Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, this unbalanced amendment does not belong in our Constitution. It enshrines far-right ideology and makes a mockery of congressional authority to set forth the Nation's fiscal policy. This hardly belongs in the same company as freedom of speech, the abolition of slavery, and a woman's right to vote. This proposal does not balance the budget; it only demands that Congress do so, and yet it does not provide a mechanism to enforce that rule. So in a situation of partisan gridlock, the Federal budget might very well end up in the courts. This is no way to govern. If this Congress could balance the budget, we wouldn't need a constitutional amendment to tell us to do so. But the fact remains that the Republican majority has steadfastly failed to set forth legislation that will create jobs and grow this economy. Given their inflexibility, a balanced budget constitutional amendment hardly seems like the magic wand Republicans claim it will be. This Congress needs to be serious about the real causes of economic hardship in this country. Focusing on God, gays, and guns and not having the guts to tell people we're not doing anything to create jobs, that isn't going to keep people in their homes, and it isn't going to help Americans obtain quality health care and education. These are the critical issues facing our Nation. Wasting our time-- and that's exactly what this is, it's going nowhere fast--wasting our time with political gimmicks like an unbalanced constitutional amendment is just that, wasting our time. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment to the rule in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so we can debate and pass real jobs legislation today, not little old stuff that is appealing to the right wing of the people who are pushing nothing more than symbolism and talking about it being in our United States Constitution. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, 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. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment would exempt States from right-to-carry reciprocity when the State does not require individuals to apply for and complete a carry permit application at their local law enforcement station. The United States Congress should never be in the business of stripping States of the right to make their own decisions about whether to recognize other States' permits. States have put forward a considerable amount of time trying to determine just what is best for their citizenry in reference to safety. By overriding State-based concealed-carry laws and forcing States to recognize concealed-carry permits from every other State, we're putting our State and local law enforcement in grave danger. Two nights ago the sheriff in my county and I discussed this matter. I might add he is a Republican sheriff who is a friend of mine. We discussed this matter, and we concluded that it's going to be very difficult to get people to want to become police officers. Not only are they being attacked in reference to their organizing efforts, but now we are going to make it difficult for them to do their jobs. This amendment closes a loophole that would otherwise be created by H.R. 822. Almost every State allows concealed-carry in some form, but States differ in how they implement their concealed-carry policies, including having, as has been mentioned, different age requirements, training requirements, and excluding individuals guilty of certain crimes. One of these major discrepancies is addressed in this amendment and would force a State wishing to enforce H.R. 822's State reciprocity requirement to make certain carry permit applications are completed at an individual's local law enforcement station. In my home State of Florida, concealed-carry permits may be granted to nonresidents, and all applicants are allowed to apply by mail. It is so easy that a staffer in one of our offices was able to complete the form in less than 30 minutes. If H.R. 822 passes, residents and nonresidents of Florida would be able to apply by mail from almost anywhere in the country and use their concealed-carry permits throughout the country. Mr. Chairman, gun violence continues to grow at astounding levels in the United States. When the Surgeon General was Mr. Satcher, he called it an epidemic and even said that it was a health crisis so many people were killing each other with weapons.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. Chairman, the last thing we need is to tell sovereign States that they are no longer free to make the decision to require an in-person interview when making a gun permit determination. At least 10 States grant law enforcement broad discretion to deny permits to carry concealed, loaded guns based on an applicant's record or other factors. Fourteen other States grant law enforcement more limited discretion. In addition, at least 14 States require applicants to show good moral character. Many of these States require applicants to present themselves in person for interviews. For example, applicants in New York must complete an in-person interview to receive their carry permit. By contrast, Utah applicants, as has been pointed out by the ranking member, can submit their application by mail and can complete the fingerprinting and firearm safety training requirements outside of the State. In comparison, Utah's driver's license application specifically requires, and rightly so, that applicants submit the application in person, that it be notarized, and that the employee initial the application upon submission. Utah also grants permits to nonresidents, potentially allowing individuals nationwide to apply for a permit by mail. Supporters of H.R. 822 claim that concealed-carry permits should be treated like driver's licenses. My amendment, however, points out that this is yet another instance of my friends' hypocrisy. First-time drivers applying for licenses in Utah and Florida must appear in person and pass a written and road test. While Utah and Florida are free to make the decision that they will not require in-person appearances for concealed carry permit applicants, it should not be the job of Congress to impose this decision on other states. Mr. Chair, H.R. 822 is a dangerous bill, and quite frankly will do nothing to create a single job across the nation. Americans are hurting, they want jobs, and to be able to provide for their families. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which will help to close a dangerous loophole created by H.R. 822. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor America's veterans, who have courageously served our nation. These brave men and women deserve a debt of gratitude for their commitment to protecting the liberties that are the foundation of our country. As we recognize their selfless dedication and accomplishments, we must be reminded of the challenges many veterans face when returning home from tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately, upon returning to civilian life, many suffer from severe physical and mental wounds. In fact, 20 percent of all suicides in the United States are veterans. Furthermore, 25 percent of those who find themselves homeless are veterans and many of them are also unemployed. These figures are extremely alarming and quite frankly, unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, as we welcome home the thousands of American troops currently deployed overseas, we must ensure that they receive the benefits they rightly deserve. It is imperative that we provide the very best educational, medical, and employment benefits available to assist with their transition back home. On this day, I encourage all Americans to honor our nation's veterans. My thoughts and prayers are with those brave men and women and their families. Let us remember those who have fought, those who have returned, and those who have not. We are forever indebted to their courage and dedication as well as their service to this great nation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month. In 1989, Congress designated October as National Domestic Violence Awareness Month in order to raise awareness about the tragic social ill that is domestic violence, and to help bring attention to the efforts of those who are working to end it. Today, victims of domestic violence in the United States are more likely to report their situation to the authorities than they were three decades ago, and the number of fatal and non-fatal cases of domestic violence has declined significantly. The efforts of nonprofit organizations, such as the YWCA Harmony House located in my Congressional district, have assisted millions of victims of domestic abuse in making the best possible choices for their life and well- being. While the number of domestic violence cases has indeed declined in the last few years, there are still millions of people experiencing some type of domestic abuse each year in the United States. An overwhelming number of these victims are women, who in many cases suffer in silence instead of seeking help. Sadly, victims often completely isolate themselves out of fear and shame of their abuse. Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that one in four women in the United States will experience domestic violence during their lifetime. Women between the ages of 20 to 24 are the largest group of non-fatal abuse victims, while women under 24 suffer from the highest rates of rape and sexual abuse. Furthermore, women living in households at the lowest income level experience six times the rate of domestic abuse. Domestic violence, however, is by no means limited to any one group. Due to numerous factors, including social stigma, many male victims of domestic abuse tend to remain silent. In addition, domestic abuse occurs in approximately 30 to 40 percent of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender (GLBT) relationships, contrary to the misconception that domestic abuse only affects certain individuals. Young children who live in homes where spousal abuse takes place are also often victims of abuse themselves. In fact, it is estimated that 30 to 60 percent of people who take part in domestic violence against their partners also abuse children in their household. Sadly, some of these children grow up to be abusers themselves. In 1994, I voted in favor of the Violence Against Women Act, historic legislation that established new criminal and civil enforcement resources to hold abusers accountable for their actions, while introducing tools to help victims seek justice. Additionally, as part of the Affordable Care Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced new guidelines that will ensure women receive preventive health services without additional cost, including domestic violence screening and counseling. Under the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies can no longer classify domestic violence as a pre- existing condition. Last year, I also voted in favor of reauthorizing the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, which gives communities life-saving tools to help identify and treat child abuse or neglect. It also supports shelters, service programs, and the National Domestic Violence Hotline, providing victims with the critical resources they need. Mr. Speaker, victims of domestic abuse should know that they are not alone. There are countless organizations all over this Nation who stand ready to help them. In Congress, I will continue to do everything in my power to speak out against domestic violence and ensure that our laws protect the well-being of all Americans.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/ 2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding the time, and I rise today in opposition to the combined rule for H.R. 674 and H.R. 2576. The underlying bill, H.R. 674, repeals the 3 percent withholding for taxes on payments to government contractors, and H.R. 2576 will make health care unaffordable for 500,000 Americans--that's not according to me but according to CBO--leaving them with no choice but to drop their coverage. This bill will also increase the costs or reduce the coverage for many more Americans, including individuals with severe disabilities. The pairing of these two bills is not, in my considered opinion, an appropriate use of our Nation's Tax Code, and in my opinion, does nothing to create jobs. It is part of the same old ``all or nothing'' majority strategy that led to the debt ceiling standoff earlier this year. The Republicans have taken a bipartisan idea--and it is bipartisan, as my good friend from South Carolina said--that would actually put money directly in the pockets of hardworking Americans and make its passage contingent on a bill that rehashes the health care reform debate from the last Congress. Once again, my colleagues have chosen to play politics with the lives of middle class and working poor Americans. The withholding requirement, itself, was passed in 2005 when President George W. Bush was in the White House and when Republicans had majorities in both the House and the Senate, but it was never implemented, and it has been put off a number of times. Today, there is broad support for repealing this Republican-created provision. H.R. 674 has, as my friend said, 269 bipartisan cosponsors. Since Republicans have now brought a bill to the floor that would repeal this requirement, it is clear that this measure should not be combined, as in this rule, with H.R. 2576. Getting rid of this provision will keep administrative costs down and assist American businesses during these challenging economic times. However, Republicans want to pay for the 3 percent bill by making it harder for retirees, the disabled, and poor to get access to health insurance. This is, yet again, an inappropriate use of our Tax Code. This bill is known as the MAGI bill, ``modified adjusted gross income.'' It repeals the provision in the Affordable Care Act that allows individuals and families to exclude nontaxable Social Security benefits from their incomes when determining their eligibility for health care benefits. This definition would also apply when qualifying for Medicaid and Federal subsidies to buy private insurance in the State-run exchanges. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the exclusion of nontaxable Social Security benefits is typical when applying income limitations to tax benefits. Regardless of the facts, my friends in the majority have decided to throw retirees and disabled individuals under the bus in order to offset a completely unrelated bill. My friends on the other side of the aisle claim that this is about equity and fairness, but is it equitable for as many as 500,000 Americans to lose all their health care coverage as a result of this measure? What are we saying to these individuals; sorry, 500,000 of you are out of luck? Is it fair to make health care less accessible to low- and middle-income individuals rather than close loopholes and cancel special tax deals for wealthy, wealthy oil companies? In contrast, the Democrats' substitute offered by Mr. Levin, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, will make oil companies pay their fair share of taxes, thereby reducing the deficit by $5.3 billion over 5 years and $12.8 billion over 10 years. It is clear that H.R. 2576 is not about equity at all. It's about forcing individual taxpayers to shoulder the burden of business tax provisions. H.R. 2576 will impose higher costs on retirees and persons with severe disabilities, shifting them out of Medicaid coverage or requiring that they contribute significantly more of their income for health insurance coverage through reduced tax credits. How do Republicans intend to offset the cost, such as increased trips to the emergency room? How do you offset that association with half a million Americans suddenly losing their health insurance coverage? The Tax Code should not be used to effectively reduce health care coverage and increase costs for those least able to afford it. Make no mistake, H.R. 2576 is yet another attempt by Republicans to undermine comprehensive health care reform. Last week, the Senate Republicans forced a vote on the 3 percent withholding repeal bill, but it too failed over unreasonable Republican demands. Where are the jobs? Instead of passing a jobs bill, Republicans are redefining the rules to make health care less accessible for a considerable number of Americans. These bills together are a new approach to cutting the deficit for Republicans. Until recently, they said that the only way to fix the deficit was to starve the beast, that is, spending cuts only. But with a bill like H.R. 2576 that takes away health care from hundreds of thousands of Americans, Republicans have decided that rather than starving the beast, it's better to feed the beast to our society's most vulnerable members. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and 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. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my friend and classmate from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating).

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my good friend from South Carolina that I am the last speaker. If he has other speakers, then I will reserve my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, President Obama, as has been cited, along with many of our colleagues, supports changing the definition of ``modified adjusted gross income.'' But like on other occasions, I have disagreed with this President on matters, and in this instance I do. There are many in the institution who have a different view. But there is no reason why a bill reducing access to health care for millions of Americans has to be tied to a bill that will put money back into the pockets of middle class and working poor Americans. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle made a conscious decision to make it harder for Americans to pay their medical bills. Now, they could have just as easily tied this bill to one that reduces oil and gas subsidies. But listen, I just spoke to a group of students, about 15 or 20 of them from American University, and I put the question to them regarding this rule, explaining to them some of the dynamics of the institution. I put the question to them: What would seem more sensible to you. Would it be that 500,000 people should and may lose their coverage under a measure, or that the oil companies and gas companies--and I added GE--that those kinds of companies that cause these kinds of matters not to have to come into play at this time in our institution? Now Democrats--Sander Levin, my good friend from Michigan, the ranking member--introduced a substitute that would eliminate oil and gas subsidies in order to repeal the withholding requirement while still allowing Americans to keep their health care coverage. Yet they wouldn't waive the rules for that, as they've done a number of times, my Republican friends, for their own amendments, proving once again that the rules are only sacred when oil and gas and big business profits are at stake. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, an amendment will be offered to the rule to let Mr. Levin of Michigan or Mr. Bishop of New York or Mr. Keating of Massachusetts offer the amendment we tried to have made in order in the Rules Committee yesterday. As we've said, the amendment will roll back special tax loopholes for immensely profitable big oil companies. Is there anybody that doubts that? And I'd like to hear from these oil company representatives. They're entitled. They're not a person, as some have said; they're a corporation. And they don't have, I guess, a conscience because their bottom line is to make a profit. Well, they've made a lot of it, and all we're asking them to do in this case and others--and I'll be back down here another time asking them--to share some of it with the American people and not cause the pressing down to our States, the pressing down to our counties and municipalities, and causing people who are disabled--and, indeed, some will lose their insurance because of this. And maybe some of these persons have never had a disabled person. But I had a mother that was disabled for the last 2 years of her life, 30 years previous to that being almost bedridden, and I know what disability is, as I'm sure some of my friends do here. Had I not been alive, she would have died many years earlier because she had no ability to provide for herself, yet Shell Oil and Exxon and GE and all these people do. And they're right about their profitmaking, but they're wrong about not being able to share it with the people. 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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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 honor Ms. Dixie Smith, a Suncoast High School senior in Riviera Beach, as a Hastings' Star Student. During her junior year of high school, Dixie earned recognition as the Palm Beach County All-Conference selection for diving. This year however, her accomplishments go even further. Recently, world renowned tennis player Serena Williams chose 17-year old Dixie as the recipient for the M Foundation's Silver M Award. With this award, she joins the ranks of previous recipients who are viewed as ``exemplary role models'' in their communities. The award will present Dixie with a $1,000 college scholarship and a $1,000 donation to a charity of her choice. It was Dixie's commitment to giving back to her community which earned her this award. Without a doubt, Dixie Smith exemplifies the term volunteerism. She started the Autism Speaks club at her high school, teaches gymnastics at Gymnastics Revolution, and also lends her time to instructing developmentally disabled children at the Renaissance Learning Center. Additionally, she has taught surfing to autistic children for the past three years, and has participated in the Surfers for Autism event regularly. In a recent letter, Dixie shared with me how these events served to be a humbling experience as time after time she witnessed children, who were initially afraid of the ocean, overcome their fears and catch waves on their own. She believes that surfing changes them, and the joy felt by their parents as they thank her is better than any award or scholarship she could ever receive. Dixie's work with developmentally disabled children is to be commended. Her selfless service represents a true dedication to the betterment of her community. I am sure Dixie's outstanding achievements are an inspiration to her peers and to the greater Riviera Beach area. I wish her all the best in her future endeavors.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman.