Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, when I saw H.R. 1937 as submitted, I agreed with the minority on the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee that it was in need of a significant amendment, in particular, in the definition of ``strategic and critical minerals.'' The amendment submitted by Congressman Lowenthal is also a good basis and would correct the bill. However, as this has been rejected in the past, I took a less stringent approach that I believe would be a basis that would at least eliminate the most egregious aspects of the definition. This bill addresses a real problem, which is that long permitting delays for mining projects in the United States, especially in remote or environmentally sensitive areas, can reach 7 to 10 years in some cases. This represents a significant project risk for potential investors, which makes them historically more likely to develop projects outside of the United States when there are opportunities to produce the same mineral products. Increasing international government scrutiny on environmental issues for mining projects outside of the United States along with civil instability in many mineral resource-rich countries has prompted project proponents to look to the United States as a safer alternative, given that projects can be developed in a reasonable timeframe. That said, Mr. Chairman, the majority's claims of mining permit delays for all kinds of mining projects that prompted this bill are unfounded. Last year the average time it took to approve a plan of operations for a hardrock mine was 17 months, and since 2008, the approval time has actually decreased. As of last year, the Obama administration had approved 69 percent of hardrock mines within 3 years. Rather than addressing the problem directly with the responsible agencies, as President Obama did in his Presidential order ``Improving Performance of Federal Permitting and Review of Infrastructure Projects'' dated March 22, 2012, this bill is an end run around the permitting process, the authority of the permitting agencies, and the courts. H.R. 1937 includes a very broad definition of ``strategic and critical minerals'' that does not take into account whether these minerals are actually in short supply in the United States. Under the definition as written, cement, and wallboard, as well as gold and diamonds would qualify. It makes one wonder if there is a strategic and critical shortage of jewelry in the United States. The authors of this bill say that they do not wish to identify which mineral products are ``strategic and critical'' since this may change over time with changes in national priorities. Therefore, this amendment adds a simple test. This amendment requires proposed ``strategic and critical minerals'' projects to demonstrate that domestic capacity to produce strategic and critical minerals is less than 80 percent of domestic requirements. This would eliminate mineral products such as sand and gravel, which the authors claim the bill was never meant to encompass. The amendment also requires that unless or until the domestic capacity for a ``strategic and critical mineral'' product exceeds 80 percent of domestic requirements, the public will be notified of the intent to transport or sell any final or intermediate strategic and critical mineral products outside of the United States. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS

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

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding the customary 30 minutes to me for debate. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule, which provides for consideration of both H.R. 10, the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Reauthorization Act, and H.R. 692, the Default Prevention Act. Once again, we are playing grab bag rules, and I maintain that that is not the process of regular order. Each time I have the privilege of managing a rule which, with only four members of the minority on the committee, happens quite often, I find myself in the same position: frustrated with my friends, the House Republicans', complete disregard for regular order; their use of one rule to consider multiple unrelated pieces of legislation; and, most significantly, disillusioned that, in a time when so much can and must be done for the American people, we continue to spend precious time with partisan, dead-on-arrival measures. H.R. 10 would reauthorize the Opportunity Scholarship Program through the years 2021. OSP is the only federally created and funded elementary and secondary private school voucher program in the United States. Last night, my friend from Utah came forward and spoke, as is his responsibility. And I would just ask him, do they have the same program in Beaver, Utah, or Centerville, Utah, or Altamont? I didn't know they had an Altamont. I come from Altamonte Springs, Florida. They spell it without the E. But they don't have this voucher program that they are trying to foist on the District of Columbia. The program, which awards need-based scholarships to children in the District of Columbia to attend a participating private school of their choice, was created in 2004 and last reauthorized in 2011. I would like to note from the outset that the current school voucher program is authorized through September 2016. That is almost a full year from now. Given the numerous pressing and time-sensitive matters facing this body, I can't help but feel bewildered as to why we are rushing to reauthorize D.C. school vouchers, yet we continue to ignore our Nation's crumbling infrastructure, income inequality, the need for jobs, immigration reform, the need for sensible gun control in the wake of mass shootings and countless other deaths at the instance of guns, particularly children, and our lack of a long-term budget. I continue to await a straight answer from my Republican colleagues and hope that we can get this question answered before today's debate concludes. Now, I also want to make something clear. The members of the Washington, D.C. City Council have said that they do not want the D.C. voucher program to be reauthorized. In a letter to the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the majority of the members of the D.C. Council expressed their belief that ``Federal funds should be invested in the existing public education system--both public schools and public charter schools--rather than being diverted to private schools.'' They go on to describe past findings on vouchers, saying that ``the evidence is clear that the use of vouchers has had no statistically significant impact on overall student achievement in math or reading, or for students from schools in need of improvement.'' Despite this very clear letter, in what I can only describe as ``typical Republican fashion,'' this body is going full steam ahead in its efforts to impose its political will regardless. I remind those here today and watching at home that Washington, D.C., is a Federal district. Congress maintains the power to overturn laws approved by the D.C. Council, can vote to impose laws on D.C., and gets final approval of the D.C. Council's budget. Washington, D.C.'s Delegate to the House of Representatives, my very good friend and a mentor to all of us not only on this issue, but countless others, Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton, who has served in this body for 24 years, is not permitted to vote on final passage of any legislation, let alone legislation directly intended to govern the jurisdiction which she was elected to serve. One might hope that Congress would consider the wishes of the representatives of Washington, D.C., and the nearly 660,000 residents of the District who are taxpayers without representation. But, as we see today, that simply isn't the case. Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation would make significant changes to the way in which the program is evaluated, and that is a problem. In 2012, The Washington Post published an article titled ``Quality Controls Lacking for D.C. Schools Accepting Federal Vouchers.'' The piece examined some of the schools receiving vouchers. Among them were ``a nondenominational Christian school'' that ``occupies a soot-stained storefront between a halal meat shop and an evening wear boutique.'' The school consists of two classrooms, and ``students travel nearly 2 miles down Georgia Avenue to the city's Emery Recreation Center'' for gym class. Another school ``follows a learning model known as `Suggestopedia,' a philosophy of learning developed by a Bulgarian psychotherapist Georgi Lozanov that stresses learning through music, stretching, and meditation.'' A third is described as ``an accredited K-8 school supported by the Nation of Islam,'' which ``occupies the second floor of a former residence east of the Anacostia River.'' The classrooms are described as being former bedrooms, and the only bathroom in the school was described as having ``a floor blackened with dirt and a sink coated in grime. The bathtub was filled with paint cans and cleaning supplies concealed by a curtain.'' With descriptions like this of schools just a few miles away from this Chamber, I would like to think we would want more evaluations on these schools, not less. Moving on to H.R. 629, a very bogus bill that plans for the unprecedented default on the full faith and credit of the United States, this measure is a debt prioritization bill and one that elevates the payments of debts to bondholders, including Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, and China, and they would be paid over the obligations to America's troops, veterans, seniors, and students, as well as Medicare recipients. As Democratic members of the House Ways and Means Committee astutely put it: ``Under this legislation, the effect would be to pay China''-- and Japan and others--``first, and some Americans not at all.'' We have been down this road before. Indeed, the debt limit standoff and government shutdown of 2013 cost an estimated 120,000 jobs and disrupted public and private credit markets so profoundly that the total estimated borrowing costs for the Federal Government, businesses, and homeowners during that crisis totaled approximately $70 million. Defaulting on our debt is simply not an option, and H.R. 629 is, as Treasury Secretary Jack Lew put it, ``default by another name.'' We cannot play this game. We need to be about the business of honoring our obligations. The last time we went down this road our debt rating was lowered, and I suggest it may happen again. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, would the Chair be kind enough to tell me how much time remains for both sides.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me respond to the gentleman from Utah who spoke of his family's background and education. Firstly, my former wife, who is now deceased, taught school for 35 years, first and second grade. My son, who has his Ph.D., as my friend's son is about the business of getting his graduate degree, worked in education, taught sixth grade for a number of years, and then recruited schoolteachers for Palm Beach County and Broward County in Florida. The question was why would we not want to educate every child, and the gentleman referenced a period in 1609 when we certainly were not educating every child. I went to school for the first time in 1941 to a school that was built by Julius Rosenwald, and I recommend a documentary that is in the movies throughout the country now. Mr. Rosenwald, at the insistence of Booker T. Washington, built schools for Black children, 642 of them, in the South, where there were none. My mother didn't have an opportunity to go to that school. Other people in my town never had an opportunity to get an education, and you come here and you talk about why would we not want this education. If it is so good, then why isn't it everywhere? And why are you picking on the District of Columbia? Perhaps someone who knows that very well will be able to tell us more than myself with my passion. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), my very good friend, a member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

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. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California referred to my comments as ``xenophobic nonsense.'' I firmly disagree. It kind of gives xenophobia a new meaning. I merely pointed out that a large portion of our debt is held by other countries and that the legislation that he supports proposes to pay them before 80 million obligations that the Treasury Department has. Mr. Speaker, Congress has only 8 legislative days left to protect the full faith and credit of the United States. If we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule and bring up legislation that would allow--and I would ask the gentleman from California if he would support this--a clean extension of the debt ceiling. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) to discuss our proposal. My friend from Vermont is a distinguished gentleman and a former Member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We should be working together to ensure that all children have the opportunity to receive a quality education and taking action to guarantee that the United States pays all of its bills on time and in full. Neither of these bills accomplish those vitally necessary goals for this great country. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question and vote ``no'' on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, this month all of us know that we are addressing the issue of breast cancer and cancer generally. I will proudly wear this label today for the number of people around our country and around the world that are suffering from cancer. On Monday, I participated at Nova Southeastern University with experts in genomics and studying this issue. I learned from them that only 8 percent of grants are made from the National Institutes of Health. That is an incredible resource for all of us, and we need to be about the business of increasing the National Institutes of Health's opportunities to go forward on breast cancer. The second part of my remarks this morning, Mr. Speaker, deals with airport workers, specifically in Fort Lauderdale and elsewhere. They are fighting for $15 an hour. These are the people that clean up the toilets at the airport in Broward County. They are the people who carry the people on the airplane with wheelchairs. We can at least afford $15 an hour for them.

Mr. HASTINGS

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

Mr. HASTINGS

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

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Reverend Griffin Davis, Sr. and commemorate the 50th anniversary of his esteemed ministry. As a devoted pastor, he has spent many years worshipping at Hilltop Missionary Baptist Church in Riviera Beach, Florida. Reverend Davis has always gone out of his way to help those in need in his community. ``Life is incomplete without God,'' Reverend Davis has said. ``We need to get off the seat of `do-nothing' and go out and find the Lord.'' Since its founding, Hilltop have brought many people together to share their deep love and devotion to the Lord. Reverend Davis has always acted as a beacon of good-will and served as a dependable figure whom the city and its residents can rely on. His ministry has focused on providing good will and support to assist those who are most vulnerable, including the poor and disabled, and most importantly, senior citizens and children in need. He is routinely involved in ambitious projects, whether it is providing a furnished home for a church member, providing clothes and food for the hungry, or simply listening to those who yearn to be heard. Each and every one of Rev. Davis' efforts have reflected the sheer love and pride he holds for his fellow congregants. I am truly honored to join his family, friends, and everyone in the community in honoring him. Mr. Speaker, Reverend Griffin Davis, Sr. is a remarkable man whose heart knows no bounds. I have had the privilege to see firsthand the selfless work that he has been able to accomplish, and wish him many more years of service to his ministry. I am proud to not only represent him in Congress, but also call him my close friend.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, before yielding, I would like to correct myself. When I spoke, I spoke about the minority's right for a motion to recommit, which indeed we do have; but in this particular instance, it is the minority's right to offer up the previous question, and that is what we are proceeding under. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), a gentleman I have known a very long time in this institution and care greatly about, a very thoughtful Member.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, before yielding, I would like to speak very briefly about process, because a lot of times people don't understand that the base bill that we are discussing today, the two rules, the process allows the minority an opportunity to present a motion. One is a motion to recommit. One of the parts of that process that we are discussing here today has to do with gun violence. Mr. Thompson, who just spoke about it eloquently, I add to what he had to say. Here in Washington, D.C., in the last 6 days, five people have been killed by guns. In Chicago and in my hometown and around this Nation, in addition to the mass killings, there have been a number of killings. David Satcher was Surgeon General of the United States from 1998 to 2002. In the year of 2000, he was the first person that I know that raised publicly the fact that we have a gun violence epidemic in this country. There were people that wanted to run him out of office because of that. We need to pay attention. For the purpose of discussing this further, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty), someone who has had a real experience with gun violence.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of both H.R. 702, legislation to adapt to the changing crude oil market conditions, and H.R. 538, the Native American Energy Act. As we have seen time and again in what can only be described as typical Republican fashion, we have again skirted regular order. As a matter of fact, whatever happened to regular order in this institution? It seems to have gone by the boards. Here we are considering two unrelated pieces of legislation under one grab-bag rule. What is more, instead of striving to roll back environmental protections, we should be working in a bipartisan manner to avoid a government shutdown in December, address the debt ceiling, pass a long- term transportation bill so that we can rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and put Americans back to work, and reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, the charter of which Republicans allowed to expire 100 days ago. Mr. Speaker, the 1973 oil embargo sparked a crisis in our country that continues to influence our energy policies today. H.R. 702, the first of the bills we are debating today, makes significant changes to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, the primary statute for restricting the export of domestically produced crude oil that was enacted in the wake of the embargo. It goes without saying that the energy situation in the United States is far different today than it was in the 1970s when the oil export ban began. Global crude oil prices fell to 6\1/2\-year lows in August. We have such a surplus of oil that the number of rigs drilling for oil in the United States dropped to 614 last week, down from 1,609 last October. Based on these facts, it would behoove us to reexamine this export ban. But, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 702 unwisely repeals the authority of the President to restrict the export of petroleum products or natural gas and prohibits any Federal official from imposing or enforcing restrictions on the export of crude oil. Last night in the Rules Committee I asked the question whether President Obama deserves any credit for the lower gas prices. Certainly, when gas prices were higher, he received an awful lot of criticism and blame. It would seem to me that, with the increased number of leases that he has allowed, he should get some credit at least. Moreover, the bill makes it virtually impossible to limit exports of coal, natural gas, petroleum products, and petrochemical feedstocks. Repealing this authority would eliminate our ability to restrict the export of any of these products. Lifting this ban would provide a gift to oil companies on top of the decades of lucrative subsidies the industry already receives by the American taxpayers. Enough is enough. I would also note that the term--and I brought it up in the Rules Committee last night and didn't get a clear answer--the term ``restriction'' is undefined. Let me quote my good friend Frank Pallone of New Jersey, the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. He said: Since the term ``restriction'' is undefined, any Federal action that could potentially impede the efficient exploration, production, storage, supply, marketing, pricing, and regulation of energy resources--including fossil fuels--could be considered a restriction. For instance, an order to shut down a pipeline that has been determined to be a hazard to public safety and the environment under the Pipeline Safety Act could be seen as a restriction. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 538 suffers from similar deficiencies. H.R. 538 has the stated purpose of empowering Native American tribes to utilize and develop energy resources on their lands. I hesitate because I don't understand what part of sovereignty with reference to Native Americans in this country we do not understand; therefore, they should not have to be here hat in hand about their own resources. But tribal lands often hold great potential for domestic energy production; yet, tribes often cannot harness the full economic development potential of their natural resources. But this bill tries to solve this problem by undercutting important environmental protections. In the name of encouraging energy production on tribal lands, this bill severely restricts public involvement and comment on proposed energy projects, prevents the recovery of attorneys' fees in cases challenging these new energy projects, effectively chilling the public's ability to bring bona fide claims to seek judicial redress for environmental harms in their community. And just for good measure, this legislation blocks any commonsense hydraulic fracturing rules. Instead of undermining the bedrock of our Nation's vital environmental protections, we should focus on real, constructive reforms that will achieve tribal self-determination in energy development without sacrificing commonsense environmental laws. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Background checks are the first line of defense to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. If we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation that would expand the current background check system to include all commercial sales of firearms. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), my good friend, to discuss our proposal. He is the chair of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman doesn't have the prerogative of what the minority has, and that is an opportunity to offer a motion to recommit. He is correct that there are two bills that are being brought here in this grab-bag rule, but if he says that today is not the day for us to discuss gun violence, then I want to ask him: What day is it that we are supposed to discuss gun violence? People are being killed all over this Nation, and we have an epidemic, and we are constantly not doing anything about it. If it is not today, when? And if it is not us, who? Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), my distinguished colleague and good friend.