Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota, my classmate and friend, Mr. Pomeroy.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), my very good friend.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would urge my colleague from Pennsylvania to understand that tourism is the major industry in Florida, and offshore gas drilling is nothing but the nose under the tent. There is no such thing as just gas drilling, and I do not have enough time, if you could get some time from Mr. Bishop, I would be happy to engage you ad nauseam on this subject, but when Mr. Peterson says that it is not going to be environmentally harmful, offshore gas drilling routinely dumps into the ocean spent drilling muds containing vast quantities of mercury and other toxins, contaminated produced waters that often contain radium and other dangerous substances, and additional harmful marine discharges that include benzene, toluene, lead, cadmium, and zinc. Maybe Pennsylvania does not have the tourist industry that we do because that is right, you do not have an offshore. We do in Florida, and we are going to protect it. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson), my good friend.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the Chairman, and I rise in support of the CBC morally and fiscally responsible budget. (Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. And we have secured the deficit that you created, or maybe it was George Washington. Mr. Speaker, 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. A joint effort speaking well for divided government, and the precursor to what is coming in November when doubtless we have divided government again.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Reclaiming my time to ask a question. Are you saying that those tax cuts didn't help this country?

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, in large measure to respond to the distinguished chairman from California, who is my friend. The arguments that Chairman Dreier makes, among other things, are that Ms. Slaughter's and my arguments are tired in the sense that from an ideological point of view, we somehow or another don't understand the dynamics of wage payers providing for wage earners. Mr. Speaker, we don't have the time to go into every nuance of persons who make a lot of money. But a lot of people that make a lot of money that are going to benefit from this tax don't hire anybody because they don't own any businesses. They have been legatees. Some of them were born rich, and all they have ever had to do is invest. But some people were born poor and have never had an opportunity to get out of that. In essence, I believe that most Americans are willing to share. Evidence the fact that until very recently, we have been the greatest givers to charity, not the government, but individuals, and that is small and large contributors to charity. We know that there are great moral standards in this country, and among them is the fact that we, as a community, care about each other. But you cannot convince me that you have been good economic stewards of the revenue that has come into this country. And, Mr. Chairman, you can't have it both ways. If, as some would argue, the distinguished late President Ronald Reagan's economic policies were successful, and they were successful, those, in part, would argue because of a reduction in taxes, and at that particular time, you argue everything that happened, and you somehow skip over the success of the 1990s, I question whether or not you are mindful that during that period of time taxes were increased. I was here, you were here when Marjorie Margolis Mezvinsky walked down this aisle in tears and cast her vote and didn't come back here. But the economy in this country took off, and we had a dynamic surplus when Bill Clinton went out of office. Now, I don't know how you account for the trickle down of Ronald Reagan and then the fact that there was the gap that you don't allow for. But I am asking you to, at the very least, allow for the success during the Clinton administration that nobody can deny. And you can't deny that when you came into power with this President, we had a surplus, and today we have deficits as far as the eye can see. The American public will eventually understand that we are going to pay for this stuff. And you know where President Bush is going to be? He is going to be back at his ranch. He is going to be doing good things for America as a civilian in 2009 when the baby boomers hit and all of this stuff hits the fan. Just one more thing. This chart reflects, and I ask you to refute it if you can, Mr. Chairman, that income in dollars, 2005, the average tax saving for people making 10,000 to 20,000 is $2; 20,000 to 30,000, $9; 30,000 to 40,000, $16; 40,000 to 50,000, $46; 75,000 to 100,000; $403. 100,000 to 200,000, $1,388; $1 million, $41,977. Now, millionaires have a right to have all the money that they can. But if you ask them, I believe that they want to share it with the poor. I believe they want to see that other 50 percent who do not have affordable housing have affordable housing. I think they want to help to cure the problems of AIDS. I don't think that they want to see people pushed out into the streets in nursing homes. I don't think that they want to see the suffering that is going on in the insufferable triumvirate of inadequate jobs, inadequate education and inadequate housing. There may be this big boom on Wall Street, but on Main Street, there is hell to pay.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. And are you saying that those tax increases that you voted against and I voted for did not cause this economy to boom? If we use that argument, my mom used to say something to me that was really interesting. She said, All you all do is go up there and say that the other people did it if it is bad, and if it is good, you did it. If you use the doctrine of relating back, then if Bush didn't cause the deficit and Clinton didn't cause the surplus, and former President Bush didn't cause anything, and Reagan caused the economy to take off, by that standard, George Washington did it. My goodness gracious, man. The 1990s were real.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Absolutely not.

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 and remind the chairman just one thing: I think everybody in America knows the difference between $9 and $42,000, and under the AMT provision, persons making $40,000-$50,000 get $9. Under the AMT provisions, people making between $500,000 and $1 million get $42,000. That is not rocket science. That is real money that is not going to middle class people. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the ranking member of the Rules Committee, who can talk about industrial circumstances in her district.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. If the chairman will continue to yield, in the calculations under the AMT as he proposes they will get between $9 and $14. That person in the middle class, how in the world is that helping them?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. When you speak of the middle class, what is the income of the middle class?

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I hear you, but what you ignore is the fact that when President Bush took office we had a surplus in this Nation and now we have deficits. I mean, we cannot keep swiping the Chinese, Japanese, Saudi Arabian card to pay for the war. You cannot have guns and butter, and I think we have proved that more times than one in this Nation. Insofar as your argument about the wealthiest paying more taxes, let me just give you today's Washington Post and the analysis that they put forward and just use as a ``for example'' someone making $40,000 to $50,000. Their average tax savings under this particular measure will be $46. That amounts to just a little bit more than a tank of gas if you ain't driving an SUV, but someone who makes $500,000 to $1 million gets $41,000. The persons, Jane Lunch Bucket and Joe Lunch Bucket, who are in the category of $20,000 to $30,000 get $9. They cannot even buy 3 gallons of gasoline. The Palm Beach Post front page reads today, ``Farm Workers Still Waiting on FEMA Aid,'' and I know that all too well from the calls in my office every day. So maybe some of my constituents in Bell Glade and Pahokee and Clewiston and South Bay and Canal Point might like to see a slice of this $70 billion kickback we are giving to the most well off in this country. In the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, a large newspaper where Clay Shaw and Debbie Wasserman Schultz and I represent that area, are reports on a theft at a homeless shelter which led to $3,000 worth of spoiled food. So while we give roughly $42,000 tax cuts for those in the country making more than $1 million, a footnote right there: People making $1 million have not been flooding our offices with calls saying give me some more money. They are willing to share. But what we have gotten into is an argument here that seems to make it sound like we do not like rich people. All of us wish we were rich people, but what we are saying is that rich people have the same responsibility as all of us do in sharing and caring about the least of us in this society. People in south Florida and throughout this country are going to go hungry tonight while we go about our business here allegedly fixing their problem. My Republican friends have and will continue to argue all today that these irresponsible tax cuts establish a strong economy and are necessary to continue this myth of growth. That is just plain old hocus-pocus, and the money that you talk about is funny money, phony money, because the deficit absorbs it any way you look at it economically. Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ. Facts can be stubborn things, but I think we ought to discuss them anyway. Since this President began to work with this rubber-stamp Congress, 1 million more Americans are unemployed today than there were in January 2001. Last night, I said to the chairman, if this economy is so good, why is it I feel so broke, and I make $165,000 a year, like every other Member of the House of Representatives, and am barely able to have minimum discretionary income. 5.4 million more Americans live in poverty today than they did 6 years ago, and 6 million more Americans are without health insurance. Some 45 million Americans in all are uninsured. And these are things we should be proud of? These are signs of a strong economy? Where is the shame? Better yet, where is the decency to those that are the least among us in this society? How dare we absorb resources to our wealthy selves and cut spending when people here and all over the world expect better of the United States of America. Some of the same money could be used to take care of the impoverished conditions and the significant number of people that have been pushed into lower than middle class or you could argue intent to eliminate the middle class in this country. Mr. Speaker, I recognize that others want to speak on this critical issue so I will not go on longer right now. I think, however, that the distinguished Senator in the other body, Ms. Snowe from Maine, summed it up perfectly yesterday when criticizing this bill. After reflecting on the fact that the preponderance of the benefits of this bill go to upper income people, Senator Snowe said simply, ``It's a question of priorities.'' Indeed, it is, Mr. Speaker. We should prioritize those Americans who have the greatest needs, not those who have the greatest wealth, and when I hear the rest of what my colleagues are going to say, they are going to say all the things we are going to do before we get out of here and go have our death grip fight in November about we are going to fix it for the poor. In the meantime, some more poor just got poorer and some more rich just got richer. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time,

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I have been very generous in yielding, and I hope at some point in the future you will do likewise.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the chairman simply by saying that you ignore the fact that the deficits are sky high in this surge of revenue of which you speak, and the needs, I might add, of those that are most vulnerable in our society have not been reduced. The poor and the near poor are feeling the effects of us, and what we are really doing is we are taking care of the wealthiest people in our society. As a matter of fact, we fall in that category. Those of us that make $165,000 a year here, we are getting the benefit, and the people at the bottom that we are going to cut the services to are getting hurt.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my good friend and namesake from the State of Washington for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed rule and the underlying legislation. At the outset, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I truly do not question the motives of my Republican colleagues who genuinely believe, in my judgment, that the legislation they might pass later today will make for good public policy. I do not impugn their motives or question their determination regarding this issue, but I do quite frankly question their fiscal sanity. It is my belief that cutting taxes to the tune of $70 billion at a time of war and staggering human needs is, well, just financially crazy for a governmental body. Last week, we debated port security on the floor of this House, and I heard many of my Republican colleagues say that we did not have the money to inspect all incoming containers. Well, here apparently is some extra money for that purpose. We hear almost daily from the President that the so-called war on terrorism costs a lot of money. In fact, we face emergency spending bills on a near monthly basis in this place. Maybe instead of having the Chinese bankroll us until they call in their chips we should use some of the $70 billion that we are prepared now to give to the wealthiest Americans. Today's headlines in all three of the biggest papers in south Florida that is represented by Republicans and Democrats, half and half alike, those papers announced the need for more Federal dollars, not a curtailing of services which this bill will ultimately mandate. The Miami Herald front page says, ``Miami Dade 911 System Experiencing Difficulties.'' Maybe they could use a few of these $70 billion to help upgrade critical emergency communications in the Nation's eighth largest county.