Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 100th anniversary of the Girl Scout Gold Award, the highest and most prestigious award in the Girl Scouts organization, which has produced one million young women as leaders and change agents in their communities. Since 1916, this award has honored high school-aged Girl Scouts who answer the call to ``Go Gold'' and put in years of research and hard work to facilitate large-scale community service projects. The impact these young women are having on the world around them far exceeds their average age of 17 years old. As the Girl Scouts' highest achievement, Gold Award recipients who enlist in the U.S. armed forces may enter at one rank higher than other recruits. Universities and colleges around the country also offer scholarships to young women who receive this award. Sarah Banach, of Enfield, Connecticut, created and implemented coding lesson plans for young women at her local middle school to help bridge the gender gap in STEM-related fields. Loren McClendon, of Jacksonville, Fla., trained almost 500 adults in her community on how to recognize warning signs of strokes. Kaitlin Greenough, of Zephyrhills, Fla., developed an entire curriculum to teach elementary school-aged children about the Florida water system and water conservation. These are just a few of the countless community service projects taken on by Girl Scouts from the illustrious ranks of Gold Award recipients. As an organization, the Girl Scouts have allowed millions of girls nationwide to become involved in their communities and take on leadership roles while building courage, confidence and critical life skills. There are currently 3 million Girls Scouts nationwide and 50 million alumnae, a testament to founder Juliette ``Daisy'' Gordon Low's original mission to empower girls with confidence, courage, and character. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pride to recognize this organization, particularly my local troop, the Girl Scouts of Southeast Florida, in Congress. I am inspired by what these esteemed Gold Award recipients have been able to accomplish in 100 years and look forward to seeing them succeed for many more years to come.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), my good friend.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an addition 1 minute.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate. This legislation, as he indicated, provides $3.48 billion for the House of Representatives and joint operations of Congress. That is a $73 million increase over the current year's levels, but more than $150 million below the President's request. This legislation funds the salaries and expenses for the House of Representatives, the Capitol Police, the Congressional Budget Office, the Architect of the Capitol, Government Accountability Office, and the Library of Congress. Today is June 9. Nearly 2 months have passed since my friends in the majority sailed past the statutory deadline for passing a budget without even looking back. Nearly 1 month has passed since House Republicans began considering appropriations bills without first agreeing to top-line spending levels. Republicans made passing a budget a top priority this year. They insisted that we would return to regular order. I really wish the American public understood the ``regular order'' concept. Yet here we are working without a roadmap and, instead, passing new rules to stifle debate on the House floor on controversial issues like equal rights. But I will get to that in a bit, Mr. Speaker. For now, I will just say it is disappointing because, instead of considering appropriations bills funding critical investments for American families and communities, the House majority has again chosen to take care of itself. The partisan mishmash we are discussing today is no different. Here is an example: This legislation forces the Library of Congress to continue to use the pejorative term ``illegal alien'' in its subject headings. Mr. Speaker, in another life, as a member of the judiciary, I refused to use that term when discussing persons that were before me. I can't help but laugh at the absurdity of this. We--and I mean Congress--can't have a conversation about comprehensive immigration reform, yet we are forcing the Library of Congress to readopt politically charged rhetoric. For what? How is this a priority? The Legislative Branch Appropriations bill is certainly not the appropriate place for a political debate on immigration. This legislation continues to fund the Energy and Commerce select panel to target Planned Parenthood, which, thus far, has conducted a completely partisan, political witch hunt and come up empty. This legislation continues to fund the Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi, which has already spent $7 million on just four hearings over the past 2 years in order to smear Secretary Clinton. And what has it produced? Nothing. I will note that the Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi has overlapped a number of previous investigations that also found nothing. You want to cut wasteful spending, Mr. Speaker? Look no further. Defund the Benghazi hearings. I am happy to say that the bill provides $563 million for Members' representational allowances for the coming fiscal year. This is 1.5 percent increase over the current level. But when we consider the fact that the MRAs have been cut by nearly 17 percent since 2011--that adds up to $312,000--a mere 1.5 percent increase is clearly inadequate. I can make the argument that, because of that, we are unable to pay young people that come here and keep them with their institutional memory, and in addition we are unable to provide efficient services for our constituents; yet we cut that $312,000 out of the budget, and now we are going to add back a little bit and claim that we are being efficient. I won't even go into the salary and the cost-of-living adjustment but to say that people find it surprising that we are entering this legislation in 2017, year 9, without a cost-of-living increase for Members of Congress. I wonder if that is causing some of them to live in their offices. I wonder if it is causing them to breach tax considerations when they do that and, perhaps, even ethical considerations. But I won't go into that. Furthermore, an amendment has been offered that will require a 1 percent cut across the board to the bill's spending levels. Such a cut would essentially wipe out this already diminutive increase. Members should vote this amendment down. With salaries frozen where they are, I just got through saying we can't retain the best talent. We continue to lose staff. I have three staffers that were perfect for their jobs that had to leave because they couldn't afford to live on the salary that we were paying them. Side note here, Mr. Speaker: the median rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Washington, D.C., was $2,160 per month last December; and I will remind the Members of this body that many staffers start here at $30,000 or less, annually. Do the math. We need to take better care of our people. Mr. Speaker, before I yield back, I feel compelled to mention Speaker Ryan's new rules governing the appropriations process on the House floor. Three weeks ago, something particularly shameful took place in this room as we debated the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. An amendment by our colleague and friend, Sean Patrick Maloney, reached the vote threshold needed to pass. Republican leadership, apparently caught off guard, held open the vote for nearly 8 minutes in order to make Republican Members change their vote. They allowed this to happen in the back of the room, and the amendment failed. And what contentious subject was the amendment focused on? I will tell you. Prohibiting Federal contractors from discriminating against LGBTQ employees. This episode demonstrated just how little courage some Members of the Republican Party have. A week later, Representative Sean Patrick Maloney offered his amendment again, this time to the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, and it caused such a hubbub that the legislation collapsed on the floor. I will say that again. A provision ensuring that LGBTQ contractors can't be fired solely because they are LGBTQ proved so contentious to Republicans that they defeated their own appropriations bill--I might add, a good bill--to prevent it from taking effect. As a result, beginning this month, House Republican leadership is closing down the process and requiring all Members to submit amendments for appropriations measures to the Rules Committee in advance and has announced regular order is being suspended in order to make sure Republicans aren't caught off guard by ``embarrassing'' amendments, for instance, ensuring basic civil rights to American citizens. Remember Speaker Ryan's pledge to return to regular order? Where is that commitment now? Perhaps my friends should consider that the reason these amendments are embarrassing to them is because their position is, in and of itself, embarrassing. I will note that Representative Sean Patrick Maloney offered his amendment again for the current legislation, but this time Republicans won't even allow it on the floor for a vote. So, Mr. Maloney, offer it again and again so we can continue to point out how ridiculous this is. This entire process is quickly turning into a joke. Enough already. Why don't we fold the tent, wait until after the conventions and the November election, and start all over again, because we are doing nothing here. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to address very briefly my friend--and he is my friend-- that I agree with much of what he said. He said fundamentally much of what I said he did not agree with, but he pointed to the fact that the Maloney amendment passed and then we turned around and voted against the bill. There were other measures in that bill that some of us didn't care for that caused us to vote against it as well, and among them was one that was particularly offensive to me since I represent one of our national parks, and that was carrying guns in national parks. I could go on. There were at least seven other riders that were put on by the majority that caused me angst. I am not sure about everybody else. Additionally, I agree with my good friend that he and I could solve many of these problems, but one thing that I know that he favors, and I know that he agrees with me, and that is that as often as possible that we have open rules in this body; where we are headed is, in many respects, not in that direction. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), my good friend.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation that would disband the select investigative panel of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Mr. Speaker, this panel is just another waste of taxpayer money. Three House committees, 12 States, and one grand jury have already investigated the charges against Planned Parenthood, and none found evidence of wrongdoing. Mr. Speaker, this panel is conducting a purely partisan political witch hunt, and it should be disbanded. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) for a unanimous consent request. (Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California), my friend and the ranking member of the Committee on Ethics in this body.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the distinguished ranking member of the select investigative panel, to discuss the proposal.

Mr. HASTINGS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS. The Library of Congress has made 90 subject head changes. Why this one? Why does it have to stick and can't be changed? I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, would you be kind enough to tell both sides how much time remains.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I rarely speak from the well of the House. I come down here today because, like my good friend from Georgia and many of us in this institution, those of us that have studied the institution genuinely love it and recognize that it is, fundamentally, what makes our Nation great. When we speak of Congress, we are talking about the House of Representatives and the United States Senate. For a substantial period of time, both in the control of Democrats and Republicans, we have carried ourselves in a way that has caused us to appear dysfunctional. And, in many instances--validly--those that look at us feel that we are unable to get things done. My younger friend from Georgia pointed out a significant number of things that we did do, and he is correct about that. But he also knows there are a significant number of things that we have not been able to do, largely for the reason that we are not acting in a bipartisan manner--in an openly transparent manner, in many instances--in order to provide for all of the Members of this body to have input. I came to the well because, as I near my 80th birthday, I am in a different category than many of the younger Members in this institution. Many of the younger Members of this institution have young families. We, the 434 of us that are seated--and we will swear in the 435th a little later today--and the delegates from the territories and the District of Columbia, are in a variety of categories, as Americans. Some substantial number of Members in this body are multimillionaires; a significant number of Members of this body easily qualify to be in the middle class or the upper class; and there are some Members here who are in the lower class in our society. Fortunately for us, in the 22 years that I have been here, I have seen this body grow in its diversity. More women on both sides, African Americans, Latino Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans are part of this body from different walks of life. Some of us own our own homes here in the metropolitan Virginia-Maryland area. Some rent apartments. Some are in basements. Some are in one room. Some are gathered together because of the expenses here. Now, my friend is right. I would like to go home and be able to show to my constituents and to his that we did everything that we could here to make for more efficiency. But I can cite the glut all over our agencies and, at the very same time, I make no apologies to anybody for how hard I work or how hard he works and the fact that we are entering our 9th year without a pay raise. Now, I think it is wrong for Members of the House of Representatives to live in their offices. I think that there is an ethics provision that needs to be addressed, and I think there is a tax consideration that needs to be addressed. And the public does not understand that nearly 100 Members, including the Speaker of the House of Representatives, live in their offices. Something is drastically wrong with that. Most of them are there for the reason that they can't afford to live in this town; and somehow or another, we are deserving, as are our staffs, deserving of being paid appropriately. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to remind my friends of the importance of the legislation we are debating today. This legislation allows us to run our operations here in Congress. Unfortunately, with this legislation, my friends in the majority are continuing their trend of putting politics above policy. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and oppose the underlying measure. And I want to make it very, very clear that the remarks that I made are my remarks. They are not the remarks of the Democrats in this institution. But I know this: I have had a lot of Members on both sides of the aisle say to me that they know that I am correct. Courage, friends, courage, that is what it takes. 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 yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Alabama, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate. The people of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico face an urgent fiscal crisis, and this institution's delay in addressing this crisis has left the United States citizens on that island in dire straits. In June of 2015, Puerto Rico's Governor stated that the Commonwealth would not be able to pay its debts. Now Puerto Rico faces a $2 billion interest and principal payment on July 1. It is unlikely the Commonwealth will be able to make this payment. So I am pleased that, finally, after a full year, this body has decided that the citizens in the Commonwealth deserve relief from this growing humanitarian disaster. However, now that legislation has been brought forward to deal with this issue, I fear that the solution to this problem presented here will hobble the workers of Puerto Rico for some time to come. While the bill accomplishes much by way of addressing the debt crisis in Puerto Rico, it also hamstrings workers by expanding the subminimum wage on the island. This legislation expands the application of the Federal subminimum wage to those under 25 years old and extends the application of this subminimum wage to those workers from 90 days to up to 4 years. Just for reference, the subminimum wage that will now be subjected to workers 25 years old and younger and for up to 4 years is $4.25 an hour--$4.25 an hour--a full $3 per hour less than the workers in the States make when, indeed, the workers in the United States ought be making $15 an hour. The bill would also delay implementation of the Department of Labor's rule on overtime pay until the GAO completes a study, which could take up to 2 years. This means that under the provisions of this bill, the young people of Puerto Rico will be paid a subminimum wage, and the rest of the workers on the island will not be eligible for the new overtime rules, losing out on hard-earned money for working long hours. While some legislative solution is necessary in order to responsibly address Puerto Rico's debt crisis, these provisions are unconscionable. It is long past time that we start treating our fellow citizens in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico--as well as the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands and American Samoa and Guam and the Marianas--with dignity and respect, not with provisions to limit their ability to earn the same amount of money for their hard work as any other American. It is all right for them to go to war and die--and they do in sometimes disproportionate numbers--but we don't want to see to it that they receive an appropriate wage. Also disconcerting to me is what is not found in the bill, which is any money to address the Zika virus on the island. Make no mistake, the fiscal situation and the response to this virus are linked. I know that there will be some that will argue that the House passed $633 million, the Senate passed $1.2 billion, and they will go to conference, but I am talking specifically about this financial crisis and Puerto Rico's problem. Given the financial situation on the island, there are grave concerns about the Commonwealth's ability to handle an outbreak of the virus. Already there are over 1,000 local cases of Zika in Puerto Rico. To put that in perspective, there are today just over 600 cases in the continental United States, and nearly all of those are travel-related. As we move further into the summer and into the mosquito season, I fear that what is already a fiscal crisis could turn into a growing health crisis as the economically stressed island will be left with little resources to deal with the virus and a Congress that is unwilling to adequately fund a response. These wage and overtime provisions will do nothing but increase poverty and force more Puerto Ricans to leave the island. This bill may take steps to right the Puerto Rican economy, which is currently in shambles, but at what cost? Treating the young and the workers of Puerto Rico as second and third class citizens? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi) who really knows Puerto Rico, in light of the fact that he is the Congressman representing Puerto Rico.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, when I came to Congress in 1993, among the first people that I met and got to know and have been fast friends with since, is the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), my good friend who also has not only great wisdom on the subject of immigration and social policies in this country, but certainly his understanding of Puerto Rico. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, through you, I will advise my friend from Alabama that I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close whenever he is. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. There is no doubt that the people of Puerto Rico find themselves in a dire situation, and there is no doubt that this situation has been made worse by the snail's pace with which the majority has seen fit to address the problems facing the people of Puerto Rico. Though the restructuring of Puerto Rico's debt is certainly needed, I worry that the burdens placed upon the residents of the island, through this bill, really only amount to punting on important issues that we will, nonetheless, have to address somewhere down the road while making these important issues all the more complicated when we do get to the business of actually helping the people of Puerto Rico. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr Speaker, I rise today to commemorate 50 years since the Class of 1966 graced the halls of Dillard High School in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Dillard has a storied past and a bright future. Originally established in 1907 as Colored School Number Eleven, its opening marked the beginning of monumental African American achievements in South Florida. At that time, Fort Lauderdale was a farming region where locals found it unnecessary to educate African Americans past the sixth grade. Two decades later the school progressed under Principal Dr. Joseph A. Ely, who added more classes and sought to educate African American students past the sixth grade. He was also responsible for the school's current name, a nod to James Harvey Dillard, a white educator from Virginia, who was a black education advocate. In 1948, Dillard's well-known jazz program was led by Julian Edwin ``Cannonball'' Adderley, who later became one of the best known jazz musicians in America. Adderley brought new life to the school and helped instill the importance of jazz in the students. He taught jazz when it had not yet been accepted as a classical art form, and while he was teaching jazz he was also teaching Bach and Beethoven. Due to an expanding community, the high school grades were moved to a new facility at 2501 N.W. 11th Street in 1950, where the Class of '66 attended and graduated. Dillard High School is now one of 62 high schools in the Broward County Public Schools and has become a magnet school open to all of Broward County, hosting three programs: Performing & Visual Arts where students collaborate and work with artists-in-residence, and have the privilege of working side-by-side with the professionals at the Broward Center for the Performing Arts, the Fort Lauderdale Museum of Art and other local arts organizations. Emerging Computer Technology which offers a state-of-the-art technology curriculum that complements students' core academic requirements utilizing computers and the latest technologies to develop higher level thinking skills, critical research and study, communication, and problem solving. Digital Entrepreneurship Academy where students understand the essentials for successful business plan development, start-up and operation using digital arts, and using technology to create art, music, multimedia and animation. Mr. Speaker, clearly all Panthers can be proud of the history and future of Dillard High School. It is my absolute pleasure to wish those Panthers celebrating their 50th high school reunion on June 18, 2016, a joyous and spirited reunion

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the upcoming conference in Astana, Kazakhstan entitled `Religions Against Terrorism.' I was honored to be invited to this conference by Chairman Tokayev, Chairman of the Senate of the Parliament of the Republic of Kazakhstan, and regret that I will not be able to attend this important event. The conference will bring together political and religious leaders from around the world who are dedicated to ensuring that religious freedom is the rule rather than the exception. These leaders will also spend their valuable time discussing ways in which we can help defeat those who wish to pervert and twist religions into vehicles of hate and destruction. Between 2003 and 2012, Kazakhstan was host to four important gatherings that drew senior members from many different religions including Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, and Taoism. By holding the upcoming conference, Kazakhstan once again leads its region and the world in working toward a time when all religions are respected and those wishing to do harm under the color of religion are undermined and stopped from doing so at every turn. Mr. Speaker, under the leadership of President Nazarbeyev, Kazakhstan has, since the earliest days of its independence, been a valued leader in promoting religious tolerance. This legacy continues with the upcoming `Religions Against Terrorism' conference and will, I am sure, continue far into the future. I wish my friends a successful conference and applaud their laudable efforts.