Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining amount of our time. During the course of this debate and discussion, I have cited to the United States Constitution frequently. I remind my colleagues that article I of the United States Constitution created the Congress. Article II created the President of the United States. Article III created the courts. The Founders must have had something in their mind as to what was first, and as it pertains to the power of the purse, they made it exactingly clear. In this same Constitution, there are four sections dealing with powers of the President, 10 sections dealing with the powers of Congress. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can amend the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will provide for separate consideration of legislation introduced by Representative Spratt that provides a comprehensive approach to controlling our spiraling deficits without stripping the House of Representatives of its power of the purse. 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, I continue to reserve the balance of my time. I have no further speakers other than myself, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, because of the limited number of speakers that I have left, I will reserve my time and allow my colleague from Florida who has more time and maybe more speakers to proceed.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a distinguished member of long standing on the Ways and Means Committee. (Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I don't believe he said that. I want to continue along those lines. Evidently the previous speaker doesn't know what Governor Jeb Bush just did, but that is another story. I want to keep the Constitution before us. What it says in that same article, which, incidentally, was the first article, the article creating the President was the second article, in the first article, ``No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time,'' by the Congress. I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to my good friend from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper). (Mr. COOPER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to my good friend from Wisconsin, perhaps it would be helpful if we have a little bit of historical foundation. Sometimes we forget these great people that met and debated for a long time before they determined the form of government that we should have. But one of the things that they established most immediately in Article I, after the Preamble, ``We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America,'' Article I, Section 1, colleagues: ``All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.'' Not a President. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind). (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Reclaiming my time, we do not live in Alaska, and no affront to you. I am delighted that we have $1.8 billion coming to Florida for coastal protection, but the President could have line itemed that, too. Mr. Crenshaw, you served in the State legislature. And under Democrats and Republicans that had the line item veto, the simple fact of the matter is they have used it in a partisan fashion more often than not. That is among the fears. Thank you for the dialogue. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to my good friend from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the ranking member for yielding to me. And let me answer quickly what the FAA is weighing in closing some of air traffic control facilities. Reno would go to northern California. Fresno and Bakersfield would go to Las Vegas. Pensacola would go to Meridian, Mississippi--excuse me, Gulfport would go to Meridian and Tallahassee would go to Pensacola. Lincoln would go to Omaha, and Dayton and Columbus would go to Cleveland. Those are just some of the suggestions. Why I asked for time, Mr. Olver, is to respond to my good friend from Orlando and central Florida to tell him that I don't think this proposal is bogus at all. I don't think that he can demonstrate to me that Orlando and Jacksonville are ready to handle, either in the event of a natural disaster or a destruction in the nature of the kind of disasters that we prepare for in our homeland, that it would allow, among other things, that it would be a smooth transition. I don't believe that to be the case. Workload is simply added to those facilities where they don't exist today because those centers will be completely gone if the FAA gets its way. Simply put, during these critical times we should not be limiting our air traffic capacity, and I believe that that is what my amendment remedies. And I certainly didn't bring it here with any thought in mind of it being bogus. All the air traffic controllers that have contacted my office and expressed their concerns, I don't consider them bogus.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with other colleagues to offer an amendment prohibiting the FAA from eliminating, consolidating, colocating or planning to consolidate or colocate any terminal radar control centers which are referred to as TRACONs. The TRACON system guides planes within a 40-mile radius of the airport on their takeoffs and final approaches. In an effort to save money, the FAA has embarked on an ambitious consolidation and collocation plan which will significantly limit our air traffic capacities in the future. The FAA's current consolidation proposal seeks to eliminate 14 of 24 TRACONs in 9 States across the United States. In some instances, entire States will be left without any approach radar system within their borders. In other instances, consolidation runs the risk of placing undue stress on nearby TRACONs already having to deal with larger airspaces and staffing shortfalls. For example, under the FAA's plan, the TRACON in Boise, Idaho, will be consolidated into a TRACON in Salt Lake City, Utah. This will leave the entire State of Idaho with no TRACON at all, and controllers in Utah will be directing approaching aircraft into Idaho airports, well over 300 miles away. In Florida, the FAA is planning to consolidate the TRACONs of Miami International, Ft. Lauderdale/Hollywood International, and Palm Beach International airports, all within a Federal high risk urban area, into one TRACON. Once this plan is implemented, if a terrorist attack or a natural disaster were to strike the Miami TRACON, then all three major international airports would lose their approach radar system. Controllers in Jacksonville, which is more than 350 miles away, would be where they would be controlled. Finally, the southern California TRACON, the busiest in the country, reported 12 close calls between January and May 31 of this year. This total is up from only seven close calls during the same period last year. Just imagine if southern California controllers already operating in a high risk urban area and facing staffing shortfalls have to direct their daily workload of more than 6,000 flights and those flights in a nearby region. Mr. Chairman, this is not a question of whether or not consolidation can logistically be done. It can be done and it is being done. On the contrary, this is a question of what should Congress be willing to risk for consolidation to occur? The FAA's consolidation of TRACONs runs the grave risk of leaving our air traffic system vulnerable during critical times. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to my colleague from Idaho, Representative Otter.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida, my good friend, Representative Diaz-Balart, for yielding me time. And I rise today in opposition to this rule and with great concern and reservation about the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007. While the underlying legislation is a significant improvement over President Bush's proposed budget, I am deeply troubled that Republicans continue to use their inability to manage the fiscal needs of our country as a convenient scapegoat for underfunding or completely eliminating programs of critical importance to the neediest of Americans. Let me say from the outset I do believe that the subcommittee, led by Chairman Knollenberg and Ranking Member Olver, did all that it could do with the unreasonable fiscal constraints that the majority of this body gave them to work with. At the same time, this is the eighth appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007 that the House has considered; and in almost every single bill, the wants of the well-to-do are trumping the needs of the less fortunate. The underlying legislation is following this very unfortunate trend, and its priorities are short- sighted. While no one single area was completely spared from funding cuts, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the critical public housing assistance programs funded in this important Department are, without doubt, the worst off in this bill. Fair housing activities, the Community Development Financial Institutions fund, rental assistance, the Public Housing Capital fund, Community Development Block Grants, and elderly housing, let me go back to that, elderly housing programs, all that I just identified are just some of the many programs whose budgets have been placed on the chopping block in this bill. I find it incomprehensible as to why the majority in this body continues to cut funding for public housing assistance at a time when people need it most. Do my colleagues realize that it costs much less to keep someone in a home or apartment than it does to put a roof over their head once they have become homeless? I ask: Where is Congress's commitment to keeping people in their homes? Where is our commitment to helping those most in need? If we are committed to them, then we certainly have a weird way of showing it around here. Later today, Representative Al Green and I are going to offer an amendment to restore funding for fair housing activities at HUD. I am hopeful that the House will approve our amendment along with others who would seek to restore funding for section 8 vouchers, rural housing programs, and the HOPE VI program, which is completely eliminated in this bill. Additionally, the underlying legislation cuts Amtrak's funding next year by more than one-third to a level that is barely half of what Amtrak has identified to continue operating at its current level. Yesterday in the Rules Committee, the subcommittee's ranking Democrat, my good friend, Representative Olver, asked that his amendment restoring $400 million in Amtrak funding cuts be made in order under the rule. Why did he need a waiver? Because unlike other amendments that will be offered today, Mr. Olver's amendment would have paid for itself by rolling back a small portion of the tax cuts to those making $1 million or more. The rule, however, blocks Mr. Olver from offering his amendment. As a result, the House will never have the opportunity to vote on restoring funding cuts to Amtrak. I find it so difficult to believe that we think that it is okay to have a secondhand rail system in this country. That is foolish. And somehow or another we must preserve the integrity of the last remaining rail system of consequence for people in a corridor to be transported. Finally, I intend to offer an amendment which prohibits the Federal Aviation Administration from consolidating or eliminating Terminal Radar Control Centers, or TRACONs, at airports in federally designated high threat urban areas. In some places, FAA's TRACON consolidation program is leaving entire States without an approach radar system to coordinate and oversee approaching air traffic in that State. In other instances, consolidation runs the risk of placing undue stress on nearby TRACONs already having to deal with larger air spaces and staffing shortfalls. The consolidation of these centers in high risk urban areas which are already considered to be at greater risk for terrorist attack or for natural disasters is not good policy. Do we really want to limit the capacity of our air traffic radar systems during national emergencies, especially if Congress can do something about it? I hope that my colleagues will support my amendment later today. Case in point. In West Palm Beach, Florida, what we find is that one is being consolidated into Miami. And if that whole radar system goes down, when we have a natural hurricane disaster, as is always the potential, then we do not have, if the Miami system goes down, the backup of the West Palm Beach radar system. Mr. Speaker, I find it very difficult to believe that FAA does not understand that. Mr. Speaker, in my 14 years in the House, I have been fond of saying that the budget and appropriations bills present Congress with the opportunity to outline its priorities. The underlying transportation appropriations bill provides the American people with the grim reality that the majority in this body would rather cut the taxes of those of us in our society who are better off financially, they would rather cut our taxes than pay for housing assistance programs which benefit the less fortunate in our country. This is not political rhetoric, as some on the other side of the aisle may suggest today. On the contrary, it is the obvious and very real fiscal mess which we have all brought upon ourselves. How we get out of this mess will be up to the American people in just a few short months. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), my good friend and classmate.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to Mr. Olver, I would just respond to my friend who brags about a 6 percent increase. He and I have districts that are very close to each other, we adjoin each other, but we evidently live in different sections of south Florida where fair housing programs are being cut in this program, with a 2.2 percent reduction. Community development financial assistance, a cut of $15\1/2\ million; tenant-based rental assistance program that you just talked about, my good friend from Florida, is funded at $14.3 billion. You say that is a great increase. Guess what the administration requested? $100 million more that they did not get. Project-based rental assistance is cut $200 million. Cost-share requirement for HUD earmark, the bill requires that HUD earmarks in the bill is subject to a 40 percent cost sharing. Rural housing received a cut. Public housing capital fund, $261 million, 10 percent below for fiscal year 2006. How in the world can you all make increases out of cuts, when in fact people are hurting and need adequate housing? Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida, my good friend, Mr. Diaz-Balart, for yielding me the time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a bit of trepidation about this rule and this process, which clearly circumvents the regular order of business of the House. I can find no reasonable explanation or sensible justification for going around the well-established rules of this body to bring the transportation appropriations bill to the floor today in this manner. The majority has been so kind in explaining why it believes that this martial law is needed. Unfortunately, the majority's explanation has fallen a bit short on convincing this side of the aisle that we need to do this today and not tomorrow. For the life of me, I can't figure out why this bill must come to the floor in this manner. It is, after all, only Tuesday. You would think that after controlling the House for 11 years that my friends in the majority would have figured out how to bring a nonemergency appropriations bill to the floor under regular order. Indeed, there is simply no good reason to handle these bills outside the normal parameters of the way the House should conduct its business. Moreover, when the House does operate this way, it effectively curtails our rights and responsibilities as serious legislators. When the leadership of this body bypasses the rules of regular order, as it is attempting to again do today, it really does discredit this great institution in which all of us are privileged to serve. Realize, Mr. Speaker, my concerns are not content but rather process. This martial law rule sends a false message to the American people that this is what the Framers intended when they envisioned the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives ought to be a body of thought and deliberation, where America's greatest needs are given proper consideration. Under the majority, however, thought and deliberation have been replaced by rubber stamps and obvious disorganization. This is not a good thing, and it is a disservice to the American people. I really do urge my colleagues to reject continued attempts to circumvent regular order in the House of Representatives. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I was trying to allow that we go a bit longer only for the reason that the next agenda matter is not present for us. I won't make an accusation that that allows that my friends in the majority are having difficulty in organizing their efforts. My good friend from Florida, for example, just commented that this has been a measure, or this is a measure, that was passed and that it has been known since June 9; and at the very same time, at the outset, you began by saying that we are in the process of determining what we are going to do before we report out the rule. You know, we use a lot of beltway language here, and for a long time I didn't believe that there was a beltway mentality. The tragedy is now I, as well as others that I know, have become a part of it. Let me say what I am talking about. When I say I am not talking about content, I am not talking about the substance of the transportation measure that is so critical to this Nation. What I really am talking about is the process where the Nation's representatives get an opportunity to speak on issues of vital concern. So, then, when we say that this rule circumvents regular order, as a general rule Jane and Joe Lunchbucket don't have a clue what we are talking about. So perhaps it would be helpful, since we have a little time, to explain to them what regular order would normally require for a nonemergency appropriations measure. The rule that we are getting ready to present this transportation measure under also called for same-day consideration of legislation providing for the Department of Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia and independent agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes. What it does is it circumvents one of the rules, which is 6(a) of rule XIII. That generally doesn't mean a thing to the American public, but let me tell them what it means. That rule requires a two-thirds vote in order to consider a rule on the same day reported from the Rules Committee. Two-thirds of the Members of this House would have to do that. What we are doing with this rule is we are waiving that two-thirds requirement and we are saying it is all right, you can bring up any of these things under the same-day rule because it doesn't require two-thirds of the Members. I can assure you if two-thirds of the membership were required in order for us to be able to proceed along regular order, it might not be difficult to achieve; but it would be fair for us to function that way. So we have ignored the process repeatedly here in the House of Representatives. And what that does is it creates a situation where Members in the House of Representatives who represent constituents don't get an opportunity to have their measures considered by the Rules Committee or by the House under regular order, thereby precluding them from having an opportunity to actually receive the best interests of their representative as it pertains to issues that are germane to their interests in their locales. That is a long way to describe that when you waive the process, you waive the rights of the people that we represent to have their representatives present their views here on the floor of the House of Representatives and to have this great deliberative body work its will. Therein lies the rub with this particular kind of process. It even has a distinct name: martial law. That sounds like something that is forcing something or requiring something to be done under the aegis of authoritarian rule. That is not right, and that is what we complain of, those of us that have the opportunity and privilege to do so in the Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, 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. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his response. Bill Gates and others in their eleemosynary undertakings do not have the responsibility that we do here in this body to undertake appropriate foreign undertakings. That said, I would at this time yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask a question. It is my belief that compared to gross domestic product that America spends less than 1 percent on the foreign relations and this particular matter. Do you feel, as I do, that we are pretty stingy compared to other countries when it comes to that measure? Everything you said is true, and all of those things are wonderful; but I still think that we are pretty stingy in this arena.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before I yield to my very good friend from New York, I would like to compliment my very good friend who just spoke, Mr. Kolbe, the chairperson of this particular committee, and compliment him for the 6 years of very active work on behalf of this country. I know for a fact that he did all that he could with what he had; and you are to be thanked, Jim, for your great service, and you will be missed sorely by all of us. However, I can honestly say I will not miss going on CODELs with you because of your indefatigable energy when we are on CODEL; and if we had the time, we could share some stories in that regard. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the foreign operations subcommittee.