Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to my good friend from Maine, a gentleman who has some understanding of fisheries and coastlines, 2 minutes to Representative Allen.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I serve on the Rules Committee with the distinguished gentlewoman, my good friend, Ms. Matsui from California, Sacramento and that area, who understands environmental consequences. I am pleased and privileged to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California. (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my friend Mrs. Capito for the time. I ask two questions of my colleagues here today. One, what is the emergency and can anybody that supports this measure tell me that it is going to bring down the price of gasoline at the pump? If we already own all of this, and we do, and if 80 percent of it is under lease and drilled as it is, then what is the emergency? Why can we not wait until such time as there is either a national or a military emergency? Gas prices, you bet, but ask Jane Lunch Bucket, is this going to bring down the price of gasoline at the pump? Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, it is better for others to speak for you; and in this case I choose to let the editorial boards representing the newspapers across my great State of Florida, which have universally, universally come out against this dangerous bill. These are papers which represent views of Floridians from the Panhandle to the Keys and in all parts in between. From Orlando to Opa Loka and from Pensacola and Panama City to Pahokee to Key West and Kissimmee, Floridians agree that this would be bad for the environment, bad for tourism, bad for business and a black eye for generations to come. The Orlando Sentinel said this week about this bill: ``House Members from Florida who support this bill are portraying it as the best deal the State can hope for, given the growing pressure to drill for oil and gas at home. Never mind the fact that the United States has only a small percentage of the world's reserves of those fuels. Congress could do more to solve the Nation's energy crunch with stronger measures to conserve energy and promote the development and use of alternative fuels. It doesn't have to imperil Florida's environment and economy. Florida's two U.S. Senators, Democrat Bill Nelson and Republican Mel Martinez, say they are reserving the right to filibuster the measure if it reaches the Senate. But it needn't come to that. Florida's House delegation and other Members in that Chamber who support an environmentally and economically sensible energy policy need to kill this bill.'' The St. Petersburg Times had this to say: ``The oil industry's,'' and I am paraphrasing, ``minions in the U.S. House are still scheming to open Florida's coast to offshore drilling. That is not surprising, considering their disdain for environmental protection. What is unforgivable,'' unforgivable, the St. Pete Times says, ``is that some Florida Representatives appear to be in league with them and are more atuned to the politics of Washington than the realities of Florida. Some other Florida Republican Members seem to think defeat is inevitable, so they might as well cut a deal that would undermine the protection of our beaches. Unfortunately, saying so could make it so. If Floridians value their beautiful beaches, clean coastal waters and tourism economy, then the time to give in to the hysteria to drill is never.'' The Palm Beach Post added this: ``Protecting Florida's coasts under the bill wouldn't be enough. Because oil spills could be carried on ocean currents, what happens in States that opt to allow drilling closer to shore could affect other States with stricter rules. A spill in the eastern gulf, for example, could travel to Panhandle beaches, to Florida's Keys, or to east coast beaches as far north as Cape Canaveral. The cover story is that disruption from Hurricane Katrina showed why the Nation needs new sources of energy. But why put new sources in the same storm path? The majority's bill, or the bill as authored, and some of them as sponsors, has one of the worst environmental records in Congress,'' according to this newspaper. ``Florida's tourism industry places the State in a unique position. Opposing this bill isn't good just for the environment. It's good for business.'' Mr. Speaker, I wish I had time to continue quoting from other Florida newspapers, but I think the point has been made and made and made again. While we are here now debating whether we should open up Florida and California, and maybe New York, Massachusetts, Georgia, and Maine, to oil drilling, we already have debated Alaska, and doubtless others are to come. But it was our colleague, Mr. Boehlert, who has pointed out that through 18 months of this Congress we have brought up all sorts of ways to drill in this country but not one, not one bill that would look at alternatives or do anything about conservation. Pretty telling, don't you think? I asked one of my Republican colleagues last night what his opinion on this bill would be if it meant drilling in the heart of his district, one of the most environmentally unique ecosystems that we have in this country. I give him credit for consistency. We were on the elevator leaving the Rules Committee at midnight, and he flat-out told me if there was some oil or gas to get there, so be it. Wow. This is truly frightening. I hope the American people are listening. A Member of Congress, and there are others like him, potentially thinks that we should put oil derricks on every street corner, I gather, in the country if there is even a chance we might get a teaspoon of oil out of it. Mr. Speaker, I know there are others who want to speak on this irresponsible bill, so I am not going to use more of my time. But trust me, as a fifth-generation Floridian, as a person deeply concerned about our environment in this world as well as in Florida, and a Member of Congress that represents more small businesses than all but two other Congresspersons in this body, according to the Small Business Administration, I oppose this rule for the bill we will soon consider, which I consider to be reckless. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule it will take up legislation to do as Mr. Stupak just rightly said, stop price gouging at the gas pump and provide some immediate relief for the American consumer. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as we consider this bill today that further opens up our precious coastal resources to the oil industry, should we not also be talking about how those oil companies treat Americans at the gas pump? Should they be allowed to drill the oil that belongs to the American people and then turn around and sell it to us at unconscionable prices? They did not drill 3 years ago because the price of a barrel of oil was $30. Now it is $70, and they are ready to go drill. By that time, it will be $80, and then turn around and sell it to us at prices that are unconscionable. If the previous question is defeated, I will ask the House to take up H.R. 3936, Representative Stupak's bill. Members should be aware that a ``no'' vote will not prevent consideration of H.R. 4761 and it will not affect any of the amendments that are in order under this rule. But a ``no'' vote will allow us to vote on something to bring real relief to the American people and not degrade the environment in our Outer Continental Shelf. Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield at this time 3 minutes to my good friend and classmate from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) who also has a district that has environmentally sensitive areas.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Hawaii, and he is my good friend, knows that I love his volcanic State that has no Outer Continental Shelf. If we were drilling in Oahu or on the road to Hana, I would hear a different perspective. But I understand that dynamic. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar). (Mr. SALAZAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Slaughter for your extraordinary leadership on not just this subject but countless subjects dealing with the liberties of American citizens. Last night in the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter said that this was an historic moment. I could not agree more with that fact. This does not call for hyperbole or hyperventilation or fancy rhetorical flourishes. This particular measure has the weight that must have existed at the time that the Founding Fathers and Mothers of this country gave birth to the first amendment of the United States Constitution. If there had been no reporting in the free press during the period of the colonies as to what King George and those persons were doing, there may never have been an American Revolution. Almost exactly 35 years ago, the eminent Mr. Justice Potter Stewart in the Pentagon Papers said this: ``In the absence of the governmental checks and balances present in other areas of our national life, the only effective restraint upon executive policy and power in the areas of national defense and international affairs may lie in an enlightened citizenry, in an informed and critical public opinion which alone can here protect the values of democratic government,'' he wrote. He continued, ``For this reason, it is perhaps here that a press that is alert, aware, and free most vitally serves the basic purpose of the first amendment. For without an informed and free press, there cannot be an enlightened people.'' I have had the distinct privilege of being the president of an international organization, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, its parliamentary assembly that Ms. Slaughter and others are members of as well; and during that period I was the lead election monitor in places where democracy is trying to find root but in places where journalists courageously went forward to offer information that should be offered against those administrations, Belarus being an example of that, where there is no free press and where the people cannot rise up, as they did in Ukraine where the press played a major role. I believe this administration operates on the premise the best defense is a good offense. It is never any accountability with them. It is always somebody else did something. A guy lost his election to one of our distinguished colleagues from Utah last week. He said the devil was the reason that he did not have his campaign money. Maybe it is the devil that makes them do this. We have flag burning proposals for constitutional amendment. We have gay marriage proposals for constitutional amendment. Yet when it comes to the basic freedom and liberty of this country, the press, we are presented with a resolution that condemns them. That is all it does. It does not sanction. It condemns them. It is our opportunity to vent and say little things about The New York Times. Please add The Washington Times. Please add The Wall Street Journal. Please add other media entities that have reported along these lines. I do not believe in what Fox News says, but I believe, and I do, for their right to say it. You know better than to seek to amend the first amendment, and let us look at this resolution. It is factually inaccurate when you say, ``Whereas appropriate Members of Congress, including the members of the Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and House of Representatives.'' I am a member of that committee. You say that they were briefed, and I am here to tell you that every member of that committee was not briefed on this particular program. But I want you to listen to Ben Franklin. I want all of you to listen to Ben Franklin. He said, ``Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.'' Find all of the leakers, prosecute them, put them in jail, but let a free press stand in this Nation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I would like to see that exact date, and I am here to tell you that we didn't receive such a briefing. And if you can tell me that this resolution holds that every member was briefed, I am here to tell you that that is not true.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Is the gentleman referring to the financial services program, as offered?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), for 1\1/ 2\ minutes.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, excuse me. Will my colleague remain for me to use some of my time to ask him a question before I yield to my good friend Mr. Miller?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. And I might add my good friend and fellow Floridian, and he is my good friend. Let me ask you, Mr. Crenshaw, do you feel that this House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, or the Congress, is in a deficit spending environment at this time? Can you answer ``yes'' or ``no''?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Right. And every year since the President has been in office, we have been in this deficit spending environment; would you agree?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Then tell me what is down and what is up? Did we not raise the debt ceiling twice?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Reclaiming my time, you say that this will be a little bit more. Our good friend Paul Ryan, who is an author of this legislation, yesterday in my dialogue with him, he agreed that this legislation gives the President the power to do five messages in regular legislation and 10 in an omnibus. Do you think by any stretch of the imagination that the American public believes that this is going to reduce the national debt?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Can you answer ``yes'' or ``no''?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and good friend from Florida (Mr. Putnam) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and the underlying legislation. It is the misguided belief of some that the line item veto will serve as an effective tool to overcome the profligate spending by Congress. The irony, of course, is that if Congress had any kind of backbone, we would do it ourselves. For instance, if these same Members, who in my opinion feign seriousness about reining in spending, were actually serious, they would support our colleague, Mr. Flake, more often in his admirable yet heretofore unsuccessful attempts in cutting spending using the constitutionally mandated method, writing them into or removing them from bills before being sent to the President. Proponents argue that giving the President enhanced authority and power would check Congress' mismicromanagement of Federal spending. Frankly, I think this reasoning is preposterous. I highly doubt that increased rescission authority would be used to decrease our Nation's deficit. To the contrary, I believe such authority would only further the aims of the partisan politics we have seen through this Congress and this administration. And let me be fair. If there is ever a Democratic President, I think he or she would likely use this particular legislation in a partisan fashion. For more than 5 years, the President has continually signed off on budgets that have only deepened our Nation's deficit. If the President seeks to cut excessive spending and lower the deficit, he, meaning this President, should adopt the traditional means he already possesses before seeking expanded authority. Americans might have less trouble keeping their heads above water if they were not being overwhelmed with the red ink flowing in Washington, D.C. The truth of the matter is that this President has no need to use his power to veto when he can convince the majority in Congress to strike sections of legislation that go against the President's political agenda. In fact, in the more than 5 years that President Bush has been in office, he has not used the veto authority he currently possesses to veto a single piece of legislation that would lower our deficit or reduce the debt. Who knew that in the year 2000 the Supreme Court would choose America's first prime minister and relegate Congress' role to that of an advisory committee. Someone said recently that this Republican Congress has been simply a rubber stamp for the President. I politely disagree. My view is that at least a rubber stamp leaves an impression. We have heard, and we will continue to hear, that almost all our Governors have something akin to line item veto authority. This, however, should not be used as a reason why we ought to do the same at the Federal level. In Florida, for example, the Governor's expanded veto authority has clearly shifted powers long held by the State legislators to the executive branch. We cannot let this happen here. We, the legislators, not the executive branch, should determine the legislative agenda. Ms. Slaughter, in our meeting the other day, said where is it that this divine notion of what ought to be in the power of the purse is over there at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, no matter who occupies that office? Now, once you take an even closer look at this bill, it gets even worse. The bill's provisions mandate that no amendment can be made to any rescission bills while in committee. This heavily restrictive ``all-or-nothing'' approach to the legislative process is quite damaging. Moreover, it totally undermines proponents' arguments that the President's ``all-or-nothing'' power to veto is what must be curbed. The bill also stipulates limited debate in both the House and the Senate. It certainly does not answer the question of what happens if the Senate votes one way and the House votes another on one of the measures that the President has determined should be rescinded. These requirements do nothing but upset the delicate balance of power that our Founding Fathers crafted. A footnote right there: Didn't the Supreme Court already tell us once before that veto in this particular fashion was unconstitutional, the line item veto? If this bill passes, consensus, the ultimate cornerstone of the legislative process, as well as the principles of democracy itself, will most definitely be lost. Furthermore and most importantly, I do not think it wise or in the best interest of the American people for the legislative branch, this House that the Founding Fathers gave the power of the purse, to delegate more of its powers to any administration. Republican, Democrat, Independent, Green, wherever the President comes from, they should not have the power constitutionally mandated for the legislative branch to have. Administrations have continually abused our trust and usurped our constitutional authority. For more than 5 years, the delicate system of checks and balances that our country depends on has been compromised all too often. Whether using so-called signing statements, and I wish I had to time to explain to the American public that dynamic, and I might add used by President Clinton as well, but not as much as by President Bush, which include caveats to bills, or tapping our phones, or wildly interpreting authority given by the PATRIOT Act, this President has shown little to no regard for Congress' coequal authority for control over the management of the country. We cannot let this President, or any President for that matter, upset the balance needed to run this country. Granting line item veto authority to the executive branch would not only be offensive to democracy, it would be a serious mistake. It would undermine the United States Constitution, and it would be the kind of mistake we cannot afford to pay. We are not children in this body, Mr. Speaker. We do not need to enshrine in law a paternalistic relationship between Congress and the President. I urge rejection of this rule, and I urge rejection and entreat my colleagues to defeat the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Pennsylvania began his remarks by quoting Ben Franklin who also was from Pennsylvania. Let me also say to you what Mr. Franklin said. At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention in your home State and his, Benjamin Franklin was asked, What have you wrought? He answered, A Republic, if you can keep it. He did not say a monarchy. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. The gentleman my good friend Dr. Gingrey from Georgia said we are over here railing while they are getting ready to pass later today the line item veto and repeal the ``death tax.'' Let me tell you what we ought to be railing about. Yesterday, we pulled the Voting Rights Act, an opportunity for its reauthorization. This Nation has an immigration crisis, and you are getting ready to take a dog-and-pony show on the road. Fifty-five million Americans do not have health insurance, veterans' identities have been stolen because of incompetence, and gas prices are at an outrageous high, and here we are discussing something that ain't going to balance the budget. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, before we turn over our constitutionally granted power to the executive branch, let us vote on a measure that will actually reduce the deficit, rein in irresponsible spending and help to bring accountability back to the House's legislative process. Mr. Spratt's bill does many things to encourage deficit reduction. It reinstates pay-as-you-go rules for both mandatory spending and revenues. It amends the Congressional Budget Act to stop the reconciliation process from being used to make the deficit worse or the surplus smaller. It enforces the 3-day layover requirement in the House rules to give Members adequate time to review legislation. It adds earmark provisions. The bill protects important mandatory spending like Social Security, Medicare and veterans benefits from any expedited rescission process. It prohibits the President or executive branch officials from using the rescission authority as a bargaining tool or even a source of blackmail just to secure votes. In all fairness, when Mr. Clinton was the President of the United States, the first thing that he did with the veto power he had was veto something in toto. It will be used in a partisan manner. It is important for Members to know that defeating the previous question will not block the underlying bill, but by voting ``no'' on the previous question, we will be able to consider the Spratt alternative bill. I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

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