Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would urge my friend from Texas that I'm going to be the last speaker, and I'm prepared to close if he has no further speakers.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. H.R. 9 is not about creating jobs or helping small businesses increase hiring. It is another in a long line of Republican proposals that benefit those of us, including those of us in the House of Representatives, that are the better-off Americans at the expense of the middle class. My Republican friends rejected an amendment offered by our colleague, Representative Crowley, which I offered in the Rules Committee in his stead, which would have prevented businesses from eliminating jobs in the United States while creating jobs overseas under this bill. Procedurally, it is also disconcerting that, contrary to my Republican colleagues' self-professed commitment to an open process, Democrats have been allowed only one substitute in an otherwise closed process. Nor was H.R. 9 the subject of any hearing before either the full Ways and Means Committee, or the Select Revenue Measures Subcommittee, with the exception of a brief question-and-answer session with Joint Committee on Taxation staff during the markup. Finally, instead of taking real steps to address the very real need to create opportunities for businesses to succeed in a still nascent economic recovery, House Republicans are more than willing to rush through another tax bill that could, if it were to pass--and it is not going to, and they know that--only help those of us that are better off in society, while sticking middle- and lower-income families with the bill and creating exactly zero jobs. And you call this opportunity? Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment to the rule in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this opportunity-destroying measure and to defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank my good friend for yielding the time, he and Mr. Luetkemeyer for bringing the measure forward. I especially want to acknowledge Chairman Spencer Bachus and Ranking Member Barney Frank, as well as their respective staffs, for helping us in this matter. And a special shout-out to Tim Scott. Like Ms. Hayworth helped you with Raoul Wallenberg, Tim and Jennifer DeCasper, from his office, helped me to gain the number of signatures, as well as to acknowledge my young staffer, Erin Moffet, who learned an awful lot about Lena Horne along the way. Mr. Speaker, obviously I'm in strong support of H.R. 1815, the Lena Horne Recognition Act, a bill to posthumously honor Lena Horne with a Congressional Gold Medal in recognition of her many achievements and contributions to American culture and the civil rights movement. I personally felt that I could not allow time to pass without honoring the life and legacy of Ms. Horne, who passed away on May 9, 2010, at the age of 92. Throughout her lifetime, Ms. Horne used her talent and fame to become a powerful voice for civil rights and equality. It was quite a journey to get this legislation to the floor given the requirement that at least 290 Members of the House must cosponsor the bill. I introduced this bill on May 10, 2011, with the support from 23 other Members, and I'm proud to say today that there are now 308 bipartisan cosponsors, and the measure is also offered in the United States Senate. While asking my colleagues to support this legislation to award Lena Horne with the Congressional Gold Medal, I was, in some respects, a little disappointed to see that too many people, both Members and staff, were not aware of who this remarkable woman was. I hope that we can pass H.R. 1815 today and that the Senate will then subsequently pass this legislation and the President will sign this bill into law so that Lena Horne's legacy will finally be given the recognition it rightly deserves by posthumously awarding her with the Congressional Gold Medal. I know her daughter and members of the family--her daughter, Gail Lumet Buckley, I promised that I would call when it passed, and I shall. Lena Horne was the recipient of the Kennedy Center Honor for her lifetime contribution to the arts in 1984, and in 1989 she received a Lifetime Achievement Grammy Award. She has two stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame for her work in both motion pictures and recording. Additionally, she has a footprint on the International Civil Rights Walk of Fame at the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic Site. Although these and other monumental awards and honors were bestowed upon her, Ms. Horne's life was not a story of smooth sailing. Her life was too often plagued by stormy weather, which ironically was the title of her signature song and one of the major films that she starred in. Footnote there: I was in the third grade in Jersey City, New Jersey, and my mother let me stay out of school to see my first motion picture, and I have a memory of it today that stayed with me throughout that time. Born on June 30, 1917, in Brooklyn--not in Queens, Gregory--Lena Mary Calhoun Horne broke racial barriers through her career as a singer, dancer, and actress for 60 years. Ms. Horne got her start at the age of 16 when she was hired as a chorus dancer at Harlem's famous Cotton Club. Then, at 19, she made her Broadway debut in dancing a feature role in ``Dance With Your Gods.'' Her path to stardom then led her to tour with Charlie Barnett's jazz band in the early 1940s, when she became one of the first black women to tour with an all-white band. A few years later, after starting her career as a singer and a dancer, Ms. Horne was discovered by a Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer talent scout, and moved to Hollywood to be an actress, becoming the first black artist to sign a long-term contract with a major studio. Even given her extraordinary beauty and elegance and talent, she was often limited to minor acting roles because of her race. Among many lost opportunities was the role of Julie in the film adaptation of ``Show Boat.'' Ms. Horne had previously played this role in an adaptation of act 1 of ``Show Boat'' that was featured in the 1946 film ``Till the Clouds Roll By.'' But due to the Motion Picture Production Code not allowing the depiction of interracial relationships in film, the distinguished and famous Ava Gardner was cast in this role instead of Lena Horne. Her fame in films was also limited due to the fact that during that time, many films were shot so that scenes in which black performers were featured could be easily edited out for Southern audiences. Even facing such discrimination, Ms. Horne's perseverance allowed her to overcome such obstacles and led her to dazzle audiences and critics in a number of major films. Her lead roles included those in the musical ``Cabin in the Sky'' and the box office hit ``Stormy Weather,'' where Ms. Horne's remarkable performance of the title song in ``Stormy Weather'' became one of her most notable songs throughout her career. On her last tour, I saw her in Ft. Lauderdale, and she sang three iterations of that song; and the last one, indeed, as she said, was the most powerful. These two roles increased her visibility as well as sealed her legacy in the music and film industry. The struggle for equal and fair treatment became an inseparable and increasingly political part of Ms. Horne's life even outside of the film industry. She toured extensively with the United Service Organizations in support of U.S. troops during World War II, where she was a major critic of the unfair treatment of black soldiers. Outspoken on the issue, Ms. Horne refused to sing for segregated audiences or to groups in which German prisoners of war were seated in front of the black U.S. servicemen. Due to her civil rights activism on issues such as these, as well as her friendship with Paul Robeson and W.E.B. DuBois, Ms. Horne found herself blacklisted during the period of McCarthyism. While she continued to face discrimination in the film industry in the fifties, her career flourished in television and on nightclub stages across the country. During this time, she returned to her roots as a vocalist and established herself as a major recording artist. In 1957, she recorded ``Lena Horne at the Waldorf-Astoria,'' which became the best-selling album by a female singer in RCA Victor's history. Ms. Horne used the talent and fame she achieved through such acclaims to become a powerful voice for civil rights and equality. In 1963, she participated in the historic March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom at which Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his immortal ``I Have a Dream'' speech. She also performed at rallies throughout the country for the National Council for Negro Women, and worked with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the NAACP, of which she was the cover girl for their monthly bulletin at age 2. Following her blacklisting from film in the fifties and disillusionment with the industry, Ms. Horne only returned to the screen three more times following the McCarthyism era, one of which was the film adaptation of ``The Wiz,'' in which she was cast as Glinda the Good Witch. Then in 1981, Ms. Horne finally received the big break she had waited for her whole life, a one-woman Broadway show. ``Lena Horne: The Lady and Her Music'' was the culmination of her triumphs and struggles. It enjoyed a 14-month run before going on tour and earned her a special Tony award for distinguished achievement in theater and two Grammys. At the age of 80, Ms. Horne made the following statement, which I believe appropriately captures her legacy; and, Gail, this one is for you. She stated that: My identity is very clear to me now. I am a black woman. I'm free. I no longer have to be a credit. I don't have to be a symbol to anybody. I don't have to be a first to anybody. I don't have to be an imitation of a white woman that Hollywood sort of hoped I'd become. I'm me, and I'm like nobody else. Mr. Speaker, Lena Horne was an extraordinary woman who refused to give up her dreams because of the color of her skin, and used her beauty, talent, elegance, and intelligence to fight racial discrimination. Her perseverance and accomplishments are truly inspirational, having taught us all how to weather the stormy periods of our lives. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1815, the Lena Horne Recognition Act, so that we may honor the life and legacy of Ms. Lena Horne with a Congressional Gold Medal and through this recognition inspire others with her story. Someone wrote today, what do Lena Horne and Jack Nicklaus and Raoul Wallenberg have in common? It's my hope that what they will have in common today is each will be recognized for their distinguished achievements and heroic acts on behalf of our society.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank our good friend and colleague for yielding, and I thank him and Ms. Hayworth for their extraordinary work in causing us to recognize Raoul Wallenberg. I came in contact with the name Raoul Wallenberg and with the official portrait that the Lantos Foundation and others have put together, and I just stand to say to you all that I vigorously support and was a cosponsor of this measure. But more importantly, I know that Tom would be looking down today and thanking all of us, and later, I'm sure with Mrs. Lantos, those that gather would assuredly recognize the extraordinary work that you did in bringing this to the body. And as Gregory said, Raoul Wallenberg's fate may be unknown, but his fate today is known, and that is that he saved a lot of people, and he is rightly recognized by us for that.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an exceptional entrepreneur and my dear friend, Philip P. Smith. As the president and chief executive officer of Phil Smith Management, Inc., he is better known as the founder of Phil Smith Chevrolet, a successful General Motors (GM) dealership in my Congressional district that serves the greater South Florida area from Palm Beach to Broward and Miami- Dade Counties. On April 18, 2012, Phil will be inducted into the 2012 Entrepreneur Hall of Fame at the H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship at Nova Southeastern University (NSU) for his longstanding business leadership and community involvement. The NSU Entrepreneur Hall of Fame was established in 1990 to honor the lifetime achievements of outstanding entrepreneurs who contributed not only to the growth of a phenomenal entrepreneurial business, but have also demonstrated a willingness to contribute time, effort, and financial resources to programs and activities that enhance the quality of life in the communities in which they live. For more than 30 years, Phil has been serving the South Florida community as a business leader and philanthropist. His first equity venture was in a Toyota dealership in Homestead, Florida in 1980. With a direct hands-on sales and management approach, Phil has since built his organization from the ground up and now operates 14 auto dealerships throughout Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina. Phil is responsible for the overall operations of Phil Smith Management, Inc., including working with the equity partners at all locations and orchestrating its acquisitions and growth strategies. Thanks to entrepreneurs like him, GM has again become the world's top- selling automaker. Phil Smith Chevrolet has consistently ranked as one of the top dealerships in Broward County in a variety of GM categories, including customer satisfaction, service, and vehicle fleet and GM parts sales. Furthermore, in recent years, Phil Smith Chevrolet has proven to be a true economic linchpin to distressed areas in Broward County. Phil takes great pride in the fact that most of his 104 employees have worked for the dealership for many years and live in and have strong relationships with the surrounding community. The Phil Smith Automotive Group has received numerous awards, including the J.D. Powers Quality Dealer Award, Toyota President's Award, Ford Chairman's Award, and Acura Dealership of Distinction recognition. Phil is also past chairman of the Southeast Toyota Dealer Council, a past member of the National Toyota Dealer Council, past president of the South Florida Auto-Truck Dealers Association, and a past director of the Florida Automobile Dealers Association. Raised in South Florida, Phil is well-known for his civic and charitable involvement. He is actively involved with the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, Humane Society of Broward County, American Cancer Society, Make a Wish Foundation, and other organizations. In addition, Phil is Co-Chairman of the South Florida Super Bowl Host Committee and has board positions with the Orange Bowl Committee and the Broward Workshop, a nonprofit organization that represents the interests of 100 Broward businesses and professions. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor and privilege to recognize Phil Smith on this special occasion. His business leadership and commitment to the South Florida community is a testament to American entrepreneurship, and I can think of no one more deserving than Phil to be admitted to Nova Southeastern University's Entrepreneur Hall of Fame. I am so pleased to pay tribute to my dear friend, and wish him great success for many years to come.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and to defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from Florida for yielding the time to me, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3309, the Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act. There may be beneficial provisions in the underlying legislation to make the FCC's processes more transparent and more efficient. I do suggest that the FCC has made great strides in this regard under the leadership of Chairman Genachowski, and certainly more can be done. But the fact remains that my friends on the other side of the aisle have squandered important opportunities in this process to walk the walk and talk the talk. Now, last night an amendment was offered by my good friend and colleague, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, to require FCC disclosure of spending on political advertisements, which was opposed in committee but made in order to go forward today. Recent Supreme Court rulings, especially the Citizens United case, have opened the door for unlimited spending by wealthy entities aiming to influence the electoral process. These individuals, organizations, and corporations have the financial resources to reach millions of Americans through cable, broadcast television, the radio, and other media. Unfortunately, Americans do not yet have the right to know who is paying for these efforts. Under current law, Americans have no way of knowing whether an advertisement urging them to vote for a certain candidate or support certain legislation is being done at the behest of someone who stands to make a lot of money from that candidate or the bill. That's no way to run a country. That's no way to hold an election. And that's no way to run a government. Since Citizens United, our government is less like a democracy and more like a mystery. I firmly support the Eshoo amendment and ask all of our colleagues to do so. It aims to provide some clues by requiring the disclosure of any individual or corporation that contributes $10,000 or more for the purpose of airing political programming in an election cycle. This amendment is modeled after the DISCLOSE Act, sponsored by my friend and colleague, Congressman Chris Van Hollen, of which I am a proud cosponsor. Both these measures educate voters by disclosing who is donating money to influence the electoral process. It is as simple as that: transparency, accountability, and democracy. Yet some of my Republican colleague friends continue to be baffled as to why the American people will want to know who is trying to influence them. Last night in the Rules Committee, my good friend from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) was indicating his motions regarding this; and I said to him what I say to all of our colleagues and to all Americans, that the day somebody shows up with $500, you would be interested to know, if they are opposed to you, who they are. So the question remains: Why do some Republicans oppose these efforts now? Madam Speaker, we know full well about some of the biases that some Republicans have in favor of the wealthiest Americans. When they're not trying to eviscerate social safety net programs--as I suggested in the Rules Committee, and in 40 minutes we will be taking up the proposed budget that does just that--to make room for tax cuts for the well off in our society, it appears that Republicans are eager to allow the richest Americans to hijack the electoral process. Because that is what is about to happen, and it is and will be a hijacking. When vast sums of money are used to influence the democratic process, the voices of those who do not have such resources get drowned out. When that influence is allowed to remain in the shadows, suddenly we find that the wealthiest interests in this country are the ones driving the bus, the train, the plane, and the rest of us do not know where the stops are. This amendment, along with the DISCLOSE Act and similar efforts, aims to provide Americans with the basics of who is spending how much on what. It does not impose any new obligations on broadcasters or providers; it does not hold broadcasters or providers liable for inaccurate information; and it does not take action with respect to posting this information online. This is a simple disclosure requirement. It benefits all Americans. It is good for our democracy. Quite frankly, I think that a commendable thing occurs when many of the amendments are made in order. In this particular instance, I'm especially pleased that my colleagues made the Eshoo amendment in order. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I appreciate my colleague for asking. I was hoping that Mr. Bishop from New York would be here, but in light of the fact that he is not, I'm prepared to close. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If Mr. Bishop does arrive, then perhaps I would use some of my time to yield to him. We all know that this legislation is never going to pass the Senate, and so this exercise remains just that, an exercise. Republicans claim to be in favor of reducing the size of government, but this bill will require the FCC to hire 20 additional staff at a cost of $26 million over 5 years just to handle all the additional work created. Rather than focus on stimulating the economy, funding infrastructure investments, and improving our democracy, my friends on the other side insist on devoting time and energy in a pursuit that is never going to go beyond this Chamber. Rather than support transparency and our democratic process, my friends on the other side want to shield the best off in our society and corporations from having to disclose their financial influence on the political process. And rather than work with Democrats to craft comprehensive, bipartisan legislation that can pass the House and Senate, Republicans would rather see their partisan bills die than allow a compromise measure to live. I would say that I'm appalled, Madam Speaker, but this kind of thing seems to happen all the time around here. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide that, immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up H.R. 14, the House companion to the bipartisan Senate transportation bill and to discuss our proposal, but before that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

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 to express my heartfelt sympathy for the people who have been struck by the recent tornadoes in the Midwest and South. These disasters have caused the deaths of more than 30 people in five States and left several communities in need of support, including volunteers, food, clothing, and monetary contributions. Although we will be able to rebuild these communities, we can never replace the lives lost, and my thoughts and prayers are with those families today. These disasters are a reminder that the needs of relief and recovery efforts are constant. When disasters--be they hurricanes, earthquakes, fires, floods, or tornadoes--wreck entire communities and drive whole families from their homes, rapid and generous outside assistance is essential to preserving lives and property. I hope that we can learn from this disaster--and other recent natural disasters around the country--that we need to better coordinate and find Federal disaster relief efforts. Mr. Speaker, I once again extend my deepest sympathies to the people who have been affected by these tornadoes. I urge all the appropriate Federal agencies to ensure that these communities receive the help they need.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, would you tell me just how much time I do have.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to H.R. 5. Not only does this bill overlook the rights of injured patients, but it's also an attempt by the House Republican leadership to dismantle the Affordable Care Act. I would remind my friend from Florida that there is no example that allows for any of us to have it both ways. This matter violates the Constitution and, clearly, not just for those who argue the 10th Amendment from a conservative or a liberal perspective. It is all of us that feel very strongly that this measure usurps the power of States. I'm fond of saying what Randy Barnett, constitutional law professor at Georgetown, said, that people seem to be fair-weather federalists, and they abandon federalism whenever it is inconvenient to someone's policy preferences. H.R. 5 combines two completely unrelated measures. The first one is the reform of our Nation's medical malpractice system. The second one is the repeal of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which was established by the Affordable Care Act. Please don't get me wrong; I'm fully aware of the challenges inherent to our medical liability system. The excessive cost of medical malpractice insurance faced by physicians seriously impairs our Nation's health care system by encouraging the practice of defensive medicine. This contributes to higher health care costs for both doctors and patients as well as diminished access to care for consumers. But while I agree that our medical liability system needs to be changed, I do not believe that it should be at the expense of the fundamental rights of patients, including their ability to seek compensation for wrongful injuries. Indeed, this bill imposes an arbitrary and unfair cap on noneconomic damages that injured patients can receive. Such limitations will extinguish our rights and have devastating consequences for individuals harmed by physicians and medical products. In addition, this bill seriously encroaches on the 10th Amendment of the Constitution by preempting State laws. And I'm not buying the confusion offered in the Rules Committee yesterday nor by my good friend from Florida. I know preemption when I see it. I know the 10th Amendment, and I know that people have stood for the 10th Amendment. I need not remind my colleagues that countless Republicans have made statements regarding this particular matter not fitting within the framework of the 10th Amendment's commerce provision. My Republican colleagues like to talk about frivolous lawsuits and unreasonably large jury awards. But I asked the question yesterday of the maker of this particular provision, what is his leg worth? It's easy for us here inside the beltway, and it's easy for us on the Republican or Democratic side, liberal or conservative, to be about the business of talking about somebody's harm. Then what happens is, all of the lawyers that are the bad people of the world, everybody wants the best lawyer when it is them and their problem that is a problem. I asked the maker of the bill, how much is his leg worth? When you cut off the wrong leg, who can stand among us and say that $250,000 is enough? So where did that cap come from? It came from a 1978 provision, $250,000. This is 2011, moving fast with costs rising. I ask anybody here or that is within the range of this particular measure at this time, please tell me, when did your health care insurance costs go down? I don't know of any example. I have been paying health care insurance for 49 years, and it's gone up repeatedly during that period of time. And I don't care whether there was a Republican President or a Democratic President, health care costs went up, and I don't think that this little measure here is going to bring it down. What do you think about the family in Chicago whose perfectly healthy baby was born lifeless because the hospital team failed to provide him with proper oxygenation during labor and to perform an emergency cesarean section on the mother? The boy is now 5 years old, suffers from permanent neurological damage, and is totally dependent on the care of his parents for all his daily activities. You ask his parents if $250,000 is enough for a lifetime of care. Oh, no. Then you say, well, thrust it on the States. Let Medicaid take care of it. And then what you do under the Ryan budget, my good friend, is you say block-grant Medicaid. I saw that movie in Florida when they block-granted Medicaid, and it was used for everything else other than for poor people. Something is wrong with that movie. What about the judge in Palm Beach County who had a surgical sponge left in his stomach after having abdominal surgery and had to wait 5 months to have it removed? By then, the pus and bile-stained mass measured more than a foot long and a foot wide, and the rotted part of his intestine had to be removed. Ask him if a lawsuit was frivolous. Each case and each injury is different. It is not the role of Congress to decide the fate of these individuals and families devastated by malpractice by establishing arbitrary limits on the financial compensation that they are entitled to. As you all know, the medical malpractice portion of this bill is actually a pay-for, meant to offset the repeal of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, IPAB. IPAB is a board of 15 physicians and experts established by the Affordable Care Act to find ways to control health care costs associated with Medicare. Under the act, IPAB will make recommendations to slow the growth rate in Medicare spending if spending exceeds a certain target rate. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the repeal of IPAB would increase direct spending by $3.1 billion over 10 years--$3.1 billion. Now is not the time to repeal measures that can save our Nation money and reduce our deficit without offering any substitute, and that's the take-away from this. My friends say don't do IPAB; and I say to my friends, well, what do you do? And you do nothing. That's what you do, and that's what you've been doing here in the Congress since we came here. We have given ``do- nothing Congress'' a new meaning. Rather than dealing with jobs, the things that people are completely interested in, rather than passing the infrastructure measure that the Senate has passed that will deal immediately with jobs in America, we are here passing a measure--and it will pass the floor of the House of Representatives--that will go to the Senate and go nowhere. So then what did we do? We did nothing. The Congressional Budget Office also estimates that, thanks to the cost-saving mechanisms in place in the Affordable Care Act, IPAB will not likely be required to act for the next 10 years. I heard my colleague, just a minute ago, say that health care costs have gone up since President Obama has been in office. My mom is fond of saying that if we're going to keep pointing back to the other President--if Obama says Bush did it, and Bush says that Clinton did it, and then Clinton said that Bush did it, and Bush said that Nixon did it, and Nixon said that Carter did it--then we could just point back to George Washington and say George Washington did it then and get it all over with rather than continuing this charade before the people, making them think that somehow or another we have the solution here. Health care costs have gone up, and they're going to continue to go up until we as men and women in the House of Representatives and in the United States Senate and as the American people sit down and decide that this is a solvable problem which will allow us to address those things that are vital in this country. The bill is a complete waste of time. It does nothing in addition to going nowhere. It does nothing to help the American people. It contains nothing to improve the affordability and accessibility of health care. And repealing IPAB, if you want to talk about frivolous, that's what frivolous is. Let us give the American people what they really need right now--and that's jobs. How many times do we have to say that down here for people to finally get it? Frankly, I'm appalled by the hypocrisy of my Republican colleagues who keep stating that Federal spending needs to be kept under control. But at the first opportunity they wind up rejecting one of the most serious tools in place to actually tackle Medicare spending and find ways to make care more affordable. What are the Republicans offering to replace IPAB? Nothing. Since the beginning of the 112th Congress, the Republican majority has sought to repeal as many provisions of the Affordable Care Act as possible without providing any replacement and absolutely no long-term solution. If we do nothing, Medicare costs will continue to increase, thereby increasing the burden on millions of seniors, disabled individuals, and their families all across this country. What is the Republican plan? What is the plan? It is to replace Medicare with the new Ryan budget introduced yesterday. It is to replace it with some kind of premium that is nothing but a voucher system that would certainly result in increased costs for seniors and reduced benefits. The truth is that the Republicans have no plan to reduce Medicare, and I defy them to present it. If you look at the budget that was released yesterday, it's all filled with blank spaces--and I'll fill in the line--nothing, nothing, nothing. So, instead of just repealing IPAB, let us improve it, reform it or replace it. By doing nothing, it's surely not going to fix the problem. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, my friend from Georgia--and he is my friend--pointed out that his amendment was made in order yesterday. I might add, in keeping with the notion if you can't have it both ways, he would strike all the findings. And it seems to me that that's admitting justification for the authority to pass Federal tort reform. But it directly contradicts the same constitutional arguments they will be making next week before the United States Supreme Court in their effort to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a bill which many of the same conservative lawmakers argue that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to pass. I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my very good friend from New Jersey, a member of the Budget Committee, the distinguished gentleman (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I will be very brief before yielding to my friend from the Rules Committee. My friend from Florida says that he appreciates the hyperbole. I hyperbole on occasion when I find that my friends who are taking positions that are going to hurt people require everything from hyperbole to passion to try to get the American people to readily understand. And to demonstrate what I'm talking about, my friend just stood and said that the IPAB board will be rationing. The statute, the provision giving rise to it, if it ever comes into existence in the future, specifically says that they cannot ration. I don't know whether my friend read that provision or not. But I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would be happy to yield to my friend just for a moment. So then what you're saying is, the IPAB board, which may bring down costs--and I might add you just said that Congress could not touch it, quoting you--that's not true. Congress could change it as long as it stays within the prescribed limits, and that is simply what the law, itself, says. But what is the Republican plan? As I understand it from Mr. Ryan's budget as offered yesterday, it would be a premium system for Medicare. Now you've just said that rationing by any other name or that you know it when it's a duck, and all of that kind of stuff. Well, a voucher by any other name is still a voucher, and you're going to tell me that that's a good system? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I reclaim my time only to say that you had it right, ``select.'' For example, our Governor in the State of Florida had one of those select provisions, and he's one of those people that wants us to turn everything over. I happened to have had the good fortune yesterday of having the chairman of Blue Cross Blue Shield visit me, who thinks that this particular measure is something that would be helpful in his industry, but that's something for another day. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I'm going to offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule that it bring up H.R. 14, the House companion to the bipartisan Senate transportation bill. I am pleased now to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of an outstanding human being. Isiah Courtney Smith, a former judge, pioneer and, personal friend of mine, passed away on February 29, 2012 at the age of 89. Judge Smith, also known to many as ``I.C.'' was born on September 15, 1922 in Lake Helen, Florida. In 1940, after graduating from Euclid High School in Deland, he went on to enroll at Florida A&M College, where I also attended law school. Judge Smith's education at Florida A&M was interrupted by World War II, when he volunteered and was assigned to an intake facility near Raiford. It was at this facility where Judge Smith demonstrated his first acts of courage by marching through a segregated camp to inform the white officers of his resignation. A year later, Judge Smith was officially drafted. After his service, Judge Smith returned to his studies and graduated with a degree in history. At this point, he had also met and fallen in love with Henrietta Mays and together they moved to New York while Judge Smith attended Brooklyn Law School. They were married on January 1, 1949. In 1954, Judge Smith received his law degree and started a practice with his college friend William Holland. This partnership would be the catalyst for the civil rights movement in Palm Beach County. Judge Smith lived in a time where there were many barriers to social mobility for those of color. Institutionalized discrimination prevented many African Americans in this country from reaching their potential, but my dear friend Judge Smith possessed skills and abilities that could not be suppressed and that he used to fight for the civil rights of others. As the third African American lawyer in Palm Beach County, Judge Smith was well aware of the injustices occurring in his community. He became a champion of civil rights and was a voice for those who were treated as second class citizens based on the color of their skin. Judge Smith and his partner William Holland orchestrated the movement to desegregate Palm Beach County's public schools after the Supreme Court's ruling of ``separate but equal'' being unconstitutional was largely ignored throughout the county. In his own words, Judge Smith wisely stated that: ``Nothing separate can ever be equal''--a sentiment that I strongly agree with. In addition to his quest for equal access to public education, Judge Smith and Mr. Holland fought together to integrate the West Palm Beach municipal golf course and to eliminate separate eating and bathroom facilities on Florida's turnpike. It is hard to fathom the amount of courage required to combat bigotry and hatred, but Judge Smith faced these challenges head-on and spent his life taking a stand against those who sought to keep the status quo. After spending many years in a successful private practice with Mr. Holland, he was appointed as a Palm Beach County Court judge in 1986 by Governor Bob Graham. During his time on the bench, Judge Smith was known for his professionalism. After serving in this capacity for six years, he retired at the age of 70. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to offer my sincere condolences to all those who have been impacted by the loss of such a great man. My thoughts are with Judge Smith's wife Dr. Henrietta Smith, their two children Robin Smith and Reverend Cynthia Smith Jackson, and all of their family and friends during this most difficult time. I was truly honored to have known Judge Smith. He was a tremendous individual whose commitment to bettering South Florida, and working selflessly to ensure equal rights for all Americans will never be forgotten.