Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, because I believe in the first amendment. That was the first thing done in the United States Constitution; and I believe that in 1777, when the Founders of this Nation established the flag as our symbol that they were correct then and they are correct now. I do not know whether my colleague was on the floor when I said to him, and I rather suspect he was not, that I resent flag burning, but I respect rights, and I will respect the rights of individuals within the framework of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights for as long as I am here. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), my colleague.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. That is my point, reclaiming my time, among others. This is not something that happens frequently. We begin this debate today as patriotic Americans, you and I, Dr. Gingrey, and the other 433 Members, voting Members of the House of Representatives, and the five delegates to this House. We began this day with one of our celebrated ideals. It was in 1777 that the Founding Fathers of this Nation determined that there should be a flag as a symbol. Symbol, that is what it is. All of us abhor desecration of the flag. Desecrating the flag is disrespectful and downright disgusting. But I am curious, because I asked two people in my district, knowing that I would be handling this rule, to observe on their way to work on June 14 the number of people that flew their flags. It is astounding, all of this talk about the flag, and how few people on June 14, that is just recently, on Flag Day, flew their flags. I am curious, I wonder how many Members did that as well. We begin this debate today with an unresolved war in Afghanistan and Iraq. We begin this debate today with Americans dying in Iraq and Afghanistan and families crying as a result thereof. We begin this day with the President of the United States saying that we have a Social Security crisis, and one would argue not against the notion that Social Security needs to be reformed in an appropriate manner by the body. We began this day with a serious Medicaid crisis in this country which we are not addressing. We began this day with an equally serious Medicare crisis which we are not addressing. We began this day with AIDS raging throughout this country, and sexually transmitted diseases are ripe in our society; and we are not doing as much as we can about it. But yet we come to debate embedding the flag in our precious Constitution in as far as its desecration is concerned. We begin this debate with millions of Americans without jobs. Some unemployed, some underemployed, and some never to be employed again as a result of the laws of industry in this country from a manufacturing point of view. This debate begins with oil magnates and their companies receiving their highest profit ever in the history of this country, and American drivers paying the highest prices ever for gasoline; and yet we do not have an energy policy, and other than a handful of us, including myself, no one is introducing legislation to address the high cost of gasoline. We began this debate today with more than 40 million Americans without health care, 2 million Americans in jail, millions of children dropping out of school. And the best we can do is stir up emotions and divisions by holding a debate about our precious flag. Nothing in the way of positive understandings is coming about as far as immigration problems in this country. So, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the underlying resolution. I firmly believe that passing this bill would abandon the very values and principles upon which this country was founded. Make no mistake, all of us, as I have said, abhor the desecration of the flag. The flag is a symbol of our country and a reminder of our great heritage. When I graduated from high school in 1954, my assigned topic at that graduation had to do with the song, ``The Old Flag Never Touched the Ground.'' When Frances Scott Key wrote the Star Spangled Banner,'' the flag was tattered and torn; when it was raised in Montezuma or at Arlington Cemetery, all of us are proud every day that that flag flies over this Capitol and elsewhere. I find it unfortunate that a few individuals choose to desecrate that which we hold so dear. However, it is because of my love for the flag and the country for which it stands that unfortunately I have no choice but to oppose this well-intentioned, yet misguided, legislation. Our country was founded on certain principles. Our Founders had the broadest visionary scope of their times. Chief among these principles are freedom of speech and expression. These freedoms were included in the Bill of Rights because the Founding Fathers took deliberate steps to avoid creating a country in which individuals' civil liberties could be abridged by the government. Yet, that is exactly what this amendment would do. In my opinion, it begins a dangerous trend in which the government can decide which ideas are legal and which must be suppressed. I believe that the true test of a nation's commitment to freedom of expression is shown through its willingness to protect ideas which are unpopular, such as flag desecration. When I was a lawyer, I represented a member of the Ku Klux Klan, because they would not let him put his ad on a Negro station at that time that was owned by members of the Jewish faith. I won that lawsuit, and I stood for his rights, because I knew if they took his rights away, it would be just a matter of time before they could be able to take mine away. As the Supreme Court Justice, the eminent Oliver Wendell Holmes, wrote in 1929, it is an imperative principle of our Constitution, that it protects not just freedom for thought and expression we agree with, but freedom for the thoughts we hate. To the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), you and I and all of our colleagues hate it when someone burns a flag. I remember the very last time that I saw one burned sitting in my living room with my mom. And almost without hesitation, both of us referred to those people as fools, and we used choice words in front of the word fools. Throughout this debate, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that some of our colleagues are going to try to paint some of us Democrats as unpatriotic. They will tell the American people that because we support the protection of our civil liberties and the constitutional right for an American to burn her flag, we are therefore not loyal citizens. They will demagogue us, and some may even accuse the judiciary, a separate and equal branch of government established under article 3 of the Constitution, of being a body filled with activist judges because the highest court in our land has already said that the act of burning an American flag is permissible under the first amendment of the Constitution. To those who intend to levy such artificial claims, I say shame on you. You see, Mr. Speaker, this Congress and the Bush administration loves draping itself in the flag when talking about troops and terrorism. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, if they so choose to do that. Yet this is the same administration that while standing, as the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) did just a moment ago, in his comments talking about our troops who are dying for us to have the right to be here, and you and I and all of our colleagues are proud of the fact that we can serve in this United States Congress, and there are people as we speak, and certainly more than 1,700 Americans have died in Iraq, and some substantial number in Afghanistan, and, yet, when they come home to Dover, Delaware, with flag-draped coffins, this administration who is so proud of the flag and all of you who would support its being made a part of a Constitution, refuses to let the public see the pictures of those persons with those flag-draped coffins, and I might add, punishes the media for trying to access them. The hypocrisy is so thick, that you can choke on it. Last night in the Committee on Rules, I offered an amendment to the underlying legislation and I said to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) that I found a way that I can support his measure to put the flag in the Constitution. It came by way of an incident that occurred in Durham, North Carolina on May 25 of this year. Three crosses were burned in Durham; one in front of a church, designed to intimidate people. The cross, the precious cross was burned. And yet we find ourselves here talking about the flag. I wonder about my colleagues which offends them more; or do they, as they do me, both offend me highly. In 2003, the United States Supreme Court upheld a Virginia law banning cross burning in Virginia. The court ruled the burning of a cross by a terrorist organization such as the Ku Klux Klan is not protected by the first amendment because of the maliciousness and intent to intimidate behind the action. Justice Sandra O'Connor wrote in the majority's opinion, ``While a burning cross does not inevitably convey a message of intimidation, often the cross burner intends that the recipients of the message fear for their lives. And when a cross burning is used to intimidate, few if any messages are more powerful.'' Mr. Speaker, as I began my discussion with my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), I asked, When was the last time we saw a flag burn? I have not seen a flag burning in America. And I might add, when it burns abroad it offends me just as much as when it burns in this country, but I have not seen one of those desecrations in quite some time. But cross burnings continue to plague the South and are used by hate groups to incite, intimidate, and, in some instances, harm and murder. Despite this real epidemic, Congress has always been silent on the issue. Had my amendment been made in order, and it was not considered to be made in order in the Committee on Rules, the House would have been able to debate this important issue for the first time. The House will not be debating that issue, nor will we be debating the myriad of other issues of critical importance to the American people. There are so many other things that this body could be doing today instead of drawing up another way to impede our constitutionally protected rights. We could be expanding veterans health care benefits. We could be increasing military pay. We could be providing our soldiers with adequate body armor and protection. We could be improving our schools, creating incentives for affordable housing, ensuring our seniors have long-term health care. We could be completing a transportation reauthorization bill and new school construction. These are just a few of the things, in addition to others that I have mentioned, that we could be doing. Mr. Speaker, are we so insecure in our own patriotism that seeing someone else burning a flag will lead us to question our commitment to this great Nation? Let us ask ourselves the question, What is America? We know that its symbol stands tall no matter the circumstances. I love this country and everything our flag stands for, even the things with which I do not agree, and they are numerous; for better or for worse, that is the cost we pay for democracy. I ask you to please consider, when you are talking about putting something in the United States Constitution, that you get past political rhetoric and that you understand the serious dynamics that are involved when we are talking about asking two-thirds of the States in this country and two-thirds of this body and the other body to pass something that will allow us to become more insecure. I tell you, when I see somebody burn the flag, it makes me mad; it does not make me insecure. And that is what ought cause us to be reaching across to each other, because it is at that one point in time when somebody desecrates the flag that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) and I have the exact same view, and that is everybody that is here. Therefore, it is a uniting thing, not a dividing thing between the first amendment rights of people. Civil liberties are important. I do not like the fools who burn the flag, but I will stand up and protect their right to do so because to take their right means one day somebody might try to take mine. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Gross Overcharging Undermines Gasoline Economics, or GOUGE Act. As the travel season approaches, many children are out of school and families are happily looking forward to vacations. What they won't be happy about is the skyrocketing cost of getting to their destinations. Unfortunately, whether traveling on the road or in the air, this summer's vacationers will be hit hard by the escalating cost of gasoline. From March to April of 2005, the cost to fill up a tank of gas rose by more than 10 percent. That's more than twice the increase for the same period last year! But the detrimental effects of high gas prices don't just stop at the pump--they domino throughout every segment of the economy. For a basic item like a loaf of bread, it costs more to fertilize the wheat, more to transport the wheat to the baker, more for the plastic bag to package the bread, and more to get it to the grocery store. Meanwhile, President Bush has suggested little to lessen the impact of high gas prices. In fact, the President doesn't believe anything can be done. In April 2005, he was quoted as saying, ``An energy bill wouldn't change the price at the pump today. I know that and you know that.'' With all due respect, Mr. President, plenty can and must be done. The Internet is full of comments from people reporting sudden gasoline price increases. In some cases, consumers have witnessed a 10-cent increase in less than 24 hours. There is no possible reason or explanation for these overnight increases. While states across the country are doing what they can to deal with complaints, they have limited recourse to make lasting, beneficial changes until there are consistent federal guidelines. The GOUGE Act that I am introducing today addresses federal guidelines against gas gouging in four parts. First, the bill imposes a penalty on gas retailers who raise prices on any given day at a rate that is twice the inflation rate. Prices are compared to a base price index derived from the contract price on the New York Mercantile Exchange and adjusted for regional variances. These variances take into account stringent pollution controls, altitude requirements, and special reformulations across the country. The penalties would be no less than $5000 for the 1st offense, no less than $10,000 for the 2nd offense, and no less than $25,000 for the 3rd offense or thereafter. A steady supply of oil is critical to cost effective gasoline production as well as national security. The second part of my bill helps to ensure this supply through use of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). Following the oil embargo in 1975, the SPR was created to provide a domestic inventory of crude oil, and was intended to be used in emergency situations when the supply of crude oil to the United States is disrupted. The first such use of the SPR was in 1991 during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait by then President George H. W. Bush. The current Administration, however, has a very different policy on the SPR. In November 2001, President George W. Bush ordered the SPR be filled to its current 700 million barrel capacity with oil from the government's share federally leased oil sites. Since then, maintaining this capacity has had a detrimental affect on oil price increases. First, continuing to fill the SPR at the same time it is 98% full takes oil from the open market, decreasing supply and thereby potentially increasing prices. Second, these additional fills to the SPR are being made while crude prices remain high and volatile. My bill suspends these new fills and releases an additional million barrels per day onto the open market for 30 days to significantly ease market concerns that lead to artificially inflated prices. The laws of supply and demand clearly support this idea as a basic tenet of economics. Third, the GOUGE Act directs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to report on anti-trust practices throughout the oil industry and to make recommendations to protect consumers from price gouging. This report is essential for putting the oil industry on notice and developing sound federal price gouging legislation. Finally, my legislation establishes a Pricing and Economic Impact Commission to review the effect of oil supply and demand on the U.S. economy and national security. The Commission will be comprised or 23 members. The President will appoint 11 members total (including at least 1 each) from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, the Council of Economic Advisors, and the Office of Science and Technology. There will also be 12 members appointed by the House and Senate. Mr. Speaker, our economy depends on reasonable gasoline prices to produce and transport items we use everyday. Without some kind of protection, we all pay higher prices for everything from food to pharmaceuticals. Now that the bubble on fuel cost has burst, prices will only increase. Without action, the supply demands of this summer will soon give way to increased requirements for the winter heating. My legislation works to protect consumers from arbitrary price increases by gas retailers, make effective use of the Strategic Petroleum Preserve, and monitor price irregularities in the oil industry. I ask for my colleagues' support and urge the House Leadership to bring it swiftly to the House floor for consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 47, commending the establishment of the first kindergarten in the United States, in College Point, N.Y. This legislation praises Conrad Poppenhusen, the Poppenhusen Institute, and the citizens of College Point, New York, for establishing the first early childhood education institution open to the public, in 1854. This resolution rightly expresses the sense of Congress that the government should recognize the importance of childhood education, and the social and academic enrichment provided to students through free and public kindergartens throughout the Nation. Studies commissioned by the Department of Education consistently demonstrate that children who attend kindergarten exhibit higher levels of mathematics and reading skills than those who do not. Children enrolled in kindergarten have consistently and more rapidly acquired skills necessary for success in an academic environment. Additionally, students enrolled in early childhood education are exposed at an early age to students of different racial, cultural, economic, and religious backgrounds, providing valuable learning experiences and aiding in the social development of our Nation's youth. Madam Speaker, let me conclude by again expressing my support for this legislation and encouraging my colleagues to support it. The time has come for our government to recognize and honor the establishment of our Nation's kindergartens, the very institutions that equip our children with the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in school and life while also providing a diverse environment in which to learn and grow.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I want to join in whole-hearted endorsement in echoing of all of the words of praise that have been directed toward the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations. I have known the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) to not only be gentlemanly and eloquent, but fair-minded and bipartisan in a substantial number of efforts, and I, like all of our colleagues here, deeply appreciate the work that he has done on behalf of this Nation and indeed this world throughout the course of his career, and I compliment him in that regard. I also accept the chastisement of the distinguished Chair with reference to rhetoric, but I would urge that some of the rhetoric that I may have used is rhetoric that I learned here in the House of Representatives that has been used on both sides of the aisle much too often, in my judgment. That said, I would like not to be an apologist for the United Nations. The United Nations needs to be reformed, and I think that it could be put better by the words of Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns, whom I quoted when I began. I further quote him in saying that it is more important to press for structural reforms. I think Ambassador Burns is absolutely mindful of what all of us are. The gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde); the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), my good friend, the distinguished ranking member; the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), his colleague in filing this measure; all of the members of the Committee on International Relations, indeed all the Members of this body recognize that the United Nations has problems. But if we are in the business of using this as precedent, then we would not want to establish a precedent where using the hammer, as the gentleman from Indiana referred to the monetary withholding as being the hammer, to cause people to undertake to do what we say. Then we establish that as a precedent, and we look up next month, 2 months from now, another country comes forward. We are not the only dues payor, we are the largest dues payor to the United Nations. So someone else that decides that it should reform in a way more likely to comport with their government's understandings could use this as a precedent. I do not think that that is a good thing. I do not think that is good policymaking, and I have tried to make that clear. Let me give the Members the analogy by way of an exact example. I happen to be the president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. It is the first time that an American has been the president, and we are holding the Assembly's conference here in Washington, D.C., and I thank the Speaker of the House and the majority leader of the Senate for the extraordinary effort that they have put in allowing that this Assembly be undertaken in appropriate fashion in a bipartisan way. Secretary Rice is one of the featured speakers at that Assembly. I raise it only for this reason, and I see the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), my good friend, who is the Chair of the Helsinki House side of the same Assembly that I am talking about. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) can relate to what I am about to say, and I ask the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) to do so as well. More than a year ago, the governing side of the OSCE was met with threats from the country Russia. And we agree even today that transparency and accountability in that organization is critical. They hold most of their undertakings behind closed doors. They operate on the consensus rule, and it primarily stagnates the mission of the OSCE. But Russia said that unless the United States paid more dues, interestingly enough in this particular instance, and that they paid less dues, and that reform measures that they were seeking were implemented, that they would withhold their dues from the OSCE. It did not stop the organization from running. It is not going to stop the Assembly from taking place here in Washington, D.C., July 1 through July 5. But what it did was that threat caused turmoil inside the organization that is in need of reform, and I think we run into the same kind of measure here in this particular proposal. Listen, Madeleine Albright and John Danforth, Richard Holbrooke and Jeane Kirkpatrick are nobody's rookies, and they are not naive when it comes to what is needed. Thomas Pickering and Bill Richardson and Donald McHenry and Andrew Young, all eight of these individuals were people that served as our Ambassadors under Republican and Democratic administrations to the United Nations, and during that entire period of time, each of them in their own way contributed to meaningful reform. All of them have said, The need for United Nations reform is clear, but we urge that you carefully consider this legislation because it will not, it will not, do the necessary reforms at the U.N.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and privileged to yield 3 minutes to my good friend and classmate, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 8 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), my colleague on the Committee on Rules. (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the chairman, and I agree with him regarding our rhetoric. When I made my references I was referring to the Bush administration and not to the distinguished chairman and other Members in the body. And I stand by those statements, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes, and I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for yielding me the time. Let me quote, this would undermine American credibility at the United Nations. It would undermine our effectiveness. Those are the words of the distinguished Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns, who said of the bill that we are considering, it will call into question our reliability as the founder and host Nation and leading contributor to the United Nations and would also harm our image worldwide. My colleague from Utah pointed to the bipartisanship. I gather that he would agree that it is bipartisan when Nicholas Burns and Alcee Hastings and other Democrats and this administration join in opposing this measure. In my opinion, this bill takes a shortsighted approach to reforming the United Nations. There are decent, necessary and desirable provisions in this legislation, but, Madam Speaker, this bill takes well-thought-out ideas and pushes them far into the realm of demagoguery, demonstrating a contempt for the United Nations that is entirely unfounded. The United Nations Reform Act is yet another example of the majority's willingness to bulldoze over dissension and force its will upon those who would otherwise disagree. The draconian requirements of the underlying legislation will affect everything from the promotion of human rights in the organization to the inclusion of mandatory sunset provisions for all new U.N. programs. The most shortsighted of the bill's provisions would require a mandatory withholding of peacekeeping funds unless the requirements in this legislation are met. Madam Speaker, simply put, prohibiting the Secretary of State from exercising discretion regarding the withholding of funds to the United Nations is counterproductive. The Secretary herself told a group here in the Capitol day before yesterday that the Bush administration is not supporting the mandatory withholdings contained in this bill. It seems clear that if even this administration, which has never been reluctant to withhold criticism of the U.N., is against this provision, then it must be bad. It has become a cliche when Members of the House speak repeatedly about winning the hearts and minds of the world; yet our constant use of gun-barrel diplomacy continues to fail. Do my colleagues really believe that withholding millions of dollars from the United Nations will encourage the member nations to go along with what we are trying to do today? Adlai Stevenson, that great champion of world diplomacy, said, ``The whole basis of the United Nations is the right of all nations, great or small, to have weight, to have a vote, to be attended to.'' Now, more than 40 years later, the underlying legislation seeks to eliminate the right of any country besides our own to chart the future of the United Nations. The only way for us to reform the U.N. is to work within it rather than threatening to take our ball and go home. We will not be successful by withholding the funds that are needed to do the job. Thanks to the Bush administration, the United States' international reputation as a peace-loving Nation is in tatters. Now my friends on the other side want to pass a bill which will withhold peacekeeping funds while conflicts rage around this world unchecked? This is irresponsible, immoral and a foreign policy disaster. Everyone in this body realizes that the United Nations is not a perfect organization, but on balance, the United Nations has been and will continue to be good for America on a range of global issues. Let us not forget the thousands of United Nations personnel who risked their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan to bring about successful and free elections in those countries or the role of the U.N. in effecting the withdrawal of Syrian military forces from Lebanon. In March of 2005, Secretary-General Annan released a string of initiatives to combat terrorism, proposals that the United States Government has openly supported. And in the Sudan, the U.N. has committed aid workers, troops, police, and money to ensure the success of peace accords. The U.N. also continues to provide a global voice and to be a powerful advocate for change around the world. How many millions of children's lives have been saved through UNICEF, Madam Speaker? How many millions of lives have been saved through disease treatment and eradication programs? How many have been made better through development assistance, cultural programs, and advances in education? Can we really justify cutting off our support for all these efforts simply because the U.N. does not implement every single one of our reform proposals? Madam Speaker, that is the reason I will be supporting the Lantos- Shays substitute to this bill. Eleanor Roosevelt, our country's first representative to the United Nations, remarked, ``Do what you feel in your heart to be right, for you will be criticized anyway.'' It may be that the United States will still be criticized even if we adopt the substitute and these reforms are pushed through. But I would rather do the right thing and be criticized than give up and go home because things did not go 100 percent of the way that we wanted it to. The Lantos-Shays substitute takes a realistic approach to reforming the United Nations. It includes virtually all of the reforms in H.R. 2745, with one crucial difference. The substitute gives the Secretary of State the flexibility to make decisions regarding funds based on the needs of the United States. The substitute avoids the counterproductive all-or-nothing diplomacy of this measure, while still promoting the reforms everyone agrees are needed. Madam Speaker, legislating unrealistic ultimatums will not achieve the goal that we are seeking. I urge my colleagues to oppose this ill- advised and shortsighted legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help ease the effect on consumers and airline passengers if the price of gas spikes dramatically. This bill reduces or refunds federal tax on gasoline and motor fuel when the price of gas spikes dramatically. My legislation, the Gas Price Spike Relief Act of 2005, temporarily cuts the federal gas tax for consumers by providing a tax refund to retailers if the price of motor or aviation fuel rises 10 percent during the course of a month. When the price of fuel jumps this drastically, the Gas Price Spike Relief Act will reduce the tax on motor and aviation fuel by 4.3 cents/gallon and allow retailers to apply for a refund of this tax, ensuring that this tax relief will not affect any money designated for the repair of highways and roads through the Highway Trust Fund. Providing this relief will spur the reduction of gasoline prices at the pump as well as the price of airline tickets. This legislation address a growing need to provide relief to average Americans from wildly fluctuating gas prices. For example, from March to April of 2005, the cost to fill up a tank of gas rose by more than 10 percent. That's more than twice the increase for the same period last year! We need to be helping working families out--not abandoning them like Republicans have--when no logical explanation exists for ridiculous gas price spikes. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Gas prices have gotten out of control. This legislation will provide some needed relief while maintaining the gas price stability our Nation needs. I look forward to working with my colleagues and moving this legislation forward.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation which will go a long way to reducing the burden placed on American consumers due to escalating gas costs. My bill, the Working Families Gas Tax Credit Act, provides a $250 tax credit to individuals who make $25,000 or less, and $500 for joint filers who make $50,000 or less, if the cost of a gallon of gasoline over a taxable year has increased from the previous year by more than twice the rate of inflation. The credit will increase annually at an amount equal to the rate of inflation. The cost for a gallon of gasoline is based on the U.S. Regular All Formulations Retail Gasoline Prices, prepared by the Energy Information Administration of the Department of Energy. Except for housing costs, low- and middle-income households in the United States spend more of their earnings on transportation than anything else. This minimal credit would go a long way to helping low- and middle-income families cope with escalating gas costs and limited resources. I ask for my colleagues' support, and I urge the House Leadership to bring this bill to the floor swiftly for its consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Haiti Compassion Act. Do our colleagues know that before Haiti had even achieved its own independence in 1804, 500 Haitian troops joined American colonists in an attempt to drive the British from Savannah, Georgia? In that one battle, Haitians made up the largest military unit to fight in the 1779 siege. Haiti demonstrated through noble action and sacrifice its loyal friendship to the United States more than 225 years ago. It is now time for Congress to do the responsible thing and protect the lives and well-being of those who have stood by us for centuries. 2004 was a debilitating and tragic year for Haiti and her people. Haiti remains severely devastated by the combined effects of ongoing political turmoil and the aftermath of the natural disasters of 2004, such as Tropical Storm Jeanne and Hurricane Ivan. Political oppression and human rights violations are rife in Haiti while poverty and homelessness have become the norm for too many innocent people. To return a Haitian national back to Haiti is not only morally unjustifiable, but poses a severe threat to their personal safety. If you don't take my word, then ask, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. On March 11, 2005 the U.S. Department of State issued a travel warning to U.S. Citizens, warning them of the ``absence of an effective police force in much of Haiti, the potential for looting, the presence of intermittent roadblocks set by armed gangs or by the police, and the possibility of random violent crime, including kidnapping, car-jacking, and assault.'' The Department of State's Consular Information Sheet states, ``There are no ``safe areas'' in Haiti.'' As a result, ``U.S. Citizens should avoid travel to Haiti at this time.'' At a time when current U.S. policy is to compel its own citizens not to travel to Haiti, it is unjust to return Haitian nationals to this type of dangerous situation. To return a Haitian national back to Haiti where there is ongoing violence and a devastating environmental situation would pose a severe threat to one's personal safety. Both Democrats and Republicans have mentioned the history of blatant discrimination and mistreatment of Haitians in the immigration process. Therefore, the time has arrived for us to offer some much-deserved compassion and effective action on the behalf of our loyal friends. My legislation would designate Haiti under section 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act in order to render nationals of Haiti eligible for temporary protected status. In light of the political, civil, and governmental crisis and tragic conditions caused by the recent environmental disasters in Haiti, my legislation would make nationals of Haiti eligible for temporary protected status. I ask for my colleagues' support and urge the House Leadership to bring it swiftly to the House floor for consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am a bit confuzzled by the continuing argument of my colleague and friend on the Committee on Rules that his State is impacted by virtue of education formulas. I do not disagree with what the gentleman says, but I find it interesting that the State of Utah, while the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) is arguing that they are not getting enough money for education, the State of Utah legislature passed measures saying they do not want any Federal money for education. They need to make up their mind so we know what all they are doing out there. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule, not because of what it allows but rather because of what it does not allow. As my colleague from the majority noted, this rule permits Members to offer amendments to the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill under the House's 5-minute rule if they do not need waivers of the House rules. As someone who will be offering an amendment to that bill later today, I appreciate that the majority structured the rule in such a manner. However, I am greatly concerned that the rule blocks the ranking Democrat of the Appropriations Committee, my friend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), from offering a critical amendment which would have added $500 million to the bill to fully restore EPA's State and Tribal Grant Program, and Clean Water State Revolving Fund to their fiscal 2004 levels. These two programs allow communities around the country to repair and modernize their water systems, and the underlying legislation greatly underfunds each account. For the fiscally conservative in the House, the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) was revenue neutral, paying for itself by capping the tax cut for millionaires at just over $138,000. The amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) could have benefited literally millions of Americans by making their drinking water cleaner. But the Rules Committee, on a straight party line vote, prohibited the House from considering the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Speaker, we live in trying times with enormous fiscal constraints, many of which have been brought upon ourselves. As the chairman and ranking Democrat of the Interior and Environmental Appropriations Subcommittee will probably note today, they did the best that they could with what they were given. Indeed they did. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for their hard and perhaps most importantly bipartisan work on this legislation. I do believe that they did the best with what the majority gave them. The underlying legislation includes funding which is essential to Everglades restoration, in my district and throughout South Florida. The bill maintains funding for the National Endowment of the Arts at its current level, and it increases funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities by a little less than $500,000. The bill also increases funding for operations at our national parks, as well as a $67 million much-needed increase in funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Despite these increases the underlying legislation makes major cuts in funding to some of our most important environmental and health programs. $240 million has been cut from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. $110 million from the State and Tribal Assistance Grant Account. Conservation funding is about $750 million below, or less than half of what was promised when Congress passed the Conservation and Restoration Act in 2000. Overall, EPA's budget has been cut by $300 million. This is only the second of 13 appropriations measures which this body will consider over the next few months. It is also the second appropriations bill in which we can see the drastic and dramatic effects of the Bush tax cuts. Republicans are going to try and associate domestic funding cuts with the cost of the war in Iraq. It seems like a plausible reason, and certainly one that the public could believe. But the truth is that domestic spending cuts are not occurring to pay for the war, they are happening to pay for the President's tax cuts. The Republican budget that Congress approved 2 weeks ago only set aside $50 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan combined. The remaining costs, probably another $50 billion or more, if this year is any indication, will be funded by Congress through so-called emergency supplemental appropriations. These emergency costs will be added to the national debt, because we irresponsibly did not budget for it though we knew they were obvious. What has ensued is not the fault of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Speaker, it is the fault of those who supported the budget resolution. Later today, some Members will seek to improve the funding shortfalls, which the chairman and ranking Democrat sought to avoid. For example, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) will offer an amendment that restores the President's 33 percent cut for environmental justice programs to the fiscal year 2005 level. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) will also offer an amendment that will increase funding for the cleanup of brownfields sites by $2 million. Additionally, I will offer an amendment that will require EPA to identify and take the necessary steps to protect minority and low income communities from bearing a disproportionate burden of poor environmental policy which adversely affects their health and well being. All communities currently do not share in the burden of health and environmental risks, and my amendment expresses Congress' support for EPA doing what is necessary to protect these communities. Mr. Speaker, individuals in our country on their own are not going to force power companies to reduce mercury emissions from smokestacks. Individuals on their own are not going to conduct major environmental restoration, and they certainly do not have the capacity to clean up our drinking water. But collectively, collectively, Mr. Speaker, we can all make this happen. When utilizing the Clean Air Act, EPA can force power plants to come into compliance with new standard reviews. When enforcing the Clean Drinking Water Act, EPA can require cities and counties to provide their residents with safe drinking water. With innovation that can only occur in a consortium of stakeholders, the Department of the Interior can make major environmental restoration projects a reality. Enforcement is not free and neither is environmental restoration. Everyone in America shares in the responsibility of contributing his or her own fair share. Is there any Member in this body who is unwilling to pay just a little more to ensure that everyone in America has clean air to breathe? If given the chance, who would not be willing to pool his or her resources with others in his or her neighborhood to collectively ensure that everyone, 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. I do not blame or fault the appropriators for the funding cuts in the underlying legislation; but I do fault the majority in this body for creating a situation in which failure to adequately fund America's needs has become imminent. The American people will feel the same way when they wake up tomorrow and realize that their children and grandchildren will be paying for our fiscal mismanagement for generations to come. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so we can consider the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that was rejected in the Rules Committee last night on a straight party-line vote. Mr. Speaker, the Obey amendment would add $500 million to the bill to restore funding for the EPA Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program to its fiscal year 2004 levels. This program allows communities around the country to repair and modernize their water systems. I find it incomprehensible that we do not understand the dynamics of that or that most if not all of us in this body do not have communities that would benefit from modernizing our water systems. The Obey amendment offsets these expenditures by capping at just over $138,000 the tax cut for people making over $1 million this year. The Obey amendment pays for itself and adds nothing to the Federal debt while maintaining funding levels in every other program in the bill. This amendment will correct one of the most serious shortfalls in this bill. It is absolutely critical that this funding be restored. We can fix this today if we allow the Obey amendment to be considered on the floor. But the only way that will happen is if we defeat the previous question. I want to assure my colleagues that a ``no'' vote will not prevent us from considering the Interior Appropriations bill, but a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote on the Obey amendment. However, a ``yes'' vote will block consideration of the Obey amendment. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) with whom I serve on the Committee on Rules.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the findings of the EPA Inspector General Report and those in support of the amendment. Evaluation Report: EPA Needs To Consistently Implement the Intent of the Executive Order on Environmental Justice--Report No. 2004-P-00007-- March 1, 2004 Executive Summary Purpose In 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Action to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations,'' to ensure such populations are not subjected to a disproportionately high level of environmental risk. The overall objective of this evaluation was to determine how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is integrating environmental justice into its day-to-day operations. Specifically, we sought to answer the following questions: How has the Agency implemented Executive Order 12898 and integrated its concepts into EPA's regional and program offices? How are environmental justice areas defined at the regional levels and what is the impact? Results in brief EPA has not fully implemented Executive Order 12898 nor consistently integrated environmental justice into its day- to-day operations. EPA has not identified minority and low- income, nor identified populations addressed in the Executive Order, and has neither defined nor developed criteria for determining disproportionately impacted. Moreover, in 2001, the Agency restated its commitment to environmental justice in a manner that does not emphasize minority and low-income populations, the intent of the Executive Order. Although the Agency has been actively involved in implementing Executive Order 12898 for 10 years, it has not developed a clear vision or a comprehensive strategic plan, and has not established values, goals, expectations, and performance measurements. We did note that the Agency made an attempt to issue an environmental justice toolkit; endorsed environmental justice training; and required that all regional and programmatic offices submit ``Action Plans'' to develop some accountability for environmental justice integration. In the absence of environmental justice definitions, criteria, or standards from the Agency, many regional and program offices have taken steps, individually, to implement environmental justice policies. This has resulted in inconsistent approaches by the regional offices. Thus, the implementation of environmental justice actions is dependent not only on minority and income status but on the EPA region in which the person resides. Our comparison of how environmental justice protocols used by three different regions would apply to the same city showed a wide disparity in protected populations. We believe the Agency is bound by the requirements of Executive Order 12898 and does not have the authority to reinterpret the order. The Acting Deputy Administrator needs to reaffirm that the Executive Order 12898 applies specifically to minority and low-income populations that are disproportionately impacted. After 10 years, there is an urgent need for the Agency to standardize environmental justice definitions, goals, and measurements for the consistent implementation and integration of environmental justice at EPA. Recommendations We recommended that the Acting Deputy Administrator issue a memorandum reaffirming that Executive Order 12898 is an Agency priority and that minority and low-income populations disproportionately impacted will be the beneficiaries of this Executive Order. Additionally, EPA should establish specific time frames for the development of definitions, goals, and measurements. Furthermore, we recommended that EPA develop and articulate a clear vision on the Agency's approach to environmental justice. We also recommended that EPA develop a comprehensive strategic plan, ensure appropriate training is provided, clearly define the mission of the Office of Environmental Justice, determine if adequate resources are being applied to environmental justice, and develop a systematic approach to gathering information related to environmental justice. Agency comments and OIG evaluation In the response to our draft report, the Agency disagreed with the central premise that Executive Order 12898 requires the Agency to identify and address the environmental effects of its programs on minority and low-income populations. The Agency believes the Executive Order ``instructs the Agency to identify and address the disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental, effects of it (sic) programs, policies, and activities.'' The Agency does not take into account the inclusion of the minority and low-income populations, and indicated it is attempting to provide environmental justice for everyone. While providing adequate environmental justice to the entire population is commendable, doing so had already been EPA's mission prior to implementation of the Executive Order; we do not believe the intent of the Executive Order was simply to reiterate that mission. We believe the Executive Order was specifically issued to provide environmental justice to minority and/or low-income populations due to concerns that those populations had been disproportionately impacted by environmental risk. A summary of the Agency's response and our evaluation is included at the end of each chapter. The Agency's complete response and our evaluation of that response are included in Appendices D and E, respectively.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 2361 that is of critical importance to the health and well-being of minority and low-income communities throughout the United States. In an effort to cut down on the time constraints, let me just briefly explain the amendment. It prohibits the EPA from using funds in this bill to work in contravention of Executive Order 12898 and delay the implementation of that order. My amendment makes clear Congress's support for the executive order and its original intention to achieve health and environmental equity in minority and low-income communities. Mr. Chairman, to seek out environmental justice is an effort to achieve health and environmental equity across all community lines. In adopting my amendment, Congress will call on EPA to move forward with the identification of at-risk minority and low-income communities so appropriate steps can be taken to improve their health and well-being. Justice should never be reserved only for those who can afford to help themselves. I ask for my colleagues' support to ensure EPA takes the appropriate steps to protect minority and low-income communities from continued environmental injustices. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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