Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, is it not characterizing the Senate's actions to call it a sham, a mess, hastily made, disastrous, and weak?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. So continuing my parliamentary inquiry, ``hastily'' is not an action? I just want equal admonitions, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I appreciate it.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky). (Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois, (Mr. Lipinski), a gentleman that has a great deal of knowledge about the subject we are discussing.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very thoughtful gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), who has distinguished herself in this body.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/ 2\ minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee), representing Houston and other areas of the world.

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 demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), my good friend.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my distinguished colleague from New York how many more speakers he has.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of my distinguished colleague, we have one speaker remaining, and if the gentleman would utilize at least one of his speakers.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague, and I yield myself the remaining time. I have heard an alarming amount of discussion on this floor of the House today, suggesting that there may be something wrong with federalizing employees who have the responsibility to check luggage and screen passengers. I have been a Federal employee three times in my life, and each of those three times I felt a whole whale of a lot more secure than I did when I was a minimum-wage worker stripping celery. What federalization does is provide worker security, it provides better wages, it provides better health care, the same kind of health care that we have, and it enhances morale. All of us go through those checkpoints at airports and all of us are confronted with the same persons that had the responsibility on September 11 who, in many instances, are poorly trained, poorly paid, and their morale is at its lowest ebb on a continuing basis. At the very least we need to ensure that they are trained. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can take up the Airline Industry Worker Benefits bill immediately after passage of the Insecure Airline Security bill.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Is it inappropriate to characterize that the Senate voted 100 to nothing on a specific measure?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. We could not even call it overwhelming. Okay. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), my good friend.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to amend the Social Security Act to increase the maximum amount of the death benefit lump-sum from $255 to $1,000. The current benefit is not only grossly inadequate but unfairly distributed. It is an unjust system that deprives individuals and their families of up to a month's worth of compensation. Even when the benefit is received, it is too little to be of much significance. It appears that our Social Security system fails to adequately provide for the care of our elderly citizens, even when they die. Under current law, social security benefits are not paid for the month in which a recipient dies. For example, if an individual were to die on July 31, his heirs will receive no compensation for all of the expenses incurred during the month of July. If that person had died on August 1 instead, he or she would have received full coverage for the previous month. In some cases, when the Social Security Administration is not told of the death in time to stop the payment, family members of the deceased must return the check for the month. It is nothing short of disgraceful to add the psychological stress of dealing with complex financial legalities to family members who are already grieving for a loved one. I support legislation that would entitle an individual to benefits proportionate to the number of days during the month that he or she lived. One of my distinguished colleagues has already introduced a bill to this end, H.R. 210, the Social Security Descendent's Family Relief Act of 2001. It makes much more sense that if a person lives until July 15, he should receive compensation for those 15 days. In addition to this unreasonable benefit system, the $255 lump-sum available to families of the deceased is woefully inadequate. The $255 sum, which was provisioned in 1981 and was a modest sum at that time, is not even remotely close to meeting the expenses families face in the 21st century. What cost $255 in 1981 costs over $513 today. Surely it is not unreasonable for families to expect an inflation-adjustment for that benefit. Furthermore, the average retired worker receives $845 in social security monthly benefits. Clearly a $255 lump sum does not compensate for this amount. And, according to the National Funeral Directors Association, the national average cost of a funeral is $5700. Families need more, not less, money at this time. My bill would increase the amount of the lump sum benefit from $255 to $1000. That equates to a net gain of $745, compared to a potential loss of up to $845 under the current system should an individual die towards the end of the month and thus fall victim to prorating. Mr. Speaker, surely one of our most important priorities should be to give American families the money they need and rightfully deserve. It is our duty to correct the discrepancies in a flawed process so that all Americans enjoy the benefits of a system designed to help them. I sincerely hope that my colleagues will work with me to ensure the passage of this important legislation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Internet Equity and Education Act may very well be a step in the right direction. It was introduced and passed out of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce on a bipartisan basis. I salute the original sponsor of this bill, my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), who previously served with distinction as chairman of the Georgia Board of Education and obviously has a great deal of experience in educational matters. Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to calculate how large an impact the Internet will have on every facet of our lives. In particular, the ability of one to educate herself or himself without ever stepping foot on a college campus is undoubtedly one of the most profound, positive changes to be wrought by the proliferation of computers and web-based university instruction. Congress, as can be our custom sometimes, is a little bit behind the curve when it comes to technological advances and their impact on our society. I am thrilled that we are slowly beginning to understand these impacts and contemplating laws which help to harness the great potential of the Internet. Members will hear in great detail in the coming hours about the 12- hour rule, we heard it a great deal last night, and Members will hear about the 50 percent rule and other technical changes that this bill makes in order. I will not go into the details of these changes in this particular presentation. What I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, is that I am informed today that the House is expecting its last vote around 2 o'clock this afternoon. I say this to point out the fact that there is just no reason why, in my judgment, the Committee on Rules made in order a closed rule for this bill today. Yesterday evening there were only four Members of the House who came before the Committee on Rules to ask that their amendments be made in order. Of those, the House will be able to contemplate only one amendment under this rule. I think this in some respects is a bit unfair and in some respects an affront to the Members of the House, who only wish that the House be able to work its will on an issue of such salience. We heard last night that there was some hesitation in July from the Department of Education as to whether we should be going forward. But let me give the Members just some examples from some of our national education organizations as to how they feel with reference to the 12 and 50 percent rules. The National Education Association in one paragraph in a letter dated October 9 said, ``The NEA acknowledges and shares the concern of many Members that the 12-hour and 50 percent rules may not allow adequate expansion of distance learning. We do not, however, believe that elimination of these rules is the best way to ensure students a high- quality education and maintain the integrity of the financial aid program. Passage of H.R. 1992 will negatively impact the Federal Government's role in opening college and university doors to economically disadvantaged students who wish to attend college full- time.'' In another paragraph, ``Passing H.R. 1992 in its current form would send a message to college faculty that there is little inherent value in face-to-face instruction, classroom debate, and the social processes involved in learning.'' That was from their Director of Government Relations. From the Department of Legislation of the American Federation of Teachers, in their third paragraph, I quote in part, ``The 5-year demonstration project is currently in its second year with 25 participants. The information gathered from this demonstration program will be available to inform Congress for the next NEA authorization,'' the education authorization, ``on the most appropriate action on distance education;'' that is, the Higher Education Act. The American Association of University Professors says, ``I urge you to delay implementation of the initiatives contained within this bill until they can be considered as a part of the overall reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. We need more information on how best to incorporate the promise of new technology into a varied and rigorous educational program.'' Basically what I am saying, Mr. Speaker, what the education associations are saying, is, slow down. This is a difficult process, and we need time for all of us to have input. Over the past few weeks, this Congress has been working with an unusual degree of bipartisanship. The consideration of this bill could very well have been another example of this. I am, at least as one Member, disappointed that the leadership chose instead to have this closed rule this morning and not allow Members to offer legitimate, substantive, and meaningful amendments. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).