Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) for yielding me the time. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as many in this body know, Representative Diaz-Balart and I are privileged to represent perhaps the most international region of our country in South Florida. It is therefore only fitting that the two of us be here today to manage this rule on the foreign operations appropriations bill. I look forward to a fruitful discussion with the gentleman on many important issues facing our Nation abroad. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great concern about the foreign operations appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007. While the other 10 appropriations bills fund our domestic priorities, the foreign operations bill outlines and fulfills our commitments abroad. It serves as Congress's most significant diplomatic statement each year. I just hope that the international community isn't listening this time around. The underlying legislation not only shortchanges funding for some of our country's most critical foreign programs by almost $2.4 billion, but it sends a clear message to our allies and enemies alike that the United States Congress is not seriously fulfilling America's commitment to the global community. I am certainly pleased that the bill has increased funding for development assistance, critically important child survival nonHIV/AIDS programs. It has increased funding for basic education programs and HIV/AIDS funding. Nevertheless, I remain concerned that we are not doing enough in other areas. The dramatic underfunding of critical programs throughout the underlying bill calls into question the House's commitment to refugee assistance, debt relief, democracy in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, the global environmental facility, and foreign aid in general. Let me drop a footnote there. The chair and the ranking member have done the best that they could with what they have, but it is the overall parameters and all of our responsibility here in the House that fails. Perhaps most troubling, these cuts dramatically hinder the President's ability to conduct the business of this country abroad. As our colleagues come to the floor today to discuss, debate, and consider the underlying legislation, I sincerely hope that they will look at the statement this bill is sending to the international community and reconsider some of these dramatic cuts. Mr. Speaker, for the last 2 years, I have had the great honor and privilege to serve as the president of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's parliamentary assembly. In this capacity I have traveled to 29 countries in Europe, the former Soviet Union, and Central Asia; I have met with heads of state, foreign ministers, ambassadors, colleagues of foreign parliaments, our ambassadors, and interest groups throughout the OSCE region. If I have learned anything during this time, it is that the principles of freedom and democracy in many places in this world are still struggling to break free from the bondages of oppression and tyranny. Today is a day when American leadership in the world is desperately needed. In the former Soviet Union, many states are struggling desperately to establish solid democratic foundations. How is Congress helping them? By cutting economic aid to eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union countries by a total of $202 million from last year's level. At a time when African nations are being forced to allocate well over 50 percent of their annual budgets to repay debt to western countries, how is Congress helping? By cutting debt relief funding by more than $44 million to a level that is more than $160 million less than President Bush's request. Throughout the world, the number of refugees fleeing across borders to escape persecution and poverty is increasing, yet the House is now poised to reduce the United States' commitment to international refugee assistance by almost $33 million, $82 million less than President Bush's request. In Sudan and Congo, innocent people are dying for no reason other than the color of their skin or the religion that they practice, but our financial commitment to them continues to fall short. How about the Millennium Challenge Account? As my colleagues will recall, Congress established the account in January 2004, and through fiscal year 2006 has underfunded the account by $2.6 billion. The underlying legislation, as has been the case in the past, again shortchanges the Millennium Challenge Account by $1 billion. And don't even get me started on the bill's rescinding of $188 million in already appropriated dollars to the World Bank. No wonder so many in the world have really stopped looking at us as a place of hope and compassion and reliability. As the lone superpower in the world, Mr. Speaker, we must not allow ourselves to become encapsulated in the philosophy of leadership by force. Our military must not only be the strongest in the world, and they are, and today I compliment the special forces for their extraordinary efforts in bringing to ultimate justice a person that was an ultimate terrorist, but so must our diplomacy be strong and the best in the world. America's willingness and sincere interest to utilize the voices of reason and persuasion over the barrel of a gun must be guided by sound principle in its foreign policy. The underlying legislation, not the defense appropriations bill as some in this body may want you to believe, in my judgment, is the greatest tool that Congress has in its box to show the world true American strength. Whether or not we choose to maximize this tool is, frankly, up to us. I fear, however, that the underlying legislation comes up dramatically short of what needs to be done. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to my good friend from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am privileged to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have listened to this debate rather repeatedly over the years, and I still am trying to determine how it is that my colleagues on the other side persist in having politics triumph over geology. I know of no substantial study that demonstrates that there would be a sufficient amount of oil that would cause substantial price decreases in gas at the pump. Given its wildest potential, even the most optimistic, it would be well into the future, probably as late as 2012 before a single drop of oil would go into a refinery and then a gas tank. There is so much to be said for the fact that this Arctic reserve, in its pristine form, is among the last natural habitats that the United States has preserved. Unfortunately, in my State, every day that I pass on a road, I see more and more ecosystem destroyed so that we can build more and cause substantial damage to the environment. Those of us who speak of environmental degradation do so with great passion, recognizing the significant need that we have as a country to produce alternative energy sources and to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. That is a real concern that I believe my colleagues and the majority and those of us in the minority share. How you get there is not through a ruse, in the final analysis, and that is what ANWR is, because no one has been able, with the exception of one drilling action that took place in 1998 that has been a closely held secret, no one has been able to really tell any of us how much oil is there. Given the best amount, it would be 10 billion barrels, which doesn't come close to what the problem is, and that is of the significant amount of coastal oil that exists off the shore of California and Florida in the gulf, and that is over 70 billion barrels by scientific estimate. So, basically, what my colleagues want to do and what the administration wants to do is stick its nose under the tent and drill in a pristine area and then lift the moratoria that exists in California and Florida for offshore drilling. I don't know how long many of us have been in Congress or will be here, but I don't believe that it is wise policy for us to damage our environment for political gain and to do so in a political season, when, in fact, we know that what we do, even if this were to pass, and I call on my colleagues to defeat this rule, even if it were to pass, we know full well that it will not provide what is needed for us all. I might add that the administration seems to be going in a different direction than many of the oil companies. Significant numbers of them, ConocoPhillips, for example, has stopped its financial support of Arctic power; Chevron, Texaco, BP, long active in Alaska, moved their executives to Houston from Alaska for the reason that they no longer feel that they are going to be able to produce the kinds of results that had been predicted. ExxonMobil has shown little public enthusiasm for the refuge. I don't know if this enthusiasm that is coming from the other side is motivated by reality, but I do know this: It has a lot to do with politics and very little to do with geological realities. Let us defeat this rule and defeat this substantive measure for the 12th time and be prepared to do so the 13th, because I am sure my colleagues will bring it back.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Before yielding to my distinguished friend, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a March 20th report in The New York Times, byline reading ``North Slope Oil Spill Raises New Concerns Over Pipeline Maintenance;'' and equally from yesterday's Wall Street Journal, the ``EPA and the FBI Check Allegations of Improper Repair Work on Two Big Storage Tanks.'' For all my colleagues that talk about all this environmental protection, I would like for them to read these two articles.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), my good friend, for yielding me the time. You know, it is not often that I find myself quoting the distinguished President Ronald Reagan, but this morning, I just cannot help myself. I feel like I must say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, ``well, there you go again.'' It was just 1 week ago today that Mr. Bishop and I were discussing the merits of drilling for oil and natural gas on the beaches of Florida or California and elsewhere. Thoughtfully, the House rejected that shortsighted and ill-conceived plan and left my Republican colleagues looking elsewhere on the map to score political points while doing absolutely nothing to help consumers or develop sound energy policy. Of course, should ill-conceived ideas and shortsighted plans ever start selling for $75 a barrel, I would like the drilling rights to the Republican party platform. Madam Speaker, there are so many things wrong with this bill, it is almost like I do not know where to start. So much to criticize, so little time. For starters, let us take a look at how this bill might benefit our country, using the most wildly optimistic predictions of how much extractable oil there is in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Using the Bush administration's own estimates, which are probably inflated like some of the other Bush predictions we have heard over the past 5 years, there are 10.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil in ANWR. If this is accurate, then in 20 years, our reliance on foreign oil would be reduced from, get this, Madam Speaker, reduced from 60 percent to 57 percent and would likely result in gas prices being reduced by, again, using administration estimates, one penny per gallon. Well, on behalf of the American people, let me just say thank you for the relief at the pump in the year 2025. Using less optimistic predictions, being more conservative if you will, there may be only 3.2 billion barrels of recoverable oil in ANWR or roughly 6 months of oil based on our current consumption. This is the silver bullet to our Nation's energy concerns? Once again, like with the immigration issue, this administration and this Congress seem to only be moved to action when an issue becomes a political crisis. Both of these issues obviously have been a public policy crisis for years, but it is election year, isn't it? Some pay more attention to the needs of the American people when their jobs are on the line in 5 months from now. You know what I find most interesting, Madam Speaker? It is the tepid support by energy companies for this proposal. Most of the major oil companies have recently pulled up stakes in Alaska. They have already come to the conclusion that this Congress will probably come to, I would think, in maybe 5 years and another 24 votes. It just does not make economic sense to drill in Alaska. BP, Amoco, Texaco and Chevron, among others, are examples of companies that are questioning their former commitment to drilling in the ANWR. Here is one of my favorites, Madam Speaker, and I would advise my colleagues on the other side to pay attention because I am about to mention one of the most hallowed names from your point of view. A former petroleum engineer from Halliburton, a company that heretofore has not seen a patch of land they did not want to exploit, said recently, ``The enthusiasm of government officials about ANWR exceeds that of industry because oil companies are driven by market forces, investing resources in direct proportion to the economic potential, and the evidence so far about ANWR is not promising.'' But you know, Madam Speaker, I am not as naive as some of my colleagues may think. I know this bill is not as much about Alaska as it is about Florida and California's outer continental shelf. I said it last week, and I will repeat it again today, this bill is simply trying to get the nose under the tent and using that approach. It has been widely reported, without much argument, that opening up ANWR to oil drilling is simply a political ploy to opening the door to areas that allegedly have more promise, which brings us right back to where we were last week until our colleagues Adam Putnam, Lois Capps and Jim Davis helped to straighten things out. Finally, Madam Speaker, to add insult to injury, the Rules Committee Republicans have shut out the American people from offering thoughtful alternatives to their risky scheme in the ANWR. Despite having no legislative business on the House floor tomorrow, none, no legislative business tomorrow, yes, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, Congress is taking another Friday off. Despite this fact, the leadership brings this bill to the floor under a closed rule. That means no duly elected Member of this body, Republican, Democrat or Independent, will have the opportunity to amend this bill. You heard me right. If any of 300 million Americans had a different idea about what to do about this bill, their elected representative in this House of Representatives is prohibited from offering an alternative, a change, a better plan. And we call this democracy? Madam Speaker, for the reasons I have already articulated and for so many others that I am sure many of my colleagues will point out, we are prescribed by time constraints and, therefore, cannot discuss them all, but I urge any Member of this House who has any other idea about sound energy policy to oppose this closed rule and the underlying bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, Madam Speaker, but I do want to point out to my colleague, in light of the fact that he did not yield to me and that is why I reserve the right to object, that the 90-10 royalty reality was in the form of an amendment that my colleagues chose not to make in order so that we could settle that issue. You point to it rightly as a very significant issue, and the 50-50 split would enhance the opportunities of the American public. Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the Interior appropriations bill is currently funded at $145 million below the fiscal year 2006 level and $800 million below the level that is needed just to maintain current services. These shortfalls will negatively impact our national parks and forests, critical environment and conservation programs, clean water programs, and services for Native Americans. Mr. Speaker, the Obey amendment would restore $800 million to the bill to ensure that these vital programs and services are able to continue at current levels, and that amendment is fully paid for by reducing the tax break given to those fortunate individuals among us with incomes more than $1 million annually. Their generous tax savings, which average $114,000, would be reduced by $2,000, certainly a small sacrifice to maintain these essential programs and services. I want to assure my colleagues that a ``no'' vote will not prevent us from considering the Interior appropriations bill under an open rule, but a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote on Representative Obey's amendment. However, a ``yes'' vote will block consideration of this amendment to restore severe funding shortfalls in this bill. 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 at this time to yield to my good friend from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) 3 minutes.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, my very good friend, Mr. Obey from Wisconsin, 4 minutes.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), my good friend, the ranking member of the relevant subcommittee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend and fellow member on the Rules Committee, the gentlemen from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah, my friend Mr. Bishop, for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule, not because of what it allows, but rather because of what it blocks. I am also inclined to oppose the underlying legislation, not because of the process, but rather because of the lack of progress which we have made in the last year in our efforts to protect and improve our environment. Nearly 1 year ago to the day, I stood on this floor also with the gentleman from Utah when the House considered the fiscal year 2006 Interior, Environment and related agencies appropriations bill. Under that bill, $240 million had been cut from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. Conservation funding was approximately $750 million below, or less than half of what was promised when Congress passed the Conservation and Restoration Act of 2000, and, overall, EPA's budget had been cut by $300 million. Today, the House is being asked to consider an Interior appropriations bill that is even worse. Indeed, this is not by any fault of the Appropriations Committee, but it is the fault of the majority in this body, which has tied our hands in a knot of fiscal irresponsibility. If this rule passes, the House will be forced to consider an Interior appropriations bill that not only includes the massive cuts from last year, but actually cuts these programs even more, so that my friends in the majority can pay for their massive tax cuts to the very wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. The underlying legislation cuts the Clean Water State Revolving Fund by another $199 million, to a level that is more than $660 million less than it was in 2001. The bill cuts funding for the Land Water Conservation Fund by $28 million, to a level that is $90 million less than it was in 2001. Overall funding for Federal land acquisition aimed at helping States preserve open spaces is cut in this bill by $98 million, a level that is more than $400 million less than 2001. This is an 86 percent cut in funding, Mr. Speaker; 86 percent. Certainly it just can't be true that only Democrats care about preserving our lands so that future generations will enjoy them. Yet where is the outrage from the majority Members of the other side of the aisle? Yesterday evening, the ranking Democrat of the Appropriations Committee submitted an amendment to the Rules Committee that restored $800 million in funding cuts to these and other critically needed environmental programs. Mr. Obey's amendment, most importantly, was revenue neutral and would have required not one penny of additional cuts in this or any other bill. During the hearing, however, Rules Committee Republicans, along a straight party line vote, blocked Representative Obey from offering his amendment. I am also troubled by language in the bill which overrules longstanding Presidential and Congressional moratoria for drilling for natural gas on the Outer Continental Shelf. This provision will permit drilling to occur as close as 3 miles to the shores of coastal States, including my home State of Florida. In doing so, the health of Florida's beaches and tourism industry, the largest industry in our State, will be in direct danger. Let there be no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker: Drilling for natural gas on the Outer Continental Shelf will have zero impact at the gas pumps. It will not under any circumstances reduce the cost of a gallon of gasoline. I say if supporters of lifting those moratoria are serious about reducing our dependence on foreign energy supplies then they should join me and others in calling for increased fuel conservation and investment in mass transit and alternative energy sources. Mr. Speaker, while I cannot speak on behalf of every Member of Florida's delegation, I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of us in Florida and our citizens and our Governor do not want offshore oil drilling in Florida, and we intend to do whatever is necessary to strip this provision from the bill today. Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I failed to mention that I am extremely grateful that under this bill Congress furthers its commitment to restoring Florida's Everglades. This is a project that is absolutely crucial to the environment and to the potable fresh water supply of many south Florida and Treasure Coast communities in my district. My constituents and I deeply appreciate Chairman Taylor and Representative Dicks' continued efforts in this area. Equally. I was also very pleased to learn that the committee has restored the President's proposed budget cut for the Office of Environmental Justice at EPA and included the limitation language that I offered last year ensuring that EPA respects the needs of the environmental justice community. Yet despite these positive provisions, Mr. Speaker, this bill is an overall disappointment. I firmly believe that the appropriators did the best they could do with what we gave them to work with. Nevertheless, I find it offensive that the majority of this body is more concerned today about protecting $114,000 tax cuts for people making more than $1 million than fully funding programs which ensure that all Americans have access to clean air and drinking water. Enforcement is not free, and neither is environmental restoration. Everyone in America shares in the responsibility of contributing her or his own share. Is there anybody in this body who is unwilling to pay just a little more to ensure that everyone in America has clean air to breathe and safe water to drink? If given the chance, who would not be willing to pool her resources with others in her neighborhood to collectively ensure that everyone has safe drinking water, or that no child will be forced to grow up playing in backyards polluted by dangerous levels of mercury and other toxins? If the budget is about priorities, Mr. Speaker, then appropriations bills are about fiscal reality. The fiscal reality of this bill and the appropriations bill that will soon follow are that America is in trouble with the majority at the helm. Their fiscal mismanagement has placed the wishes of wealthy individuals, and I question that. I do not know whether wealthy people have made these requests. Most wealthy people I know are willing to share their resources for the collective needs of their respective communities. Is there something in the DNA here in the majority that allows them to decide that wealthy people ought be prioritized over the collective needs of a community? The underlying legislation is, unfortunately, only the first of 11 installments this year of the grim reality of which Democrats have warned for the last 5 years. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to understand that before we finish this appropriations process all of us will understand those grim realities, for the chickens are coming home to roost. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. Speaker, I will be calling for a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so we can consider Mr. Obey's amendment to restore vital funding to the Interior appropriations bill, the amendment that was rejected in the Rules Committee last night on a straight party-line vote. I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote.