Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced legislation to help protect all Americans from the artificially- inflated rise in fuel costs by temporarily suspending the 24.4 cent per gallon federal tax on diesel fuel. This step is necessary because the price of diesel has almost doubled in the past six months. This steep rise is bringing ruin to America's truckers, carriers, shippers, farmers, and adversely affecting all consumers. While the U.S. Congress cannot force OPEC to increase production, we must initiate a federal investigation into possible manipulation and price gauging by OPEC members and other oil producers. Clearly there is no shortage of oil. What we see today is intentional manipulation of production to ensure the highest prices for oil producers. In addition to launching a federal investigation, Congress should pass my legislation which is designed to provide immediate, albeit temporary, relief for the American consumer and so many small businesses which depend on diesel fuel. The average independent trucker and small farmer cannot continue to operate their businesses with the cost of diesel at almost $2 per gallon! Let's help them out by repealing the federal tax on diesel at the same time that we work the diplomatic and legal channels to bring pressure on oil producers. Please cosponsor this bill.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to the life and career of an African-American who can be considered one of the great arctic explorers, Matthew Henson. Mr. Henson was the first man to step foot on the North Pole. While history has credited Commander Robert Peary with this extraordinary accomplishment, it was in fact this humble, uncelebrated man who actually made the first triumphant step. Matthew Henson is a tremendous motivation to us all. He ran away from home at the age of eleven and thirty-two years later on April 6, 1909, through many trials and tribulations, found himself at the top of the world. Matthew Henson's achievements have been overlooked for far too long. He deserves our recognition and admiration for his amazing accomplishments. He warrants our credit for helping to introduce us to this important place. He has been described by people who knew him well as a ``great spirit'' and a great man. Those words merely touch the surface, for his spirit and drive to do better is truly immeasurable, as are his remarkable achievements in the area of exploration. I am humbled to salute this great African-American, this great man.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, my good friend, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this poses, for me, a very puzzling situation. I have so much respect for the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), and I know that they have worked actively on behalf of all of us in the House of Representatives and this Nation in trying to provide for a stable, prosperous, and democratic world through foreign operations. But I put to my good friend, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), that when he cites the fact that the amount of money that is offered this year is the same as last year, events that have happened over the course of the year causes us to have to take a different view. While the gentleman and I may disagree and have ideological perspectives that are different, the fact of the matter is that the Wye Accords are important to all of us. And we did, whether the gentleman agrees that the President had that responsibility or not, we agreed to $800 million that we would provide; and we have not in this year's budget. Now, I do not know how that plays out. I cannot argue with appropriators and those of my colleagues that know the inner workings of the budget better than do I with reference to who is at fault about what having to do with Social Security. But I know cuts when I see them: $212 million cut from economic recovery and democratization in Africa, Latin America and Asia in this budget; $44 million cut from disaster assistance; $53 million cut from refugee assistance; $35 million cut from the Peace Corps; $17 million cut from the NAD Bank Community Adjustment; $178 million cut from IDA lending to the poorest countries; $87 million from debt relief; $107 million cut from global environment facilities; $53 million from the Inter-American Bank; $80 million, 10 percent, for promotion of U.S. exports, which helps American, American, businesspersons. What we need to know is that foreign aid is not a giveaway; foreign aid shows the way. And we cannot proceed along these lines in this great country and be looked to for the direction, as we are by countries all over the world, if we intend to provide a stable, prosperous and democratic world.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), my colleague.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would, without quarreling, point out that some of the support for the electoral process has been held up by the majority party. The organization that would be in a position to do some of this supporting has not received the fundings that were due them largely in part because of caveats that have been set forth by the majority. While I do not quarrel with the majority's right to do that, then I do not think you ought be heard to complain that certain things are not being done when moneys were supposed to be appropriated for them to be done and then they are not done. That causes me to have serious concern. And to say that the Clinton administration must properly support the election and then withhold the funds for it to be done is kind of disingenuous, at least in my view. Additionally, Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to the chairman of the Committee on International Relations that I along with Senator Graham and the special envoy of President Clinton, former Governor Buddy McKay, were in Haiti along with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) on a fact-finding mission. Mr. McKay stayed longer than we did because of his duties and went back since that time with reference to ongoing matters as pertains to Haiti. While we were there and upon our return, I felt it necessary to introduce this resolution urging the government of Haiti to conduct free, fair, transparent, and peaceful elections. Madam Speaker, Haiti's Electoral Council has scheduled parliamentary and local elections for December 16, 1999 and January 19, 2000. Because these elections represent the best chance for Haiti to resolve its political stalemate and proceed with reforms, it is critical that these elections be held as scheduled. The United States and the international community must assist in maintaining stability and help to strengthen the roots of the rule of law in Haiti. To illustrate our support, we must do the following: provide technical assistance in order to effectively register voters; provide comprehensive aid in developing a security plan where all parties and candidates can campaign freely and without violence; salute the electoral authorities for striving to be fair and judicious; and condemn anyone who attempts to curtail the electoral laws in Haiti. Free, fair, transparent, and peaceful elections in Haiti are in the best interest of the United States in general and specifically in Florida, my home State. If the United States does not continue its support for Haiti, many Haitians will find themselves again in the dangerous waters en route to our shores. A State whose health and human services budgets are already overburdened, such as my State, cannot stand the weight of further illegal immigration. Moreover, if we are unwilling to pay a small price now, we will, I repeat, we will pay a much greater price later. Madam Speaker, my resolution is rather simple. It encourages this body to support Haiti's scheduled elections and demands little of us as it refers to expenditures of personnel and resources. Further, it illustrates the importance which the United States emphasizes on free, fair, transparent, and peaceful elections. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I do not, Madam Speaker, but I yield myself such time as I may consume to point out that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) and the staff of the chairman 2 weeks ago visited Haiti, and I regret very much that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is not here at this time for he had intended to speak regarding his personal findings. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I join the gentlewoman and the chairman of the committee in urging Members to support this legislation recognizing the Foreign Service of the United States on the occasion of its 75th anniversary. As one who benefits from the foreign service by rather extensive travel, pursuant to duties on the Committee on International Relations and now the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I, for one, am grateful to the employees around the world. I would like to associate myself, however, with the remarks of the gentlewoman with reference to the need for increased minority hiring. That is a must and it simply must be done; and 75 years will not account for how long it should take. Expediting businesspersons, expediting Congress people, expediting the military, all of these are some of the duties that Foreign Service officers in this country and for this country perform. I, for one, rather than just stand here and compliment them, I would like to see to it that their pay, their pensions, and the facilities they work in meet the requirements of a Nation that has the standing that we do in the world.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and once again she has brought to our attention a real emergency. I heard my colleagues debating on the floor, double booking at telephone companies as some kind of an emergency. It does not rise to the same level that the nexus affords here that the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) has brought to our attention with reference to hate crimes. Churches and synagogues have been bombed and desecrated often in this country. Gays have been crucified, lesbians run out of towns, Jews, blacks, Hispanics and Asians are often set upon just because of their race, their national origin or their religion. This country fully expects all of us to do all we can to assist in alleviating these terrible crimes in our society, and this is a methodology that we might employ in order to be able to do that. A blues singer once wrote that unless man puts an end to this damnable sin, hate will put the world in a flame. If there was ever an emergency that needed a waiver, this is the one.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleagues the results of the highly productive and informative experience that the U.S. delegation had at the Annual Session of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly--or the OSCE PA. As many of you know, this year seventeen members of Congress formed the U.S. delegation, and as the U.S. delegation does every year, we attended the Parliamentary Assembly's Annual Session in a member country of the OSCE. This year's Annual Session was in St. Petersburg, Russia and met from July 6-10. I am pleased to inform my colleagues that our week in St. Petersburg was a successful one, both for the entire Assembly and especially for the U.S. delegation. The purpose of the Annual Session is to bring parliamentarians together in order to discuss and assess developments in conflict resolution within Europe, as well as to form proactive means of approaching a wide range of security issues, including arms control, preventive diplomacy, human rights and economic security. These thoughts, recommendations, and goals are then compiled into a declaration, which is ultimately adopted by the entire Parliamentary Assembly. I draw inspiration from this document for many reasons. On its surface, this document is a comprehensive and vital educational tool. It brings to our attention gross violations of human rights, such as the international trafficking of women and children; it offers us effective methods to continuing the peace process in Yugoslavia and Kosovo; and it describes initiatives of securing peace and democracy throughout Europe. In effect, the St. Petersburg Declaration serves as an important reference on a wide scope of events and issues, which better aids us all in understanding the current global order. On a secondary level however, the St. Petersburg Declaration, and the OSCE PA declarations that preceded it, demonstrate the value of inter- cooperation and dialogue between countries. The OSCE parliamentarians form a body of representatives from fifty-five governments throughout Europe, Central Asia, and North America; and it has adopted an all- embracing approach in its membership and approach to security, conflict resolution, and economic cooperation in the OSCE region. Consequently the Parliamentarians bring to the OSCE PA a vast range of knowledge and experiences that complements and supplements one another. In a time of fungible borders and instantaneous communication between continents and cultures, it behooves us all to understand these varying perspectives and opinions. More important, however, is the OSCE's ability to use this collection of experience and thought for the greater good of security in Europe and justice throughout the world. The sum of the parliamentarians' collective expertises and experiences is so much greater than the individual parts. Indeed, when brought together and shared in such a forum, there is an exchange of ideas that better enables us to understand the root of global concerns, and ultimately how the international community can best take action to remove these problems. In effect, we are able to combine the best ideas and developments of our various countries in order to work toward peace and cooperation throughout the world. Such innovation and progress would simply not be possible if we acted as isolated agents, and I firmly believe that the effectiveness of the OSCE PA lies in its ability to draw on both our shared and unique experiences. The St. Petersburg Declaration reflects the value of this interrelationship, and I am grateful for the opportunity to both learn from and contribute toward it. While I am certainly proud to be a member of a distinguished body like the OSCE PA, it gave me particular pleasure to attend the Assembly as part of the U.S. delegation. This group of seventeen members enjoyed many successes in St. Petersburg. The St. Petersburg Declaration contains several U.S. authored initiatives, including Representative Chris Smith's resolution on ``The Trafficking of Women and Children,'' Senator George Voinovich's ``Regional Infrastructure in South-Eastern Europe,'' section and Representative Louise Slaughter's section on ``The Assassination of Galina Starovoitova.'' Moreover, I, along with several other members of the U.S. delegation, contributed significantly to the chapter on ``Common Security and Democracy in the Twenty-First Century.'' The accomplishments of the U.S. delegation were certainly appreciated by the entire Parliamentary Assembly, and we were each encouraged to share the principles and goals of the OSCE with our colleagues in Congress. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to also encourage other members of Congress to familiarize themselves with the OSCE, and ultimately to take steps to continue our participation with this organization. We are faced with a time of significant regional conflict. Eastern Europe is still in the recovery process of Slobodan Milosevic's brutal ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians, and it will take many months, if not years, before the hundreds of thousands of refugees are able to return to their homes and resume their familiar lifestyles. Indeed, it will take considerable time for all of the residents of this region to recover from the rampage and injustices that were committed in this area. These conflicts may sometimes seem isolated and removed from our own challenges and goals as a nation, but we have, in fact, entered a time where our setbacks and successes should be shared. We have a responsibility to use our successes as a means of alleviating other countries' setbacks. As I have said, the OSCE presents us with a viable and effective forum to share our resources, and the United States needs to remain engaged and build upon its place within their collective dialogue, rapporteur missions, peacekeeping operations, and peaceful dispute resolutions. Last month I introduced a bipartisan resolution expressing this sentiment. H. Con. Res. 161 extends the support of Congress to the OSCE and the goals of the St. Petersburg Declaration, as well as urges the United States to continue its role with this important international organization. Please show your support of the OSCE by cosponsoring this resolution. As key players in the international community, the United States has historically and continues to take an active part in international organizations and institutions, such as the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the OSCE. I am confident that our commitment to these institutions will remain strong. Ultimately, it is my hope and belief that together we can secure peace, democracy, and justice throughout the world.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with those who expressed concern about the funding levels of many of the important programs in this bill. I associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), with reference to the inadequate funding of customs, INS, and the Coast Guard. But more specifically of concern to me is the cut in funding for the Dante B. Fascell North-South Center at the University of Miami as well as the East-West Center in Hawaii. Created in response to the post-Cold War power vacuum, the Dante Fascell North-South Center has served as an incubator of innovative ideas to promote better relations among the United States, Canada, and the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean for the past 10 years. The Center produces nonpartisan, policy-relevant analysis on issues such as trade, investment, competitiveness, security, corruption, institutional reform, drug trafficking immigration, and the environment. As the only research and public policy study center dedicated to finding practical responses to hemispheric challenges affecting the United States, the center provides a valuable service. Zeroing out this center and zeroing out the East-West Center is irresponsible. Although I have no hope of altering the bill on the floor today, I do hope to work with the conferees to raise their conscious level with reference to the need for funding for this particularly important program.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their patience with this amendment. I rise today to offer the amendment to the Foreign Operations bill. The amendment is designed to recognize members of the Colombian flower industry who have worked diligently to improve the living standard of all people in Colombia. Known by their countrymen as Growers of Flowers, these business persons have been leaders in Latin American private industry in reducing corruption in the commercial sector, while working closely with the Colombian Government to bolster and advance its Democratic initiatives. Programs being supported and funded by Growers of Flowers include corruption reduction in the private sector, the establishment of nursing care, day-care, subsidized food, nutrition, and educational programs, and a new program to eradicate domestic violence. At this time there is scarce good news coming out of Colombia. On this past weekend, we read and saw further bombings taking place in Colombia. The work that Growers of Flowers is voluntarily doing on the ground is, however, a bright little light. I am offering this amendment this evening to acknowledge the contributions of Growers of Flowers, and I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time. This marks the fifth year that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) has submitted an amendment that unjustly singles out India and hopefully the fifth year that we decide to vote it down. The alleged claims of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) of India's human rights violations completely ignore the last two State Department human rights reports that praise India for its considerable progress in the human rights area. Supporting the Burton amendment would not just weaken our dialogue with India but would undermine the strong economic relationship that both of our countries have achieved. The United States is India's largest trading partner and largest investor. U.S. investment has grown from $500 million per year in 1991 to more than $12 billion in 1999. Many large American companies have seen the economic opportunities in India and have invested heavily there. We clearly need to sustain and further strengthen the momentum that has been gained in U.S.-Indo relations, instead of proposing legislation that merely alienates an important ally. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana. This marks the fifth year that Mr. Burton has submitted an amendment that unjustly singles out India, and hopefully, the fifth year that we decide to vote it down. Mr. Burton's alleged claims of India's human rights violations completely ignore the last two State Department human rights reports that praise India for its considerable progress in this area. The Burton amendment would substantially cut cricial U.S. humanitarian aid to India and would send the wrong message from the world's first democracy to the world's largest. With the recent Pakistani incursion across the Line of Control into Jammu and Kashmir, India was praised by both the Administration and the International Community for the extraordinary restraint it displayed in confining its response to terrorist occupied territory. Mr. Burton's amendment has a peculiar way of showing our support. The government of India has worked hard to address human rights issues. India has arrested and prosecuted more than 100 individuals associated with the recent string of religious attacks that occurred earlier this year and has passed laws to take action against those officials that have committed human rights violations. Truly, Mr. Burton's allegations continue to be based on outdated and inaccurate information. Supporting the Burton amendment would not only weaken our dialogue with India but would also undermine the strong economic relationship that both of our countries have achieved. The United States is India's largest trading partner and largest investor. U.S. investment has grown from $500 million per year in 1991 to more than $12 billion in 1999. Many large American companies have seen the economic opportunities in India and have invested heavily there. We clearly need to sustain and further strengthen the momentum that has been gained in U.S.-Indo relations. Instead of proposing legislation that merely alienates an important ally, I suggest the esteemed member from Indiana first take the time to travel to India and see its progress first-hand. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to help India continue its progress in spreading the ideals of democracy by voting no to the Burton amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their indulgence.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to mark the loss of a remarkable leader in South Florida. Margaret Blake Roach, an educator and pioneer in civil rights, passed away on July 16, 1999, among her loving family in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. The Broward County community is no doubt in mourning for the loss of this great leader, mentor, and role model. Margaret Roach served as a beacon of wisdom and fairness for many who suffered from social injustice. For more than thirty years, Margaret was at the forefront of the civil rights movement. She was the founder and president emeritus of the Urban League of Broward County and a founding member of the Broward/South Palm Beach region of the National Conference for Community and Justice. She was guded by the simple principle of access to opportunity for all, and she shared that principle with everyone she came in contact. In addition, Margaret Roach realized the need and the importance to attend to the community's future by caring for the local children. She worked as an administrator in Broward County Schools for almost 24 years and was trustee and former chairperson of the Board of Trustees at Broward Community College. Margaret nurtured her students with an uncommon commitment to education and an education that went far beyond reading, writing, and arithmetic. She taught her students by example and brought both her time and leadership to various civic establishments such as the United Way, Habitat for Humanity, and the Cleveland Clinic. The State of Florida will truly miss Margaret Roach for both her vision and her commitment to serving others. I am confident that despite the sadness of her loss, the Broward community will celebrate her exceptional life through the organizations to which she dedicated both her time and compassion. Mr. Speaker, I ask for my colleagues to join me as we honor this great American who has left such a memorable impression on the lives of so many people. I am grateful to Margaret Roach for her years of dedicated service to humanity and mourn her loss.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the late Federal Judge Frank M. Johnson Jr. As a federal judge, Judge Johnson's decisions literally shaped the future and the force of the civil rights movement in the 1960s. As an individual, he was a man whose commitment to his ideals and the law did not wane, despite considerable personal risk and significant sacrifice. Mr. Speaker, it is vital that Congress honor Judge Johnson for both of these roles, and to recognize the loss that his recent death represents. Judge Johnson served on the U.S. District Court in Montgomery, Alabama, for twenty-five years, during the height of the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s. In that time he made several decisions that formed the thrust of the civil rights movement. In 1956, when deliberating the Montgomery bus boycott case, he outlawed segregation on public transportation, in parks, restaurants, libraries and schools. In the 1960s, Judge Johnson also signed the original order to integrate the University of Alabama, as well as the order to allow Martin Luther King Jr. and voting rights activists to march from Selma to Montgomery. Moreover, Judge Johnson participated in the decision that ultimately became the ``one man, one vote'' principal put forth by the Supreme Court. Clearly, Judge Johnson's contribution to the civil rights movement was both significant and integral to its ultimate success. His impact was felt not only in Montgomery, but throughout the South and the nation as well. One must wonder to what extent the civil rights movement would have succeeded without the support, honesty, and courage of Judge Johnson. While these decisions are hailed today as just and honest, Judge Johnson faced severe criticism, damaging slander, and even personal danger in the time that he made them. Then Governor George Wallace fueled his gubernatorial race by denouncing Judge Johnson, while his mother's home was bombed and a burning cross was placed on his own lawn. Yet Judge Johnson did not abandon his principles or his commitment to the law. He simply upheld the Constitution and did not question the consequences. Judge Johnson was truly a great man, whose unwavering principles are too rare today. As a legislator, former judge and lawyer, I am personally inspired by Judge Johnson's commitment to the law, and am grateful for his influence and the example he set for us all. Indeed, I am fully aware that I was able to become the first African American Federal Judge in Florida because of the principles Judge Johnson promoted and the opportunities he made possible for the African Americans of my generation. Today, I remember him for these opportunities, the strides he made in civil rights, the definition he gave to the movement, and most of all, his commitment to what he perceived as right and just. Judge Johnson deserves this recognition, and I hope my colleagues will join me in paying tribute to this legacy that he has left after him.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, a colleague of mine, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) and I were sitting, listening to the debate this morning, and the gentleman from Massachusetts commented to me what I believe to be true, and that is that it is a good thing Republicans are not under oath. I heard three of them say things in part that were true, but they did not tell the whole truth. The reality is that the Republican budget will do nothing to assist Social Security. It will do nothing to assist Medicare. If there is a Member of this House of Representatives who has not heard from a constituent regarding Medicare, I would like for he or she to come forward and discuss matters with me, for it is the single biggest item in my office that constituents are concerned about. How dare my Republican colleagues not be prepared to support the military in a time of desperate need. Their budget results would allow for a $198 billion cut in military readiness, a $583 billion cut in domestic investment, 425,000 children denied access to Head Start. They would eliminate all funding for all new Federally funded Superfund cleanups. There would be 306,000 fewer summer jobs. I urge my colleagues to reject this tax plan of the Republicans.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, since the time for debate on this amendment is limited, I will be brief. I traveled recently to Haiti with Senator Bob Graham and Congressman Delahunt. What I saw there reinforced my strong belief that Haiti is in dire need of our support. The stability of Haiti rests on the transparency and legitimacy of the upcoming parliamentary elections. Our approach to Haiti must be multi-dimensional. To assist in maintaining stability in Haiti and strengthening the roots of the rule of law there we must do the following: illustrate our support for the election monitors on the ground; recognize the invaluable good works that our armed forces have carried out in Haiti; salute the electoral authorities for striving to be fair and judicious; and condemn any person or persons, including President Preval, who attempts to abrogate, alter, or delay the implementation of the electoral laws which have been so painstakenly crafted. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple: it expresses the sense of this body in support of parliamentary elections in Haiti, and urges the Department of State to ensure that the U.S. Embassy in Haiti has sufficient personnel and resources necessary to carry out its responsibilities related to these elections. I believe that all persons in this body, no matter where they stand on the issue of U.S. involvement in Haiti, can support this simple resolution. While it demands little of us in the way of expenditures of personnel and resources, it illustrates the importance which the U.S. places on free, fair and transparent elections in Haiti. Please support this amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to House Joint Resolution 33. I firmly believe that passing this bill would abandon the very values and principles upon which this country was founded. Make no mistake, I deplore the desecration of the flag. The flag is a symbol of our country and a reminder of our great heritage; and I find it unfortunate that a few individuals choose to desecrate that which we hold so dear. However, it is because of my love for the flag and the country for which it stands that, unfortunately, I have no choice but to oppose this well-intentioned yet misguided legislation. Our country was founded on certain principles. Chief among these principles are freedom of speech and expression. These freedoms were included in the Bill of Rights because the Founding Fathers took deliberate steps to avoid creating a country in which individuals' civil liberties could be abridged by the government. Yet that is exactly what this amendment would do. It begins a dangerous trend in which the government can decide which ideas are legal and which must be suppressed. I believe that the true test of a nation's commitment to freedom of expression is shown through its willingness to protect ideas which are unpopular, such as flag desecration. As Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in 1929, it is an imperative principle of our Constitution that it protects not just freedom for thought and expression we agree with, but ``freedom for the thoughts we hate.'' Ultimately, we must remember that it is not the flag we honor, but rather, the principles it embodies. To restrict peoples' means of expression would do nothing but abandon those principles--and to destroy these principles would be a far greater travesty than to destroy its symbol. Indeed, it would render the symbol meaningless. As I said, I admire the well-intentioned thoughts of those who support the flag desecration amendment, however, I believe their efforts are misdirected. It is essential that we maintain our country's ideals including those which allow for differences of opinion, at whatever the cost; and I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill that violates the ideals and principles of our country.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, my colleague and I are from Florida. Am I correct that Florida has a law that allows for us to be able to prosecute juveniles who commit even the heinous crimes that the gentleman's measure calls for? If that is true, why, then, federalize this particular process? So many times, I say to my colleague, we come to the floor saying, leave things in the hands of local authorities. How is it all of a sudden the Federal system is going to be better?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I understand that I am speaking through you on the basis of the other person that spoke through you. And what I want you to understand, Mr. Chairman, is that in Florida, since 1996, we have spent more money on prisons and prisoners than we have on the entire university system of Florida, and that is scandalous. For us to continue down this road of just beating up on people who do their jobs responsibly is irresponsible. What I want him to understand, Mr. Chairman, is that they do not do it out of thin air. We have built prisons in Palm Beach County more because taxpayers could not afford it. And Federal judges did that and I am proud of the fact that they did.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each side be given an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Fine.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Like my good friend and colleague whose district and mine abut each other, I too am a Floridian with extraordinary concern. I wish to address the distinguished whip in what I hope is a meaningful way, and that is when you use language, Mr. DeLay, that is so strong to allow that those who get perceptions other than those of us that are playing legislative gamesmanship, as rightly we should. Federal judges are extremely responsible people in this country, and to the man and woman activists or strict constructionists, if they are construed that way, they act in a very responsible manner. For you to suggest that they are complicit with predators because they have followed the law and made rulings having to do with prisons is just not fair. I, as a former Federal judge, feel very strongly about speaking up for my colleagues who still do this job. There are judges in South Florida who right today have under their tutelage and curtilage jails that are unfit in these times. Never mind about who is in them. What you need to understand, when you say that something is done---- Point of Order