Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. These bills exemplify the recklessness and the foolishness of the majority's almost exclusive focus on domestic appropriations for deficit reduction, while leaving the main drivers of the deficit unaddressed. We cannot continue on this path if we intend to maintain our country's economic competitiveness. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and underlying bills, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, the chair of the Committee on Rules and my friend, for yielding the customary 30 minutes for debate. I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise today in opposition to the rule and underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of both H.R. 2578, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, as well as H.R. 2577, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Both, in my opinion, are woefully inadequate and underfunded pieces of legislation that serve as a slap in the face to hard-working Americans and a reminder of my Republican colleagues' shortsighted and irresponsible attempt at achieving a balanced budget. Last night, in his testimony before the Committee on Rules on H.R. 2577, Ranking Member David Price made a statement that was not only profound but incredibly accurate. He responded to Republican sentiments that slashing domestic appropriations in isolation is a necessary evil by stating that ``a great nation must invest in its future.'' Indeed, the importance of this investment cannot be overstated. For too long, we have forced austerity measures upon appropriators that prevent the funding of programs that create jobs; bolster our economy; repair and improve our Nation's decrepit highways, transit systems, and infrastructure; that fund medical research; and provide safe, decent, and affordable housing for poor and vulnerable families, the elderly, and disabled. It both saddens and frustrates me that my Republican friends continue to go after domestic programs that would unequivocally improve the lives of so many Americans while at the same time refusing to address the real drivers of the fiscal crisis, which are tax expenditures and mandatory spending. It is unconscionable to me that we, as a nation, cannot come up with the money to fund projects that repair and improve our country's transportation infrastructure. I pointed out yesterday in the Committee on Rules that aside from all of the bridges that I talked about from Florida that are in need of repair, right here in Washington, the Memorial Bridge that leads from Virginia into this city is in need of repair. The initiative that provides grants to local law enforcement and first responders would also improve in our country. But we provide ourselves with an unlimited budget to fight foreign wars without a mechanism to pay for those costs. Enough already, Congress. How about an authorization for the use of force rather than the methods that are employed now for ongoing, undetermined, indefinite--it appears--wars? The solution to our current fiscal circumstances lies not in withholding of necessary funding for essential domestic programs, but in comprehensive reform that considers--yes, considers--tax increases in addition to entitlement and appropriations cuts. That is how we balanced the budget in 1994 and to a relative degree in 1997, and we had, at that time, 4 years of balanced budgets. Adherence to these Republican budget limits self-imposed by sequestration is ineffective, detrimental to our national progress, and just plain wrong. The Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations measure before us today is the instrument used to provide funding for many vital programs and agencies, such as the Department of Justice, Commerce, NASA, and the National Science Foundation. Despite the importance of fully funding these agencies, this bill is a prime example of the mindless austerity of sequestration and the misguided priorities of my Republican colleagues. Time won't permit to add context to how we got to sequestration, and my friend from Texas, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, is absolutely correct. The President did sign this measure, but that was at the instance of an awful lot of negotiations and the government being shut down. I don't stand here and point fingers at either side in this regard. I said yesterday in the Committee on Rules, and I repeat here, it is the fault of 435 voting Members of Congress that we allow for this measure to put us in the position that we are in on these two measures as well as others to come. For example, this bill fails to adequately fund several Department of Justice grant programs and outright eliminates others, programs and funding that are critical to many State and local law enforcement activities. Specifically, the bill cuts $180 million from the Community Oriented Policing Services hiring program. This effectively eliminates a program that would put an additional 1,300 police officers on the streets. At a time when the relationship between many of our communities and law enforcement is strained, why are we decimating a program dedicated to building trust and mutual respect between the police and the communities they serve? In another startling policy decision by the majority, this bill eliminates, in its entirety, several other important programs, including the substance abuse program. I come to the floor today from a meeting this morning dealing with institutions for mental disease in which the community of persons who work in substance abuse, addiction, and mental health are pleading for the changes necessary for them to be able to address the significant problem that our population faces from veterans, to civilians, to children, and to the elderly, and yet what we did in this measure is eliminate the Substance Abuse Treatment program. We eliminate the Violent Gang and Gun Crime Reduction initiative at a time when we are witnessing, in our Nation, serious gun violence, and many of us today are about the business of trying to highlight, at least on this one day, the epidemic of gun violence in our society and how it has cost lives and treasure. This program, as offered, eliminates the National Center for Campus Public Safety. Perhaps the most indicative of the misplaced funding priorities by the majority is the gun policy rider--yep, yep, a rider, not part of this bill, just kind of tacked on like we tacked on something having to do with Cuba. We just tack these riders on, and this has been attached to this legislation. Not only has the majority completely eviscerated important violence and gun crime reduction programs, they have attached a policy rider that cancels out a narrow, targeted reporting requirement on the sale of certain long guns sold in four border States. The purpose of this requirement is to discourage straw purchasers from buying weapons for Mexican drug cartels. This reporting requirement has been proven to be effective. Courts agreed that it does not restrict Second Amendment rights, so why is the majority including this irresponsible gun rider in a bill that largely funds public safety? The irony of this provision should not be lost on any of us. Finally, in addition to cutting funding to important public safety programs, this bill showcases my Republican colleagues' remarkable ability to bury their heads in the sand when it comes to climate change, employing their ill-conceived strategy of defunding any program that might help us understand and address this important issue. This legislation intentionally underfunds the Geosciences directorate at the National Science Foundation and the Earth Science Office at NASA, where scientists are studying the most effective ways to respond to climate change. The second bill, H.R. 2577, provides $55.3 billion in discretionary funding for transportation and housing programs for fiscal year 2016. While this allocation appears to be an increase from fiscal year 2015, after inflationary adjustments, including declining Federal Housing Administration receipts and increasing Section 8 renewal costs, this bill actually designates $1.5 billion less than last year's enacted level. The shortcomings of this piece of legislation are so numerous that I would far exceed the time allotted to me if I were to attempt to discuss them all. Instead, I will just graze the surface by addressing just a few of the most egregious provisions. This bill reduces funding for Amtrak by 18 percent from last year's level and $1.3 billion below the President's request. This reduction eliminates funding for positive train control, a technology that the Transportation Safety Board has stated publicly may have prevented last month's tragic Amtrak derailment in Philadelphia, and provides no funding for intercity passenger rail or the installation of additional safety mechanisms. It also slashes funding for the Federal Transit Administration's Capital Investment Grant program, cuts TIGER funding by $400 million-- it does have a placeholder for something that may take place in the future--and it reduces the Federal Aviation Administration's capital program, which impedes the FAA's ability to implement its NextGen program as well as maintain and improve aging facilities. In addition to its funding inadequacies, as has become custom under Republican leadership, this bill offers up legislative handouts to the trucking industry and other powerful interests at the expense of the safety of our constituents. Specifically, it is going to allow trucks to carry longer trailers across the country, make it harder for the Department of Transportation to mandate that drivers get more rest before they hit the road, and forbid the Department from raising the minimum insurance it requires trucks and buses to carry. I wonder if we ever really talk to truckers and really ask them do they want to carry trains on roads--that is what it amounts to--and do they need the rest that they have requested for years. None of us are against the trucking industry, but these measures allow for something that should not occur. The latest data which is available shows that nearly 4,000 people died in accidents involving large trucks. Last week, there were no less than three in the constituency I serve, including a 17-year-old extremely bright young girl who lost her life at the instance of a trucking incident. Most of these 4,000 people were riding in another vehicle or were pedestrians. That is a 17 percent increase from the year 2009. These provisions will make our highways less safe and do not belong in an appropriations bill. Trucking regulations should be openly debated as part of a comprehensive surface transportation bill, which, incidentally, we have been assured is on the horizon. Currently, one out of every nine bridges in our country is structurally deficient, and congestion has never been worse. At the same time, our population is expected to grow by 70 million over the next 30 years. Knowing this, we must not continue to wait for our bridges to collapse, our public transit systems to malfunction, and our highways to deteriorate before we agree to provide adequate funding. Just as it does for transportation and infrastructure initiatives, H.R. 2577 makes dramatic cuts to funding for housing support programs for poor and vulnerable individuals and families. One of the most striking of these reductions is the one levied against the public housing capital fund, making it only slightly higher than the monetary amount allocated in 1989, without accounting for inflation. I held a housing forum on Saturday in the congressional district that I am privileged to serve, and I saw the pain that was expressed by the people in long waiting lines for section 8 housing and in the deteriorating public housing that is in that 30-year at-risk period. It just pains me even to talk about it and then to come up here and in this very week do more, if we follow our Republican friends, to cut these programs. This bill also reduces funding for the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Choice Neighborhoods initiative. It slashes funding for Healthy Homes and lead hazard control grants, exposing the most underprivileged children to toxic lead poisoning. It transfers money from the housing trust fund to fund the HOME program, taking funding away from a program which is reserved for the most economically disadvantaged and in the most need of assistance, and does nothing to increase access to safe and affordable housing for the elderly or disabled. In short, this legislation undermines the continued viability of our Nation's infrastructure and threatens our country's economic competitiveness. I fear that without these necessary investments in transportation, housing, science, commerce, and justice programs, the negative implication of Representative Price's statement will become a reality. We will fail to remain a great Nation because we will fail to accommodate the demands of the future. For these very important reasons, and many more that I could express, I oppose both the rule and the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to rise today to recognize Ms. Laura Elizabeth Alliah Perkins, a recent graduate of Mcfatter Technical High School. Laura was honored at the Broward County Public Schools fourth annual Best-in-Class and Perfect Attendance Awards ceremony on Thursday, May 7, 2015, and again on Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at the Broward County School Board Meeting. The Best-in-Class Award is an accolade presented to students who have been continuously enrolled in Broward County Public Schools from kindergarten through 12th grade, who have perfect attendance. This is a remarkable achievement and it is an immense honor of mine to recognize Laura for her unwavering devotion to education. Having never missed a single day of school for a total of 2,340 days is no small feat. Furthermore, in a show of appreciation, various community and business partners have joined together to provide Laura and fellow honorees with an assortment of gifts and supplies that will assist them as they continue their journey towards higher education. Mr. Speaker. I once again want to commend Ms. Laura Elizabeth Alliah Perkins for her dedication and commitment to education. She is a shining example of student success. I wish her all the very best as she begins studying at the University of South Florida this fall, and know that she will make her community and the state of Florida proud.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), who is the ranking member on the Committee on Ways and Means and a good friend of mine. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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 gentleman from Ohio for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate. I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying bills. Before I proceed, I did not speak during the 1 minutes, and I want to also take cognizance of this being the 50th anniversary of Head Start and, additionally, this month of May as being Foster Care Month. Like many Members, I have a young person who has a more than compelling story about foster care--Ke'Onda Johnson from Royal Palm, Florida--who is shadowing me today, and I am delighted that she and other youngsters have this opportunity. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 880, the American Research and Competitiveness Act of 2015, and H.R. 2262, the SPACE Act of 2015--two separate bills, wholly unrelated in content and purpose. As a first order of business, I believe it is critical that I take a moment to highlight the manner in which we are debating this rule today. The deliberation of multiple, unrelated bills under a single rule is a disturbing trend that has ballooned under Republican leadership and is one that threatens the very foundation of the democratic process. Forcing several pieces of legislation into a single rule not only prevents Members of this Chamber from making informed judgments about the proper floor procedure for each measure, but it also leads to disjointed and often perplexing debates about an assortment of unconnected issues. Votes on the House floor should reflect where Members stand on the specific questions at issue, not on a set of complex and unrelated procedures, some of which they support and others which they oppose. Indeed, just yesterday, the House considered H. Res. 271, a rule providing for consideration of three measures: the Highway and Transportation Funding Act, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, and the America COMPETES Reauthorization bill. The debate on that rule vacillated from surface transportation projects, to funding for the legislative branch, to the prioritization of science research development. Such debate erodes the integrity of House proceedings by creating confusing alternations in subject matter that eliminate the ability to reinforce a line of reasoning or respond to opposing arguments. The grab-bag approach has skyrocketed since Republicans assumed control of the House in 2011, with a record 49 grab-bag rules reported out during the 113th Congress. Even more disheartening, we are on schedule to shatter this record during the 114th Congress, having already approved an unconscionable 14 of these rules in less than 5 months. In fairness, the chairman of the Committee on Rules did say, in response to one of my colleagues and myself the day before, that this practice is not likely to continue at its present pace, and I await the opportunity for him to fulfill his view with reference to that matter. Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today for consideration of yet another grab-bag rule governing two bills of significant importance that, as a result of this rule, will undoubtedly escape the due consideration each deserves. H.R. 880, the American Research and Competitiveness Act of 2015, would make permanent a tax credit for qualified research expenses that expired at the end of last year. It is my strong belief that Democrats and Republicans, alike, support a tax credit that will help facilitate innovation and foster advancements in research, enabling American companies to grow and prosper. Technological innovation stemming from research and development serves as an important engine to our Nation's economic growth. My opposition to this piece of legislation, therefore, comes in first part from my Republican colleagues' decision to make this tax credit permanent in what I view as a fiscally irresponsible way. Mr. Speaker, my Republican friends have long touted themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility. For this reason, I find it a bit insincere that they now seek to implement a tax credit with no offsets for lost revenue. As a result, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that this bill would add almost $182 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years. I have stated time and time again that we cannot continue to provide tax cuts and credits without a mechanism to pay for them. It is comical to me that my Republican friends claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility while they, in the same breath, advocate a measure that would add nearly $200 billion to the Federal deficit. In addition to this legislation's reckless budgetary impact, I disagree with the piecemeal approach the majority has taken in making these tax credits permanent. More than 50 tax provisions expired at the end of last year, many of them critical to the middle and working class and, yes, poor families. And yet, instead of addressing the issues facing our Tax Code in a comprehensive, bipartisan way, the majority has decided to leave certain tax credits--ones that would directly improve the lives of hard-working American families, such as the work opportunity tax credit, the new markets tax credit, and renewable energy tax credit--to an uncertain fate. The American people expect, and I am sure that they deserve, a Tax Code that supports our shared priorities. Cherry-picking tax credits to extend, and then allowing those credits to dramatically increase the deficit, is, in my view, a step in the wrong direction. It is an unacceptable step away from bipartisan, comprehensive tax reform. I agree, as most of my colleagues likely do as well, that the research tax credit is critical for American innovation. That is why I am truly disappointed, although not surprised, that my Republican friends have again chosen to place partisan politicking above the needs of our constituents. This rule also provides for consideration of the SPACE Act of 2015, another piece of once bipartisan legislation that has been distorted into an unrecognizable measure that panders to industry giants without regard for the safety of the American public or of spaceflight passengers. While the enticement of space travel hovers over the objectives of this legislation, we must address the reality of what this bill seeks to accomplish. First, this bill reads like a laundry list of commercial space launch industry requests, exempting it from needed safety regulations and providing essentially complete immunity for civil lawsuits by removing claims related to commercial space launches from State court and mandating that they be heard in Federal Court, where few appropriate legal remedies exist. In practice, this measure will immunize commercial space companies from legal liability, even in cases of recklessness or intentional misconduct. Also troubling, this bill provides tremendous subsidies for insurance coverage--and that is kind of interesting--to protect wealthy recreational spacecraft passengers. Why on earth, and there is no pun intended here, are we spending taxpayer dollars on individuals wealthy enough to travel into space for sport? While it is uncontested that the issues these bills seek to address are important, the partisan way in which they have been presented prevents a robust deliberation, and I therefore oppose both the rule and the underlying bills. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I stand steadfastly against not only the way in which we have been conducting business with regard to the way we report out rules, but also to both underlying bills for their partisan posturing and failure to address the important issues facing the middle class in this country. We cannot continue to provide tax credits without establishing a revenue offset, enact tax policies that favor a partisan agenda and push us further away from needed comprehensive tax reform, or offer legislative gifts to industry giants at the expense of the American public. Mr. Speaker, Memorial Day is next Monday. If we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Brownley's Help Hire Our Heroes Act, H.R. 607. H.R. 607 would reauthorize the Veterans Retraining Assistance Program, which expired in March 2014. That program paid for veterans to get training for high-demand occupations, and during its 3 years in existence, it helped more than 76,000 veterans. 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 urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question; vote ``no'' on the underlying bills. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Tom Lantos Foundation for Human Rights' annual Solidarity Sabbath. Held on May 22, 2015, this trans-Atlantic event provides a timely and unique framework within which leaders here in the United States and Europe can express solidarity with the Jewish community at a time when acts of social cohesion are more urgent than ever. The Solidarity Sabbath encourages leaders of all faiths, races, and backgrounds to band together in support of Jewish communities across North America and Europe by participating in a range of Sabbath services and related activities. In the current geo-political climate, where we have seen the ugly resurgence of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, particularly in Europe, it is imperative that we unite against intolerance and baseless hatred. I urge leaders both at home and abroad to participate in this important event and stand up for tolerance, peace and co-existence. When leaders of diverse backgrounds come together in defense of fundamental human rights, all of our communities are the beneficiaries. Indeed, this Solidarity Sabbath initiative is most timely. Sadly, in the past few months we have witnessed a dramatic surge in anti-Semitic incidents across Europe, including the January murders of four Jewish customers at a kosher supermarket in Paris, and the murder of a Jewish man guarding a synagogue in Copenhagen in February. Painful, vivid memories are being resurrected as Jewish communities around Europe are once again living under the cloud of social hostility, embarrassment and violent threats. It is imperative that we stand with the Jewish community and demand that our European allies work diligently and without delay to confront and put an end to these heinous acts. Hatred and persecution based on race or religion have no place in our world. Each and every one of us has the responsibility to make our own communities safer and more tolerant. For this very reason, I am pleased to have recently introduced a bipartisan resolution with Representative Robert Dold of Illinois to combat the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe, which encourages our European friends to counter this disturbing trend while also committing the United States to abetting this effort in every way possible. Mr. Speaker, the power of togetherness cannot be overemphasized. Indeed, it is the bond shared by those of us dedicated to love and tolerance that will form the basis upon which we will defeat bigotry and demagoguery in all of its forms. I urge my colleagues to stand with me in this important expression of tolerance and co-existence.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great sadness to pay tribute to my good friend, Mr. James (Jim) A. Weldon, who sadly passed away on May 13, 2015. Jim lived a life full of honor and compassion. He joined the U.S. Navy in 1953 and proudly served his country for six years. After his time in the Navy, he joined his family in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, where he began a career in the electrical industry and trained as an electrician. Jim went on to become a labor leader, following in the footsteps of his father, who had belonged to a painters union. For 38 years, Jim served as the leader of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 728, where he fought tirelessly for the rights of all workers, including for the right to earn a livable wage. After 38 years leading Local Union 728, Jim retired. Of course, like so many people, we know how dedicated he was to the cause of helping others, Jim was not able to entirely retire from work that most assuredly filled his soul and his life with meaning. Therefore, in his retirement, he became the Vice President of the Florida Chapter of the Alliance for Retired Americans, where he continued to advocate for those who were in need of a voice. In addition to these immeasurable contributions to his community, Jim was also very proud to be listed on the honor roll of the Irish Cultural Institute of Florida and the Board of the Ft. Lauderdale Emerald Society. He also served his community as a Port Everglades Commissioner. Mr. Speaker, my thoughts and prayers are with Jim's wife Gisela, as well as his two daughters, Kimberly and Kelly. I know that they are hurting, but I hope that they receive some comfort in knowing that their community grieves with them, as we all celebrate the life of a compassionate and dedicated man, Jim Weldon.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to rise today to recognize my good friend, Mr. Issac ``Ike'' Robinson, Jr., on the occasion of his retirement from the West Palm Beach City Commission for District 2. Ike served with distinction as City Commissioner since 1999. He additionally served as President of the Commission from 2001-2002 and from 2006-2007. During his tenure on the Commission, he was on several key committees including the Small Business Advisory Committee and the Education Advisory Committee. His work led him to represent the City as a member and President of the Palm Beach County League of Cities. Ike eventually served as a member of the Florida League of Cities, meanwhile serving on the Governor's Taskforce for the Eradication of Methamphetamine Drug Labs. On a national level, Ike served on the National League of Cities and the National Black Caucus of elected officials. A U.S. Army Veteran, husband to his wife Ernestine, and proud father and grandfather, Ike has dedicated his life to serving the West Palm Beach community with excellence. He also served and retired after 30 years in the Palm Beach County School District, and served 6 years with the West Palm Beach Police department as a Case Manager and a Crisis Counselor. His dedication to the City of West Palm Beach is undeniable when looking and recognizing his contributions as an elected official and upstanding citizen. His service on the Commission for 16 years has earned him a record position as the longest serving commissioner in the history of West Palm Beach, and no doubt a legacy to be proud of. I am grateful for his honorable work, and wish Ike the best of luck and good health in the next journey in his life. Mr. Speaker, once again, I am honored to congratulate Mr. Issac ``Ike'' Robinson on his retirement and for his years of service to the West Palm Beach community.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill to end the use of corporal punishment in our nation's schools. Corporal punishment is a form of physical punishment where someone deliberately inflicts pain on another individual in order to punish them. In schools, it includes the spanking or paddling of children by school officials. While corporal punishment in schools has its place in our nation's history, it must be banned immediately. Not only is there no conclusive evidence that it is actually beneficial in modifying disruptive behavior, but it is disproportionately used as a form of punishment for African American students and children with disabilities. These punishments can result in physical as well as emotional harm to children. Schools are supposed to be safe places where students are protected from harm. They are intended to nurture children as they grow and develop. However, 19 states still allow corporal punishments in school. Last year, the Children's Defense Fund (CDF) reported that, on average, 838 children were hit each day in public school, based on a 180-day school year. This equates to just over 150,500 instances of corporal punishment per year. This statistic is astonishing considering the fact that 31 states have already banned corporal punishment in schools. This bill would prohibit any educational institution from receiving federal funding that allows school personnel to inflict corporal punishment on students and creates grants to encourage climate and culture improvements in schools which promote positive behaviors. Mr. Speaker, corporal punishment is not proven as an effective means of disciplining children or modifying disruptive behavior. School should be a safe space for children to learn, grow, and develop, not live in fear of those who have been charged with their academics. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce the Wildlife Veterinarians Employment and Training Act of 2015. This legislation will promote robust public health policy, promote needed job growth, and create more affordable opportunities for individuals who are interested in becoming wildlife and zoological veterinarians. As you know, wildlife and zoo veterinarians are the primary source of essential health care and management that is required for animals in both their natural habitat and in captivity. These physicians preserve natural resources and the lives of animals while subsequently helping to protect human health by preventing, detecting and responding to exotic and dangerous diseases. As global interaction between humans, livestock and wildlife have intensified over the decades, the threat posed by emerging infectious diseases to humans and wildlife continues to increase. Controlling pandemic and large-scale outbreaks of disease has become more challenging over the years, yet there has never been a time where this is a more pertinent issue. We must take preventative measures to ensure the well-being of both animals and humans. However, the United States faces a shortage of positions for wildlife and zoo veterinarians to ensure our safety from this threat. Following their graduation, professionals that practice wildlife and zoological veterinary medicine move on to earn relatively low salaries, compared to their companions in animal medicine. Studies have also shown that on average, veterinarian graduates owe roughly $130,000 in student loans. The expectation of a low salary, combined with enormous educational debt, amidst insufficient employment opportunities, discourages these students from pursuing these vitally important careers. Moreover, due to the severe lack of practical training and formal educational programs specializing in wildlife and zoological veterinary medicine, many that do graduate are unable to make significant contributions to the field immediately. My bill directly addresses these issues which prevent and dissuade veterinarians from practicing wildlife and zoological medicine. It will also contribute to the national job creation effort by funding new positions for wildlife and zoo veterinarians to enter upon graduation. The bill will limit the amount of educational debt for students while providing incentives to practice wildlife and zoo veterinary medicine through the establishment of scholarships and loan repayment programs. Lastly, my legislation will advance education by helping schools develop pilot curricula around wildlife and zoo veterinary medicine by expanding the number of practical training programs available to students. Mr. Speaker, as you know, wild animals play a very critical role in our natural resources and contribute to maintaining a balanced ecosystem. The number of endangered species has only increased. Invasive non-native species and infectious disease threaten our public health. Therefore, wildlife and zoological veterinarians must be prioritized and given the resources and recognition necessary to protect both animal and human lives. I urge my colleagues to extend a helping hand to America's veterinarians by supporting this important piece of legislation.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Leonid Feldman, who is the rabbi of Temple Beth El in West Palm Beach, Florida. Rabbi Feldman has led a remarkable life. Growing up in the Soviet Republic of Moldavia, where the open practice of Judaism was forbidden, he was unaware that he was Jewish. At age 21, he had learned enough to become a passionate Zionist and applied for a visa to emigrate. For this, he was imprisoned by Soviet authorities as a ``refusenik.'' Eventually, Rabbi Feldman was allowed to leave the Soviet Union and emigrated to Israel, where he became a citizen and served honorably in the Israeli army. Following his time in Israel, he became Director of Education for Soviet Emigres in Italy. Rabbi Feldman eventually came to the United States, where he decided to attend the Jewish Theological Seminary, becoming the first and still the only Soviet-born Conservative rabbi in America. Rabbi Feldman has testified in front of the U.S. Congress and the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (the Helsinki Commission). A respected and much in demand lecturer, he has spoken to audiences in 37 states and 19 countries and authored featured articles in national newspapers. Rabbi Feldman has been a visiting professor at the Jewish University of Moscow and the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York, his alma mater. Since 2004, he has been the spiritual leader of Temple Beth El in West Palm Beach where, in 2013, he was bar mitzvahed at age 60. Rabbi Leonid Feldman is widely known and much loved by the members of his congregation, his fellow clerics of all denominations and people throughout Palm Beach County. I am pleased to honor this remarkable man, who is truly deserving of being recognized in the annals of our nation.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia, my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, totally unrelated to my assigned task, I do feel very strongly, as I am sure many Members of the House of Representatives and many American citizens feel, the horror of what transpired in Nepal, and I would just like to say, probably speaking for just about every Member, that our heartfelt condolences are with the Nepalese people, and our hope is that the world will rally to them, as have many, including America, and allow the injured and the homeless to be taken care of. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2029, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2016 provides for a total of $76.6 billion in discretionary funding, including overseas contingency operations, as well as $7 billion for military construction and family housing projects, and $163.2 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs. H.R. 2028, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2016, provides a total allocation of $35.4 billion for energy and water resource projects. First, I find it important to mention, as did my colleague from Georgia, that this rule is a modified open rule, with time limits set to 10 minutes' debate per amendment, and not an open rule to allow all Members to have a full and robust debate on the House floor. I commend my colleague from Georgia, who has been a continuing advocate for open rules, and I also recognize his explanation that the, in his words, restriction of time was to avoid what would amount to unnecessary debate. But as has become custom under Republican leadership, we are once again limiting the amount of deliberation permitted on issues that are critically important to our Nation and our constituents. Nevertheless, I am proud, as is my friend from Georgia, that Republicans and Democrats--the word he used is ``collaborated,'' and I agree--were able to come together to draft H.R. 2029, the legislation that appropriates funds to military construction projects, improves the quality of life for veterans and military families, and allows for the continued operation of the essential functions of our Nation's governing body. These measures include the implementation of stringent, but effective, reporting requirements for the VistA electronic health records system, as well as the continued efforts to eliminate the veterans' claims backlog by fully funding endeavors to implement digital scanning of health records and improvements to centralized mail. These commendable provisions bring us another step closer to ensuring that those who have dedicated themselves to defending our Nation will receive the benefits they have rightly earned and deserve. Despite reaching common ground on several important aspects, the Republican's fiscal year 2016 budget caps will have real and drastic cuts to essential programs that are necessary to support the brave individuals who served our great Nation in combat and who will bear the costs of those wars for decades to come. As a result of the majority's FY 2016 budget resolution spending caps, political maneuvering, and gimmicks--I remember when I was a child and I first learned about the magical terminology ``hocus- pocus,'' and it comes to mind that we are sort of in imaginary land here, with the political maneuvering and gimmicks--military construction funding stands to be slashed by $1.2 billion, and the Department of Veterans Affairs comes in at $1.4 billion below the amount requested. Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, we had a lengthy proceeding, and every member on the Rules Committee had an opportunity to speak to this issue. Almost as a collective voice, there was criticism of Veterans Affairs and how it functions and its failures over a protracted period of time. I raised a question for information about how many people work for VA, total; and I learned for the first time that there are 340,000 people that work in interrelated capacities for VA. The arguments that were being made were made about people who are flawed and rightly should be criticized, but I don't feel all 340,000 people who work on behalf of veterans, particularly in areas that I am privileged to serve, have seen changes that are positive and helpful, although there is always room for improvement. There was one measure for Veterans Affairs employees to receive the same 1.3 percent increase in their pay, and this measure disallows that, and I don't think that is right. I believe that many of those persons have rightfully earned what other Federal employees are to receive as a minimal increase in these very troubled economic times. My Republican colleagues' efforts to shift $532 million to the overseas contingency operations account--which, incidentally, does not count against the budget cap--creates the appearance that we have allocated the robust and necessary funding that our military requires when, in reality, we fail to do so. Americans who currently serve and have served in our military, along with their families, deserve the very best our Nation has to offer. When it comes to investments in our infrastructure, our military, and our country, we all must recognize that not all spending is bad spending. We can and we must do better. H.R. 2028, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2016, is also an important piece of legislation. This bill provides funding for many critical defense and nondefense areas, from vital water resource projects to essential weapons, naval reactor, and nuclear proliferation funding. All of these funding projects enjoy largely bipartisan support. That is why it is a shame, in my view, that my Republican friends have taken this opportunity to poison these bipartisan funding measures by attaching partisan policy riders, and I am sure Members are going to be down here speaking loudly about some of them. On the one hand, this bill provides very robust funding for the Army Corps of Engineers at $5.6 billion in total. That is an increase of $142 million from fiscal year 2015. I applaud this strong funding effort. Unfortunately, my friends on the other side have elected to add an amendment to this funding that will allow guns to be carried on all Corps of Engineers land. I spoke passionately last night about this, and I anticipate that, beginning in the month of May, I will speak more not just about this particular measure, but about the epidemic of gun violence in this society. I did not coin that phrase. The former Surgeon General, Mr. Satcher, pointed that out a decade ago--nearly--and it is as true today as at any other point. Why would we add an amendment to an important appropriations bill that will allow more guns into recreational areas used by families? I just simply cannot understand that. Does anyone really believe an appropriations bill is the appropriate place to amend our gun laws? It would appear that reasonable minds do not. Clause 2 of rule XXI prohibits members of the House Rules to legislate on an appropriations measure. Significantly and dangerously, Republicans have granted a waiver of this important rule. I won't speak more about it. As I indicated, there will be more to come on this business of guns in our society, and I will make it very clear where I am coming from. I feel it is in the interest of society and not in opposition to the Second Amendment. Here is another example. This bill allocates $1.178 billion for the harbor maintenance trust fund, vital funding needed to help further usher our ports and harbors in the 21st century, but then my friends on the other side of the aisle saw fit to attach an amendment that will prevent the Army Corps of Engineers from taking commonsense steps to clarify which waters are protected by the Clean Water Act. Why, in one instance, are we going to fully fund an agency as vital as the Army Corps of Engineers and then, in the next breath, tie their hands by preventing them from making commonsense determinations on what is widely acknowledged to be a state of confusion about the scope of the law's pollution control programs? Let the Corps do its job. Why are my friends on the other side of the aisle trying to weigh down this important funding bill with unnecessary and partisan policy riders? This bill funds essential nuclear proliferation activities--$1.9 million worth--as well as environmental cleanup efforts. We should not be threatening the funding to stop the spread of nuclear weapons or the preservation of our environment and construction of our harbors just so the Republicans can have a partisan fight over gutting the Clean Water Act or attempting to change our gun laws. The American people deserve better. The funding of these projects is too important. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I so much enjoy the passion of my good friend from Georgia. I am sure he feels the same as me. He kind of has an advantage over me today, in that he is on the Budget Committee. Happily, I would report to him I brought along some people from the Budget Committee that can take up the slack that I might offer. I am delighted at this time to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), my good friend from the Budget Committee.

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

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), another member of the Budget Committee, a dear friend of mine. Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida, the great State of Florida (Ms. Brown), my very, very good friend who is an expert in veterans affairs, among other things.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend from Georgia that I have no further requests for time, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I wish to place the Statement of Administration Policy, with reference to both these matters, in the Record. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 2029--Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016 (Rep. Rogers, R-KY, Apr. 28, 2015) The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 2029, making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes. The bill fails to fully fund critical priorities, including veterans' medical care and military and VA construction. Furthermore, the legislation includes a highly problematic ideological rider that would constrain the President's ability to protect our national security. If the President were presented with H.R. 2029, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill. Moreover, enacting H.R. 2029 while adhering to the congressional Republican budget's overall spending limits for fiscal year (FY) 2016 would hurt our economy and shortchange investments in middle-class priorities. Sequestration was never intended to take effect: rather, it was supposed to threaten such drastic cuts to both defense and non-defense funding that policymakers would be motivated to come to the table and reduce the deficit through smart, balanced reforms. The Republican framework would bring base discretionary funding for both defense and non-defense for FY 2016 to the lowest real levels in a decade. Compared to the President's Budget, the cuts would result in tens of thousands of the Nation's most vulnerable children losing access to Head Start, more than two million fewer workers receiving job training and employment services, and thousands fewer scientific and medical research awards and grants, adversely impacting the pace of discovery and innovation, along with other impacts that would hurt the economy, the middle class, and Americans working hard to reach the middle class. Maintaining sequestration would also negatively impact programs that provide important services to our Nation's veterans and are funded in appropriations bills where House Republicans propose to make even deeper cuts relative to the President's Budget than in H.R. 2029. For example, American Job Centers serve 1.2 million veterans annually, including 300,000 who receive intensive employment services. Transition assistance provides 200,000 service members each year with employment guidance and information as they prepare to enter the civilian workforce. And hundreds of thousands of veterans rely on a wide range of Department of Housing and Urban Development programs for housing support and homeless assistance each year. Sequestration levels would also put our national security at unnecessary risk, not only through pressures on defense spending, but also through pressures on State, USAID, Homeland Security, and other non-defense programs that help keep us safe. More broadly, the strength of our economy and the security of our Nation are linked. That is why the President has been clear that he is not willing to lock in sequestration going forward, nor will he accept fixes to defense without also fixing non-defense. The President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto H.R. 2029 and any other legislation that implements the current Republican budget framework, which blocks the investments we need for our economy to compete in the future. The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress to reverse sequestration for defense and non-defense priorities and to offset the cost with commonsense spending and tax expenditure cuts, as Members of Congress from both parties have urged. The Administration would like to take this opportunity to share additional views regarding the Committee's version of the bill. Veterans Affairs Medical Care. The Administration appreciates the Committee's support for our Nation's veterans; however, the Administration objects to the Committee's overall $585 million reduction to the FY 2016 Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Care request. If enacted, this reduction would negatively impact medical care services for tens of thousands of veterans and reduce VA's ability to activate new and replacement facilities with sufficient staff and equipment and to adequately maintain facility infrastructure. Veterans Affairs Construction. The Administration objects to the Committee's $582 million reduction to the FY 2016 VA major construction request. This reduction would prevent building upgrades and renovations, including necessary expansions to medical facilities and national cemeteries that would improve services to our veterans. The bill would significantly constrain VA's ability to make progress on its highest priority capital projects. Other Veterans Affairs Reductions. The Administration also objects to the Committee's other reductions to the overall VA request, including $159 million in reductions for employee awards, bonuses, and the President's proposed 1.3 percent pay raise for Federal employees. As VA attempts to enhance staffing to deliver better care to veterans, these reductions will hinder the Department's ability to recruit and retain personnel critical to the provision of benefits and services to veterans The Administration urges the Congress to provide the proposed 1.3 percent pay increase for Federal civilian employees. Military Construction. The Administration objects to the Committee's underfunding of military construction in the President's FY 2016 base defense budget by $1.3 billion, which will delay or defer projects that serve critical needs for members of our Armed Forces and their families. The projects requested in the FY 2016 Budget reflect the highest priority projects for the Department of Defense, and the Administration requests full funding for each project. Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Funds. The Administration strongly objects to the Committee's use of $532 million of OCO funds intended for wars and not subject to the budget caps to pay for long-term infrastructure investments. Shifting long-term defense costs to OCO is bad budget policy and bad defense policy, since it undermines long-term planning. Moreover, the Administration has made clear that it will not accept attempts to fix defense without nondefense by using OCO as a mechanism to evade the defense budget cap. Detainee Matters. The Administration strongly objects to section 512 of the bill, which prohibits the use of funds to construct, renovate, or expand any facility in the United States to house individuals held in the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. This provision would constrain the flexibility that the Nation's Armed Forces and counterterrorism professionals need to best protect U.S. national security, intruding upon the Executive Branch's ability to carry out its mission. The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress as the FY 2016 appropriations process moves forward.

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