Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to my good friend and colleague, Mr. McGovern, I would just urge my colleague from Pennsylvania to know that all of us are mindful, and rightfully should be concerned, about what's transpired in the Middle East. But he cites to one set of finances, and I would urge that he look at how and why the United States is involved in a compact with the Egypt military for the moneys that are distributed there, and not base it on what is happening today but look at what has happened throughout the years to assist in stabilizing that area. It didn't just happen overnight. It happened as a result of a serious compact in peace negotiations. I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My good friend from Georgia speaks out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand, you're saying that we began this process open and this democracy flourished, and you were so passionate about it until when we left at 5 a.m. in the morning you rushed home and you were on fire. I'm curious to know when we finish up here, ostensibly tomorrow afternoon, what is it that would cause us not to be able to be here and allow, as you put it, every Member to have his or her say for their constituents on this measure? But, no, we're here on a closed rule. I understand that the government has to continue and that's why we are doing a continuing resolution, but I also know we could have done an omnibus bill, and I also know that my colleague and others were the ones that caused this country to come to the brink and our credit rating to be assaulted; and you are going to tell me that we can't stay here tomorrow, that we can't come back here after the holidays or tomorrow and stay here if need be to get this done? But, no, we're doing it now before April so that when we come back, we will be faced with the same crisis, and the only thing that's going to change is the faces and the places that the people come from, and all I'm saying is let's do it now. Let's do those things that you were talking about. And if it requires 5 a.m. in the morning, let's do it at 5 a.m. in the morning. I'm 76 and I'm still staying up. I don't know about you.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to my colleague from Georgia.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Reclaiming my time, first I ask my colleague. You know and I know you have farm interests in Georgia the same as I do, not necessarily the same, but we have farm interests in Georgia and farm interests in Florida. The Senate did pass the farm bill. Can my colleague tell me why we don't have the farm bill on the floor during all of this period of time? We could at least do that in light of the disaster relief that took place.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Where did you get the number 2-year rather than 5-year bill from? Because the 5-year proposal is what the chair of the Agriculture Committee, your and my colleague, Mr. Lucas, is seeking to offer. But I don't want to get us caught in the weeds. Let me go ahead and yield 2 minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I also have no further speakers and I'm prepared to close, and I thank the distinguished gentleman. I also would like to offer an apology to my colleague. I committed a parliamentary faux pas when I said you speak out of both sides of your mouth. In the heat of the moment, I guess what I was trying to say is you said one thing one way than you said at another point in time, so I offer you my deepest my apologies. Mr. Speaker, we will soon start another long district work period even though we haven't given the middle class an extension of tax cuts for the next year. If we defeat the previous question, I'm going to offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that the House won't leave town until middle class tax cuts are signed into law. The first step is to give this House a vote on the middle class tax cut, introduced by Mr. Levin, which is the same proposal the Senate has already passed and the President is eager to sign. So, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, there is an upside to the Republicans' ``do-nothing'' Congress. First, it creates a clear contrast between the Republicans and Democrats. Democrats want to press forward with meaningful ideas to create jobs, improve access to affordable health and education, and invest in the kinds of programs that bring about progress and prosperity for all Americans. I believe that my friends in the majority want to push legislation that either cuts taxes for the wealthiest among us, or increases spending on the military, or does nothing more than pay the bills today--play politics while accomplishing nothing. This is not about the deficit. The United States doesn't lack the money to prioritize our future. What we do lack is the political willpower and leadership necessary to set gainful priorities. The Romney-Ryan vision for America is nothing more than a reckless sellout to the ideological extremes of the Republican Party, a party that is utterly dominated at this point in our history by a Tea Party dogma which cares more to preserve tax cuts for the rich than to be about the business of ensuring the well-being of our entire society. The so-called ``sacrifices'' continually demanded by the Republican majority in order to provide ever more money for foreign wars and tax cuts for the wealthy are shortchanging the future of this Nation. Continuing to move further to the right--or to the left--does not constitute progress. Furthermore, the closed-door negotiations and closed process is truly disheartening and does not reflect the democracy that is supposed to be the hallmark of this institution. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Will my colleague yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the PCIP Improvement Act of 2012, a bill that will make much needed improvements to the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) program, created by the Affordable Care Act (ACA). As you know, the ACA prohibits insurance companies from refusing to sell coverage or renew policies because of a person's pre-existing condition. While the provision already affects children up to 19 years of age, it will only apply to adults in January 2014. In the meantime, adults with a pre-existing condition can get coverage through the PCIP program, a temporary high-risk pool which has helped over 50,000 previously uninsured individuals get coverage. While I have always been a strong supporter of this important program, I believe that some improvements need to be made in order to make it a success. Indeed, enrollment has been significantly lower than initial projections, which varied from 200,000 to 375,000. One of the biggest obstacles for enrollment in the program is a Congressional mandate requiring that individuals applying for PCIP coverage have not had creditable insurance coverage during the 6 months prior to the date they apply to the program. Since the program's inception in July 2010, 69 percent of applications have been denied because individuals had creditable coverage within 6 months of applying. While well-intentioned, this wait period has shown adverse effects by incentivizing people with pre-existing conditions to go uninsured for 6 months to qualify for the program. Individuals who lost their health insurance through no fault of their own and can no longer find coverage must wait 6 months to apply, thus exposing themselves to high out-of- pocket medical costs and unnecessary health risks. Unfortunately, because they go without insurance for such an extended period of time, they enter the program with a need for immediate care and cost more to the program. Furthermore, considering mini medical plans as creditable coverage also encourages individuals to go with absolutely no coverage for 6 months in order to apply to PCIP. Mini medical plans are basic plans that may pay for portions of a doctor's visit or prescription drug, but do not provide catastrophic coverage or enough benefits for people with pre-existing conditions. Individuals who choose to obtain such a plan within 6 months of applying for PCIP to limit their medical liabilities will no longer be eligible for the program. Such a misfortune happened to one of my constituents who lost his health insurance when he lost his job and has been denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition since then. In June 2010, he received limited coverage through a mini medical plan that did not cover his pre-existing condition. When he applied to PCIP in September 2011, his application was denied because he had such plan within 6 months of applying. The only way for him to qualify was to go completely uninsured for 6 months. I cannot, in good conscience, advise my constituents in need of immediate care to wait 6 months to seek medical coverage. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will address these serious issues by eliminating the 6-month wait period and excluding mini medical plans from creditable coverage. My bill will bring us on step closer to ensuring accessible, affordable, and quality health care for all Americans. I urge my colleagues to help make PCIP a more successful program by supporting this important legislation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution in support of the XIX International AIDS Conference (AIDS 2012), which takes place from July 22, 2012, through July 27, 2012, at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center in Washington, DC. AIDS 2012 is organized by the International AIDS Society (IAS) and brings together more than 20,000 delegates from nearly 200 countries, including 2,000 journalists. My resolution supports a stronger international response to HIV/AIDS that seeks to prevent the transmission of HIV, increase access to testing, treatment, and care, improve health outcomes for all people living with HIV/AIDS, foster greater scientific and programmatic collaborations around the world to end HIV/AIDS, and protect the rights of people living with HIV/AIDS. According to UNAIDS, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, there are approximately 33.4 million people living with HIV worldwide, and nearly 30 million people have died of AIDS since the first cases were reported in 1981. The United States is heavily engaged in both international and domestic efforts to address the HIV/AIDS pandemic, including the United States President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. Taxpayers in the United States have paid more than $45 billion through PEPFAR and the Global Fund, which have enjoyed broad bipartisan support in Congress. Since 1985, the now biennial International AIDS Conference has brought together leading scientists, public health experts, policymakers, community leaders, and individuals living with HIV/AIDS from around the world to enhance the global response to HIV/AIDS, evaluate recent scientific developments, share knowledge, and facilitate a collective strategy to combat the HIV/AIDS pandemic. AIDS 2012 is a tremendous opportunity to strengthen the role of the United States in global HIV/AIDS initiatives within the context of significant global economic challenges, reenergize the response to the domestic epidemic, and focus particular attention on the devastating impact of HIV/AIDS that continues in the United States. The theme of AIDS 2012, ``Turning the Tide Together,'' embodies the promise and urgency of utilizing recent scientific advances in HIV/AIDS treatment and biomedical prevention, continuing research for an HIV vaccine and cure, and increasing effective, evidence-based interventions in key settings to change the course of the HIV/AIDS crisis. AIDS 2012 seeks to engage governments, non-governmental organizations, policymakers, the scientific community, the private sector, civil society, faith-based organizations, the media, and people living with HIV/AIDS to more effectively address regional, national, and local responses to HIV/AIDS around the world and overcome barriers that limit access to preventative care, treatment, and other services. My resolution supports the goal of bringing renewed awareness of, and commitment to, addressing the HIV/AIDS crisis in the United States and abroad. In particular, it recognizes that formulating sound public health policy, protecting human rights, addressing the needs of women and girls, directing effective programming toward the populations at the highest risk of infection, ensuring accountability, and combating stigma, poverty, and other social challenges related to HIV/AIDS are key to overcoming HIV/AIDS. It also encourages the ongoing development of innovative therapies and advances in clinical treatment for HIV/AIDS in the public and private sectors. Mr. Speaker, 25 years after the III International AIDS Conference was held in Washington, DC, we are now at a point where we have the tools necessary to prevent the spread of HIV and bring an end to the crisis. Now is the time to commit. HIV/AIDS is not a partisan issue. But it will take a bipartisan effort to overcome HIV/AIDS as a nation once and for all. Continued commitment by the United States to HIV/AIDS research, prevention, and treatment programs is crucial to protecting global health. I urge my colleagues to support my resolution, which recognizes the importance of the XIX International AIDS Conference in the global effort to end the HIV/AIDS pandemic and create an ``AIDS- free generation.''

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to introduce this amendment to help ensure clean drinking water. This measure amends H.R. 4078, the Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act, by exempting from the moratorium regulations that ensure drinking water is safe. Safe drinking water is essential to public health. There is a long and terrible history of polluters dumping all matter of toxins into rivers, streams, and other sources of drinking water. Aside from the environmental destruction, it costs an enormous amount to effectively clean such sources once they have been polluted. It costs even more to provide the necessary medical care for persons made sick by exposure to polluted water. We cannot afford to weaken or delay critical agency actions designed to ensure the continued enforcement and regulation of clean water rules. This is not about creating jobs. Polluting water doesn't create more jobs, but it does negatively impact public health. We must remain vigilant in protecting our water supplies, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time in light of the fact that I don't think anyone else is going to speak on this amendment. I clearly understand my colleague's position as set forth. One thing I cannot abide and offer by way of constructive criticism is the fact that all over this Nation too often we find that polluters cause our streams, rivers, and waters to be damaged. I'm a fifth-generation Floridian, and I heard the gentleman in the Rules Committee and on the floor today speaking pridefully, and rightfully, about his children. I've seen the damage in Florida, and I have seen much of the damage that has been done around the Nation. While it is true that the legislation as offered would allow for the President to come to Congress for approval, by the time Congress gets through doing anything, the pollution that we are trying to avoid may very well have overtaken us. We have a very fragile ecosystem in our country and, as it pertains to water, it would just be absurd for us not to be able to address it immediately. I'm pleased to yield such time as he will consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I'd like to address process just very briefly, and that is that, when we began this session of Congress, we were advised by our Republican colleagues that we were going to bring up each measure individually and discuss them. This is a structured rule that does contemplate the opportunity for many Members to participate, but it isn't an open rule. What it is is it's a measure as the base bill that has cobbled to it six distinctly different measures--evidenced by the number of thank- yous that had to come from Dr. Foxx to the various committees. I do agree with the one, Dr. Foxx, where you thank the young man for creative thinking. This is out of the box when it comes to us as far as process is concerned being creative. Cobbling six pieces of legislation--with another to make seven--is a bit much. This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4078, the Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Act of 2012, and H.R. 6082, which has such a long and convoluted name that the cost to the government to simply print the bill may require the Republican majority to raise the debt ceiling. What the red tape bill should be called, Mr. Speaker, is the ``Eliminate the Government's Ability to Protect Its Own Citizens Act of 2012,'' because that is what the radical legislation--creative, though one may think it is--aims to do. Under this legislation, Federal agencies would be prohibited from issuing new regulations until the unemployment rate falls below 6 percent. And I defy any economist or anybody else in the world to tell me when that's going to be in an economy such as the one that we have. So too, would new regulations be prohibited between Election Day in early November and Inauguration Day in late January. For the past 2 years, the Republican majority has been spending its time doing everything, it seems to me, to crash the economy by defaulting on our debt, eliminating the greatest health care protections made in decades, and turning sensible decisions about women's health care into a fantasy of religious persecution. But now it appears that perhaps struggling Americans have finally managed to capture the Republicans' attention, except that the majority's response is not to make the kind of investments that will actually create jobs, but, instead, to gut the Federal Government's efforts to protect the health and safety of American citizens. I realize that in the fantasy world inhabited by some far-right ideologues allowing polluters to run amok is tantamount to creating jobs, allowing corporations to pursue fantastic profits at the expense of public health and safety is somehow good governance, and enabling the middle class to fall farther and farther behind the ultra-wealthy is somehow a shining example of the American spirit. But I have to ask, under this legislation, where will these new jobs come from? I suppose we'll need more doctors to care for sick children, since the FDA will be prohibited from monitoring the safety of baby formula. We will need caregivers, I'm sure, willing to provide free care for older Americans, as Medicare will be unable to change its payments to providers. And we'll need new water treatment plant workers, as corporate polluters will have increased freedom to dump harmful chemicals into our drinking water, as they have for years. If I sound extreme, Mr. Speaker, it's because this bill is extreme. A blanket prohibition on new regulations is not any kind of solution to grow our economy. The FDA, the EPA, and the Veterans Administration, these agencies are not responsible for the failure of our jobless recovery. What is irresponsible is the failure to address the real needs of the American people. Rather than preventing the Federal Government from ensuring clean drinking water, we ought to be investing in the infrastructure that makes clean drinking water possible and that desalinates salt water. We ought to be investing in economic development projects, in the national infrastructure, in clean energy technology, in education, and in the kinds of programs that support those Americans who are struggling the hardest. Rich CEOs of big polluters aren't one of those that are in need. But speaking of rich CEOs out of touch with everyday Americans, it was Mitt Romney who said in 2009 that, ``You have to have regulation.'' He said that regulations need to be modernized, reviewed, and effective, and that Republicans ``misspeak'' when they say they don't like regulation. I guess what Mitt Romney calls ``misspeak'' other people might call ``outright ridiculous'' because that is what the ideology behind this bill is. It is as ridiculous a notion that yet more drilling for oil will somehow--drilling in these places where companies like BP can cause the kind of incidents that we saw in the gulf--that somehow this is going to benefit the country. It won't. The other bill to be considered under this rule is just the latest manifestation of the Republican energy doctrine: ``Only drilling, all the time, and everywhere.'' This legislation does exactly two things. It tears up environmental protections, and it further enriches oil company executives. The House, under the Republican majority, has taken 142 pro-oil-and- gas drilling votes this Congress. Using the hourly cost of voting in the House, as calculated by the Congressional Research Service, the more than 90 hours we have spent debating these measures that everybody in this House knew were going nowhere when they left this House, we've spent $54 million of the taxpayers' money debating, and these are the people that would tell me they want to cut costs. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that there's always a chance that the Republicans will achieve success the 143rd time and additional hours that they try something. But once again, the majority's efforts reflect a dogged determination to rely on an outdated ideology that seeks only to reward the wealthiest corporations. We are already drilling at historic levels in this country. The United States is home to more offshore drilling rigs than the entire rest of the world combined. Seventy percent of offshore areas currently leased are not even active yet. This legislation isn't going to change the price of fuel for the average American. It does not mandate that oil drilled in the United States--Mr. Markey brought an amendment that allowed that if it's going to be drilled here, it ought to stay here. But this legislation doesn't allow for it to even be sold in the United States. In fact, oil will simply be shipped out to the highest bidder, similar to what's going to happen with Keystone when it's completed, on the world market, generating enormous profits for the oil companies while sticking the American public with the bill. I recently saw an editorial cartoon by Joel Pett. And in the cartoon, a man stands up at a climate change summit and asks, what happens if climate change is, indeed, a hoax, but we achieve energy independence anyway, that we preserve the environment anyway, that we create green jobs anyway, and livable cities, and have cleaner air and water. The answer, of course, is that we will all be better off. Republicans can stick their heads in the tar sands all they want, but pumping more fossil fuels out of the ground and into the atmosphere will not sustain the American economy, nor provide the kind of economic prosperity that will benefit all Americans. And as I've said before, and I repeat again, I'll be the last person standing against drilling offshore of Florida. At the same time, preventing the Federal Government from acting on behalf of public health and safety will not create new jobs. It won't return the unemployment rate to 6 percent, and it won't send a signal to the American public that their elected Representatives are ably minding public resources. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my good friend and colleague from Florida that when he speaks about 120,000 jobs that may have been created, Governor Rick Scott categorically rejected money for light rail between the I-4 corridor of Orlando and Tampa that would definitely have produced 18,000 jobs. You can't have it both ways. You can't one minute say that you don't want something, and then the next minute say that some fictional number is going to take place that's a magic bullet. We worked hard to get that money appropriated. The last statement that he made was that you can't give something unless you get something. Well, they got from Florida, and that money went to the east coast corridor, to California, to Illinois. I'm not certain about whether any of it went to Kentucky, but I'm sure that the next speaker would be prepared to address that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to tell both sides how much time remains.