Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would advise my friend from Utah that I am going to be the last speaker.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Thank you very much, and I shall conclude. I say to the chairman, before he leaves the room, that if any American corporation is paying 35 percent corporate tax, they need to fire their accountants. Madam Speaker, if the people of the District of Columbia wanted a school voucher program, they would have created one--without the interference of Congress. This pilot program was allowed to expire for a reason: It didn't work. Why the self-proclaimed party of fiscal conservatism would support authorizing millions, 300 of those, in new spending for a downright useless program with no offset is beyond me. It is time for Republicans to take their hands out of the internal affairs of the District, and instead focus on what our constituents sent us here to do--rebuild our economy and put Americans back to work. At a time when our Nation's schools and communities find themselves in dire fiscal straits, we should not be throwing money away to revive a program that has, by all objective measures, failed. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, so we can debate and pass real jobs legislation today, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the girls' basketball team of Dillard High School in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Led by Coach Marcia Pinder, whose 776-171 career record is top among all Florida basketball coaches, male or female, the Panthers crowned a 22-7 season by winning the Florida state championship for the second consecutive year. Under Coach Pinder's tutelage, the Dillard girls have consistently been recognized for being among the best at their sport, having won six titles overall. In this year's title game, the Panthers led most of the way and, with their key rebounds and clutch free throws, the game, which went to overtime, and the title ultimately belonged to Dillard. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the Lady Panthers and Coach Pinder, who have once again reached the pinnacle of success in their sport, and I am glad that they represent my district. They are all fine sportswomen and people of whom we can all be very proud. It is my distinguished honor to recognize their achievements.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Veterans Pensions Protection Act of 2011, which willprotect veterans from losing their pension benefits because they received payments to cover expenses incurred after an accident, theft, loss or casualty loss. When assessing a veteran's eligibility for a pension, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) considers a variety of sources of revenue to determine a veteran's annual income. If such income exceeds the income limit set by the VA, the veteran does not qualify for a pension or loses their benefits. Currently, the VA considers any reimbursement that compensates a veteran for his/or her expenses due to accidents, theft or loss as income. Only reimbursements of expenses related to casualty loss are currently exempted from determination of income. Under current law, if a veteran is seriously injured in an accident or the victim of a theft and receives insurance compensation to cover his/or her medical expenses, the cost of replacement of the stolen items, or for pain and suffering, he/or she will likely lose their pension. This means that the law effectively punishes veterans when they suffer from such an accident or theft. Such a tragedy happened to one of my constituents, a Navy veteran with muscular dystrophy who was hit by a truck when crossing the street in his wheelchair. His pension was abruptly cut off after he received an insurance settlement payment to cover medical expenses for himself and his service dog, and material expenses to replace his wheelchair. As a result, he fell below the poverty line, could not cover his daily expenses and mortgage payments, and almost lost his home! There is clearly something wrong with a law that cancels veterans' pensions following the award of an insurance payment, which was only intended to cover exceptional medical expenses. I am distraught that the VA can cancel the pensions of unemployed and disabled veterans without further notice. The VA has a moral responsibility to care for our veterans and ensure that they live decent lives. The Veterans Pensions Protection Act will amend the U.S. Code to exempt the reimbursement of expenses related to accidents, theft, loss or casualty loss from being included into the determination of a veteran's income. This will guarantee the continuity of our veterans' pensions and that no veteran will have their benefits unfairly and abruptly depreciated or cancelled. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will fix a loophole under existing law to ensure that pensions are issued to veterans who legitimately meet the income criteria and rely on such benefits to survive. We must enact regulations that help veterans live better lives, not hurt them. At a time when our nation's servicemen and women are fighting two wars abroad, we have a duty to our past, present, and future veterans to provide them with the very best services and benefits. We owe our veterans an enormous debt, and cannot thank them enough for their service. I urge my colleagues to support this important bipartisan legislation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. The previous SAFETEA-LU measure provided some funding for a high-speed rail corridor. This particular provision does not. Am I correct that if we were to do the high-speed rail project, that the lowest estimate is it would provide 30,000 jobs?

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute. And I would also take this opportunity, if she would yield to me, to ask her a question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank my good friend from Texas for yielding the time. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 662, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2011, prevents our Nation's highway, transit, and safety programs from expiring ahead of the upcoming construction season by extending them at fiscal year 2010 funding levels through September 30 of this year. My friend from Texas referenced the fact that it would be bad if we did not do this before March 4, and I agree with him thoroughly. I am hopeful that he has the same attitude with reference to the overall aspect of any kind of shutdown of the government. A shutdown would be bad in any of its particulars, and not just as he referenced it, that I agree with, in the area of transportation and infrastructure. This extension allows States to continue signing contracts, managing planning and construction, and paying for vital transportation and infrastructure projects while we finalize a multiyear authorization to update our network. As all of us know, our interstate highways, roads, and bridges are in desperate need of repairs and improvements. All you have to do is drive around Washington to prove that. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers in their 2009 report card, which rates the operational condition and future capacity of dams, levees, railways, roads, bridges, and transit by letter grade, our Nation's surface infrastructure is rated at a ``D.'' This is deplorable and, frankly, it's embarrassing--embarrassing for several reasons. I came here in 1992. We were advocating on both sides of the aisle that we should be about the business of repairing bridges in this country, and the multiples are enormous from that time. We were talking 14,000 bridges. More than 26 percent of our Nation's bridges today are either ``structurally deficient or functionally obsolete,'' with the number of such bridges in urban areas on the rise. And we have seen what disasters can occur when a bridge collapses. Existing rail capacity is inadequate to handle future freight and passenger rail growth without significant investment. Last year, I took the Amtrak to New York, and when returning to Washington, I looked at the rail underbed. I grew up near a railroad in Altamonte Springs, Florida. And the railbed in that time where I grew up in the 40s was 100 percent better than the railbed just outside of this city on the Amtrak line. That's ridiculous. Our interstate highway program has changed little since it was created in the 1950s by the distinguished President, Dwight Eisenhower's vision. With ever-increasing congestion--and we see it right around here--and improvement costs, our Nation's roads were even poorer at a D-minus in 2009. One-third of America's roads are in poor or mediocre condition, and 45 percent of major urban highways are congested. Just last January, the main road in and out of one of the cities that I'm privileged to represent, the city of Pahokee, was closed for 17 days because of sunken asphalt. Now, that may not sound like much, a little old town like Pahokee being cut off. But a collapsed culvert had created a 2-inch dip measuring 252 square feet in size on the northbound lane of State Road 715. This resulted in hours-long detours for commuters and trucks, stymied local and regional business, and regrettably reduced access to Glades General Hospital and Pahokee Airport. Similar stories can be found throughout my home State of Florida and indeed in communities across this Nation. We can, and we must, do better. Just as routine and preventive health care costs much less than a trip to the emergency room, regular maintenance and improvements cost less than major overhauls and replacement. According to Transportation for America, for every dollar that we spend today on maintenance, we avoid $14 in future costs. H.R. 662 obligates up to $42.5 billion for Federal-aid highway programs and $639 million for the equity bonus programs to ensure that States receive in Federal highway funds a certain portion of the gasoline taxes that they contribute. Investing in our Nation's roads is about more than getting from point A to point B faster, which would be, in many respects, reason enough for many commuters. It's about having more time, about having more money, and about having more opportunities to work, play, live, and enjoy life. Americans spend 4.2 billion hours a year stuck in traffic at a cost to the economy of $78.2 billion. That averages to $710 per motorist. Furthermore, poor conditions cost motorists $67 billion a year in repairs and operating costs. One way to ease congestion is getting more people to use public transit. In fact, transit use increased 25 percent between 1995 and 2005, faster than any other mode of transportation. However, nearly half of American households do not have access to bus or rail transit, and only 25 percent have what they consider to be a good alternative. On that note, increasing the capacity of our transportation and infrastructure network means nothing if our roads are not safe. Each year, thousands of people die in road crashes in the United States, and millions more are injured or disabled. As cochair of the Congressional Caucus on Global Road Safety, I recognize that road crash fatalities and disabilities represent a serious public health concern. This extension authorizes $742 billion in highway-safety programs administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, as well as $597 million for truck-safety activities of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, in order to help save lives and minimize crash-related injuries. Safe, dependable, and efficient transportation is essential to our economic recovery and our Nation's competitiveness. At a time when unemployment in the construction industry is double the national rate, this extension provides much-needed market stability to create and sustain thousands of jobs. The transportation sector has played a crucial role in rebuilding the U.S. economy, most recently through the Recovery Act, which provided $27.5 billion in new funding for surface transportation programs through the existing Federal-aid highway program and $8.4 billion for transit. In addition, $1.5 billion and $600 million were made available in two rounds, respectively, by the discretionary grant program known as TIGER, the Transportation Investments Generating Economic Recovery. Extending these highway, transit, and other surface transportation programs is not only essential to our Nation's continued economic recovery, but also to our long-term prosperity and future. Today, we find ourselves on the cusp of a great opportunity, the opportunity to make meaningful investments in the future of this country, improve our quality of life and cut future debt. We need a truly interconnected, multi-modal system that effectively utilizes high-speed rail, light rail, streetcars, van pools, motor carriers by water, efficient buses, cars and bikes. We need a system that helps ensure that lower-income workers can also get to and hold down jobs, a system that gets people where they need to go, increases our energy independence through new sources and innovative technologies, improves air quality, reduces traffic deaths and injuries, and creates jobs by supporting America's hard-hit construction and manufacturing sectors. It is imperative that we not only extend the surface transportation programs through the end of the current fiscal year, but also pass a multi-year--yes, multi-year, as many as a 6-year--reauthorization as soon as possible. A new multi-year surface transportation authorization will create even more jobs and ensure that we can meet our growing transportation needs in the 21st century in a way that is affordable, efficient, innovative, resilient, sustainable, and accountable. In this country, highways, roads, bridges and transit are neither Democratic nor Republican. They serve all Americans and help bring us closer together, literally. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I say to my colleague and my friend from California, sign me up. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown), the ranking member of the Railroad Subcommittee and my classmate. We came here together.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, when the gentlewoman from Florida was speaking about the light rail program that may expire on Friday, and I am hopeful that our Governor will understand that, a retort came from my friend from Texas about her saying about a lack of vision is what causes these kinds of matters. The gentlewoman from Florida was talking about light rail. I don't recall my friend from Texas being upset when we did light rail in Houston, and I was for that. I might add all of us know that we need to move people as best we can in other methodologies, as I have described earlier. Madam Speaker, Democrats and Republicans must work together to invest more in our Nation's aging transportation infrastructure network; invest more, not less. We have a vision for America's future transportation infrastructure. Now we need the leadership to make it a reality. I shudder to think what would have happened to this Nation's overall national security had Dwight Eisenhower not had the vision and those Congresspersons who were here and the American people did not agree that we would have an interstate highway system. I understand that it takes money to do these things. Let's look at Minnesota as an example. When the bridge collapsed in Minneapolis, tragically, lives were lost and a system that was a city's lifeblood had to be repaired. It has been repaired. But wouldn't it have been so much better, not just to avoid the tragedy, that's obvious, but could we not have as we do see in some of these situations, that these bridges need repair, these levees need repair. The Congresspersons from Louisiana were talking about the levees that were blown away during Katrina 10 years before that happened. I stand here today and talk about a levee in the Everglades that unless it's repaired, it is going to cause a disaster. You either pay me now on these things or you pay a whole lot later. We're not talking about not spending, not investing. We're talking about doing it wisely and with accountability. While I support the underlying bill, I would like to express my disappointment at the closed process. My colleague comes down here and talks about all the Members are going to get a chance to come down here and they're going to get a chance to express their ideas. Well, there may be some Members that may have had an amendment that might innovate something or might improve our transportation system. My friend from Texas will claim that this is technically not a closed rule, and it's true that the rule did allow one--one--amendment by Chairman Mica, who wrote the underlying bill that I support. You heard that correctly. The only Member who is allowed to offer an amendment is the same Member who wrote the bill. On January 5, the distinguished Speaker of this House for whom I have great respect, and he is a friend of mine, stated the following: ``Above all else, we will welcome the battle of ideas, encourage it, and engage in it--openly, honestly, and respectfully. As the Chamber closest to the people, the House works best when it is allowed to work its will.'' My colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) offered a motion for an open rule, so these important matters could be debated openly on the House floor. But this amendment was defeated last night, or yesterday, in a party-line vote. In addition, I also made a motion to amend the rule and make in order an amendment by Delegate Holmes Norton of Washington, D.C. and cosponsored by Mr. Moran of Virginia which would simply have permitted the District of Columbia to spend its own money after March 4--in other words, this coming Friday--in the event of a government shutdown. That was defeated on a party-line vote. I ask you, Madam Speaker, does this sound like an open process to you? I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and instead pass this much-needed extension through a truly open process that allows all Members to offer amendments. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mrs. Doris Bowen Ellick, who died on February 16, 2011 at the age of 78. Mrs. Ellick was a dedicated public servant and a pillar in Palm Beach County. Mrs. Ellick stands apart as an exemplary citizen and living testimony to compassion, dedication, and selfless generosity. Mrs. Ellick was born on May 23, 1932 to the late Elder Sam and Janie Ross Bowens in Wacissa, Florida. She was formally educated in the public schools of Jefferson County Florida. In 1948, the Bowens family relocated to Belle Glade, Florida. Mrs. Ellick later graduated from Everglades Vocational High School. For 23 years, Mrs. Ellick worked in the Palm Beach County School System as a teacher's assistant. While there, she was effectively a mentor, godmother, grandmother, encourager, and comforter to many. After retiring from Palm Beach County School System, Mrs. Ellick continued her passion for public service as a foster mother. In this capacity, she opened her home for the community and homeless. While working as an educator, she met the love of her life, Alford Ellick. The couple wedded on April 7, 1951. From this union was born 8 children: Bernard, Alfred, Charles, Terris, Gerald, Reginald, Christopher, and Kenneth. She was irrefutably a devoted wife and mother. Mrs. Ellick was also an active member of the Inspirational Church of God where she served on the Board of Directors and Board of Trustees for a number of years, and was officially ordained as one of the Mothers of the church. In addition to working enthusiastically in her church, Mrs. Ellick devoted a majority of her time to her family. Invariably, she could be found with her children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, and extended family. For her commitment to her family, her community, and her nation, it is with great privilege that I honor the life of Mrs. Ellick and extend my deepest condolences to her friends and family.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a resolution in support of the Republic of India gaining a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. Addressing a joint session of India's Parliament this past November 8, President Obama said that ``the United States not only welcomes India as a rising global power, we fervently support it.'' I could not agree more. In recent years India has proven to be a solid and supportive ally of the United States. As the international community looks to reform the policies and procedures of the Security Council, no nation deserves a seat at the table more than India. As the world's most populous democracy--and second most-populous nation--India is an increasingly influential power, not only in its neighborhood in South Asia but also on the world's stage. India is one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, enjoys the second- largest labor force, and is rapidly becoming a major hub for high-tech industry, telecommunications, and automobile manufacturing. As a major export/import nation, India is an important trading partner for dozens of countries around the world. India has a strategic role in addressing major global security issues, makes its participation in international decisions essential. Having already provided tens of thousands of troops for dozens of UN peacekeeping missions around the world, India has earned a permanent role for itself in security decision-making, global conflict resolution, and questions of war and peace. As a nation which has suffered more casualties from terrorism than almost any other, India's commitment to effective counterterrorism measures is aligned with the United States' goals, and India has proved an indispensible ally with respect to our efforts in South Asia. Finally, India regularly participates in numerous regional and international organizations, including the G20, the World Trade Organization, the East Asian Summit, and the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation. India has thus demonstrated a commitment to international dialogue and constructive engagement, and, indeed, enjoys good relations with most countries around the world. Mr. Speaker, India is already a nation of great influence, respect, ambition, and ability, and a trusted member of the international community. An overwhelming majority of the United Nations General Assembly recently elected India to serve as the Asian regional representative to the Security Council. The permanent membership of the Security Council reflects the reality of global power in the immediate aftermath of World War Two--not today's 21st century reality of rising powers. As President Obama and many other world leaders have pointed out, India deserves a permanent seat on a reformed Security Council, where its voice and clout will be a much-welcomed and much-needed addition to the global security regime. I strongly applaud this effort and urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a resolution commemorating Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on its centennial anniversary. The city was incorporated on March 27, 1911, but in fact Fort Lauderdale's history goes back much further. Thousands of years ago the Glades Culture and Tequesta people settled in the area, although the modern history of the area began in the early 1800s with the Seminole Indian Tribe settlements. Conflict arose between the Native Americans and local white planters, leading to a series of wars over several decades. It was during the Second Seminole War, in the 1830s and 1840s, that Major William Lauderdale commanded a detachment of soldiers who built a fort along the New River, forever imprinting his name on the area. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as regional investments in rail, water, and road transportation took off, trading posts and residential neighborhoods grew up in the area, until Fort Lauderdale became a city in 1911. Four years later the city became the seat in the newly-created Broward County. By World War Two Fort Lauderdale had become a major resort town, shipping port, and military base, where pilots and submarines did battle with German U-boats off the coast of Florida. The postwar period saw Broward become the second largest county in the State, and turned Fort Lauderdale into a major metropolis, commercial hub, and tourist destination. Today, Fort Lauderdale has over 180,000 residents and ten million annual visitors. Nearby Port Everglades is the third busiest cruise port in the United States, and the city is a global center for yachting, with over 100 marinas and 42,000 yachts. The city's International Boat Show is the third largest in the world. From pristine beaches and entertainment centers to its economic vitality and transportation network, Fort Lauderdale is a vibrant and livable destination city. The past hundred years have seen unprecedented growth and civic betterment, the outgrowth of suburbs and the rising of skyscrapers. I know that the next hundred years will mark great new achievements in urban development and economic prosperity. I offer my congratulations to the city and its residents on the occasion of Fort Lauderdale's centennial anniversary.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

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

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, this is the full year continuing appropriations act which would help people living with HIV/ AIDS who cannot afford their treatment by reallocating additional funding to our Nation's AIDS Drug Assistance Program. It is unconscionable that, in 2011, we often have the resources to save lives but wait until a crisis before taking action. Just this month, thousands of Floridians living with HIV/AIDS were on the verge of losing access to their life-saving drugs as Florida's ADAP ran out of money. Current funding levels for ADAP are unsustainable. Due to state budget cuts and an increase in the number of individuals who rely on ADAP for HIV/AIDS-related drugs and services, 10 states, including Florida, have had to create ADAP waiting lists and cut services. As of February 3, my home state of Florida has accounted for over half of the 6,001 individuals on ADAP waiting lists nationwide (3,085 individuals). In fact, Florida has the third-highest HIV/AIDS population in the country and the highest rate of new infections. Ensuring access to treatment remains key to combating HIV/AIDS. Antiretroviral drugs can increase the life expectancy of a person living with HIV/AIDS by at least 24 years. When incorporated into comprehensive strategies, antiretroviral drugs can also help reduce the spread of HIV by up to 92 percent. Currently, the lifetime cost of living with HIV/AIDS is $618,900. If we do not take action now, the future costs of HIV/AIDS will amount to $12.1 billion per year, with drugs making up 70 percent of the cost. We cannot afford to turn a blind eye to this crisis; the costs are simply too high. My amendment reallocates $14 million from each of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 administrative budgets of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), and National Institutes of Health (NIH) in order to provide $42 million to ADAP. According to the Congressional Budget Office, if enacted, my amendment would save $1 million in new FY 2011 expenditures. Furthermore, it would have no net budget authority effect for FY 2011. Mr. Chairman, we can and must do better. I urge my colleagues to support increased funding for our nation's ADAP by voting in favor of my amendment. By reallocating desperately-needed funds to ADAP, we are helping states like Florida ensure that low-income individuals living with HIV/ AIDS have access to the medications and services they need to stay alive while stemming the tide of new infections and saving our nation money in the long-term. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased at this time to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my distinguished colleague and very good friend and colleague from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

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

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment that will prohibit the use of funds by the Department of Education for its misguided gainful employment rule. Perhaps it would be helpful for the body and the public to know what this gainful employment is that we are talking about. Under the Higher Education Act, proprietary colleges and universities and career training programs are required to offer programs that lead to gainful employment in a legally recognized occupation in order to participate in the Federal student aid programs. The term ``gainful employment'' has been in the statute for over 40 years; and during the most recent reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, there was absolutely no debate or discussion on a need to further define the term. Now, when this originated, several of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I am deeply appreciative of the chairman and my colleagues, in a bipartisan fashion we went about our business trying to understand just what kind of proposed rule it is that the Department is talking about and just how it is that it will impact the overall public. What this amendment would do is prohibit the use of funds for implementation of the draft regulation that the Department issued on October 29, 2010, and will prohibit the Department from promulgating or enforcing new regulations regarding gainful employment. Let me put a face on these schools, as my colleagues that are opposed have done. Perhaps some of them have never eaten at a restaurant where the person that prepared the food went to a proprietary institution. I have. Perhaps none of them have had physical therapy where the person administering it graduated from a proprietary school. I have. And, most importantly, I want this body to understand that of the eight people that had the last hands-on experiences with my mother for 2 years, all were nurses in two different hospitals and at home, and all graduated from proprietary schools. We all agree that both taxpayer funds and students' best interests should be protected in higher education. But I can tell you this: rushing into a blanket approach that will limit student access to higher education and fail to adequately address problem institutions is not the way to go. You know what we did here in this institution? What we did here for the people that work with us, young people that graduate from Ivy League schools, historically black schools, all over this place, we created a program that will allow them to help pay off their student loans. Some of us hire people at what I would not call gainful employment that may have graduated from institutions that I attended or that the President attended. I don't understand why the Department refuses to recognize job placement, professional certification, passing rates, employer verification, or anything else related in determining an institution's effectiveness. If it's unreasonable amounts of student debt that they're trying to address, I agree that that is a concern. Let's have a frank discussion on student debt. But it is not only the institutions that are responsible. Students, lenders, policymakers, as well as institutions must be part of this process and must be held accountable. This proposed rule is very broad and its implementation so burdensome that many schools will undoubtedly close. And I don't buy into that fallacious argument that 50 percent of these people don't graduate or don't go on to do this, that, or the other. In this economy in the United States of America, a whole lot of students are graduating from a whole lot of schools and are not getting jobs today. And many of these schools that we're attacking, unreasonably, are places where I know, at least in the congressional district that I'm privileged to serve, that many of these people have received jobs--and many of them leave the institutions, like the last two nurses that worked with my mom that had a job when they left the institution. This may please some of my friends in this body, and the Department of Education, but what will happen to the single mother looking to change careers who needs the flexibility of a private sector college? What about the first-generation college student who needs the added support. Mr. Chairman, I urge that we support this amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 73, the rule providing for consideration of H. Res. 72, which directs certain standing committees to inventory and review existing, pending, and proposed regulations and orders from agencies of the Federal Government, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. The resolution isn't objectionable in and of itself. We all agree that regulations that do more harm than good should be eliminated. The President has said that, Democrats have said that, and Republicans have said that. And the rules of the House already require committees to carry out this sort of oversight. So I question, Mr. Speaker, why my friends on the other side of the aisle insist on spending 9\1/2\ hours debating a resolution that is entirely redundant. We're committing the same offense that Republicans claimed to abhor about government: wasting time, effort, and taxpayer dollars. Devoting 9\1/2\ hours to this exercise is squandering yet another opportunity. We could be using this time to pass legislation that will create and retain jobs right here in this country instead of telling the committees of jurisdiction to continue to do what they are already mandated to do. What's next, Mr. Speaker? Nine-and-a-half hours of debate instructing the House to close for Thanksgiving or Christmas? Republicans marched into the majority over a month ago vowing a laser-like focus on job creation, and they've done nothing towards that end since. Today's debate is yet another reminder that Republicans care more about their lockstep, anti-government ideology than they do about getting down to the business of improving the lives of hardworking Americans. Democrats did offer to improve today's rule by adding language instructing the committees to make job creation legislation their highest priority and for such legislation to be considered under an open amendment process. In other words, Mr. Speaker, Democrats made the effort to work in agreement with Republicans on this matter and to ensure that this body emphasizes legislation to create jobs and improve the American economy, but the Republicans said ``no.'' They said ``no'' to working with Democrats. They said ``no'' to prioritizing job creation. They said ``no'' to fulfilling their promise for an open and transparent legislative process. My friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions) declared at the end of last year that, and I quote him, ``Open rules will make a triumphant return to the House floor,'' unquote, and that all Members, and I quote him again, ``will have a chance to fully contribute in this legislative process.'' The House has been under Republican control for 5 weeks. In that time, we have voted on 11 bills. None of those bills went through their respective committees and none of those bills had actual open rules. One had a modified open rule. That's not very triumphant in my opinion, Mr. Speaker. It is already the second month of this Congress and Republicans are still dodging a real debate on real legislation that will create real jobs and improve the American economy. And Republicans are still refusing to address exactly what these cuts will mean to the lives of the American people. Which regulations do Republicans propose to get rid of? The ones for clean drinking water? The ones preventing financial abuse on Wall Street? I was here, Mr. Speaker, along with my friend on the other side of the aisle when Republicans assumed control and that we did not provide the necessary regulation at the Securities and Exchange Commission. I for one thought when a friend of ours who served with us went to be the chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission that finally we would get some regulations there. We did not get regulations. What we got--and there's no secret about this, no finger to point at anybody--the simple fact of the matter is by not having adequate regulation of Wall Street, this country came to the brink of disaster in November of '08. Do they want to get rid of the ones that protect against massive oil spills and mine collapses? So far this year, Republicans have moved to repeal health care, they've moved to restrict a woman's right to choose, and they've moved drastically to cut spending for a huge range of essential government services that ensure public safety, economic opportunity and national security. It seems the Republicans want to use their majority to settle old scores. But I don't think that's what the American people have in mind as a national priority. Republicans seem to think that if we spend 9\1/2\ hours debating a resolution that simply remarks on what House committees are already doing, they will suffice to convince the American people that Republicans have a plan for improving the economy. It is clear that this resolution is really about demonizing Federal regulations. But the Republicans ignore the benefits of regulations, the importance of protecting existing jobs, and the necessity of leveling the playing field to ensure economic growth and prosperity for all Americans. If our constituents had the choice of whether to spend this time practicing our rhetorical skills or actually passing meaningful legislation that creates more jobs, I believe they would vote for jobs. Let's get back to what the American people need from us, and that is to improve the American economy. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule. I reserve the balance of my time.