Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I do not want to belabor this. What part of House Democrats does my colleague not understand? Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, in the body of that conference, were Democrats permitted in that conference?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me discuss in calm reflection my colleague from New York's comments. Firstly, he and I were at the Committee on Rules hearing last night and my recollection of the two distinguished chairs, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), was that they said that these matters as they are brought up on the substantive agenda did not go through regular order insofar as the committees of jurisdiction. They did in fact say that the issues in both of these measures had been discussed. As a matter of fact, in the gentleman from California's (Mr. Pombo) case, he said that they had been discussed numerous times, and I would imagine some of the issues that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) would agree as well. But regular order is what we are talking about here and the committee process was not observed as it pertains to these measures. What I urge my friend who I serve proudly with on the Committee on Rules is to pay attention to the comments of the chair of the Committee on Rules in another era. What he said was if a rule is not open it is closed and it is just that simple. So I do not understand why we keep playing games of disingenuousness in trying to suggest to the American public that these measures that are coming up are giving every Member of the House of Representatives an opportunity to discuss them and that regular order proceeds. Additionally, my friend spoke of the other body in terms that I probably could have pointed out to him that it is one thing to say that there is obstruction in the other body, but the last time I looked the majority leader was a Republican and the executive branch of government is in the hands of the Republicans and the House of Representatives is in the hands of the Republicans. So when we talk about obstructionism, I do not think Democrats can be faulted for Republicans not being able to get their measures past their bodies. But now what are we doing here? Let me tell you what we are doing, and no lesser authority than our good friend, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) in speaking to reporters, he is quoted as saying, and the backdrop for this is the U.S. House of Representatives may vote today to send oil drills into the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) is not expecting any backup from the Senate. Young said he viewed the idea as serious but not likely to succeed. The Senate is not going to take it up, so what are we doing here? Are we doing something political or are we doing something to bring down oil prices? Are we doing something political or are we doing something to give the American public the impression that we are doing something about renewable energy? Are we doing something political or are we really going to go after solar and wind resources? Are we doing something political or are we really going to advance hybrid automobiles in this country? It is funny to me how my former fiscal conservative friends are now decrying our state of this Nation as they run these deficits up and as gas prices go through the roof, and we were here talking about projections for additional instructions to give us an opportunity to produce more energy rather than to learn how to consume less and use modern technology in doing so. This rule is closed and I urge Members to vote against it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. The way the Chair phrased it, I did bring it up, and we were talking about statements that were made by my friend from New York; am I correct?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Kristopher Tantillo, a high school student who attends Lincoln Park Academy in Port St. Lucie, Florida. Kristopher was recently selected as one of six students in Florida to represent the State at the National Panasonic Academic Challenge to be held this June. The 17th annual Panasonic Academic Challenge is a ``quiz-bowl''-type tournament in which teams of our nation's top students test their knowledge with difficult questions in mathematics, science, English, social studies, fine arts, foreign language, and computer science. This Academic Challenge, started years ago as a small local effort, has now blossomed into one of the premier high school academic tournaments in the United States, involving thousands of students from every state and U.S. territory. Kristopher Tantillo exemplifies exceptional academic skills and scholarship, and I hope that he will continue to dedicate himself to further study and academic opportunities. Once again, I offer my congratulations to Kristopher on this noble achievement and wish the best of luck to him in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Small Disaster Assistance Act of 2004. This legislation is critically needed. All too often, communities are denied federal assistance from natural disasters because the number of people affected by the disaster do not meet an arbitrary threshold which fails to consider human needs. An unofficial threshold exists under current Federal Emergency Management Agency regulations that require a minimum of 100 homes to be destroyed or receive major damage during a natural disaster for a major disaster declaration to be warranted by the president. Some may argue that, on the surface, this is a fair regulation. But in practice, it is not. In practice, thousands of Americans are forced to pick up the pieces following a natural disaster with no help from their government. Every year, thousands of Americans have their homes damaged or destroyed by natural disasters. Yet, the Federal government fails them when it denies a state's request for federal emergency assistance regardless of the number affected. Just last August, hundreds of my constituents in Riviera Beach and Palm Beach Gardens, Florida were left in the dark and heat--literally-- when three tornadoes touched down in Palm Beach County. I, along with Florida's two Senators and Palm Beach County's Congressional delegation, worked with Florida's governor and urged the President to issue a major disaster declaration. The economic impact of the storms, combined with continued rain, was estimated to be between $70 million and $80 million. To make matters worse, many of those affected by the storm were unable to depend on insurance for relief and assistance in recovering from the storm. According to the joint assessment that was done at the time by FEMA, the State of Florida, and Palm Beach County, 81 percent of the homeowners affected were uninsured. For the uninsured, federal assistance was virtually the only way for them to recover. The effect of the storm was drastically compounded when the historical economic and social hardships of the communities most affected were included in the assessment. Although it is difficult to place a dollar amount on this reality, such consideration was certainly appropriate in this instance. Nevertheless, our request was denied. In his letter to Florida's Governor, Undersecretary for Preparedness and Response Michael Brown's denial noted that the extent of the damage in Palm Beach County was ``not of the severity and magnitude'' to warrant a disaster declaration. This was a response that I found to be quite troubling. There is no difference between a home that is destroyed during a disaster when less than 100 homes are affected and a home that is destroyed during a disaster when 1,000 homes are affected. To a family who loses its home because it happens to be located in the wrong place at the wrong time, their life comes to a screeching halt by no fault of their own. The Small Disaster Assistance Act amends the major disaster assistance title of the Stafford Act to provide assistance for disasters where 100 or fewer homes receive major damage to or are destroyed during a natural disaster. My bill requires the President to give special consideration to areas that are historically and economically disadvantaged, have a median family income below the national, state, or local average, high unemployment, a iarge population of uninsured homeowners or renters, and a large elderly population. The bill places a limitation of relief at $1 million for disasters where less than 50 homes qualify for assistance, and $2 million for disasters where between 51 and 100 homes qualify for assistance. These numbers were generated from the national averages of disasters where 100 or less homes qualify for assistance. This level of authorization will cover the clear majority of small disasters. In instances where more assistance is needed, the bill gives the President the authority to exceed the limitation if (A) continued disaster assistance is needed, (B) there is a continuing risk to public safety, or (C) necessary assistance will not otherwise be provided on a timely basis. When mechanisms do not exist in our public policy to help those in need, then it's time for us to change our laws. Failing to provide the President with the ability to authorize assistance to smaller disasters is just plain irresponsible. My legislation provides such authority. I ask that it be brought swiftly to the floor for consideration, and I urge my colleagues to support my efforts.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Leonard Pitts, Jr. of The Miami Herald, winner of the 2004 Pulitzer Prize in Journalism for Commentary. As a long-time fan of Mr. Pitts' work, I am delighted that he has been honored with this very prestigious award. Leonard Pitts is a hugely talented writer with a sharp eye and a sharp wit. Newspaper readers in Miami and around the country who are fortunate to read his column would surely agree. Mr. Pitts' work is an important contribution to the social and political debate in America, and I am immensely grateful for his dedication to upholding the highest standard of his craft. Formerly a pop music critic, Leonard Pitts was hired by The Miami Herald in 1991. By 1994 he was writing about race and current affairs in his own column. Syndicated nationally, Leonard Pitts 1999 book Becoming Dad: Black Men and the Journey to Fatherhood was a bestseller. After the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, D.C., Pitts' Herald column headlined ``We'll Go Forward From This Moment'' was widely circulated on the Internet and frequently quoted in the press. In the column, Pitts bluntly expressed his anger, defiance and resolve to an unnamed evil terrorist. He wrote, ``You monster. You beast. You unspeakable bastard.'' These words, which I remember reading the first time, expressed what so many of us were feeling at the moment and still feel today. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share this moment with Leonard Pitts, Jr. and his family. On behalf of this body, I express my congratulations to him and wish him well.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize three remarkable young men from my district. Albert Richards, 14, Cairon Austin-Hill, 14 and Marquay Wright, 12, were walking to school in April 2004, when they noticed a fire burning in an empty field. With no thought for their own safety, they raced over and stamped out the blaze before it could cause any injuries or property damage. Their quick thinking may have averted a major disaster. As we so often hear about the bad things young people do, it was refreshing and, indeed, encouraging to learn of Albert's, Cairon's and Marquay's actions. These young ``firefighters'' are examples of the best of America's young people. Their bravery and selflessness are very laudable qualities in people of any age, especially children. I am very pleased to have such fine young men living in my district.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for working with me to make this amendment in order; and I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services; and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the distinguished ranking member, my very good friend, for the work that they have done on this entire bill. Mr. Chairman, we can all agree wholeheartedly that supporting our soldiers and providing them what they need to get the job done is our highest priority. However, there are some other important matters that must also be addressed regarding the National Defense Authorization Act, issues that the American people want to hear about. From the President on down to many of us, we have the view that Iraq could fund its own reconstruction. Prior to the war, the Secretary of Defense and his deputy testified to Congress that a war in Iraq and subsequent reconstruction costs could be financed by oil profits in Iraq. This was reconfirmed on March 27 when Deputy Secretary of Defense Mr. Wolfowitz suggested that Iraqi oil revenues could pay for the cost of reconstituting Iraq. To date, Congress has already appropriated $148 billion to fund the war and reconstruction efforts, and the President is requesting an additional $25 billion for fiscal year 2005. Moreover, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz has suggested that between 50 and $60 billion is actually needed, and I, for one, agree with that; but this funding has yet to be supplemented by Iraqi oil revenue. My amendment expresses the sense of Congress that no funds available for Iraqi reconstruction purposes may be used unless the President certifies to Congress that the United States Government has entered into an agreement with Iraq that it will expend a significant portion of its revenues generated from oil production on its own reconstruction. This amendment is not intended to use Iraqi oil money to finance the broader U.S. military campaign. Instead, it states that the United States ought to share the cost of Iraqi reconstruction with the free government of Iraq for the benefit of the Iraqi people. The United States has a responsibility to finish what we are involved in in Iraq. Iraq is an integral and critical ingredient in our recipe for success in the entire region. Nevertheless, the American people should not be expected to bear the full burden of these costs. American tax dollars are building roads in Mosul, but not in my hometown of Miramar. We are building schools in Baghdad, but not in Boston; and we are funding hospitals in Basra, but not Baltimore. I find this troubling, especially in light of Iraq's vast natural resources and some of the comments that have been made regarding the funding reconstruction efforts with Iraqi oil revenue. The fact is that if that is unhealthy for Iraq, it should not be healthy for the United States. After all, we are not the ones sitting on a $7 trillion oil reserve. At the very least, Iraqis should share this economic burden. To finance this huge effort, we need partners; and Iraq should be our first and foremost partner in the rebuilding of their country. We cannot afford these efforts any other way, and I ask for my colleagues' support for my amendment.

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for his comments. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Chairman pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the measure offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis). A woman's right to choose what happens to her body has been reaffirmed as constitutional time after time by the Supreme Court. The Majority's decision to insert an anti-choice provision into a bill funding our Armed Services is troubling, and quite frankly, offensive. If a servicewoman or female dependent of someone in our military chooses to have a procedure done to her body with her own funds, regardless of her occupation or where she is stationed, then she ought to be permitted to do so. And she ought to be able to have it done by a U.S. military doctor. It's her body. It's her money. It's just that simple. It's unfortunate that Representative Davis' amendment is even needed. It's just shameful that the conservative wing of the Republican Caucus is trying to invoke controversy into a bill that all of us want to support. I cannot stand idly by while some attempt to demagogue those of us who believe in a woman's right to choose. No one is going to tell me what I can or cannot do with my body, so I certainly am not going to start telling women what they can do with theirs.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, just as a very brief response to my colleague from Texas, I find it strange that he would use the term that the regulatory measures that are set in place to protect American workers puts us at some competitive disadvantage; and I would just wonder, are we at a competitive disadvantage with countries that have children as young as 9 and 10, 11 years old working? Are we at a competitive disadvantage with countries that have no concern for their workers who die in substantial numbers in plants and mines? That is what separates us from the rest of the world. We are better than that. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule and all five of the underlying pieces of legislation that it encompasses. For those who did not hear me the first time, I said five pieces of legislation under one rule. This is sort of the blue light special or the supersized rule, Mr. Speaker, five for the price of one. When we look at the number of amendments made in order under this rule, they total five as well and only one is from a Democrat. Republicans have taken their sheer wrong- headedness to a whole new level with this rule. My outrage and the outrage of all in the minority is as much about process as it is about policy. Pure partisan politics never produces sound public policy, and election year politics and messaging have no place in the people's House. Yet that is all the majority seems interested in. The political score Republicans are seeking to settle with their barrage of anti-working class legislation is not going to be fulfilled by stifling debate and blocking Democrats out of the process. Republicans are calling this the ``OSHA Fairness Package.'' Fair for whom? The only victims I see here are not only the Democratic Party; it is the American worker that it is unfair to. For the last 3 weeks, Republicans have come to the floor to pass what they call middle-class tax relief. They said they were the party of the middle class and they stand for working-class values. They said they care about the well-being of America's working families. How disingenuous they are, Mr. Speaker. Four of the five underlying pieces of legislation represent a buffet of roll-backs in our laws governing working conditions. To quote the United Auto Workers on just one of the four bills: ``This legislation would give unprecedented and unwarranted authority to the Occupational Safety and Health Review Council to take away workers workplace health and safety.'' Mr. Speaker, do we have an overwhelming epidemic in this country of unfair workplace lawsuits that I do not know about? The judicial process for violations in workplace health and safety standards has been in place in this country of ours for nearly 30 years. It is fair and most importantly it protects the rights of workers. Yet two of the four underlying bills affecting OSHA standards are coming as a direct result of recent court rulings that Republicans and their corporate friends do not agree with. The other two are aimed at stacking the OSHA commission with anti-worker commissioners and creating a system where only those who can afford legal representation will be permitted to file a complaint with the workplace safety and health board. A direct attack on American juris prudence is one of the measures that would allow that, if OSHA brings a complaint, OSHA must pay if it loses. I think that is also the American taxpayer. Apparently, Republicans' new policy is when the courts rule against you, legislate against the courts. When one of the senior Democrats of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), came before this body, and he has served here for 30 years and is known throughout the country as a champion of working-class Americans, he came to the Committee on Rules yesterday on behalf of the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member, and Republicans denied him the opportunity to offer a substitute to legislate what came out of his committee. The majority protects their chairman's amendment, but they fail to extend the same courtesy and respect to the ranking member. Had the majority made the Miller substitute in order or the Kildee substitute in order, the House could have done something today that would have actually benefited working-class Americans. We could have had a real debate about the minimum wage, and we could have taken a vote and found out where Members really stand on the issue on whether workers in this country ought to get incrementally over a period of time $7 an hour instead of the current $5.15 cents an hour. It is kind of hard to make ends meet with gasoline being $2 a gallon and a person is being paid $5.15, while we here in the House have raised our wages six times since people that work at the minimum wage have had an increase. Perhaps the majority is blocking what it knows it cannot defeat; or better yet, perhaps the majority is just protecting its Members from taking a vote that will show their true colors. Shame on them and shame on this body if it allows this assault on American workers to continue. Some may suggest that it is just class warfare. Mr. Speaker, I simply point out that Democrats do not rule in this town, and we certainly did not start the fight. But if the majority thinks that we are going to sit idly by and allow this barrage of attacks on America's working class, then they have another thought coming to them. We are just not quite ready to give up on our country yet and certainly not ready to give up on our workers and the least among us who are working-class Americans, many of whom, 33 million or 44 million uninsured people in this country, are working Americans and here we are taking measures that are likely to impact all of them. I urge my colleagues to oppose this closed rule. And this is the 25th of our rules with only one being open, and I ask my colleagues to reject the underlying piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I did not say who; I said which of the worker proponent organizations supported the bill. And I thank the gentleman for providing me this list of outstanding organizations that support this measure. But name me the work proponent organizations that support this measure, and I do not think any are on the gentleman's list.

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. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my friend, I will just respond to the chairman that if this is such a great worker-protection measure, why is it that no group that is a proponent of worker protection favors this measure? I just find that passing strange. I yield to the chairman to answer me if there is any worker group that I do not know about.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman did not answer my question. Is there a group of proponents of workers' rights that support these measures? Is the answer yes or no?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I think I know the answer. The answer is ``no,'' and I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), who does know something about this measure as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, my good friend. (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have great respect and admiration for my friend, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, and I speak often about working families. I am mindful that many of those working families are members of labor organizations, and I am supportive of them. The statistic the gentleman quoted was somewhere in the neighborhood of 6 to 8 percent. But that leaves us a whole lot of other people who are working at the minimum wage who are also working families who may be injured, who may be killed in these workplaces. And I rather suspect, as one who has the third largest number of small businesses among the 435 of us in the House of Representatives, that I am certainly interested in those businesses flourishing and continuing to provide for the workers. I can assure my colleague that one thing we could be doing here that would help everybody would be to incentivize those small businesses with the necessary funds for tax protection that would allow them to be able to provide insurance for their workers, and I cite several of them that I visited recently that say that is particularly important. It is also particularly important to them that the regulatory measures be reduced, and there is some currency in our being able to do that. But at the expense of people who are likely to be injured, and at the expense of people who are likely to be killed on their jobs, I simply do not believe that any business wishes to be in a position of not having the necessary regulation to protect their workers. We do not do a very good job here in Congress, and I suggest we might want to look at the atmosphere that some of these people work in and the kinds of injuries they receive right here on Capitol Hill; the kind of long hours the people that transcribe our words here on the House floor work; the people that protect us in law enforcement and the helter-skelter schedules they are confronted with. There are a lot of workers that do not have fair protection. And for us to cut back on opportunities to protect them, in my view, is unwarranted, unsound, bad policy, and bad politics. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time I have no further speakers that have come to the floor, and I reserve the balance of my time.