Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my friend that sits on the Rules Committee, my colleague from Georgia, correctly speaks to this issue and its need to go to the Judiciary Committee or other committees to ensure that veterans have the appropriate adjudication. I don't know where he or my colleague from Florida would place schizophrenia. I am not a mental health expert, but I have spent a good portion of my career here in Congress dealing with issues and trying to address issues of mental health, be it veterans or not. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 696, Representative Schrader's bill to exempt the Department of Veterans Affairs from Donald John Trump's hiring freeze. As we have already discussed, my amendment to allow the VA Secretary to fill vacant positions, regardless of whether they were vacated before or after the hiring freeze, was blocked last night in the Rules Committee. There are nearly 47,000 vacant positions within the VA, and we should not be limiting the VA's authority to fill these positions, especially as we continue to work towards reducing patient wait times. On a bipartisan basis, Members of both the House and Senate have requested that the VA be exempt from the hiring freeze. Mr. Speaker, this is commonsense legislation to ensure that the VA can recruit and hire qualified staff to meet the needs of our veterans. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, we are gathered here, once again, to debate the same old, tired, irresponsible, and morally bankrupt policies championed by my friends across the aisle, policies that will, while we face a suicide epidemic among those servicemembers who have so bravely served this country, make it easier for them to take their own lives by increasing their access to guns. That may be good policy for the powerful gun lobby and gun manufacturers, but it is horrendous policy for the American people. We have before us legislation that will gut workers' rights for VA employees while also making it easier to reprimand those who are brave enough to speak out against the ills they see occurring at the VA--ills that have and will continue to undermine the quality of service our veterans are able to receive. All of this moral ineptitude is set against the backdrop of a healthcare plan recently put forth by Republicans that will raise the number of uninsured in this country to 24 million in under 10 years. This includes 14 million folks being unceremoniously kicked off of Medicaid and 7 million Americans kicked off of the health insurance plans they receive through their employers. This is a plan that will increase premiums for individual policyholders by up to 29 percent. This is a plan that will increase, particularly for older Americans, out-of-pocket healthcare expenses. Mr. Speaker, in the final analysis, this is no plan at all but rather a shameful and cynical massive giveaway to the ultrawealthy at the expense of the middle class that will result in hardworking Americans paying far more for far, far less. Mr. Speaker, I have been in this institution 25 years, and I have been on this Earth 80 years. I have seen an awful lot of trauma during that period of time. I served as a State court judge and had the responsibility of Baker Acting--it is called in Florida--people to mental institutions. I have established fiduciaries for people who were unable to take care of themselves. I worked actively when we had mental health hospitals to keep those mental health hospitals open. I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, so that you can say to the gentleman who asked that I apologize, that I apologize for nothing having to do with any remarks that I made within the confines of what is allowed in this institution. The simple fact of the matter is I used the term ``crazy,'' and I had reference to schizophrenia. Now, it may very well be that these are not broken people, it is that they are brave people who came home with problems. But crazy is crazy, and I would say that until the day I die. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS

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

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Bangladesh Association of Florida. For 24 years, this fine organization has presented the Asian Food Fair & Cultural Show in Palm Beach County. This annual program is eagerly awaited by citizens around South Florida for its exciting and diverse performances of singing, dancing, acrobatics and food from many Asian nations. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have been involved with the people of the Bangladesh Association of Florida since the inception of this wonderful program. It is one of the cultural highlights of every year. It is widely appreciated and greatly enjoyed by everyone who experiences its variety of entertainment. We are fortunate to have it on our schedule of great events, and I thank the Bangladesh Association for bringing it to us.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Jason Paul Taylor, a former Defensive End and Linebacker in the National Football League (NFL). Mr. Taylor played 15 years in the NFL, most of it with the mighty Miami Dolphins. He owns NFL records for fumble recoveries returned for touchdowns, interceptions returned for touchdowns by a defensive lineman and defensive touchdowns scored, and tied for the record in fumble recoveries. Mr. Taylor was a four-year letterman and three-year starter for the Akron Zips of the University of Akron before being drafted in the third round in the 1997 NFL Draft by Miami. A six-time Pro Bowl selection and four time first or second team All-Pro, he was named the NFL Defensive Player of the Year in 2006. Generous in all ways, he started the Jason Taylor Foundation in 2004, dedicated to children in South Florida resulting in his receiving the Walter Payton Man of the Year Award in 2007, the only league honor that recognizes those achievements made on and off the field. He was elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 2017, one of only four Dolphins players to be elected in their first year of eligibility. Following his retirement from the NFL at the end of the 2011 season, Mr. Taylor joined the ESPN television network as an analyst. He is also a board member of the NFL Players Association. At Akron, Jason Taylor was a two-time first-team All-Mid-American Conference selection as a junior and senior, as well as an All-American pick as a junior. In 1996, he earned National Defensive Player of the Week honors for his performance against Virginia Tech, when he posted 12 tackles, two sacks, two fumble recoveries, three stops for loss and tackled a punt returner in the end zone for a safety. Taylor also started for the Akron Zips men's basketball team. In 2004, he became the third person ever inducted into Akron's Ring of Honor. Mr. Speaker, not content to rest on his laurels, Jason's recent appearance at the YMCA of South Palm Beach County's Inspiration Breakfast generated $40,000 for the financial assistance program that lets families in need use YMCA programs. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Jason Taylor is a fine athlete and great humanitarian. I want to thank him for all that he is doing for our South Florida community. I am so truly pleased to honor him today.

Mr. HASTINGS

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

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate a rule for a piece of legislation that will, in the final analysis, make it more difficult for hardworking Americans to stand up to corporate malfeasance; a piece of legislation that jettisons a history of legal precedent in the blink of an eye because, well, it helps keep the deep pockets of the ultrawealthy as deep as possible. I learned this law in law school in 1959, but it was in existence way before that time, and now my friends across the aisle are going to tell us that this legislation is needed because it will protect small businesses. This is a feint, folks. Small businesses--indeed all of us--have been and continue to be protected by the century-old jurisprudential rule that the Republicans come here today to upend. In reality, all this bill will do is make it more difficult for regular folks across this country to bring lawsuits against massive corporations. I shudder to think what would have happened in the critically important asbestos case had this particular law been in effect; and there are many more. This bill will make it more expensive both in time and treasure for our fellow Americans to hold corporations responsible in the courtroom, a need all the more prevalent today as my friends across the aisle have been busy gutting regulations at a dizzying pace. Let me make it clear, after we finish, my colleague from Colorado and I are going to go back to the Rules Committee to discuss some more judicial reform. A lot of it is stuff that is going to harm little people in the courts and to cause them not to have access to the court system, as have many of the regulations that we have already disapproved. Let us be clear, the American people didn't vote for dirty water, but that is what they got with this Republican majority when it voted to repeal a rule that barred corporations from dumping mining debris into our drinking water, helping powerful mining companies by hurting all of the rest of the people in their near curtilage. The American people didn't vote to weaken the Securities and Exchange Commission, but that is what this majority did when it passed a bill adding more hurdles to the SEC rulemaking process, making it more difficult for the agency to protect consumers, helping Wall Street while putting our economy at risk. I will make a prediction here. It may not happen right away, but just like we saw the Great Depression that we are just coming out of, we are likely to see that same kind of situation again by virtue of lessening the rules against violations in securities. The American people didn't vote to drug test Americans on unemployment insurance--degrading the hardworking men and women in this country--but that is what this Republican majority did without delay. Mr. Speaker, the list really does go on and on. In fact, just yesterday, Republicans continued to chant the corporate clarion call with the unveiling of what I now will call their shameful replacement of the Affordable Care Act. Until there is a resolution, I am going to call it TrumpCare. My colleagues like to tout how short the bill is compared to the Affordable Care Act. Well, the American people will be surprised to find that, in that brevity, Republicans managed to repeal an Affordable Care Act provision that placed a limit on insurance executives' compensation. Let me repeat that. They managed to repeal a provision that placed a limit on insurance executives' compensation. The insurance executives shouldn't be too surprised by this, however. Repeatedly, Republicans have shown they represent corporate interests over the interests of the American people. But my Republican colleagues didn't stop there. Their so-called replacement, the Trump bill, also claims to have done away with the individual mandate. What they don't tell you is that, instead, their plan calls for funneling money to the insurance companies in the form of a 30 percent surcharge if an individual goes without health insurance. Let me tell all the older Americans and 80-year-old people like me to get ready because they are going to be able to charge you just exactly what they want to charge you, and all--mine and yours--insurance is going to go up if this particular measure were to become law. That is right. Under the Republican healthcare proposal, if you, the American worker, goes without healthcare coverage for longer than 2 months--say you couldn't after a new plan between jobs--then Republicans give insurance companies the right to charge you 30 percent higher premiums. That is ridiculous. Republicans didn't get rid of the individual mandate. They just turned the mandate into a windfall for insurance companies--a windfall that is going to work out great for insurance executives now that Republicans also removed the cap on their compensation tax deductions. Mr. Speaker, let us not lose sight of the fact that it took Republicans 7 years of undermining the Affordable Care Act to finally come up with this proposal for replacing it. Their plan would kick millions of Americans off their health insurance and force millions more to pay higher premiums. It would take health care away from the poor, give tax cuts to the rich, and pull the rug out from under seniors, families, and children. In fact, this plan is so bad that Republicans literally hid not only their horrific proposal, but themselves, from their constituents. Many of their Members are seeing it just in the last 36 hours. They did this by callously brushing off townhall meeting after townhall meeting. Why all the smoke and mirrors regarding something as simple as this measure is in light of the fact that they ran on replacing it? Why hide it and why rush it and why go through this charade that most of us know and several Senators said yesterday will be dead on arrival? Actually, let me ask the American people. Who do you think the Republican Party is representing, you or corporate America? Mr. Speaker, we are not even a full 2 months into the Republican-led government and, in addition to the unconstitutional Muslim bans--and notice I said ``bans,'' because the old one is nothing but the new one, and the new one is the old one, minus one, and that is the country of Iraq--we have the Republican denial of clear Russian influence in our most recent election. Let me be very clear about this particular aspect. All of the intelligence agencies have indicated that there was Russian interference in this last election. I don't understand why we are not totally outraged and why there is not extraordinary emphasis on this kind of action against our fundamental democracy. It is ridiculous that we are around here doing things that we know are not likely to pass the United States Senate and that we are disapproving regulations, yet we cannot get an independent commission to make a determination of how this impact occurred. And we do know that it occurred. I am outraged, and I would hope more Americans would be as well. We have also seen the almost immediate recusal of the Attorney General due to his inability to be forthright with our Senate colleagues; wild and baseless claims emanating from late-night Twitter storms from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or Mar-a-Lago; and we have a Republican Party dedicated to ensuring that their corporate benefactors can rest easy, no matter the harm they cause to everyday working Americans. Are we addressing any of these concerns here today? I would imagine my colleague, rightly, will come back and argue that all the things that I just talked about are not this particular rule. Well, this rule is not even deserving of that kind of consideration, largely for the reason it is yet another structured rule disallowing Members of this House to have an opportunity to have input into a measure that is getting rid of a century of precedent in our judiciary. No, what we are doing is debating obscure civil procedure rules that date back to the days of President Teddy Roosevelt. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the chairman of the Rules Committee and he knows that. I just heard him say his insurance went up under ObamaCare. Mine did, too. I also want to remind him that, if this measure as offered yesterday were to become law, his and my insurance is going to go up again. So we weren't doing all of the things that you said you were going to do by bringing the price down. In addition, we don't even know what CBO's score is with respect to this matter. You said that you are reading it to understand it now, yet Members are in the Energy and Commerce Committee, as you explained, marking it up, and they don't even know what CBO's score is. I will get back to that in a few minutes about all these people we pay over there to do that work, and then we are not utilizing them. I also want to address my friend from Colorado and have him understand that I am not precluded from presenting to the American public what legislation we wish to prioritize. As the gentleman knows, we are currently debating the rule. This is a tool used to set the House agenda and to prioritize consideration of legislation. For that very reason, this is, in fact, the appropriate time for us to explain to the American people what legislation we would like to prioritize and what agenda we would like to pursue in this House. I won't reiterate it, in the interest of time. I will have a previous question that will demonstrably show what legislation we think we should be addressing. I will do that for as long as I am given the opportunity to manage rules. I will come down here and present the position of the Democratic Party so that they understand our priorities and not necessarily am I hidebound by this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule which would modify the rules of the House to require a cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office before any legislation that would amend or repeal the Affordable Care Act may be considered in committee or on the House floor. The Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Energy and Commerce are marking up repeal legislation today. Legislation this significant should not advance through the committee process, let alone the House, without first hearing from our nonpartisan budget experts at the Congressional Budget Office on what the cost and overall impact will be. Mr. Speaker, we have over 200 employees at the Congressional Budget Office. We pay them collectively--and administrative duties--nearly $50 million a year to advise us at times exactly like this. House rules already require the Congressional Budget Office cost estimates to be included in committee reports. We are simply trying to improve and strengthen this principle of transparency in order to ensure that we know the cost of this repeal legislation before we vote, and that includes the members in the Committee on Energy and Commerce today who are marking this up so as how they would know the cost before they vote in committee today. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, it is not too late for my friends across the aisle to tether themselves to the ideals that have made this country great for generations; ideals that, if we are to be saved from the rushing current we presently find ourselves being dragged down by, will be, as they always have been, those ideals which save us from ourselves. We are a nation built upon the strength of immigrants, of teachers, of doctors, of mill workers, garbagemen and -women, small-business owners, and farmers. We are a nation of dreamers and innovators, respectful of our individuality and mindful of our unparalleled power once unified in common cause. At some point, my Republican friends will, I hope, realize that their unabashed and wholesale championing of corporate interests at the expense of hardworking Americans is a losing cause. For the sake of our environment, our children, our grandchildren, and our unborn children, I hope this day is earlier rather than later. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Dog and Cat Meat Prohibition Act of 2017, legislation that will prohibit the slaughter and trade of dogs and cats for human consumption in the United States. It might surprise you to learn that consumption of dogs and cats is still legal in 44 states in our nation, where there are no laws prohibiting the purchasing, shipping, transporting, selling, or donating of dogs or cats to be slaughtered for human consumption. This bill will prohibit these actions and impose penalties to ensure that individuals involved in the dog or cat meat trade are held accountable. The United States' position on this cruel and brutal practice should be unequivocal: dogs and cats should not be killed in this country for the consumption of their meat. It is with utmost importance that the United States unifies animal cruelty laws in all 50 states and explicitly bans the killing of dogs and cats for human consumption. Mr. Speaker, I hope this body will expeditiously pass this measure. Doing so will reaffirm America's commitment to the humane treatment of our most beloved companions.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Georgia, my friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate. Mr. Speaker, I rise to debate the rule for consideration. As my friend across the aisle has already noted, this rule bundles together two unrelated pieces of legislation. We are developing a pattern here of doing that in the Rules Committee. The first of these is H.J. Res. 83, a Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval that seeks to overturn a Department of Labor rule on workplace injuries, undermining workplace safety and health in the process. The second measure is H.R. 998, the SCRUB Act, which establishes a new commission to review Federal regulations with the aim of needlessly politicizing and, thereby, undermining the regulatory framework that keeps our air clean and our water safe to drink. I note that my friend on the other side of the aisle did not mention that this commission will cost $30 million for work that last night's presenter at the Rules Committee said that Congress can do, the argument being that Congress doesn't have enough staff so we are going to send it over to nine people and pay $30 million, starting, to have them do the work that we in Congress should be doing. Beginning with the CRA resolution--the 14th such resolution considered by the House this month--the Republican leadership is continuing its onslaught against well-thought-out and measured regulations. I get it. Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the White House. They are desperately trying to ram through their priorities before anyone notices what they are doing. It is interesting to me, Mr. Speaker, where the Republican majority has focused its attention throughout the past month. I can't help but notice that 40 days into Donald John Trump's administration, he has not put forth one single jobs measure. Democrats, on the other hand, continue to talk about the need for good, well-paying jobs. The United States Senate put out the Democrats' trillion-dollar jobs plan that anybody can read on their website on where we stand when it comes to well-paying jobs. Yet, as we advocate for our plan to rebuild our Nation's infrastructure and create over 15 million jobs in the process, Republicans pass measures to drug-test applicants for unemployment insurance and repeal rules that require Federal contractors to disclose violations of Federal labor and worker safety laws. This resolution repeals a Department of Labor rule pertaining to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The rule in question requires employers to keep and maintain accurate records of every recordable injury and illness in federally mandated logs for a period of 5 years. It is worth mentioning that this policy has been upheld in cases dating back to 1993. The rule, when implemented, added zero new compliance obligations, zero new reporting obligations, and cost a total of--you guessed it--zero dollars. Yet, once again, this is what we are spending our time on this week: repealing a thoughtful rule designed to protect workers. I am particularly concerned by this resolution as it actually jeopardizes workplace safety by allowing employers to avoid penalties for the underreporting of injuries over many years. Longstanding workplace hazards will and can certainly be masked. This makes it less likely that employers or employees will take corrective actions or that OSHA will find the hazards when they do an inspection, leaving workers in danger. It is also worth noting that due to its very small budget, OSHA is only able to inspect a workplace, on average, once every 140 years. You heard me correctly, once every 140 years. That makes data even more important. Yet, by diminishing the reliability of a worksite's injury data, which some employers systematically underreport, this resolution also takes away OSHA's ability to protect workers from the most significant hazards. Mr. Speaker, throughout the past week, concerned Americans attended town halls across the country, and for those who were actually able to meet with their Republican representative in Congress, the conversations focused on protecting health care, creating jobs, and protecting the environment. At these meetings, constituents did not ask for fewer workplace protections, they did not ask for Congress to act to make it easier for people with severe mental illness to purchase guns, they didn't ask for Congress to ease disclosure requirements for oil companies making payments to foreign governments, and yet these are the things the Republican majority has already chosen to focus on this month. Watching the news, I did not hear one person say: if only Congress would repeal anticorruption rules, undermine my retirement security, and then allow endangered animals on national wildlife refuges to be killed using inhumane methods, if only Congress would do these things, my life would be better. Not one person, Mr. Speaker. Yet, in the past month, the House voted to do all of the things that I just mentioned. I submit to the American people watching at home right now that this is the face of today's Republican Party. Tell me who you think is really on your side. Turning our attention to the SCRUB Act, this bill would establish a $30 million commission with unlimited subpoena authority that is empowered to dismantle long-established, science-based public health and safety standards. The SCRUB Act would undermine the ability of agencies to react to immediate public health threats by adopting the regulatory CutGo process. The CutGo system is, in my opinion, completely detached from reality. This requirement will prohibit agencies from issuing any new rules, even in the case of emergencies or imminent harm to the public, until they repeal an existing rule to offset the cost. Along with bills that have already come to the House floor under this Republican Congress, as well as Donald Trump's executive actions mandating a regulatory freeze, this legislation demonstrates a continued attack on standards set in place to protect American families. I guess it is not all that surprising that my Republican friends are pushing through legislation that prioritizes corporate profit over health and safety of the American people. Whether it is denying access to women's health care or rolling back environmental protections, Republicans are making it clear where their allegiances lie. For a party that prides itself on being anti-red tape, the SCRUB Act strangely duplicates existing requirements to conduct retrospective reviews of rules, rules on top of rules on top of rules. Our regulatory system should work for all American families and encourage companies to run safe, forward-thinking businesses. This legislation would move us in the opposite direction. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the passion of my friend from Georgia. I would suggest to him that I am amused that he would get in the weeds in a rather substantial legal opinion. A portion of it he correctly cited, but he omitted the continuing part of the judge's remarks that said that, indeed, you could go back and put forth a resolution. I find it particularly amusing that my friends on the other side, after not granting that judge a hearing so that he could become a Supreme Court Justice, now want to say what a great judge he is and what a great amount of work he does. Shame on everyone who did not give him an appropriate hearing. But I understand what it is to steal a Justice of the Supreme Court, and that is what my friends on the Republican side did. This judge's opinion continued on to say that you could establish regulations. Mr. Speaker, up until now, every President since Gerald Ford has disclosed his tax return information. These returns have provided a basic level of transparency that has helped to ensure the public's interest is placed first. The American people deserve the same level of disclosure from Donald John Trump. If they continue to refuse to provide it, it is incumbent upon us, as the people's elected representatives, to hold the executive branch accountable. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring Representative Anna Eshoo's bill which would require Presidents and major party nominees for the Presidency to release their tax returns. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), my good friend and classmate, to discuss our proposal.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This evening, Donald John Trump will address a joint session of Congress. I expect we will hear some version of the same message we have heard throughout the first month of his chaotic administration-- talk of jobs and American workers and protecting our country--but that is all it has been up to now, just talk. Instead of actually doing any of those things, Republicans are sowing chaos trying to turn their absurd campaign speeches into something that resembles policy; and, frankly, that just will not fly. Donald John Trump's campaign rhetoric doesn't fit the actual challenges of governing, and I believe my friends on the other side of the aisle are starting to come to this realization. If they haven't, may I urge upon them that the rubber is going to hit the road with the debt ceiling and with tax reform and with repeal and replace of the Affordable Care Act. I ask the American public to watch the divisions on the other side when the rubber hits the road. Mr. Speaker, with every action they take, reality and facts keep stopping them in their tracks. The un-American Muslim ban was put in check by the judicial branch. Their attempts to repeal ObamaCare have been checked by their own constituents at their own townhalls. The majority needs to wake up and realize that these are not sound policies, but reckless chaos. It is past time for the majority to get serious about the serious business of governing. And yet, with these measures here today, all we continue to see are antiworker, antienvironment, and, in the final analysis, anti-American proposals. The American people want solutions, not a governing party that just checks the box of unrealistic, chaotic, and harmful campaign promises. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying measure. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS

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

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, the United States and Australia share a special union culturally, economically, and as security partners. The friendship our two countries share is strengthened by programs like the Uni-Capitol Washington Internship Program. For the past 18 years, the Uni-Capitol Program has paired students from Australia with offices on Capitol Hill. Since the program's inception, more than 180 students from 10 partner Australian universities have participated. The students in this program are the best and the brightest that Australia has to offer. They bring a unique perspective to the House and Senate offices that they serve, strengthening the special alliance between our two nations and fostering greater understanding and mutual respect between us. This year, it has been my pleasure to host Ms. Camille Bentley- McGoldrick in my Washington office. Camille, a first year law student at the University of Melbourne, is a great example of the high-caliber students this program provides Congressional offices. She proved herself to be very intelligent, motivated, and hard working. Camille is also an absolute pleasure to work with. No matter the assignment, she is always. eager to help and approaches every new task with a smile. Furthermore, Camille excelled in drafting correspondence to my constituents, researching a wide-range of legislative issues for staffers, and attending briefings on a multitude of topics, all while demonstrating a desire to learn about, and engage in, the important and unique policy issues facing our nation. Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that Camille will go on to do great things. She has a very bright and exciting future ahead of her. I wish her all the very best.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding to me the customary 30 minutes for debate. I rise to debate the rule for consideration, which bundles together two completely unrelated pieces of legislation. One is a joint resolution disapproving of a Department of Labor rule that relates to the drug testing of unemployment compensation applicants. The other, as the gentleman just described, is the Red River Gradient Boundary Survey Act. There are many more important issues, in my opinion, that face this country at the moment, and for the life of me, I cannot figure out why my colleagues across the aisle think that ceding Bureau of Land Management survey authority over federally owned land to the States and impugning the integrity of those who rightfully seek unemployment insurance are on the same list of important matters this body should be addressing. First, I would note the odd events that brought us here today as we operate, once again, under a closed rule. I just heard the debate on the previous rule, and I was illuminated by the gentleman from Alabama, on the other side, who indicated that the rule wasn't closed because we had a debate in the Rules Committee yesterday for 1 hour. A closed rule is a closed rule. It means that other Members of this body do not have an opportunity to have their amendments heard and/or made in order. We are now entering our 13th of these closed rules in a body that claimed that it was going to have open rules and regular order. On February 3, Congressman McClintock wrote to Chairman Sessions, asking that the Red River Gradient Boundary Survey Act be heard under a structured rule, which still isn't an open rule. An amendment deadline was set, and two germane amendments with no budgetary issues were submitted. Nevertheless, my Republican colleagues shut down the process and reported a closed rule. As of today, two-thirds of all of the rules issued this session by the Rules Committee have been closed rules. We should not be conducting the people's business this way. I call on my Republican colleagues to put their unfounded fear aside and let this body operate under regular order, under open rules, or, at the very least, under structured rules. I am dismayed to see, even when the Republican chairman of a subcommittee asks the Republican chairman of the Rules Committee for a structured rule, that the Republican leadership sees fit to ignore that request and continue this closed process--stifling ideas and debate before they can even get started. It is this kind of shifting decisionmaking that sows distrust and disappointment in the American people when they survey how business is conducted in their House. However, it is not just this kind of duplicitous behavior that undermines this institution, but, as I mentioned moments ago, a complete lack of an ability to get our priorities straight. We still have plenty of folks who are looking for jobs. We have plenty of people who are terrified that they will soon lose the health care that keeps them and their children living healthy and productive lives. We have plenty of people who are understandably concerned that our immigration policy has taken a deep dive into the shallow end. But we don't come here to address these important issues. Instead, my Republican colleagues bring to the floor, week after week, legislation to undermine well-thought-out agency rules and make it increasingly difficult for our agencies to carry out their duties. The fact that we need to come here today and discuss the efficacy of having the Bureau of Land Management manage our Nation's land is beyond me. For nearly 100 years, the Bureau of Land Management has conducted uncontested surveys, and now we are supposed to believe that, all of a sudden, the agency is not following the appropriate standard. If folks don't like the survey methods or think the wrong standard is being used, then one needs to go through the court system. One does not engage in the unprecedented measure of ceding to the States the Federal Government's legitimate authority over Federal land. The second completely unrelated resolution, H.J. Res. 42, overturns a Department of Labor rule regarding the drug testing of Americans who apply for unemployment compensation. Under the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, States were given the authority to conduct drug tests on unemployment insurance applicants under two circumstances: if the applicant were terminated from a previous job due to unlawful drug use or if the only available, suitable work were in an occupation that regularly conducts drug testing. The rule in question clarifies that occupations that ``regularly conduct drug testing'' include occupations that are specifically identified in State or Federal law as requiring an employee to be tested. Put another way, if a State thinks a job warrants a drug test, all it needs to do is add the job to a list. The rule strikes a balance, preserving deference to States while providing commonsense clarity to the law. This is how things should be done--that is, the regulations that were in force until now, at least. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, common sense is not put to much use around here these days. Republicans want to repeal the rule because, one would have to assume, it does not go far enough in embarrassing those people who are simply trying to obtain unemployment insurance during a difficult time. Let us be crystal clear in that the only purpose this repeal can serve is to embarrass folks, because there is no evidence linking those who seek unemployment insurance to increased rates of drug abuse. Be that as it may, Republicans still insist on expanding expensive and offensive drug screenings. Today, once again, we see the Republicans engaging in the Trumpian exercise of creating alternative facts. In today's example, we have a resolution that is based on the blanket assumption that unemployed Americans use drugs. It further implies that Americans who apply for unemployment benefits are to blame for being unemployed. This implication is as unfounded as it is offensive to those hardworking Americans who find themselves unemployed due to no fault of their own. And what do these hardworking Americans get for their troubles--a Congress dedicated to ensuring that new and well-paid jobs are there for them tomorrow? Not at all. Instead, they get a Republican-led Congress that is bent on subjecting them to unconstitutional, offensive, and expensive drug tests. Like it or not, facts still matter. Here is one: a conservative estimate by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration puts the cost of drug testing at $25 to $75 per test. Because Federal law prohibits charging applicants for these tests, States would have to absorb the cost of testing thousands of unemployed workers. In the State of Texas, for instance, that would translate to, approximately, $30 million for a single year of testing. A while back, we spent a lot of time around here talking about unfunded mandates, and somehow or another, this one, I guess, doesn't fit in that category. Mr. Speaker, arbitrarily testing Americans who apply for unemployment compensation runs contrary to our Constitution and is a solution in search of a problem. Being unemployed is not a sufficient reason to be subjected to a government-operated drug test. Proposals like this blame unemployed Americans for being unemployed. It is illegal and it is a huge waste of money. We have got some real problems that we need to address in this Congress. At some point, this Congress will need to get to work. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. While we are discussing these matters that my colleagues want to discuss that I don't think are paramount or issues that are vital to America's security, there are a plethora of issues that we could be discussing, and rightly should be. Toward that end, one of the things that the minority is given as an opportunity is to offer a previous question to the matter that is on the floor at this time. So I exercise that prerogative by asserting that the National Security Council was established in 1947 to encourage candid discussions between the Federal agencies charged with keeping America safe to ensure they would provide the President with the best policy advice possible. For this very reason, security experts on both sides of the aisle agree that partisan politics have no place in the Council's deliberations. With this in mind, it is deeply troubling that President Donald John Trump would promote Steve Bannon, his chief political adviser, to a full seat on the Council's Principals Committee, while simultaneously relegating the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence to a lower status. At the very least, this sends the very dangerous signal that the Trump White House intends to let political calculations influence its decisionmaking on the life- and-death matters of national security. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Stephanie Murphy's bill to prohibit political advisers from regularly attending National Security Council meetings. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Murphy).

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, through you, I ask of my good friend from Oklahoma whether or not he has additional speakers. I do not, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), my good friend, who is the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies.