Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the very thoughtful new Member of Congress, the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), my very good friend.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) that certainly he remembers after NAFTA we lost considerable jobs in the State of Florida; and with the Free Trade Area of the Americas agreement, the likelihood is that can occur again. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, at the risk of being the House contrarian this morning, I again rise in strong opposition to this unfair rule and equally strong opposition to the underlying bill. At the outset, let me explain the procedural problems with this rule that was reported late last night. Recently, we have heard so much about the new spirit of bipartisanship that is flowering throughout D.C. Unfortunately, the majority members of the House Committee on Rules must not have gotten this memo. Mr. Speaker, I remember well the times that Republican after Republican came to this floor to decry so-called unfair, heavy-handed tactics that my party used when we held the majority in this Chamber. At that time, Republicans were outraged and incredulous each time an important bill came to the House floor under a closed rule which prohibited serious debate. This is the exact rule that the Republicans would like us to work under today. So I say to my Republican colleagues, where is the outrage? Where is the disdain? My guess is that the disdain and outrage are packed and ready to go on 4 o'clock planes that they are trying to catch today. What other reason could there be for closing off such important debate? Let there be no mistake, Mr. Speaker. The bill that we consider today will have profound and long lasting effects on every State in this great country and on citizens throughout the world, and instead of allowing a fair and open debate, the majority is trying to squelch the voices that they wish not to hear. No amendments or substitute are permitted to this bill. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), one of the most respected and distinguished Members of this body, a Member who has served nearly 27 years on the House Committee on Ways and Means, who knows as much about trade as anybody in the House of Representatives, will not be permitted to offer an amendment or substitute to this bill. Frankly, this is not simply unfair; it is offensive. Moreover, there were a number of other Members who came to the Committee on Rules late last night to ask that their amendments be permitted to be offered. They were all denied their request. What are Americans being denied the right to hear about? One example, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), our thoughtful colleague, would have liked to offer an amendment making human rights considerations a principal objective of our trade compacts. If this rule passes, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) will not be able to offer his commonsense amendment. Another example, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) had sensible amendments related to some of our neediest trading partners in Africa. Like the Wu and Rangel amendment, the American people will be denied the right to hear the gentlewoman from California's amendment. How the majority is not embarrassed to bring such a rule to the House floor is simply beyond my comprehension. Setting aside for a moment the gross problem with this rule, there are significant concerns related to the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the Trade Promotion Authority, formerly Fast Track, legislation completely ignores the legitimate concerns many people have raised about the negative impact of current trade policies on working families, the environment, family farmers, consumers, small- and mid-sized businesses, people of color and women here in the United States and around the world. At a time when more than 700,000 layoffs have been announced since September 11, more than 2 million Americans have lost their jobs this year; and on the heels of the largest bankruptcy filing in the history of our country, where thousands more will soon receive a pink slip, the other side of the aisle is coming to the floor today to lay the foundation for the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs by more Americans in the immediate future. To top it off, just a short while ago this body reauthorized funding for trade adjustment assistance in anticipation of imminent job losses from future trade agreements. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy. You see, Mr. Speaker, today we are not voting on one trade agreement versus another. Rather, we are voting on giving the President open- ended authority to go ahead and commit the United States to trade agreements without allowing Congress substantive consultation on the specifics of the agreement. To provide this open-ended authority to the President without requiring that environmental and labor standards be included in any trade agreement is nothing short of hammering another nail in the coffin of hundreds of American industries nationwide. I support free trade. I was told last night in the Committee on Rules meeting that the manager's amendment will protect agriculture; that it will protect sugar in my State. Well, it did not. I have in the past, and will again, support free trade. However, any free trade agreement must be a fair trade agreement. It is outrageous to expect the American agricultural industry to compete with South American, Central American, or Asian agricultural industries who are not required to pay their workers a minimum living wage and are not held to the same environmental standards as farmers here in the U.S. Don't believe me? Look at what NAFTA did to my home state of Florida, specifically the agriculture industry. From citrus to sugar and from rice to tomatoes, Florida's agricultural industry has lost thousands of jobs as a direct result of NAFTA. While Mexican farmers have profited, companies have closed and Florida no longer have jobs. The President has made it no secret that the first thing he will do with fast track authority is to move forward with the Free Trade Area of the Americas agreement. The FTAA agreement, as currently written, could result in Florida's citrus and sugar industries, along with fruit and vegetable industries nationwide, ceasing to exist. South American farmers who pay their workers pennies and do nothing to preserve the land they grow or the environment they pillage, could wipe out the U.S. agriculture industry before we know what hit us. As I mentioned at the outset and for the reasons just explained, I oppose adoption of this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu). (Mr. WU asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my very good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the former Secretary of State of the State of Ohio.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing my colleagues talk about, come back and have an up or down vote. What part of procedural versus substantive consultation do they not understand? As a matter of fact, what part of ``deficit'' do they not understand as it pertains to our trade policy? We have not had time, because they did not give us time; and last night I asked for an additional 2 hours and was denied that time. We have not had time to talk about the fact that antitrust laws are going to change without any consultation and without any input from Members of this body. We have not had time to talk about the sovereignty issues, and I hope the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and his committee can get to that issue because it is critical. It is clear from this bill, the underlying bill, that foreign investors have an advantage over domestic persons in the United States, and the tribunals are held in secret. As a former judge, I cannot abide that. I must have my colleagues understand that it would be inappropriate to take American property in a secret forum, and that is what this measure permits. It does not permit that the United States Trade Representative come before us. I ask my colleagues, please, vote against this rule and vote against the underlying bill.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me this time, and as the gentlewoman has explained, under rule VX of the House rules, bills may be considered on the House floor under suspension of the rules only on Mondays and Tuesdays. Therefore, this resolution is required in order to consider these bills on today's schedule. The gentlewoman has done an adequate job of explaining why, in the leadership's opinions, these bills must come to the floor today and in this manner. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully disagree and I will call on our colleagues to oppose adoption of this rule. There is no need to rush to judgment on these bills. I heard my colleague and I agree with her with reference to the matters in TAA dealing with the textile industry, but there are some of us that are concerned about provisions in agricultural measures in regards to people that have lost their jobs. Some of us are interested in the citrus industry in Florida and what we are likely to do here today, and would like to have more discussion regarding same. There is simply no good reason to handle these bills outside the normal parameters of the way the House should conduct its business. Moreover, when the House does operate this way, it effectively curtails our rights and responsibilities as serious legislators. Members should be very wary of allowing leadership to usurp our rights. There are Members of this body who have serious concerns with at least one of the bills we are considering today. I am certain that we will hear quite a bit in due time from the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), on why this is not the appropriate way to handle serious legislation. As my colleagues know, handling bills under suspension denies Members the opportunity to amend the bill in any way. Moreover, in this case many Members from both the committee of original jurisdiction, the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on the Judiciary, have serious concerns about the Customs bill. We have heard or will hear soon that this particular bill passed committee on a voice vote; therefore, leading Members to believe that it is noncontroversial. It is not. There are legitimate questions with the bill as written, and we are not able to effectively deal with these questions when we give up our rights and allow the bill to be considered under suspension. We are told that this is the only practical way of dealing with all of the House's business in a timely manner. Also not true. Like my colleagues, I was informed yesterday that the House is not scheduled to meet tomorrow or the following Monday. If we were serious about doing the work of our constituents, we would be here tomorrow, Monday, possibly Saturday and Sunday, and however long it takes in order that we might address the concerns as shared by our good friends and me for those persons that have been displaced by September 11, and are likely to be displaced by the actions that we undertake later today on the Trade Promotion Authority. Mr. Speaker, there is much work to be done and we ought simply not advocate our responsibility to do. As I mentioned at the outset and for the reasons just explained, I oppose adoption of this rule. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong opposition to this ridiculous so-called open rule. The refusal of the Committee on Rules to allow consideration of the Obey amendment, the New York delegation amendment, and either of two amendments that I offered is an affront to democracy and an insult to the people of this great Nation. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle can offer no logical excuse for denying this body the right to debate provisions for the strengthening of our national security, the rebuilding of Ground Zero in lower Manhattan, and disaster relief to American businesses and workers. In fact, their only excuse for denying the American people increased funding for border patrol, airport and airline security upgrades, cargo inspectors at our ports, mail screening and processing machinery, food and water safety, and a host of other security measures has been that these pressing problems can wait until the spring. That is what I was told last night after the Committee on Rules said no to saving American businesses. I offered an amendment that would have provided the Small Business Administration with the necessary financial resources to administer all emergency disaster relief loans that have been applied for since September 11. I need my colleagues to realize that if Congress does not help American businesses today, then these businesses will not be around next spring to be helped. So I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle: Do any of you have a problem with saying yes to more than $4 billion in new spending on national missile defense, while at the same time saying no to displaced workers, American businesses, and homeland security? I certainly do. While the American people wait for spring, only seven-tenths, or 1 percent, of our imported food is inspected; only 2 percent of the cargo containers that enter American ports are viewed by Customs inspectors; our airlines remain vulnerable to hijackers; and the people in businesses of America wait vainly for Federal assistance. Perhaps the other side is blind to the more than 500,000 layoffs and thousands of business closures. I emphatically urge my colleagues to vote against the rule.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 233. Indeed, on September 11, the lives of every American, and every person in the world for that matter, changed forever. To those who lost loved ones, I can only express my deepest and sincerest sympathy. I can also assure the family, friends, and loved ones of these victims that their actions and memories will live on in the American spirit forever. No one will ever forget where he or she was on the fateful morning of September 11. No one will ever forget what the firefighters, police officers, paramedics, and rescue workers were doing when the two towers of the World Trade Center collapsed and just minutes after the Pentagon was hit by a hijacked plane. No one will ever forget the selfless acts of heroism that occurred on United Airlines flight 93, as the actions of several individuals possibly saved the lives of thousands. No one will ever forget the compassion, patriotism, comraderie, unity, and grief that can be felt in our country today. There is an old saying that the worst often brings out the best in us. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the same can be said for September 11. As the events of that fateful morning continued to unfold, the first things that came to my mind, like many of you, quickly turned to my family and loved ones. Once I knew that my mother and children were safe, I quickly began to focus on the safety of the rest of our country. Looking back, I guess that you could say I went through a process, a checklist if you will. First to may family and loved ones, then to my district. The checklist was nothing more than instinct. And in an emergency such as September 11 when chaos overwhelms order, many of us depend on instinct. For the more than 20,000 firefighters, police officers, paramedics, and rescue workers, they too relied on nothing more than their instinct. They came from near and far in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Virginia, Washington, DC, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. While we all know that they were thinking of their families as they did their jobs, they never let us know. Their instinct told them to get into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and do what ever they could to get people out of these buildings--alive. As reports were coming in that the towers in New York were about to collapse, rescue workers continued helping people out of the burning buildings because that is what their instinct told them to do. As reports were coming in that the Pentagon might crumble, rescue workers continued working to pull survivors out of the rubble because that is what their instinct told them to do. And when it became apparent that the only way to beat the hijackers was to crash their plane with them inside of it, the heroic passengers of United Airlines flight 93 put the lives of thousands in front of their own because that is what their instinct told them to do. Mr. Speaker, today we honor and remember the true American heros of September 11. For 50 days, these incredible individuals have been working at ground zero, in New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. On behalf of the people of Florida's 23rd District, I say thank you to these heros. More so, I ask them to continue doing what they are doing, not only out of instinct, but out of passion and conviction, and for the American people. The work that America's rescue workers have done in the past 50 days, and will continue to do in the days, weeks, months, and years to come, serves as an example to the rest of our country. The irony of the terrorist attacks of September 11 is that the same terrorists who succeeded in destroying our buildings only made stronger the spirit that they had really hoped to break. I know that this is true not only because my instinct tells me, but because my head and heart do as well. In the homes, offices, schools, and streets of this great country, the American spirit is stronger today than it has ever been in my lifetime. The actions of those at ground zero on September 11, and the actions of this country in the past 50 days, send a clear message to the rest of the world that America will not back down from anyone or anything. It never has, and it never will. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and may God bless America.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson), my very good friend.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me the time. After September 11, it is patently clear that we need to make travel on our airlines as safe as possible. Leaving aside for the time being the fact that we have not done anything for the safety of passengers on our buses, trains or ships, what we are trying to do for the flying public is as important as anything we can do to help this economy. First, Mr. Speaker, let me speak to the rule itself. Mr. Speaker, there were 20 Members of the House that asked that the Committee on Rules allow their amendments to be made in order. These were Members of both parties who have some thoughtful and substantive suggestions as to how to make this legislation stronger. Of those 20 Members, exactly two of them will have their amendments heard and debated by the House. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, is permitted to offer an amendment, and, of course, the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), will be allowed to offer his amendment. Other than the two most senior members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, not one other Member of the House of Representatives is permitted to offer an amendment. Candidly, Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed. While I very much appreciate the fact that this rule makes in order the gentleman from Minnesota's substitute, the Committee on Rules spent hours this week listening to Members testify on behalf of their amendments. Unfortunately, the House at large will not have this same opportunity. What I heard at the Committee on Rules this week was interesting, provocative, insightful and worthy of consideration by this House. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) made excellent points at the Committee on Rules which we will not consider today because of this closed rule. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) are all some of the other Members who will not have their amendments heard under this closed rule. Why is the majority limiting debate on such an important issue? I have yet to hear one Member satisfactorily explain that to me. Worse, Mr. Speaker, the lengthy amendment from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure chairman constantly being amended, even here in the last 30 minutes, will only be debated for 20 minutes. This is a 16-page amendment which makes significant changes to the underlying bill. So each side will have 10 minutes to debate this. I find that incredible. Moving beyond this restrictive rule, Mr. Speaker, I would like to touch briefly on the serious deficiencies of the underlying bill. During the minimal time allowed to debate this bill, we will hear much about who and what is screening the people and baggage on our airlines. The seminal question in my view is this: Will we have Federal law enforcement personnel screen passengers and luggage before entering airplanes or will this be left to private sector contract employees? Before answering that question, let me ask my colleagues related questions about public safety and security, their own safety and security and their constituents'. My colleagues, do we not feel safer every morning that we enter the Capitol because we are protected by the United States Capitol Police? Do we not feel safer that our borders are protected by the United States Border Patrol and United States Customs Service? Do we not feel safer that our brave men and women in uniform and members of the United States Armed Services presently pursuing our interests in Afghanistan and elsewhere are members of the Armed Forces? So what is my point? The point is we do not contract out our own security in the Capitol building, we do not contract out our security at our borders, and we certainly do not contract out for our military. However, the leadership of this House is comfortable contracting out the security of the flying public. Again I say, incredible. Mr. Speaker, I remember several weeks ago after my leader the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) came out of a White House meeting with the President and said, ``This is a unity government now.'' It seems that all 100 United States Senators understood what that meant. That means we should stop dickering around and pass a serious bill. The bill must include federalized passenger screeners at our airports. And in case it was not just made clear, the other Chamber passed their bill with federalized screeners by a recorded vote of 100- to-nothing. Certainly if the United States Senate can pass such a bill with unanimity, the House should do no less. Another issue that really incenses me, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that our checked baggage is not screened as it should be. According to an article that appeared in yesterday's Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, only 5 to 10 percent of checked bags are examined for explosives. The underlying bill would require examination of all checked bags by December 2003. Are we clear on this? So in 2 years and 2 months, our bags will be adequately screened. Mr. Speaker, this is unacceptable, irresponsible and inexcusable. There is simply no reason why Congress cannot mandate the Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration to issue regulations immediately to require screening of checked baggage. I need not remind my colleagues that as the holiday season approaches, it is more critical than ever that our flying public not only feels safe but that they are safe. That is the critical difference between the House bill and the unanimously passed Senate bill. Mr. Speaker, if I had more time, I would discuss the fact that while this House has already bailed out the airline industry, provided enormous tax breaks to the largest corporations in America, and is now set to attempt to make our skies safer, we still have not lifted a single finger to help displaced workers. I introduced a bill more than 5 weeks ago to help those hardworking Americans who have lost their jobs because of the tragedy on September 11. My bill, cosponsored by the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) and 140 other bipartisan cosponsors, needs to be considered forthwith. Finally, Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule; and that amendment would provide that immediately after the House passes the airline safety bill it will take up H.R. 2955, the Displaced Workers Assistance Act introduced by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) and myself and others. My amendment provides that the bill will be considered under an open amendment process so that all Members will be able to fully express their views and offer amendments that they think are important to this critical bill. Mr. Speaker, more than 7 weeks have passed since the tragic events of September 11. Since that time, thousands and thousands of workers in the airline and related industries have lost their jobs. These people need relief immediately. When we passed the airline bailout the week after the terrorist attacks, promises were made at that time by the Republican leadership that a worker-relief package would soon follow. I do not have to say again that it has not happened yet, and I do not see any indication that it is on the schedule in the immediate future. It is time for the House to do its work and pass legislation to help these people. Let me make clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of the airline safety bill. A ``no'' vote will allow the House to get on with the much-delayed airline industry worker-aid bill. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House from taking up the airline worker relief bill. 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, over the past 2 months, this Congress has been working with unusual dispatch with an unusual degree of bipartisanship. The consideration of this bill could have been another example of this. I am disappointed, as are many Members, that the leadership chose instead to have a closed, restrictive rule this afternoon and not allow Members to offer legitimate substantive and meaningful amendments. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would only advise my distinguished colleague and friend that last night we asked for more time on the manager's amendment so we could have more time on this matter.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I really wish to remind the gentleman from New York that when he said that this Oberstar measure that we will undertake was written in a partisan fashion, that the Oberstar substitute is the Senate bill that was passed 100 to nothing. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the distinguished minority whip.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), one of the newer Members of the House of Representatives, who replaced the ranking member, our dear departed friend Joe Moakley.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), my good friend.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), my good friend.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just remind my distinguished colleague from Florida that the Senate bill has been at the desk for an entire week, and I would also remind the gentleman that the vote in the United States Senate was 100 to nothing, and that included Trent Lott and John McCain and all of the other Republican Senators who still stand by their bill. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules.