Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to my good friend from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), whose State did benefit from that money that was to go to Florida, as appropriated.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would advise the gentlelady that I'm going to be the last speaker, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. We could go back to the days when government was helpless against the robber barons who abused our public resources. We could go back to the days when citizens had no recourse against corporations who valued profit above individual health and safety. And we could go back to the days when unelected oligarchs drove this Nation's destiny, rather than democratically elected governments representing the interests of the American public. Prohibiting Federal agencies from carrying out necessary and essential public protections will not create new jobs. It will not boost our economy. It will not protect the most vulnerable and disadvantaged Americans in a time of extraordinary uncertainty. Drilling for oil everywhere and anywhere is not a solution. It won't even provide much benefit, unless you consider further enriching oil executives to be a benefit for millions of struggling Americans. What Americans need is government that is willing to invest in its citizens. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to this rule to make in order an amendment which proposes that Congress will not adjourn until the President signs middle class tax cuts into law. We have an opportunity to extend the middle class tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans who make less than $250,000. This should not be a partisan fight; this is what we were elected to do. We should not adjourn into August recess while American families across this country are trying to make ends meet. It is imperative that Congress act on behalf of families across this Nation and bring them the certainty and security that their taxes will not go up in 6 months. I don't know about all of my colleagues here, but I have had the misfortune of having been involved in lame duck sessions; and the one that is coming up where we are about to go off the cliff is going to be brutal for some of the newcomers in this institution who do not understand that it seems to be a methodology to wait until the last minute before we do something. We can do it in August. We can give 98 percent of the American people certainty about their taxes and be assured that if they make less than $250,000 their taxes will not go up in December, or that their taxes will not be leveraged so we can avoid seeing to it that the Bush tax cuts on the 2 percent of Americans that are even concerned about the little bit of money that each one of them would have to provide in order for us to ensure safety for children, education for children, safety for old people, and understanding that the middle class has this great need. I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, Republicans justify these irresponsible bills by claiming that more drilling will help reduce the cost of gasoline and fuel for the average American. Yet opening up even more of our country's shores to drilling will do little to help Americans at the gas pump. In reality, the United States is already producing more oil per day than it ever has. There are more drilling rigs in the United States than the rest of the world combined. The drilling plan issued by President Obama that this bill amends already makes three-quarters of our offshore oil and gas resources open to drilling. Yet 70 percent of the offshore areas that are leased are currently not even active. That's 55 million acres under lease not active. The price of oil and gas is set on a global level, primarily by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC. At maximum output, the United States holds only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, not nearly enough to significantly impact the price per barrel, which is set on a global scale. According to the Energy Information Agency, even tripling our current offshore drilling capabilities by the year 2030 would lower gasoline prices only 5 cents per gallon more than if we continued at our current levels. Gas prices are set on the world market on the basis of many geopolitical factors. For example, when the world thought Israel might attack Iran in February, gas prices went up 10 percent in 2 months to reach a 9-month high over fear that fuel supply lines would be disrupted. Though production in our country has actually increased every year since 2005, crude oil hit a record $147 per barrel over the same time period, demonstrating that there is little correlation between drilling levels in the United States and the price of oil. What drives the price of oil more than any other factor is the large nonstop worldwide demand for oil. The only way we can reduce gasoline prices is to reduce our country's disproportionate demand for fossil fuels by increasing our energy efficiency, improving the fuel mileage of our cars, and developing renewable energy resources. Federal policies should focus on these kinds of demand-reducing improvements, not on increasing the land available for drilling. I make it very clear over and over again that I'll be the last person standing off the shores of Florida if we continue down the path of wanting to drill in that area. Mr. Chairman, with all this in mind, my amendment requires applicants for drilling or exploration to explain in detail to what extent and by when any oil is found on the leased property will that decrease the price of oil for the American consumer. More drilling will put our businesses, as well as our environment and our health, at an increased risk. Since we know that there's no correlation between gas prices and U.S. drilling, this bill is really nothing more than a giveaway, and I know my good friend from Washington will say that it is not. He perceives it as not a giveaway. I do. I think that it's nothing more than a giveaway to the oil and gas companies. My goodness, gracious, have we not given them enough? With that, I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement by the Acting Chair

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chair, do I have any time remaining?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chair, I am going to use my 30 seconds as I hope to yield to my good friend from Washington for a question. Perhaps I can get it in. Do you dispute, Representative Hastings, that we now have 55 million acres under lease, 70 percent of it is not being utilized and, in the final analysis, that all of what we wanted to drill, that it would amount to more than 2 percent of the world's output?

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the gentleman. But in the Gulf of Mexico, which holds the largest volume of undiscovered technically recoverable resources, 32 million acres are under lease. However, only approximately 10 million acres have approved exploration or development plans, and only 6.4 million of these acres are in production. Leased areas in the Gulf of Mexico that are not producing or are not subject to pending or approved exploration and development plan are estimated to contain 17.9 billion barrels of UTRR oil and 49.7 trillion cubic feet. So I will make the argument again to my dear friend that if we're talking about doing everything that you called for--and I know it's most sincerely--if we do that, we are not talking about reducing the price of gas but by a nickel. So show me the plan to get us to energy independence by drilling.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I do want to say, in the last exchange that I had with my good friend, that I deeply appreciate his yielding some of his time to me, and I'm glad that he didn't compare apples to oranges. I thought that's what he was going to do, but he went down the applesauce route. Mr. Chairman, my Republican colleagues continue, in my opinion, to cling to an antiquated 19th century energy policy while the rest of the world has moved into the 21st century. Just because the majority Members of Congress refuse to acknowledge that human activity contributes to climate change does not make it true. Climate change is not an abstract or difficult scientific principle to grasp. The effects are all around us. Our country is currently experiencing its worst drought since the Dust Bowl in the year of my birth, 1936. Just last week, sudden violent storms rocked the east coast--they were referred to as microbursts--knocking out power for thousands and killing a number of people. Furthermore, record heat waves are having serious repercussions on crop yields. We must pursue responsible, sustainable energy policies both for the legacy that we will leave our children and also to make certain the United States is at the forefront of an emerging green economy. My amendment will not let oil companies shield themselves in ignorance any longer. It requires in each permit application an analysis and estimate of the impact on global climate change of the consumption of the fossil fuels discovered. While the oil and gas found under each individual lease may not have a huge impact, there is no question that the aggregate fossil fuel consumption contributes to global climate change. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment in order to force my friends, the House Republicans, and big oil companies to acknowledge the reality that the international community is preparing for. Interestingly, Mr. Chairman, when I was president of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's Parliamentary Assembly--its headquarters is in Denmark--I went to Denmark during that 2-year period of time, close to 30 times over the course of the years that I've been here. When I fly into Denmark, just coming from the side of Sweden, I see the windmills tilting that have been tilting for 16 years. And Denmark's city, Copenhagen, is the beneficiary of much of that production. They're headed toward the future. We're living in the past. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, in the words of the celebrated movie that these words came from, I'm shocked, just shocked that this is a political amendment. And I'm equally shocked that this bill is political. This is the 143rd time that we're talking about oil drilling. And somewhere along the line, I'm lost. I thought politics was what we do. That's what I do. That's what people sent me here to do. That's what you do, my good friend, is politics. That's what it's about. The difference is where we separate ourselves is whether we're talking about the politics of the future, where there are opportunities for us to do the things to bring us to energy independence, or whether or not we are going to cling to fossil fuels until we just can't find any place else to drill. My major opposition to oil drilling offshore has been demonstrably shown when the Deep Horizon accident occurred. There have been other accidents. You want to drill in the tundra; there have been accidents where oil was spilled in that area. And daily in Ft. Lauderdale, I see ships sitting offshore, and I find that occasionally tar and things that come from them wind up on the beaches. We make $60 billion a year in Florida on those resources. I heard you earlier, my colleague, argue about North Dakota. I don't want to be in North Dakota in the wintertime, and I'm glad if they are about their business doing what they want to do; but I know a lot of North Dakota people, when they finish with the drilling up there, are going to come to Florida for our beaches, and that's what I'm about trying to preserve. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome the XIX International AIDS Conference, AIDS 2012, back to Washington, DC. On July 22, 2012, more than 30,000 people from approximately 200 countries are expected to converge on Washington, DC, for AIDS 2012, including 20,000 delegates, 10,000 additional participants in the Global Village, and up to 2,000 journalists. Over the course of the Conference, which runs through July 27, 2012, the world's leading scientists, public health experts, policymakers, community leaders, and persons living with HIV/AIDS will chart the way forward in the global response to HIV/ AIDS by turning the latest scientific advancements into action. The III International AIDS Conference was held in our Nation's capital in 1987, the same year that the United States established a policy barring HIV-positive foreigners from obtaining permanent immigration status or entering the United States without special waivers. As a result, no major scientific conferences on HIV/AIDS have been held in this country since--until now. Thanks to years of advocacy by countless individuals and the leadership of former President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama, the misguided travel and immigration ban against people with HIV was lifted in 2010. This was a critical step forward in addressing societal stigma and discriminatory practices against people living with HIV/AIDS. The return of the International AIDS Conference to the United States could not come at a more critical time. Here at home, more than one million people are living with HIV and approximately 50,000 individuals become newly infected with the virus each year. And among individuals living with HIV, one in five is unaware of his or her infection. This not only increases one's risk for developing worse health outcomes and unknowingly transmitting the virus to others, but undermines HIV prevention efforts as a whole. Furthermore, significant disparities persist across diverse communities and populations with regard to incidence, access to treatment, and health outcomes, particularly for men who have sex with men, MSM, African Americans and other minorities, women, and young people. However, more than 30 years after the beginning of the epidemic, we are now at a point where we have the tools necessary to prevent the spread of HIV and bring an end to the crisis. The theme of AIDS 2012, ``Turning the Tide Together,'' represents the challenge before us. In order to change the course of HIV/AIDS in the United States and abroad, we must harness the potential of the most recent scientific advances in HIV/AIDS treatment and biomedical prevention, continue research for a HIV vaccine and cure, and scale up effective, evidence-based interventions in key settings. As the world's leader in HIV research and the largest funder of international AIDS programs, including the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR, and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, TB, and Malaria, continued commitment by the United States to HIV/AIDS research, prevention, and treatment programs is crucial to improving global health. Mr. Speaker, AIDS 2012 is a tremendous opportunity to further strengthen the role of the United States in global HIV/AIDS initiatives within the current context of significant global economic challenges. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in welcoming the delegates and participants of AIDS 2012 to Washington, DC, as well as commit to helping support a stronger international response to HIV/AIDS, advancing the health and rights of people living with HIV/AIDS, and working to create an ``AIDS-free generation.''

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Chair, despite the name of this bill, the underlying legislation has, in my judgment, little to do with securing a sufficient supply of rare Earth minerals for our country. Rather, it is another Republican giveaway to large, profitable companies that do not need congressional action to pad their bottom lines. In fact, today's bill is so broadly drafted that it is not just rare Earth mines that will no longer have to adhere to our Federal environmental laws, but virtually any mine on public land anywhere, including silver, uranium and coal mines. Mining operations have severe and permanent consequences for the land and residents living nearby. In fact, 75 percent of existing mines end up polluting the groundwater despite the designed mitigation plans. The need for a complete and thorough review of the environmental impact before approval is therefore absolutely necessary. What's more, Madam Chair, is that this bill's underlying intent of loosening up the permitting process is not even necessary. Mining is already the priority use for most public lands, which makes it virtually impossible to regulate and control. Mining on public lands is also already incredibly cheap. These companies pay little rent to the American taxpayer for the use of public land. Moreover, under the Obama administration, 82 percent of plans are approved within 3 years, with an average of 4 years for the largest mines located on public lands. Any delays in permit approval usually stem from an incomplete application or problems that arise during review which were not anticipated and require supplemental information. By giving the lead agency the option to extend the time period for review in the event of new information, my amendment makes sure agencies can get the job done right while still adhering to a predictable schedule. Prioritizing speed over accuracy--I learned early, as did all of us, that haste makes waste--as this bill does, guarantees that mining companies are able to drill additional mines at a faster rate with less consideration for the broader impact of those mines. My amendment is necessary to give agencies the time they need to make sure that this bill will not compromise environmental protections that keep our drinking water safe, soil nourishing and nontoxic, and our air clean enough to breathe. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Chair, I understand very clearly what my good friend from Washington is saying. My quarrel is in asking that the lead agency be given the option to extend the time, as I believe historically mining companies--who, under the underlying bill would have the right to sign off on the extension--are not likely to do that. There is no history showing that they do. They want to hurry up and get on with their mining business. When there are unpredictable kinds of circumstances, then it would seem to me that the lead agency would be the place that would determine the time for review. With that, Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this bill is an irresponsible giveaway to the mining industry that has taken enormous profits at American taxpayer expense. One section in particular is extremely disturbing. Section 205 of the bill eliminates awarding of attorneys' fees to litigants bringing successful legal challenges against certain agencies' actions, like the issuance of a mining permit. Eliminating the possibility of fee shifting makes litigation prohibitively expensive for groups and individuals that don't have the deep pockets of large corporate entities. Indeed, the whole reason fee shifting exists in the first place is so that a party does not have to be wealthy in order to file a lawsuit. Justice should be accessible to all, regardless of their individual financial circumstances. Eliminating the awarding of attorneys' fees means that the traditional parties for these kinds of lawsuits, such as nearby landowners, small business owners, and environmental groups, will no longer be reimbursed for the cause of successfully litigating a claim. The only reason to eliminate this fee shifting is to discourage parties from filing these kinds of suits. Who is the biggest beneficiary of reducing the number of permit challenges? The permit-holding mine companies, of course. Since litigation can be extremely expensive, these cash-strapped plaintiffs usually only bring those lawsuits with the most likelihood of success because they literally cannot afford to lose. Eliminating the awarding of attorneys' fees will increase the predictability of the permitting process only by stifling access to the courts. Mr. Chairman, my amendment creates an exception for the awarding of attorneys' fees to successful challenges submitted by either individual citizens or nonprofit entities so that justice in this country is not reserved for only those who can afford the hefty entrance fee. I reserve the balance of my time.