Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This resolution provides for consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4213, the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2010, finally. The rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4213. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the motion except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. Finally, the rule provides that the Senate amendment shall be considered as read. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4213, the Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 2010, ensures that much-needed Federal assistance continues to reach the millions of Americans struggling to find a job, trying to keep their homes and doing the best they can to provide for their families. This legislation is long overdue with unemployment benefits having expired on June 1 of this year. Though I am pleased that this legislation is retroactive to that date, millions of Americans who desperately needed our support were left hanging by the egregious obstructionism that prevented this legislation from moving forward. While the other party is content with giving themselves a pat on the back for every roadblock they throw in front of the Democratic bill, I remind my colleagues that they are playing with the livelihoods of countless, hardworking Americans. What is merely a political win for them is, in reality, another family that can't make rent, can't send their kids to college, or can't pay their medical bills. As we are well aware, much of the debate surrounding this bill has centered on its cost. Now, we, in the Democratic Party, believe that balancing the budget is vital for our long-term prosperity, but it cannot be done on the backs of struggling Americans. Over the past few weeks, my Republican colleagues have railed on about Democrats not cutting the deficit or spending beyond our means. But I wonder if my Republicans colleagues have looked in the mirror lately. I have been here for some time; and I can't, for the life of me, remember any calls for fiscal discipline when their party was cutting taxes for millionaires and billionaires, sending a blank check overseas, or squandering $127 billion Federal budget surplus. Time and again, my colleagues' actions simply do not match their rhetoric. Further cutting the budget and denying unemployment benefits aren't going to make jobs magically appear. Such actions will only cause our economy to contract and leave more people out in the cold. Our economy needs a deliberate, targeted approach to job creation and economic growth, and that is what Democrats will provide. To say, as my colleagues often do, that Democrats are moving in the wrong direction and doing nothing to create jobs is simply a bold-faced lie. Over the last 1\1/2\ years we've gone from a period of negative growth to consistent increases in our GDP. We've gone from 22 months of job loss to 6 straight months of private-sector job creation, albeit not nearly enough. We've gone from shuttered factories to the largest 12-month gain in industrial production since 1998. Make no mistake, job creation is the number one priority for Democrats, but as the job market recovers, there remain far too many who are out of work and losing hope. While my Republican colleagues question the need to lend a hand to those who are struggling, I question their aversion to provide opportunity to those who have none. Maybe there are no poor people in some of my colleagues' districts, but in the district that I am privileged to represent, people are hurting. From Pahokee to Pembroke Pines, people simply cannot find work. They are pounding the pavement, willing to take anything that comes their way, and in the meantime they need our help. You see, Mr. Speaker, what Republicans seem to consider reckless spending, the people in the district that I serve consider a vital lifeline. There are 170,000 Floridians that are unemployed at this time. What Republicans call government waste, the American people call an essential government service. And what Republicans see as a bloated budget, our citizens see as the only thing that is keeping them from financial ruin. The other party can continue to play political theater, but we have serious work to do. The American people cannot afford to wait a second longer. They need this extension. They deserve this extension. And we will not let Republican obstructionism prevent them from getting this extension. And, Mr. Speaker, I will make a prediction for you. After all of the talk for all of these months, all of the obstruction to us having unemployment compensation extended that had been routinely extended since 1959 without the kind of obstruction that it met, particularly in the other body, I predict for you that a significant number of our Republican colleagues today are going to vote for unemployment compensation. And in that regard, I'm glad they came to the dance, albeit a little late. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to a former member of the Rules Committee, a good friend of mine, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1537.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1537 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from not very far from here, Maryland, Donna Edwards.

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I will yield additional time. I just want to share with you as a segue of what you're saying, these are remarks from Senator Kyl on the other side: On extending President Bush's tax cut, despite the cost, his quote, ``You should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans.'' These are the people that are holding up unemployment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, just to answer my distinguished colleague from North Carolina very briefly, when she began her remarks by indicating that we haven't given them an opportunity to vote on tax cuts, my last look at the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act gave 95 percent of Americans a tax cut. I would be interested to know how many Republicans supported that measure. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1537 waives the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII, requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee. This would allow for the same-day consideration of any resolution reported through the legislative day of July 23, 2010, relating to consideration or disposition of a measure addressing unemployment compensation. Finally, the resolution allows the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules through the legislative day of July 23, 2010. The Speaker, or her designee, shall consult with the minority leader, or his designee, on the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this section. These are not unusual procedures, as some of my colleagues on the other side are wont to argue. I want to point out that in the 109th Congress the Republican majority reported at least 21 rules that allowed for same-day consideration. In fact, five of those rules waived this requirement against any rule reported from the committee. This rule is for a specific bill. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4213, the Restoration of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 2010, ensures that absolutely essential funds continue to reach the millions of American citizens struggling to find a job, keep their homes, and provide for their families. This legislation is unconscionably overdue, with unemployment benefits having expired on June 1 of this year. While I'm pleased to point out that this legislation is retroactive to that date, nevertheless, millions of Americans who desperately needed our support were left hanging by an egregious obstructionism that prevented this legislation from moving forward. This Congress, and I include both the House and the Senate, has a responsibility to act in the best interest of the American people and to ensure that, in this time of extreme economic hardship, Americans can rely on essential government services to help them through the hard times. Unemployment insurance is one of those services, part of a range of urgently needed activities that are necessary to rebuild our economy and recover from the recession. There is no excuse for delay. That only two Republican Senators saw fit to vote to ensure that 2.5 million Americans could claim lapsed benefits demonstrates a complete lack of concern for struggling Americans. The fact is that for every open job there are five applicants, leaving the vast majority out of work. Unemployment insurance is not a luxury; it is a necessity. Why Members of this Congress are able to vote in favor of massive tax cuts for the wealthy one day and against unemployment insurance for hardworking Americans the next day is beyond me. And so, Mr. Speaker, I kind of like would rather that we not have to do a same-day rule. What we should be doing is a 6-weeks-ago rule so we can go back in time and relieve some of the great anxiety and financial hardship endured by millions of Americans while they waited for this Congress to act. Over the past few days and weeks, much of the debate about the emergency measure has revolved around its cost. While I don't dismiss these concerns, bringing our economy back from the brink of disaster doesn't come cheap, and we have a responsibility to support Americans during this most painful and difficult time. In fact, I would argue that Democrats and Republicans have a significant difference of opinion when it comes to what it means to be fiscally responsible. Seemingly, my Republican colleagues think that being fiscally responsible means that when our economy is prospering, and it has prospered in the past and will again, when it's prospering, you will have free rein to cut taxes for the wealthiest and the well to do among us and spend with abandon, as they did when we were prospering. But when their irresponsible fiscal policies come back to bite them, well, then it's too expensive to invest in our economy, to provide for those who can't provide for themselves, or to spend what is necessary to jump-start the economy. Republicans say they aren't opposed to spending these funds on unemployment insurance; they just want to cut the same amount from other programs. Well, I'll tell you what they can cut. How about not doing any further tax cuts for wealthy people? How about cutting missiles to nowhere? How about cutting some of this Pentagon money and war in this world? How about cutting huge tax subsidies for offshore oil drilling? How about cutting out people taking their money and running to tax havens away from America and not fulfilling their responsibilities? Mr. Speaker, I don't see Republicans offering to cut those things. Instead, I see them blocking essential legislation with vague platitudes about the need for cuts. They see nothing wrong with leaving the people who are most suffering the effects of their misguided economic views out in the cold. The Republicans' track record has proved them to be nothing but fair-weather deficit hawks. Democrats, on the other hand, see things a bit differently. We, too, believe that balancing the budget is vital for our long-term prosperity. And I've been here and others, as well as the sitting Speaker, have been here when we did just that, balance the budget. But it can't be done on the backs of struggling Americans. In order to grow this economy, we need to invest in the American people. The Federal Government has a responsibility to help our communities meet their needs and ensure that anyone who wants to find work for a decent wage can do so. Our economy is already showing considerable signs of recovery, but a jobless recovery is unacceptable. Make no mistake, job creation is the number one priority for Democrats. That is why we're working hard to find ways to create jobs and grow our economy again. But, in the meantime, we cannot simply let millions of Americans fall into financial ruin, lose their homes, be unable to pay their rent, and jeopardize their futures and the futures of their families and children. Unemployment insurance can make the difference between whether families can afford to put food on the table or pay rent while they devote themselves to finding new employment or to get by, just get by, until the economy improves and jobs are more forthcoming. I urge my colleagues to support this rule, Mr. Speaker, so that this much-needed, much-overdue legislation can be considered in a timely manner. The American people are waiting. And waiting 1 more minute, not 30 minutes on the U.S. Senate, or 30 hours as they are taking now, waiting 1 more minute is 1 minute too long. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question on the same-day rule. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we stand ready to provide those struggling to find work this small reprieve; and Democrats in Congress are also committed to putting forth the necessary effort to create jobs, spur economic growth, and put our country once again on the road to prosperity. But, in the meantime, we have a responsibility to ensure that those most profoundly affected by these difficult times are able to stay afloat--to feed their families, to keep their homes, and to continue to search for new jobs. We must not play political football with unemployment insurance. It is simply too fundamental to the livelihoods of millions of Americans. Our economy is starting to turn around, and the American people cannot afford to wait another second, let alone 30 hours for the United States Senate to act. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, he fought his way all the way over here, and even though I have but 2 minutes, I would like to share 1 of my minutes with Mr. Langevin. I would inquire of my good friend from North Carolina if she would be so kind as to yield 30 seconds to Mr. Langevin as well.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In response to my good friend from California, firstly, I would argue with you that California is not necessarily the greatest State in the Union. We happen to have 50 great States and six wonderful territories in this great country of ours. But coming from Florida, I find that rivalry worthwhile. We will match him any day. This Congress, when he speaks in terms of the measure that we are proceeding on, from the standpoint of process, this Congress alone provided suspension authority on a day other than Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday, has allowed for passage of the Iran sanctions conference report, a paid-for doc fix, the Small Business Microlending Expansion Act, the Medicare Premium Fairness Act, and a resolution recognizing Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, sponsored by the Speaker along with Representatives Boehner and Cantor. This same-day authority has allowed for passage of several bills that have already become law, including a bill authorizing the Oil Liability Trust Fund for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, legislation expanding the Small Business Loan Guarantee program, legislation for the Temporary Extensions Act and the Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act. All of these bills passed with overwhelming support from the House. This same process has not only benefited majority Members, it benefited Republican Members as well. Representatives Luetkemeyer, Gingrey, Tiberi, Calvert, Reichert, Platts, Fallin, Schock, Fortenberry, Carter, and Lee have all benefited from this provision by having their legislation adopted under suspension of the rules in spite of what day of the week it was. So much for that. Back to the point dealing with unemployment. People think that this stuff is done in a vacuum sometimes. Well, Senate Republicans have repeatedly obstructed job creation legislation that extended critical unemployment insurance benefits to help Americans who lost their job through no fault of their own make ends meet as they look for their next job opportunity. The Republican obstruction is unprecedented. Since 1959, Congress has never allowed unemployment benefits to expire when unemployment is more than 7.2 percent. There are a considerable number of economists--Alan Blinder, Ralph Martire and, then more important, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities--who say that for every $1 spent on unemployment it creates $1.90. So, really, the best stimulus for this economy suggests, as the economists do, that it is stimulated much more by spending on unemployment than we would tax cuts. I want to say one final thing on tax cuts. I have two personal friends that are fortunate enough in this country to be billionaires. They earned their money the hard way; they earned their money during good and bad times, and none of us hold any truck with either of those billionaires. I know two other billionaires personally, and not one of them before has ever said that they favored tax cuts--just to talk about some of the American people--they manage regardless. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon, a good friend of mine, Mr. DeFazio.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), who is a good friend of mine. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to a good friend of mine at this time, the distinguished gentleman from Memphis, Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. General Leave

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, my good friend and colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, a year ago this month Natalya Estemirova, the leading human rights defender in Chechnya was abducted near her apartment building in the capital city of Grozny by unidentified men, transported to the neighboring republic of Ingushetia, and brutally killed. She led a courageous life of denouncing corruption, calling for a fair judicial system, and standing up for human rights. For that she was cut down. While her killers may have ended her life, they will never silence the voice she brought to these issues. Ms. Estemirova's work was well known to the Helsinki Commission, which I co-chair, and colleagues there recall her 2006 visit to discuss the situation in Chechnya. Like Estemirova, all too many of her fellow human rights defenders and journalists are targeted because they have the temerity to speak out about human rights abuses. Today, inspired by Estemirova's work, I introduce a measure expressing solidarity with human rights defenders in the Russian Federation; urging the Russian authorities to take appropriate steps to end the harassment, persecution and attacks against activists; and calling for an end to impunity for those responsible for such acts, including through the conducting of timely, transparent and thorough criminal investigations into the unresolved murders of human rights defenders, journalists, and political opposition members and the prosecution of all of those responsible for these crimes. The Helsinki Commission has been at the forefront of drawing attention to the human rights situation in Chechnya and elsewhere in the North Caucasus region of Russia, having held numerous hearings and briefings. Notwithstanding the assertions by the powers that be in Moscow that the situation in Chechnya has returned to normal, the reality on the ground reveals otherwise. The recently released 2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, issued by the Department of State, found that the Russian government's already poor human rights record in the North Caucasus worsened during the reporting period, with a marked increase in extrajudicial killings by both government and rebel forces and politically motivated disappearances in Chechnya as well as in neighboring Ingushetia and Dagestan. The Helsinki Commission remains deeply concerned over ongoing human rights abuses, legal impunity, and the permeating climate of fear in the North Caucasus. While one cannot discount that terrorist elements are responsible for some of the rights violations in that region, many of the reported abuses are perpetrated by federal and local security forces in Chechnya, including the private militia of Chechen strongman Ramzan Kadyrov, the republic's Kremlin-backed president. While it remains unclear what, if any role Kadyrov had in Estemirova's killing, his contempt for her and other human rights defenders is palpable. Earlier this month Kadyrov publicly labeled independent journalists and rights activists as ``traitors and enemies of the state.'' Among those targeted by the Chechen leader is the respected Russian rights organization Memorial. Madam Speaker, as Co-Chairman of the Helsinki Commission I remain concerned over the deterioration of the human rights situation in the North Caucasus generally, and Chechnya specifically. I am not alone in this regard, as the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly adopted a resolution late last month on the North Caucasus. The measure pointed to a series of specific concerns in Chechnya against the backdrop of what it characterized as ``a climate of pervading fear'' nurtured by the current authorities: recurrent disappearances of government opponents and human rights defenders still remain widely unpunished; continuing threats and reprisals, including abductions of relatives of persons suspected of belonging to illegal armed factions; and ongoing intimidation of the media and civil society, among others. Ramzan Kadyrov's utter contempt for human rights and fundamental freedoms was again manifested recently in his reaction to paintball gun attacks against women on the streets of Grozny apparently because they were not wearing headscarves. Instead of condemning the assaults, the Chechen president reportedly praised the perpetrators. While Kadyrov has largely been given free rein in Chechnya, that does not absolve his backers in Moscow from responsibility for the deteriorating human rights situation in that part of the Russian Federation. As a participating State of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, it is incumbent upon the Russian authorities to ensure that fundamental freedoms are respected throughout the country, including in the North Caucasus. Turning a blind eye to human rights violations is unacceptable. I urge President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin to take effective measures to stop the harassment, persecution and attacks against human activists and journalists in the Russian Federation and to end the impunity for those responsible for the murder of Natalya Estemirova and others. Only then will there be hope that the situation in Chechnya will return to anything approaching normal.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I really commend you for your efforts to pass meaningful financial regulation reform in this Congress. I deeply thank you.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Chairman Frank, I first want to commend you on an extraordinary effort and your dedicated leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. I look forward to supporting this legislation. Before that, however, I would like to clarify a few points as they pertain to the intent of the bill. It's my understanding that certain provisions which are intended to improve access to mainstream financial institutions are not intended to further limit access to credit and other financial services to the very consumers who are already underserved by traditional banking institutions. As you know, each year over 20 million working American families with depository account relationships at federally insured financial institutions actively choose alternative sources and lenders to meet their emergency and short-term credit needs. These alternative sources and lenders often offer convenient and less expensive products and services than the banks where these consumers have relationships. Further, as the demands for short-term, small-dollar loans continues to increase as a result of the current economic environment, nontraditional lenders have filled the void left by mainstream financial institutions in many of our Nation's underbanked communities. Mr. Chairman, I have a longer statement, and with your permission would skip to the clause that I think is particularly important and include my full statement in the Record in the interest of time. Rather, I feel that the financial services should be well-balanced and carried out in a manner that encourages consumer choice, market competitions, and strong protections. It is my sincere hope that this legislation is designed to carefully and fairly police the financial services industry treating similar products in the short-term credit market equally while encouraging lending practices that are fair to consumers. Is this the intent?