Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, advances in computer and telecommunications technology have opened the door for more and more Americans to work from their homes if they so choose. More than 45,000 Federal employees exercised their option to telecommute for 52 days or more in 2001. A footnote right there. This being the seat of creativity, my reading and that of the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) is that ``telecommute'' joins the lexicon of new verbs, because to our knowledge, it did not exist before. So I am kind of proud of us for coming up with something that takes into consideration all of the technology that is setting upon our great Nation and our world. These Federal employees were among the 19 million Americans who telecommuted at least once last year. Telecommuting holds a host of advantages for America's workers and employers. It allows workers the flexibility to perform their jobs and manage their demanding personal lives at the same time. Businesses can use telecommuting to retain valuable workers whose personal and extracurricular obligations would otherwise force them to take a leave of absence, or, worse, terminate their employment altogether. Telecommuting also has the potential to reduce gridlock and automobile pollution by allowing workers to skip the rush hour commute. As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) already noted, H.R. 3924, the Freedom to Telecommute Act, modifies Federal procurement rules to allow private contract employees working for Federal agencies the option to telecommute when executing their duties under those contracts. These workers will join Federal employees who are already able to telecommute under existing law. If a Federal contracting officer feels that telecommuting would be inconsistent with agency needs, he or she would be permitted under this legislation to prohibit it, thus creating workplace flexibility and ensuring security at the same time. The legislation basically is noncontroversial. It was passed out of the Committee on Government Reform unanimously, and I urge my colleagues to support it on the floor this morning. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) if he has additional speakers. At this time we have none and we are prepared to close.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), as of 5 minutes ago there was no vote requested.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There were points of order against this debate that were raised by my colleagues on the other side, and there was a citation to the specific rule that ostensibly and allegedly was violated and rulings from the Speaker and the Parliamentarian's advices in that regard, all on this particular rule with reference to telecommunication. After all the bluster of the past few minutes, let me remind my friends on the other side that under their budget fewer people will be able to telecommute because there will be fewer jobs. That is simply the point we were trying to make, and telecommunication in the final analysis, the contractors that we are trying to protect are people who will be dealing with Medicare, people dealing with hospitals and health care, people dealing with roads, people dealing with education, all of these telecommuters that we are about the process of trying to protect. Thus, we saw some of my colleagues come down here to the floor to discuss the fact that I raised last evening, and that is that we did not have enough time to discuss those matters that are germane, and there is a distinction in this rule and the rule that we will be discussing on the more germane points having to do with this Nation's security both economically as well as its defense. Let me just say, stifling debate is the antithesis of opening up the process that we are trying to do on this telecommunications rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I note that the distinguished chairperson of the Committee on Rules, I apologize, he is walking out not because he knew I would say something regarding what he said. In that debate on last evening in the Committee on Rules and as late as 12:30 this a.m., I certainly, and my colleagues certainly, raised the question of us having sufficient time to discuss this war-time budget. I did not think and I said so and I do not think that the limited time that we have is going to be sufficient for all of the Members of the House of Representatives who so desire to come forward and discuss the particulars of this budget. The chairman is absolutely correct. There is no distinction between a Democrat or a Republican on homeland defense and on the security of our Nation and pursuing the necessary defense in order that we may be secure. But there is a distinction on whether or not we are going to fund education or if we are going to fund housing for the disabled or if we are going to take care of the energy and environmental considerations. And some of us see the necessity to avoid some of the tax consequences that have been put forward. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney). (Mr. TIERNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, point of order.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, then all of us, myself and the chairperson of the Committee on Rules, that have spoken, our words should be taken out of the Record for the reason that they were not relevant?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this budget is a case study in poor leadership and fiscal management. It serves as an example of what goes wrong when you fail to think ahead. Mr. Speaker, the general theme of this year's budget resolution is a reckless disregard for the obvious. After all, the resolution does not account for the last 5 years of last year's tax cut, and it certainly does not account for real CBO numbers. What the majority's figures do account for is a more than 5 percent cut in nondefense related spending and an additional $28 billion in tax cuts. They account for a 16 percent shortchanging of ``leave no child behind,'' and they account for the elimination of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. The resolution also accounts for cuts in health care, law enforcement, energy production, environmental protection, not enough money for election reform, housing for the elderly, the capital fund for housing, homeless assistance cuts; and all the way across the board we find this. Basically, Mr. Speaker, what has happened is the lock box has been unlocked, thrown away, retooled, and made into an ATM machine.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time. This bill is opposed by every major environmental organization, every major consumer product safety organization, and I wonder why that is? Mr. Speaker, it is no doubt trite to proclaim that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This bill is a perfect example of that aphorism. No Member of this Chamber needs to lecture me about living in a culture of lawsuits and about how the number of lawsuits has spiraled out of control. I am all too familiar with that, being a trial lawyer and being a trial judge. Let me tell you something, this bill will do nothing but make things worse for our courts in this land, worse for our judges, and, most important, it will make things worse for the people who need redress the most in our judicial system. This bill does not make our litigious system better. Indeed, it makes it far worse. The bill before us would make it significantly more difficult for consumers to achieve relief from the most outrageous corporate abuses. Frankly, this bill is a bailout for corporate wrongdoers, and that makes me sick. Mr. Speaker, if passed, this bill will make it easier for a significant number of corporations, not just Enron, where no real class action has been filed yet, but Arthur Andersen, for example, might not have as much to fear. We may never have even heard about the problems with Firestone if this bill were law today. Monsanto, W.R. Grace, all these corporations had to face the public and face the music because of our Nation's easy access to the courthouse. This bill would have made it significantly easier for these corporations if this bill were law. This bill would federalize class action lawsuits, plain and simple. You can take my word for it, or you can take Chief Justice Rehnquist's word for it, the Federal courts are already overworked and understaffed. This bill would only exacerbate this problem. State courts are the much preferred venue for these types of actions. We have heard about problems in a couple of States. The fact is, there really is no crisis. Florida, California, Texas, and New York all are able to handle their caseload without Federal intervention. Certainly, if the four largest States in the United States are not having these problems, the other 46 can manage as well. Let me tell you some things. I heard the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) a moment ago talk about a coupon. I cannot deny there are cases where lawyers have made fees and clients have not received all of the recompense that my brothers and sisters on the other side would have them. But what about tobacco and all of the money that all of the States have received? What about asbestos and black lung? Where would we be if this were law today? Would we have seat belts in our automobiles, air bags, infant car seats, child proof medicine bottles, disability access? All of those were class actions. I am heartened that the Committee on Rules did make in order the Lofgren amendment and several others, including the amendment of my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). I want to make it very clear that I recognize that we do not have all the time this morning to talk about this matter, but understand this: there was absolutely no consultation with Federal judges. And we talk all the time in this body about unfunded mandates. Well, this bill was not scored by CBO, according to my Republican colleagues; but CBO did say that there would be increased administrative costs. Let me tell you what some of those increased administrative costs will be: more court reporters, more translators, more clerks. And the impact on the Federal judiciary, it is all but outrageous for us to believe that courts will not bog down. If we impact the civil litigation system in this country, then the linchpin of this country's economy will come undone. It is a terrible mistake for us to proceed in this manner, and I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam 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. First, Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), my colleague and friend, for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I do not plan to take much time this morning. This House well knows the views of many of us, and I certainly have expressed my views on the topic of economic recovery, job growth stimulation, and tax cuts and credits. The amendment which we focus on this morning is fairly narrow and straightforward. It extends unemployment benefits for 13 weeks for those workers whose benefits are set to expire within the next several weeks. This amendment also includes a number of incentives for reconstruction efforts centered around Ground Zero in New York City and extends the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families supplemental grants program. Frankly, I feel proud that we can get this assistance to these workers, and my colleagues on the other side are to be complimented in that regard, and to those who are doing all they can to assist in the revitalization of New York City. Candidly, Madam Speaker, I am less proud, however, of what this Congress still has not done for the rest of the country and all those who have been impacted as a result of the events of September 11. I note again, as I did yesterday in the Committee on Rules, and as I have done a multiplicity of times since not long after September 11, this Congress has not done nearly enough to help those whose economic livelihood has been severely devastated since the terrorist attacks of 6 months ago. On September 24, barely 2 weeks after the attacks, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) and I introduced a comprehensive measure to help this country's workers. Our bill, H.R. 2946, would not only extend unemployment benefits, it would also increase job training opportunities and extend health care and insurance benefits to those who desperately need it. Now, 5 months and nearly 160 bipartisan cosponsors later, the House has still not acted on the Hart-Hastings bill. We are doing a little this morning. But let me say this with the certainty of a clarion: we have not done enough. I will continue to say we have not done enough until we do. I will continue to ask the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, and I will continue to ask the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and I will continue to ask the chairman of the Committee on Commerce to move the Hastings-Hart bill through their respective committees with alacrity and bring it to the House floor at once. Madam Speaker, near the end of this debate, I will call on my colleagues to defeat the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that would allow the House to vote on an amendment to provide States with a temporary increase in their Medicaid matching rate because of the increased number of people who are unemployed and, therefore, do not have health insurance. As I noted a moment ago, millions of American jobs have been lost since September 11. Far too often, with that job loss, comes the loss of health insurance. When people get sick, they still need care, whether they can pay for it or not. The cost of this care often falls on the State through its Medicaid program. Our amendment would greatly ease the increased financial burden that many States and certainly my State of Florida now faces. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question; and if the previous question is defeated, as I indicated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to vote on an amendment to provide States with a temporary increase in their Medicaid matching rate. As I said a few minutes ago, it has been nearly 6 months since the events of September 11. Our economy, which is already in an economic downturn, has worsened considerably. The cost of this care often falls on States through its Medicaid program. This amendment will greatly ease the increased financial burden that many States now face. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and a vote instead to support an amendment that will help States to offset the cost of increased health costs due to the high levels of unemployment. Previous Question for H. Res. 360--Economic Security and Recovery Act of 2001 Strike all after the resolving clause and insert: That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3090) to provide tax incentives for economic recovery, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention of any point of order, a motion offered by the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment with the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. The Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the Chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion and on any amendment thereto to final adoption without intervening motion except the amendment specified in section 2 if offered by Representative Rangel of New York or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order or demand for division of the question, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. Sec. 2. The amendment referred to in the first section of this resolution is as follows: At the appropriate place, insert the following:

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with my colleagues in expressing my concern about the Administration's budget and how it jeopardizes the Social Security Trust Fund. I would like to begin by reminding my friends that within the last year, the overall cumulative surplus has shrunk from $5.6 trillion to about $1.6 trillion; this is a difference of approximately $4 trillion in one year. Also last month, the Administration expressed the need for legislation that would raise the statutory debt ceiling in order to prevent a national default. Add the proposal to raid the Social Security Trust Fund surplus into this mix, and we have got a situation that the Democrats have been warning about and objecting to for the last year. Mr. Speaker, the war on terrorism and homeland security are very important, but so is the economic well being of this country. We will support the Administration in the war on terrorism, but we will oppose any legislation that disregards the economic well-being and future prosperity of our citizens. National security and homeland security can be achieved without penalizing, Social Security and Medicare. According to a Social Security primer published in September 2001 by the Congressional Budget Office, over the next three decades, the number of people over 65 years of age will rise by 90 percent, whereas the number of people below 65 years of age will rise by only 15 percent. This is a major demographic shift that will stretch the Social Security program to its fullest. In his budget for FY 2003, the President is seeking more than $2 trillion in spending. This implies that for the rest of his term, the government will have to consistently dip into the Social Security Trust Fund surplus to fund its day to day operations. All this, despite the promises made by the Administration last year to leave the Social Security surplus untouched. It was in February 2001, in his address to the joint session of Congress, that the President stated that his budget will protect all $2.6 trillion of the Social Security surplus. Other Republicans echoed the same promise. A promise that they are trying to break as we speak. With these facts blatantly staring us in the face, we should be ensuring Social Security benefits for the public and not dissolving them. It is true that the American citizens are concerned about national and homeland security. But, they are also concerned about their Social Security and Medicare benefits. We cannot and should not accomplish one at the expense of the other. It is time to keep the promises we made to the American public and ensure that the Social Security surplus is intact for the benefit of the current and future workforce.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with my colleagues in expressing my concern about the economic effects of the recently enacted tax cuts and how these tax cuts have affected our country's once sound economy. I begin, Mr. Speaker, by asking my friends on the other side of the aisle, where has the surplus, the very same surplus that was the largest in the history of this great nation just 1 year ago, gone? Well, I will tell you where the surplus has gone. On June 7, 2001, Congress rammed through the so-called ``Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act'' that had an effect opposite of its specified purpose. For those whose memories escape them, the Administration ensured the tax cut program would be a powerful economic stimulant to a slowing economy, while leaving the Social Security trust fund and Medicare surplus in tact. Yet, according to CBO's most recent projections, within the last year the overall cumulative surplus has been reduced by $4 trillion and now hovers at just $1.6 trillion. According to the CBO, about 60 percent of that decline is due to the tax cuts. Mr. Speaker, the facts are indisputable. However, some insist the down shift in the economy and the projected surplus is largely due to the nation's response to September 11, while CBO states the terrorist attacks contributed to only a small fraction of the deficit. Yes, September 11 was a tragic and unexpected event but it is because of unexpected or unforeseeable events why we, as a Congress, cannot draft intractable initiatives. It was not too long ago that I remember campaigning across South Florida and people were asking about issues such as Social Security, Medicare, and prescription drugs. Now, due to the Administration's faltering tax program, citizens are no longer assured that the nation will have adequate means to address its current needs and the long run costs of paying Social Security and Medicare benefits. Thus, the solvency of Social Security has been reduced by 10 years at the very least, and our ability to expand Medicare coverage has been paralyzed. And what about priorities such as building new schools? What about fixing our roads? Or what about paying off the national debt? As I mentioned, at the beginning of the 107th Congress this body was faced with a list of priorities that the American people wanted to address: education, prescription drugs, Social Security, the environment, energy and Medicare. Now, due to our plummeting surplus, we do not have the money to begin talking about these problems, let alone solving them. It is time to take action. It is time to be honest with the American people. It is time to discard ineffective policies that leave us with no hope of a balanced budget between now and 2011. It is time to stand behind initiatives that leave room for emergencies and ``rainy days,'' initiatives that do not exclude the average working man and woman, and initiatives that benefit not just 10 percent of the population but the entire population. It is time to implement an effective and proven resolution to tax cuts, Medicare, Social Security, unemployment, the national debt, and every other American priority.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, again I thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for his great help. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would like to begin in great sincerity by thanking the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, for allowing this resolution to be brought to the floor. Their stewardship of that distinguished committee is an inspiration to me, and I appreciate their taking the time to review my request on such short notice. The 60th anniversary gala of the Civil Air Patrol is being held here in Washington, D.C., this Saturday evening; so, honestly, their diligence in steering this resolution through the committee is timely indeed. In 1938 as the winds of war began to stir over Europe and East Asia, a group of concerned American pilots began to advocate for the creation of a civilian air defense. Their concerns about American involvement in the coming world conflict proved to be prophetic. The Civil Air Patrol, commonly known as CAP, was organized on December 1, 1941, 6 days before the attack on Pearl Harbor. Over the course of the Second World War, CAP volunteers would log more than 500,000 flying hours performing coastal patrols to search for enemy submarines, search and rescue missions, and cargo and courier flights for military personnel. Their efforts freed countless Army Air Corps enlistees to fight at the front and contributed greatly to homeland defense. Several historical sources suggest that the CAP coastal patrol rid the Atlantic coast of German U-boats by 1943. With the end of hostilities, CAP's responsibilities grew. In 1946, CAP was incorporated as a benevolent, nonprofit organization. Two years later, it became an auxiliary of the newly created United States Air Force. For the next 54 years, CAP would mobilize its resources to fulfill its congressionally mandated mission of providing aerospace education, cadet programs, and emergency services to the American public. It has performed this mission with distinction. The CAP cadet program has trained more than 750,000 youths in leadership and life skills over the past 60 years. During that same period, CAP pilots have flown over 1 million hours on search and rescue missions, saving hundreds of lives. In 1951, CAP initiated its aerospace education program which has since trained more than 300,000 teachers in math and science as they relate to aviation. These teachers have, in turn, taught over 18 million students. Since 1986, CAP has cooperated with the United States Air Force, the U.S. Customs Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the United States Forest Service to stem the flow of illegal drugs into our country. Together with these agencies, it has assisted in the confiscation or eradication of billions of dollars of illegal drugs. Today, CAP is stronger than ever, boasting a membership of 60,000 individuals and a fleet of over 500 airplanes. In offering this resolution, I implore my colleagues to award the Civil Air Patrol the honor it is due for its untiring service to the Nation. To the members of the Civil Air Patrol, I say happy 60th birthday. I wish you, at the very least, 60 more.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate the service of Clarence ``Gator'' Jones on recently being honored as Dania Beach, Florida's first African-American firefighter. Mr. Jones became the first African-American firefighter in Dania Beach in 1975 and continued to serve this city for more than two decades. Of course, serving as Dania's first African-American firefighter was no easy task. During his tenure, Clarence Jones braved a burden that few would accept and less would bear. A bitter sweet burden of disparities and degradation, while simultaneously becoming a trailblazer in his craft, establishing the standard for all firefighters to follow. While serving the city of Dania Beach, Mr. Jones received many accolades, some of which include a Medal of Honor and the prestigious Firefighter of the Year Award. Mr. Jones was also recognized for the care and compassion he exhibited when performing rescue calls, working above and beyond the call of duty, and participating in charitable activities. I am sure that when Mr. Jones became a firefighter at the age of 21, he simply saw this as a way to sustain his livelihood after serving in the Navy during the Vietnam War. Not realizing that by doing this, he did so much more, he saved lives. He became a hero. Most people take for granted those brave few that walk amongst us. The brave few that put concern for others before themselves. It is these few people that we must honor and celebrate for they are the ones that truly make the difference. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my appreciation and respect for Clarence Jones' commitment to the community of Dania Beach, FL. Mr. Jones has served the noble profession of fire rescue for 26 years. Twenty-six years of fortitude and selfless sacrifice that the Dania Beach community and I will always remember.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Texas, the ranking member, for yielding time. Two hundred billion dollars and 10 years later, I predict for you that this measure that we are going to vote on in this bad rule will not have given one child hope. I cannot imagine how much cynicism it took to name this the ``Hope for Children Act.'' Last night House Members diligently studied, debated and approved new campaign finance laws for America, and the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and I and others, met at 11:30 at night and reported out a rule that the majority of Members did not see then and have not seen now. It is a bill that Members are being asked to vote on this morning before they or their staffs have even had a chance to read the text of the bill. Yesterday afternoon, the talk was that the House was going to vote on an extension of unemployment benefits. That is what the Senate did. This is a plan that is both bipartisan and bicameral that we could pass. In addition, economists and labor experts alike have pointed out that the extension of unemployment benefits is a true economic stimulus. However, the bill that Members are being asked to vote on today is not just an extension of unemployment benefits; that is something, as I said, that the Senate passed. Instead, the majority has taken an issue as important as the extension of unemployment benefits and wrapped it up in a blanket of tax cuts to those who need them least. This bill is a third example of how the majority insists on playing politics with American lives. It is Lent season that began on yesterday. Maybe you all ought to give up the stimulus package for Lent, because it is not going to pass the Senate, and everybody over there and over here knows that. At a time when our country's unemployment level is the highest it has been in more than a decade and workers who lost their job in the wake of September 11 will exhaust their 26 weeks of unemployment and insurance benefits beginning mid-March, it is shameful that Congress has not acted. The fact of the matter is, if this bill is approved, it will never go to President Bush's desk. Unemployment benefits will not be extended. On the contrary, the bill will return to the other body where it will meet its death and all of us know that. My grandmother used to let me listen to a program on the radio called ``Let's Pretend'' and that is exactly what we are doing here. I do not know when it is that we stopped pretending. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) on that side and myself introduced H.R. 2946 that provides for human needs, dealing with education for health care coverage and providing a quality education for these children that this bill is supposed to give some hope to. Our bill extends unemployment and health care benefits, while also providing job training. Mr. Speaker, we talk about jobs. Evidently that $500 tax cut did not get to K-Mart and Toys-R-Us to be spent by us, because they seem not to be doing business so well. We have opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to help Americans fulfill their human needs. Defeat this rule.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

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 such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Cyber Security Research and Development Act and in support of the rule. I want to especially congratulate the Committee on Science chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), for their very hard work on this bill and for their recognition of the importance to the entire country of the necessary investments in research that this bill funds. Mr. Speaker, we all know that in 21st century America there is barely a thing that we do that does not involve the computer. From simple e- mail from a parent to a child in college, to computer-guided missiles that fall precisely on their targets, computers are the very backbone of our society today. Currently, the vulnerability of our Nation's computer system to cyber terrorism is great, as my friend from Florida has pointed out. This bill is the first step in a long process to secure our Nation's technological lifeblood. In college I was a science major, and I well know the importance of research and development in helping to solve this country's most difficult problems. I also had the distinct honor to serve in Congress on the Committee on Science, and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, we have a serious problem on our hands, and it is up to the emerging scientists and engineers to fix it. Why are they not doing it now? Because the Federal Government is not providing enough resources nor offering the proper incentives. This bill is a step forward to change this pattern for years to come. For just a moment I want to discuss a portion of the bill relating to minority participation in the programs created in this bill. I was going to offer an amendment, and I shall not in light of discussions that I had with the Chair of the Black Caucus, and report language that seemingly covers some of what I had in mind. In particular, I want to commend the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), for her very hard work on this issue. A report of the National Science Foundation reveals that blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans comprise 23 percent of the population, but earn on a whole only 14.2 percent of the bachelor's degrees, 8.1 percent of the master's degrees and 5 percent of the doctorate degrees in science and engineering. This bill gives the NSF and the National Institute of Standards and Technology the tools to correct the imbalances uncovered in their own studies showing, as throughout government, that minorities are not being hired at a pace that they should, and that the process itself is so extraordinary that it makes it difficult for people to even accomplish the standards that are set forth. If, Mr. Speaker, we are to ensure American security from terrorist threats, we will need to mobilize all of the human resources available. That includes minority Americans. Again, I congratulate the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert), the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), and the rest of the Committee on Science for their recognition of that need and their attempts to address it. Mr. Speaker, this is a necessary bill. It has earned the bipartisan support of the Committee on Science, and I would suggest that it deserves the same bipartisan support here on the floor of the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would the Speaker give an account of the amount of time remaining for both sides?