a sick and uneducated child in Florida and one in Texas? What about the cuts in the bill? Do all of our colleagues realize that on page 99 of the bill, $300 million is authorized for the revitalization of section 8 and section 202 senior housing are being rescinded? How about the cancellation of loan guarantees to our country's airlines? And do not tell me you did something. What you did was you protected grant money that is already gone, and you allowed loan guarantees for something that does not in the final analysis protect them. What happens to USAir? What happens to Spirit Air and perhaps United? What happens when their employees tomorrow wake up and find that they do not have a job? We did not get to do anything about election reform. I do not know whether my good friend and the dean of our delegation would have accepted my measure that I would have offered. What we wound up doing here is adopting a bill that did not allow debate on debt relief, and then adopting a rule that did not allow what we did not adopt. How crazy can you be?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my colleague on the Committee on Rules and good friend, as well as the amendment of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), my mentor and good friend on military matters. I do not think anyone is insincere in this House of Representatives about wanting to be involved in doing what is right to protect our country and to maintain the President's vision with reference to the war on terrorism. All of us are for the same set of circumstances. But my colleagues on the Republican side do not want spending in certain areas in America. I harken back one night to one of the finest speeches ever made in the House of Representatives by John Kasich in a run-up to a budget. When John finished, I walked up to him and complimented him. I said to him, you know, John, the difference between you and I, and we were only going to spend $1 trillion or $3 trillion at that time, the difference is he wants to spend the money on what he wants to spend it on, and I want to spend it on what I want to spend it on. I do not think anything has changed very much on that, from that time or any other time. They have the power to do Plan Colombia, but they do not want to spend; they want to cut programs in this country that I consider to be critical. Some Members do not even have a clue about what is going on in Colombia. Certainly, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) does, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) does, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger) does, and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) does, but most of the Members in this House, half of them cannot even point out where Colombia is. Yet, we are going to stand up here and go forward and get ourselves involved in something that could help lead this country to the black oblivion of ignominious defeat. We never won a war on terrorism or on counternarcotics. We have spent countless dollars in South America and elsewhere around the world that did not bring us to fruition with reference to our wishes. While we are here doing this debate this evening, the Middle East is raging; India and Pakistan are poised to go to war with each other; Indonesia and Malaysia, and I harken to tell my friends that if Indonesia implodes, we will have eight Afghanistans on our hands; famine and war is all over Africa. I have been in this body when nobody cared about genocide occurring on the African continent, and yet we come here prepared to involve American troops in our hemisphere, knowing full well that it may lead to further difficulties. Mr. Chairman, I have been sitting in my office or here on the floor listening to this debate all day. Frankly, I am astonished by the rhetoric and blatant hypocrisy that have come out of the mouths of some of our colleagues here. As a Democrat, all Democrats over here have been called unpatriotic, undemocratic, irresponsible, and un-American. I heard all of that from the other side. To my friends on the other side of the aisle, all of us and I certainly take offense to those unpatriotic, undemocratic, irresponsible, and un-American comments. Nobody in this House has any lock on patriotism. There are 535 patriots and 5 persons from other areas in this country of ours that serve this country in the best manner that they can. We disserve ourselves when we allude to others being unpatriotic. I sat in the Committee on Rules Tuesday night and listened to Republicans' plans to increase the debt limit. I think that there should be some measure of increase. At the time, I figured that the majority just did not get it. Today, I am certain that the majority not only does not get it, but they cannot sell it. They did not sell it to their own members, and they are certainly not going to be able to sell it to the American people. So the Republican leadership has done what it does best: Rule with an iron fist. Never mind about who did it before them, they are doing it now. The leadership attached controversial and extraneous provisions to a widely supported bipartisan bill, and when the Republican leadership realized they did not have the necessary votes, it reminded its caucus that the bill is blanketed under the highly political title of a wartime emergency supplemental. I guess, Mr. Chairman, old habits are just too hard to break. Like Americans all over this Nation and Members in this House, I strongly support the expenditure of supplemental funds.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentlewoman that it was the Committee on Rules because that is where the action is. But it was the majority on the Committee on Rules that undertook this. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as my good friend, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) noted, H.R. 3129, the Customs Border Security Act of 2001, authorizes the budget for the U.S. Customs Service, the United States Trade Representative, and the International Trade Commission. These three agencies are vital parts of our government, as they police our borders and promote the export of U.S. manufacturers. The rule we are considering today allows for a Democratic substitute, as well as a motion to recommit. I commend the majority for the construction of today's fair rule, and I urge the majority to give consideration for similarly fair rules in the future. The underlying bill was originally considered by this Chamber in December of 2001 under suspension of the rules, and it failed to gain the two-thirds majority needed for passage. H.R. 3129 failed because many of us on both sides of the aisle had grave concerns about the damage this legislation does to our civil liberties, our right to privacy, and bonus pay for Customs Service agents. For example, under section 141 of this legislation, customs officers are granted immunity from lawsuits stemming from personal searches of people entering the country, so long as the officers conduct the search in good faith. Additionally, under section 583 of this legislation, customs officers are granted the right to stop and search at the border without a search warrant any outbound mail being transported by the United States Postal Service. Last night in the Committee on Rules, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), made the claim that the major sticking point in the bill last December was the section concerning bonus pay. Frankly, I am a bit troubled by the chairman's remarks. True, many of us were concerned about the bonus pay provision in the initial bill. However, it was not the gravest concern that some of us had, nor was it the only concern that we expressed. Instead, as I said in this Chamber last December, H.R. 3129 as written imperils some of our civil liberties and some of our right to privacy. The Rangel substitute offers a more balanced and fair compromise, and I urge our colleagues to carefully consider it. It addresses all of the concerns of our fellow legislators. The Rangel amendment, like the Thomas amendment, includes a provision providing bonus pay to customs agents. It includes a provision stating that the United States government consents to be sued and be held liable for civil damages for suits brought in connection with a wrongful personal search by a customs agent. The Rangel substitute also contains a provision that raises the standard for searches of outbound mail to one of ``reasonable cause,'' as opposed to the lesser standard of ``probable cause.'' Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, my concerns for civil liberties and our right to privacy do not blind me to the dangers of terrorism. My district in south Florida is surrounded by 3 major ports and 3 international airports. Just this past week, it was reported by the Coast Guard that 25 Islamic extremists had snuck into this country by way of ports in Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Savannah, and elsewhere. These individuals allegedly hid themselves in cargo containers, and then walked away from the ports dressed as stevedores. This body must provide our customs agents with the tools they need to defend our borders and wage a protracted war on terrorism. We should not, however, give these same agents an incentive to violate our privacy and our civil liberties, particularly when doing so will provide us absolutely no extra security. If we allow our fears to goad us into abandoning the Constitution, then the enemies of freedom and democracy will have won. Ostensibly, security measures such as the provisions of this bill I have just discussed should be crafted in a manner to protect our democracy. If those security measures actually end up imperiling the democratic rights and freedoms their sponsors claim they protect, then they should be abandoned. I urge my colleagues to support the rule. I further urge them to please support the Rangel substitute, and oppose the underlying bill if the substitute is not adopted. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this bill on the floor today will significantly improve the lives of the veterans who have served us so honorably. H.R. 4015, the Jobs for Veterans Act, grants priority placement in certain job training programs for veterans and their spouses. Beginning with $10 million in FY 2004, this bill authorizes increasing amounts through FY 2008, and such sums as may be necessary in FY 2009 and succeeding years, for a new performance incentive awards program to encourage states to improve their employment, training, and placement programs for veterans. This incentive program will award the states that have the best record in helping veterans find work. The awards will take the form of new contracts for veterans employment programs. This bill also establishes the President's National Hire Veterans Committee to take actions to facilitate the employment of veterans and disabled veterans.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this bill on the floor today will significantly improve the lives of the veterans who have served us so honorably. H.R. 4514, Veterans Major Medical Facilities Construction Act, provides an increase to the Veterans Administration to improve patient care facilities. This bill is targeted at specified medical facility projects in California, Ohio, Alaska, Connecticut and Florida. It authorizes ten projects to improve, renovate and update patient care facilities at VA medical centers in these five states. The measure sets specific authorizations for each project in FY 2003 and an overall authorization of $285 million in FY 2003 for all ten projects. The much needed improvements in patient care at these facilities will include accommodations for veterans with disabilities, blind rehabilitation centers, programs for seriously mentally ill patients, rehabilitation programs for substance abuse, and facilities for hospice care. My colleagues may recall that when we were debating the rule for the Defense Authorization Act earlier this month, I expressed concerns about the projected rise in the number of veterans and retirees over the next few years, especially those over the age of 65. Caring for these Americans in the coming years will be one of the greatest challenges facing the military health care system and the Veterans Administration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today before you and my colleagues in support of H. Con. Res. 309, which recognizes the importance of good cervical health and its early detection. Cervical cancer is nearly 100 percent preventable, yet according to the American Cancer Society, an estimated 13,000 new cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in 2002 and about 4,100 women will die of the disease. The good news is that cervical cancer is preventable and curable if it is detected early; in fact, the occurrence of deaths from cervical cancer has declined significantly over the last 20 to 30 years. Screening younger women using the Pap test is an importance strategy that can actually prevent cervical cancer from developing almost 100% of the time. Research and studies have been found to note that minority populations and persons of low socioeconomic status are affected disproportionately as well. Early detection of cervical cancer can be the first major victory in the fight against cancer. Research is being done to develop a vaccine, but in the meantime, early detection is the key. The primary purpose of the Pap test screening program is to detect abnormal cellular changes that are not yet cancer. These changes, and very early invasive cancer, are virtually 100% curable. When preventative tests are used following an abnormal Pap test, the rate of detection of cervical cancer can be increased. The majority of deaths from cervical cancer are unnecessary and preventable. The key is early detection. Mr. Speaker, my message is simple. Go for screening! I encourage women to make their January calendars each year with this message. With early detection and prevention, no woman need die from cervical cancer.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. First, I appreciate the continuing compliment, and I do likewise. I want the gentleman to know that a month ago I took leave from the Committee on Intelligence to allow the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), our colleague, to go on the committee. That does not mean that all that time before then that I was not a full member. To answer the gentleman specifically, there are 1,000 people that get a general report on a regular basis that are in the loop, so to speak, about classified information. There are 20 individuals who get a higher clearance and a more detailed and specific report. The report that the President of the United States receives, unless the President determines, and those determinations are made by him and his advisors, are not to be made public, nor at any point in time are they to be revealed unless they become unclassified. And there is dispute about even that unclassified portion as to whether or not they should be in the public realm. What I am saying is that in this case, so many people were victimized that we would be very wise to take it out of our political hands. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) who just came in, he and I get along extremely well until we start talking about politics; and when we start talking about politics, we have a different point of view. What we need this thing to be is in the hands of some people that can look at the CIA and the FBI and, guess who else? They need to look at the Committee on Intelligence members and all of us and see whether or not we were discharging our oversight responsibilities. The secrecy part of it can be handled with open meetings and closed meetings where necessary. We did it every day in Federal court; every day, and we protected the source and methodology of our very critical intelligence- gathering apparatus. The gentleman has been very generous with his time, and I hope I get an opportunity to do likewise.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I especially am appreciative of both of the gentlemen, and I thank the gentleman for yielding. I know my colleague's district abuts mine, and we have 50 percent of all of the vegetables grown in the United States, or grown in my and the gentleman from Florida's district. So when the gentleman talked about the failure to cross-pollinate between two of our agencies responsible to report to the President, I know he knows that from agriculture, our cross-pollination. I always say that for humor, I say to the gentleman from Colorado. I want the gentleman to know that I think the Vice President was correct when he said that we need to lower the volume. But I think the Vice President is incorrect when he advises the President that this matter should not be made known, particularly having to do with the briefing that he received; it could be appropriately redacted. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), our colleague that is involved in this colloquy, was involved in the Florida legislature when we passed the sunshine law in the State of Florida. And do my colleagues know what? The executive branch of government moaned and groaned, and they were Democrats in the executive branch then, they moaned and groaned all the way to openness. When I go with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) next week in Russia and in Beijing and in Korea, do my colleagues know what we are going to say to those people? That they should be transparent with reference to their government and that they should have openness. The one thing I caution is, and I think the gentleman from Colorado got it right, that a media circus can develop; and those of us who serve our own egos find ourselves in a position of being consumed by the media. That Newsweek report did not come from the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt); that came from the minds of some editor who quoted what the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), as the gentleman from Colorado correctly pointed out, said. I thank the gentleman so much for yielding, and I must take my leave; but I will come back another time to discuss this matter with the gentleman.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Does the gentleman mean my buddy, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley)?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from Colorado for yielding. I understand the gentleman's concern and passion. I would just like to share with the gentleman that some of us feel the same as does the gentleman, and that is that the President would not have sat on information, had he known. My criticism, and I have been critical, and I might add I think it is legitimate, is the way they choose to do business in secrecy, and that is why some of us call for an independent commission such as the Kerner Commission or the Watergate Commission to go forward and make an investigation in this matter. Finally, I do genuinely feel that most Democrats do not impugn the integrity of the President. I certainly do not. But I do believe that in this instance, with information that was available, not to the President's desk, but the CIA and the FBI, that they did not serve him well by coordinating that information, for had he had the information, he may have acted in a different manner. I thank my colleague very much for yielding, and I will do likewise when I get an opportunity.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this bill on the floor today will significantly improve the lives of the veterans who have served us so honorably. H.R. 4085, the Veterans Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act, provides an annual cost-of-living increase for veterans, and increases compensation for disabled veterans and their dependents and survivors. The committee estimates that the increase will be 2.3%. This bill also increases indemnity compensation for survivors of certain service-connected disabled veterans. Of significance in this legislation is the measure providing that the surviving spouse of a veteran who remarries after the age 65 would not lose his or her dependency and indemnity compensation payments, eligibility for medical care, or education and housing loan benefits. Also, that veterans over age 70 could maintain coverage under this program, which currently is canceled at age 70. This bill before us supports our veterans and I believe this legislation will significantly improve their lives. I urge my distinguished colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the National Drought Preparedness Act of 2002. I am fortunate to have the support of the many bipartisan original cosponsors. In addition, this bill is the companion bill to the Domenici-Baucus bill also being introduced in the Senate today. I do hope that both bodies will work together and pass this bill immediately. 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 Okeehobee, 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 to get by every day. 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 you were involved in agriculture, assistance is virtually impossible. When it is possible, the loops folks need to jump through just to get it are so discouraging that they don't even try. Realize, drought is not just an agriculture issue, nor is it only a water management issue. When droughts occur, forest fires erupt, small businesses close, and in many instances, people die. Congress and FEMA define drought as a natural disaster, and it's about time that we start treating them as such. Yesterday, while I was attending the Florida Congressional Delegation meeting, the entire meeting focused on hurricanes and the plans that are currently in place in Florida, which are the framework of how we respond to hurricanes. The bill we are introducing today provides a new focus on an otherwise often ignored natural disaster. The creation of a coordinated and comprehensive National Drought Council will provide efficient and time sensitive coordination between federal agencies in preparing for and responding to droughts, as well as assisting Congress in identifying our immediate and long term needs in providing drought relief. Mr. Speaker, we must move the country away from the costly, ad-hoc, response-oriented approach to drought, and toward a pro-active, preparedness approach. Coordination between federal, state, and local governments is the only way we will accomplish this difficult task. I am looking forward to working with my colleagues and moving this bill forward. Americans are hurting throughout this country today because of water shortages and prolonged droughts. Congress must act immediately, time is of the essence.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this is sweeping legislation affecting more than 5 million families and we owe it to them to engage in thoughtful debate about the best ways to help them achieve permanent self sufficiency. There has been lively and thoughtful discussion on the best ways to do this--more than 43 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee for consideration. I would have welcomed the opportunity to debate these options on the House floor. However, this closed rule, allowing a substitute but no other amendments, denies us the opportunity. Frankly, this is offensive to me and should be to the whole House as well. My concerns abut the shortfalls in this legislation are numerous. This bill imposes a huge unfunded mandate on the States and reduces the States' flexibility in determining the optimum mix of activities to help recipients become more self-sufficient. In addition, it doubles the number of required work hours for mothers with young children but provides minimal new child care funding to support this increased work requirement. Two particular items in this legislation are of serious concern to me. First, this bill fails to provide individuals and families the opportunities and help they require to rise out of poverty and gain self sufficiency. To attain a job with promotion potential and earnings above the poverty level requires experience, education, and job skills. I wish that success could be achieved as easily as the supporters of this bill lead us to believe. But while an entry level or minimum wage job is certainly a laudable start, the only way to get out of poverty and achieve permanent self sufficiency is through education and training. If you train someone for a dead end job, you will lead them to a dead end. With its emphasis on ``make-work'' jobs that fail to offer any training or promotion opportunities, couple with its failure to acknowledge the importance of education, this bill fails to offer any substantive solutions to help our Nation's poor out of poverty. Mr. Speaker, the second issue I have with this bill is that it discriminates against legal immigrants by denying them Federal assistance. Both the National Governors Association and the National Conference of States Legislatures have recommended that States be given the option to use TANF funds to serve legal immigrants immediately. However, under the Republican bill, legal immigrants must be living in this country for 5 years before they are eligible for Federal aid. Even more distressing is the fact that many of those affected by this discrimination are children who were born in this country and are, in fact, U.S. citizens. In 1996, the most current year for which records are available, 28,565 refugees were granted permanent residence in the United States. The responsibility for housing, feeding, and caring for those who require assistance falls to the States--and the top four States carrying this responsibility are California, New York, Texas, and Florida. I believe that States should be granted the option of using TANF dollars for legal immigrants. I regret that this closed rule has denied us the opportunity to debate these and a host of other issues on the floor.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz- Balart), my good friend and neighbor, for yielding me this time. The rule itself is fair enough in that it is an open rule. I would also like to at this time thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the House Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for their extraordinary work on this legislation. As a former 9-year member of the Committee on International Relations, I well know how hard that committee works to bring sensible legislation to the House floor that is sound public policy for the United States and equally sound globally. So again, I want to recognize the hard work of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today, the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act, is a good bill as far as it goes. I appreciate my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), for saying that the circumstances in Afghanistan are fluid, and that is without question my opinion; and I would echo his sentiments in that regard. This bill also authorizes a broad range of development, economic and security assistance for Afghanistan including more than $1 billion in various assistance activities over 4 years, and urges the President to appoint a special coordinator to oversee overall U.S. assistance. And I think that that area should be underscored. The bill also conditions assistance in certain regions to counter narcotics efforts and links future assistance to the furtherance of the ``Bonn process'' which provides a frame work for Afghanistan's political factions to decide their country's political future. I read a summary of the bill last night, Mr. Speaker, which notes that this bill, and I quote, ``includes strong language on the provision of assistance to meet the educational, health, vocational needs of women, endorses the needs for increased security throughout Afghanistan,'' housing, infrastructure. Candidly speaking, I wish we had the money to do all the same things in my district and the rest of this country, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, I have read the Republican welfare bill, and I fear the House today may very well be doing good for Afghans, as rightly we should, and more for them than we are for some Americans. Mr. Speaker, I only half jokingly refer to this bill as ``welfare for warlords.'' The cold facts tell me that sending this amount of money to a region that is still war-torn and rife with organized crime may be a dangerous thing to do. Peacekeepers in that region for a substantial period of time are going to be a must. Accountability is absolutely essential. I am, however, very encouraged; and I spoke actively during the runup of this bill with the gentleman from California's (Mr. Lantos) office and allows that the bill includes language to try and stem the serious narco-trafficking that is rampant in Afghanistan. What we see on a day- to-day basis now that spring has sprung in Afghanistan is more and more poppy seeds, less and less tomatoes and potatoes; and what we are witnessing is right in the area that we are getting ready to send a lot of money are drugs being drawn up and grown up that will ultimately arrive at our shores and elsewhere in the world. I have seen a couple of these crop replacement programs, one in Chiang Mai, Thailand. I do not think it worked there. I do not think it worked in Bolivia when we tried that; and I do not think it is going to work in Afghanistan, for the practical reason that growing tomatoes and potatoes is not as lucrative as growing poppy. And until such time as we understand that dynamic, we are going to find ourselves on the short end of yet another war on drugs while we are trying to stop a war on terror in an area where drugs are being grown as we prepare to send money there. Mr. Speaker, as I said, the bill is good as far as it goes and is a good start. And I think the authors have done all that they could under the circumstances. I hope some of the concerns I just mentioned can be addressed sooner rather than later. Ultimately, this bill deserves our support. I only wish that they would deal with many of the same problems domestically in the manner that we do this and that our domestic matters would enjoy the same bipartisan support. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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