Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank my friend from Utah for yielding the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it's been more than 10 years since the attacks of September 11. We have fought two wars and have engaged in military action in numerous other countries. Hundreds of thousands of people have died, and many more have been wounded. We have spent more than $1 trillion. Osama bin Laden is dead, and the Obama administration officials have declared that al Qaeda is ``operationally ineffective.'' Here at home, we've reformed our national government, compromised our civil liberties, spent billions on a surveillance state, and created a culture of paranoia in which, even in the last few days, a reality TV show about Muslim Americans is subjected to a campaign of hate and intolerance. Before proceeding, let me commend the chairman and the ranking member of the relevant committee of jurisdiction that put this package together. I am fundamentally opposed to many aspects of it, but I am in tremendous agreement with their bipartisan efforts and the staffs of both of them and the other committee members for putting forth the effort to bring us to this point of discussion. We should take this opportunity at this moment in our history to seriously and carefully deliberate our Nation's counterterrorism efforts. We ought to consider which policies are effective and which, in the end, only create more anti-American sentiment. We ought to consider which policies align with our national values and which, instead, undermine them. We ought to consider whether we should continue using the full thrust of the United States Armed Forces in country after country or whether a more nuanced approach might better serve our needs. Unfortunately, the legislation before us does not attempt to answer these questions. Instead, it commits us to dive even further down the road of fear. It commits us to more war and more wasteful spending, and it commits us to ceding our freedoms and liberties on the mere suspicion of wrongdoing. This legislation erodes our society and our national security by militarizing our justice system and empowering the President to detain anyone in the United States, including American citizens, without charge or trial, without due process. If this is going to continue to be the direction of our country, Mr. Speaker, we don't need a Democratic Party or a Republican Party or an Occupy Wall Street party or a Tea Party; we need a Mayflower party. If we are going to undermine the foundational principles of this great country, then we might as well sail away to someplace else. This legislation establishes an authority for open-ended war anywhere in the world and against anyone. It commits us to seeing a ``terrorist'' in anyone who ever criticizes the United States in any country, including this one. The lack of definitions as to what constitutes ``substantial support'' and ``associated forces'' of al Qaeda and the Taliban mean that anyone could be accused of terrorism. Congress has not tried to curtail civil liberties like this since the McCarthy era; but here we are today, trying to return to an era of arbitrary justice, witch-hunts, and fearmongering. While this measure includes an exemption for United States citizens, it does not protect them from indefinite detention. In one fell swoop, we have set up a situation where American citizens could have their Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendment rights violated on mere suspicions. And by placing suspected terrorists solely in the hands of the military, these provisions deny civilian law enforcement the ability to conduct effective counterterrorism efforts. The fact of the matter is that our law enforcement agencies and civilian courts have proven over and over again that they are more than capable of handling counterterrorism cases. I had the distinct privilege in this country of serving as a Federal judge shepherding cases and protecting the interests of the United States and vital security interests during that period of time. And in every one of those cases--some 11 over the period of 9\3/4\ years--all of the defendants were found guilty, and that is before 2001. More than 400 suspected terrorists have already been tried in the Federal courts of the United States of America. We should not break something that already works. The idea that the executive branch's current powers are inadequate to fight terrorism is proven false by 10 years of successful counterterrorism efforts. The idea that the President--any President--needs a whole new expansion of his--and I hope one day soon--her powers is just wrong. Most national security experts, Democrats and Republicans, are telling us not to adopt this language. Many officials responsible for our homeland security are telling us not to adopt this language. A lot of our military leaders are telling us not to adopt this language, Mr. Speaker. This legislation goes too far. We spend billions of dollars every year on counterterrorism, but we weaken those efforts by tossing aside our own system of justice. We tell the American public that we are fighting overseas in order to protect our freedoms, but then we pass legislation that undermines those very same freedoms here in the people's House and at home. And we tell the rest of the world to emulate our democratic traditions and our rule of law, but we disregard those values in a mad rush to find out how we can pretend to be the toughest on terrorism. We won't defeat terrorism by using the military to lock up innocent people for the rest of their lives on the mere suspicion of wrongdoing. We will not defeat terrorism by claiming the entire world as a battlefield. And we will not defeat terrorism by replacing our rule of law with reckless, uncontrolled, and unaccountable powers. Mr. Speaker, we need to have a more considered debate about the best way to conduct our defense and counterterrorism policies. This bill contains over $600 billion in spending, runs to over 1,000 pages, and is coming to the floor less than 48 hours after it was filed. While the detainee provisions in this legislation might have received the most attention in the last few days, there are plenty of other critical provisions that Members may have opinions about, and that's why on these kinds of measures we should have open rules. I realize that I've said that Congress--and we are proving it at the end of this session--has a bad case of deadline-itis. But my friends in the Republican majority don't only have deadline-itis, they have deadline-ophila. Yesterday we considered a poorly conceived extenders package that will harm the middle class and weaken our economy. Today we are considering controversial language in a defense bill that sets a dangerous precedent and will potentially harm the civil liberties of American citizens. I appreciate that the Republican majority, many of whom are my friends, don't want their holiday season ruined by having to work. But that doesn't mean we have to ruin everyone else's holiday season by passing bad laws. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. After my good friend from Utah spoke, I guess I say, Wow. Last night I reminded him that military people are government workers also. And toward that end, when we talk about cuts and my friend talked about passing on spending, I'm curious. When $1 billion walks away in Iraq and nobody knows where it went, I'd ask my friend to tell those soldiers at Fort Bragg--where President and Mrs. Obama have spoken to them today--that are returning home why they were in Iraq and what is it that we protected by spending $1 trillion. Why is it we are sending money to corrupt governments? And somewhere along the lines I think we will come up with some answers--that we had enough money to spend, but we spent it on things that we should not have. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to inform us as to the amount of time remaining on either side.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 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 the Middle Class Fairness and Putting America Back to Work Act of 2011, which extends middle class tax relief, unemployment benefits, and the Medicare reimbursement doc fix. 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, at this time I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from California (Ms. Hahn).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In the mad rush to get home for Christmas, we're delivering an early gift to those who criticize our country for failing to live up to our ideals. With this legislation, we're undermining over 200 years of constitutional protections. We're returning American society to an age when an all-powerful executive can command unaccountable power over people's lives. To codify in law the power of the President to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or trial is an egregious affront to our Nation's system of justice. Franz Kafka wrote about it years ago, and it has been known as Kafkaesque. Ten years after the attacks of September 11--10 years of war, of runaway defense spending, of the PATRIOT Act, torture, and extraordinary rendition--and we're still responding to the terrorist threat with a knee-jerk reaction, devoid of reason and common sense. This legislation says that our law enforcement agencies do not work; that our judiciary, our court system does not work. This legislation says that the President can, alone, decide who is guilty or innocent. I would remind my friends that Barack Obama may not be the President all the time. But no President should have untrammeled authority to determine innocence or guilt. It puts the lie to the judicial branch of our government and to the legislative branch of our government. This legislation goes too far. If the Republican majority was serious about having this body carefully consider our Nation's defense policies, Members would have had more than 2 days to review the more than 1,000 pages covering $600 billion in spending. I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and the underlying legislation, and I yield back 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 demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I mistakenly cast a vote in favor of H.R. 3010, the Regulatory Accountability Act. I would like the Record to reflect that my intent was to vote against this bill. personal explanation

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Mr. Dwayne Fitzgerald Nelson who passed away suddenly on October 18, 2011 at the age of 50. Mr. Nelson, also known as ``Coach Rock,'' coached the boys' junior varsity basketball and football teams at Dillard High School in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Before coaching, he worked for the City of Fort Lauderdale for over 20 years. He impacted the lives of many individuals in the community and will be truly missed. Hundreds of mourners came to Nelson's funeral service, including friends, family members, colleagues, and other members of the community, celebrating the many lives that he touched throughout his years of service. Many of his current and former players came to pay their respects, and the Dillard boys' basketball and football teams wore T-shirts with Nelson's picture on the front in memory of their respected coach. Those in attendance remembered how Nelson helped lead the boys' basketball team to five state championships. Dwayne Nelson committed his life to serving the Fort Lauderdale community. His colleagues at Dillard High School noted how he was the first person at the school every day for almost 20 years. As a coach, he taught his players lessons that went far beyond any athletic field. He made sure that they kept their grades up, so that they would succeed both on the field and in the classroom. This type of commitment is what set him apart as an outstanding mentor and coach. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember Dwayne Nelson's dedication to improving the lives of so many. His service to Dillard High School and the City of Fort Lauderdale, demonstrates how everyday Americans can make a real difference by helping others in their community. My thoughts and prayers are with Mr. Nelson's family and friends during this most difficult time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in observance of the World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims, which will be observed on Sunday, November 20, 2011. I offer my thoughts and prayers to all those who have lost loved ones to road crashes. All over the world, in every country and locality, traffic accidents remain an ongoing peril and a source of preventable tragedy. As we embark on the Decade of Action for Road Safety, we should pause to remember who it is that we are fighting for. Road traffic crashes kill nearly 1.3 million people every year and injure or disable as many as 50 million more. The leading cause of death throughout the world for people ages 10 to 29 is not disease or war, but road crashes. Even today, we can expect that 1,000 people under the age of 25 will die on the world's roads. These numbers are dramatically increasing and place particular strain on developing nations, where crash rates are highest. In developing countries, road crashes have a dramatic impact on their fragile economies, costing an estimated $100 billion and often exceeding the total amount received by these countries in development assistance. Furthermore, road crashes affect first responder services, health care services, and health insurance services, as many victims require extensive, and expensive, critical care, as well as follow-up care and rehabilitation. In October 2005, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution which calls for governments to mark the third Sunday in November each year as World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims. The day was created as a means to give recognition both to victims of road traffic crashes and to the plight of their relatives who must cope with the emotional and practical consequences of these tragic events. This Day of Remembrance also calls attention to the necessary policies needed to improve transportation management, infrastructure, vehicle safety, education, and post-crash care and rehabilitation. Here in the United States it is of the utmost importance that we continue to support public policies designed to reduce key risk factors like speeding, drunk driving, distracted driving, and the failure of many Americans to use seat belts, child restraints, and other safety devices. The Decade of Action for Road Safety has not been declared to merely raise awareness, but also to take action. We all use roads, cars, buses, and bicycles every day. It is easy to take our safety for granted. But too many tragedies remind us that road fatalities and injuries have an enormous impact on our lives. As Americans travel the world more and more and as our global society grows ever more close- knit, the pressing importance of our observance of the World Day of Remembrance only grows as well. Mr. Speaker, no one should die because of entirely preventable traffic accidents. We must do everything we can to raise awareness and address the underlying causes. On this year's Day of Remembrance, let us pay extra attention to ways we can make the world a safer place.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the National Commission on Employment and Economic Security Act of 2011. This legislation is a necessary and vital investment for our nation's workforce and their families. It will establish a national commission to examine issues of economic and psychological insecurity within our workforce that have been caused by employment displacement. Further, it will propose solutions, including recommendations for legislative and administrative action, to Congress and the President. Since the recession began in December 2007, more than 5.1 million jobs have been lost. In October 2011, the unemployment rate remains firm at 9 percent, and it is much higher in many states like Florida, at 10.6 percent, and it has topped 11 percent in Michigan, California, South Carolina, and the District of Columbia. Over the past year, unemployment rates have increased in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The scope of the economic downturn is so large that its impact is felt virtually everywhere along the economic spectrum. While Americans lose their jobs and their incomes shrink, too often, they face the loss of their family's health insurance and, subsequent to the loss of income, even their housing. According to an American Psychological Association September 2010 report, money (76 percent), work (70 percent) and the economy (65 percent) remain the most frequently cited sources of stress for Americans. Perhaps even more disturbing, calls to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline have increased by more than 72 percent from 2007 to 2010. Mr. Speaker, the mental health of the American worker will be integral on the road to economic recovery. Congress must face this problem head on and help the very people who are facing unemployment, loss of health insurance, home foreclosure, stress, increased violence, and depression. It is time that we create this Commission and get our nation back on track. I believe that we have a responsibility to ensure the greatest possible assistance to our nation's workforce, whose commitment to economic participation has been a defining feature of the cultural fabric of our country. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I wish to compliment the chairman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I would have my friend to know that we also are talking about the previous question, for which at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Critz).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend from Florida that I am going to be the last speaker, and if he is ready to close, I will go forward doing same.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. What we have before us today should not be called the balanced budget amendment. What it should be called is the unbalanced budget amendment because that is what this bill is--unbalanced. It upends prudent fiscal policies, makes a mockery of congressional authority, and does nothing to address the economic struggles of millions of Americans. This proposed amendment no more balances the budget than passing legislation to declare the tooth fairy as real. Saying it out loud doesn't make it true. What this proposal says, instead, is that Congress needs to enact legislation that balances the budget. It doesn't tell us how to do it, just what we must do. Well, if we could do that, Mr. Speaker, we wouldn't need a constitutional amendment telling us to do it, would we? If Congress could enact legislation that balanced the budget, it could do that without a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. Merely imposing a mandate within the Constitution does not mean that Congress will be able to fulfill it. With this kind of circular reasoning, we could go back and forth until the next election and never have to spend one more minute on creating jobs to improve the economy. But that is exactly what my colleagues on the other side want. They've been in the majority for nearly a year now in the House of Representatives and have failed to put forth any kind of plan to create jobs and improve the well-being of millions of Americans, unless you count reaffirming ``In God We Trust'' as the national motto, weakening the Environmental Protection Agency, or watering down gun safety laws. I was here in 1995 when this body passed a balanced budget amendment. And let us not forget that under President Clinton and, yes, Speaker Newt Gingrich, we did manage to balance the Federal budget and leave a hefty surplus for President Bush. But then President Bush and the Republican Party squandered that surplus on two wars. And people should never forget that. They squandered it on tax cuts for the richest Americans, and they squandered it on unpaid-for prescription drug benefits, leaving a big old doughnut hole that we've been talking about ever since. Now the Republicans in this body are so extremist that they refuse to consider any tax increases of any kind on even the best off of us in America. Instead, they're leaving it up to the struggling middle class and poor people to bear the burdens of the Republican Party's free- spending ways over the last decade. And I wish I had the time to really lay all of that out. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party's intransigence makes this amendment's voting requirements particularly unbalanced. This proposal requires a two-thirds vote, 290 votes here in the House, to pass an increase in the debt ceiling. Do you know what the definition of insanity is, as said by my friend? Repeating the same thing over and over again. And real crazy insanity is just doing it over and over and over and over again and expecting the same result. Or as Ronald Reagan put it, ``There you go again.'' The Republican majority wants to enshrine in the Constitution a permanent hostage crisis for our economy. This supermajority requirement for basic economic management will ensure that we will, on a regular basis, bring our economy to the brink of collapse. Just look at the Republican's performance over the debt ceiling vote. I don't have any confidence that they'll act rationally just because there's a constitutional amendment telling them to do so. That is why this proposal is unbalanced. By mandating so many onerous, supermajority votes, this amendment guarantees permanent gridlock in the budgeting process. And without the inclusion of a general emergency waiver, this amendment imperils our national security. Let me repeat that. Without the inclusion of a general emergency waiver, this amendment imperils our national security by creating a scenario in which Congress cannot agree whether or not to vote on funding for national emergencies such as a military conflict. Mr. Speaker, this unbalanced proposal does not even include a clear enforcement mechanism. I asked about that at the Rules Committee, and I got an answer that I still don't understand. Making the balanced budget a constitutional requirement means that budget disputes would be solved by America's court system. This body has already failed to pass a balanced budget when the power of the purse is already our constitutional obligation. How can we be expected to pass one when each and every provision is also subject to years of litigation? The Republican majority wants to hand off our constitutional obligations to the Federal courts that will have the power to raise revenue. No less an authority than Judge Robert Bork made a statement regarding that. He opposed a balanced budget constitutional amendment, declaring ``the result would likely be hundreds, if not thousands, of lawsuits around the country, many of them on inconsistent theories and providing inconsistent results.'' Celebrated late-Professor Archibald Cox of Harvard Law School predicted ``there is a substantial chance, even a strong probability, that Federal courts all over the country would be drawn into its interpretation and enforcement.'' Since my friend used President Reagan, the former Solicitor General to President Reagan, Professor Charles Fried, has testified ``the amendment would surely precipitate us into subtle and intricate legal questions, and the litigation that would ensue would be gruesome, intrusive, and not at all edifying.'' The former Attorney General to President George H. W. Bush, William Barr, opined that judicial power could be invoked ``to address serious and clear-cut violations.'' The Republican majority wants to hand off our constitutional obligations to these courts that will then have the power to raise revenue, impose taxes, cut spending, and reform major government programs. I guess, if that's the case, we can all just go home now, Mr. Speaker. This body has previously considered balanced budget amendments on numerous occasions, initiated by both Democrats and Republicans. The majority party has always ensured sufficient floor time for debate and to allow the minority to offer alternatives; but here we are in a situation where the proposal before us was never marked up in committee, never had a hearing, and, in fact, was drafted late this past Thursday night by some mysterious tweaking of H.J. Res. 1 that became H.J. Res. 2. This version was changed in secret and was filed with last-minute surprises that fundamentally changed the nature of the legislation and will come under a procedure that doesn't even allow a motion to recommit. This is no way to amend the Constitution. By all means, Mr. Speaker, if we want to balance the budget, let's not do it on the backs of the hardest hit in America. I don't need a constitutional amendment to tell me that balancing the budget without raising taxes on those of us who are best off in this country is unbalanced. Where Americans need the Federal Government to support the economy, Republicans are trying to strangle it. Where Americans need us to put politics aside, Republicans are bringing forward legislation written in secret. Where Americans need this Congress to focus on economic issues, Republicans are insisting that we vote on God and gays and guns. We don't need to be voting on God and gays and guns. What we need are some guts to tell the American people that, yes, we can do this and that we can't wait any longer for those who are waiting for us to create jobs. Now the Republican majority wants to pass a constitutional amendment to tell us that we have to balance the budget every year in a way that no individual, State or local government or business does: no borrowing, no trust funds, no way to plan for long-term projects like highway construction, national defense, and public schools. This amendment guarantees budgetary gridlock forever and moves budget decisions to the Federal courts, not to Congress. This proposed amendment locks into the Constitution the most far right of the Republican Party's policies, forcing future generations to reap the pain imposed by the callous disregard for the least among us--the ones who need the most help. Mr. Speaker, as of yesterday, there were 273 national organizations that oppose H.J. Res. 2, the balanced budget amendment. It's too lengthy to place into the Record or to put forward, but some of them are among the most celebrated organizations in our country. I also would recommend to the membership an article written by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, a nonpartisan group that discusses how unnecessary this particular provision is, and it ends with the following paragraph: The threat a balanced budget amendment would pose to our constitutional order is unavoidable. Congress, of course, remains free to enact a balanced budget if it believes this is sound economic policy. It also remains fully equipped to institute effective controls to ensure restraint and balance in the budgeting process. Therefore, there is no sufficient reason to incur the dramatic risks that the balanced budget amendment would entail for our Constitution and our Nation. This is not a balanced budget amendment, Mr. Speaker--but it is an unbalanced one. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I am delighted to withdraw the compliment. What I wanted you to be able to do, since you had become so enlightened about the balanced budget amendment, was to be equally enlightened with reference to the rules and allow us a motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up H.R. 639, the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act, which will help create jobs in the United States by making American-manufactured products more attractive to Chinese consumers. At this time, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from the State of Washington (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, my friend on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), I'm sure has views that are similar to mine. I yield to him 3\1/2\ minutes at this time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. Levin. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would you be kind enough to tell me how much time remains on each side?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).