Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire how much time remains for both sides.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, while I am pleased with the level of support provided in these pieces of legislation for essential military, veterans, defense, and water resources programs, they should not serve as vehicles to make substantive policy changes to our Nation's gun laws or gut important environmental protections; nor should we stand idly by while Republicans in Congress slash funding for critically important veterans and military services under the guise of a spending increase. Now, Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I talked about last night, I offered an amendment that would self-execute to the rule that would strike section 107 from the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. This is one of the riders in H.R. 2028 that would allow guns to be carried on Army Corps land. If enacted in its current form, this legislation would strip the Secretary of the Army from using the discretion currently provided to enforce or revise the Corps' policy prohibiting firearms on Corps land. Removing the discretionary powers from law enforcement officials that allow them to determine what is best for the security of our Nation's infrastructure and the safety of public employees, in my judgment, is dangerous and wrong. Substantive changes to our gun laws do not belong in an appropriations bill. And that could not have happened but for a waiver, which my friends tend to do for a variety of measures, and they wind up being poison pills in substantive legislation. While I believe in the right of Americans to own firearms, last night I made it very clear: I own a gun. When I was a child, at age 7, I had a BB gun. When I was 12 years old, I had a single-shot rifle. And I was taught, as were all of my friends, to not point those guns at people unless you intended to do them harm. We, as boys, had the same kinds of fights that I imagine occur at any of our institutions. But not one of us would run home and get a gun or carry a gun. To proliferate this society with the variety of gun laws that exist, where people can carry guns openly on Corps land or concealed in certain other States, that is just plain crazy. Last night, I referenced a statement by then-Surgeon General Satcher that I used again today: ``Youth violence is an epidemic.'' He delivered that in response to a report he commissioned in the year 2002. At the time, his study revealed that 13 children each day died as a result of guns. Indeed, the gun violence epidemic that plagues our Nation has not diminished in recent years. In Riviera Beach last week, a child 2 years old was shot. In the same constituency that I am privileged to serve, a mother was fatally shot by her 3-year-old that got her gun from her purse. People, we need to pay attention to what is going on. And I intend in May to raise this issue in this body and around this Nation so that people can learn just how many people are dying in this way. I want to make it very, very clear. The National Rifle Association does not control this body nor the Florida Legislature nor any other body. As I said, I don't mind arguing for the Second Amendment. But to carry it to the extent that it has gone is just plain wrong. Everybody in our society knows that, and I am going to try to make sure that they continue to know that. Now, there is another thing about this bill. It locks in sequestration. The administration speaks to that subject in their Statement of Administration Policy. The Republican framework would bring base discretionary funding for both defense and nondefense to the lowest 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 2 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, any innovation, along with other impacts that would hurt the economy, the middle class, and Americans working hard to reach the middle class. Sequestration levels were never meant to put us in this unnecessary risk, and I would urge that we not go forward in this manner. I would say to my good friend from Georgia that we may be on the brink of what excites him--and it would excite me as well--if we got ourselves a balanced budget, but a part of that has gimmickry in it as well. It is done on the reconciliation because the great majority of people over in the other body may not have the same sentiment as some who serve on the relevant committee at this point in time in the U.S. Senate. Cliche allows that Yogi Berra be utilized here; that is, ``It ain't over 'til it's over.'' I was told last week that we were going to pass this thing, that it was going to come back from the Senate on Wednesday. Last time I looked, this was Wednesday. Or as my daddy used to say, It is Wednesday all day long unless it rains. I never did know what would happen if it rained. I guess it would just be a rainy Wednesday. But it ain't here Wednesday. And now I am hearing from my good friend from Georgia that they are close. That is what happened when we set up this thing with this special committee, superpeople, supercommittee that was supposed to bring us back a budget, and then missed out on opportunities with Erskine Bowles and brought us back this sequestration that has this body hamstrung and has us in the position of allowing that authorizers and appropriators are locked into the position that they are in because of sequestration. We need to get rid of that. We need to return to earmarks. We need to do a number of things that will allow for this body--and not for the bureaucracy--to control many aspects of what is the implementation of policy that is made here. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule. I have stated a number of reasons. I will not go into every one of the riders. There are others, and I am sure people are going to speak about them. But I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and commemorate the centennial anniversary of the Trinity United Methodist Church located in West Palm Beach, FL. In October 2014, the Trinity United Methodist Church celebrated its 100th anniversary. Founded in 1914 by Reverend John H. Gordon, the church was organized along the Seaboard Railroad on Tamarind Avenue in West Palm Beach. Trinity was renovated following a fire and later modified after being heavily damaged during the Storm of 1928. In 1968, the church was sold and a new sanctuary was constructed on the corners of 9th Street and Golf Avenue in the Roosevelt Estates. Trinity's history is the story of faith, sacrifice and of a membership devoted to the community. Since its founding, Trinity has served at the forefront of the community, working to enhance educational, social, and economic prosperity. Known as the ``Civil Rights Headquarters,'' Trinity United Methodist Church served as the main meeting place to plan strategies in the fights for the right to vote, integration of schools, and equal access. Today, Trinity is still the headquarters for free rides to the voting polls, and often partners with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and Urban League on various other important initiatives. Mr. Speaker, Trinity United Methodist Church is a true pillar of the community and I continue to applaud their efforts. I wish the Trinity United Methodist Church many more years of continued prosperity.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the anniversary of the creation of the State of Israel, known as Yom Ha'atzmaut, a day on which we celebrate its establishment and growth, and recognize the fortitude of the Israeli people. For 67 years, Israel has stood as a shining example of freedom and democracy in a region plagued by violence and oppression. Since President Harry S. Truman famously recognized the nascent state only 11 minutes after its founding, our two nations have shared the common bonds of democracy, economic vitality, and cultural affinity, tied together in an unbreakable friendship based on religious kinships and mutual interests. As a Member of Congress, I have been honored to travel to Israel 15 times and never cease to be impressed by the strength of Israel and its people. I will continue to do all that I can in Congress to ensure that Israelis have a secure and peaceful homeland. It is my sincere hope that through diplomatic efforts the future will bring a fair solution that enables both Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace and prosperity. I wish the people and government of Israel a Chag Sameach, a happy holiday.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize twenty-three graduating seniors from my Congressional district for their record of scholastic and athletic accomplishment, and their honorable decision to enlist in the United States Military. As graduation season begins this year, thousands of young people all across the nation are preparing for the next chapter in their lives. Many will pursue higher education or vocational training, some will enter the workforce immediately, and a select few will dedicate themselves to serving their country. The United States of America has set itself apart by the determination and spirit of our people, the knowledge that we can achieve any goal if we set our minds to it, our inherent compassion and generosity, our fierce patriotism, and the extraordinary sacrifices and dedication to country exhibited by the members of our Armed Forces. The young men and women from our community who will be enlisting possess an abundance of each of these qualities. I join with their families and friends in congratulating and commending the following graduates on their enlistment in the United States Military: Darrius Freeman, Royal Palm Beach, FL--Air Force Cacinni Young, West Palm Beach, FL--Air Force Jelani Mccray, Riviera Beach, FL--Air Force Devon Breen, Loxahatchee, FL--Army Angel Sanchez, Lake Harbor, FL--Army Arturo Roblero, West Palm Beach, FL--Army Cristian Martinez, West Palm Beach, FL--Marines Ryan Dunning, West Palm Beach, FL--Marines Yvesland Belizaire, Boynton Beach, FL--Marines Monroe Desulma, Boynton Beach, FL--Marines Cesar Silva, Belle Glade, FL--Marines Gunnar Gustafson, Wellington, FL--Marines Kevin Garcia Velasquez, West Palm Beach, FL--Marines Manuel Palomino, West Palm Beach, FL--Marines Christie Pierre, Riviera Beach, FL--Marines Michael Westman, Lake Worth, FL--Marines Bryan Headley, Riviera Beach, FL--Marines Peter Gay Bryan, West Palm Beach, FL--Marines Tyi Thomas, Riviera Beach, FL--Marines Phillip Perkins Jr., Riviera Beach, FL--Marines Ruthlynn Laurince, Lantana, FL--Navy Indira Merrick, Belle Glade, FL--Navy Diana Noethig, West Palm Beach, FL--Navy Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to recognize these selfless young people for their invaluable commitment to serve our great nation, and their leadership and courage as positive examples for their fellow classmates. I wish them all the very best.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that veterans deserve the health and living standards they fought to protect. This resolution pays tribute to the vast numbers of men and women who have served our nation in uniform, yet return home from service homeless, some of whom survive war to die on the streets of this country. Today, we are completing the two longest wars in U.S. history at great sacrifice to many soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines and their families. When these men and women return home they utilize their skills and leadership as wonderful assets in their communities. But for some, there are no homes. In the words of one homeless veteran, ``When we go into the military, we learn self-discipline, and we learn not to ask for anything, we learn to get it for ourselves, or just do without it. And we are a proud people, us military veterans. We don't ask for anything. But it should never be a society that allows their veterans to go across the water to protect this country and come back and have to live on the streets. It shouldn't be that way.'' These courageous Americans have stood up in defense of our freedom, and we owe them more than our gratitude--we owe them our firm commitment to ensure that they receive the care and benefits they earned through their service. On any given night, nearly 50,000 military veterans sleep in homeless shelters or on the streets. Furthermore, approximately 260,000 veterans use homeless shelters or other services during the course of a year. Homeless veterans have become a focal point in the broader fight to prevent and end homelessness in America. We may all take pride and comfort in the recent finding that homelessness among veterans has begun to decrease. One of the biggest contributors to the decreased number of homeless veterans has been the increased federal investment in efficient and effective programs. In addition, there has been significant progress, but more must be done. It is time that we recognize these unsung heroes who have returned from service to face hard times and homelessness. Mr. Speaker, it is time that we recognize our nation's homeless veterans. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this critically important resolution.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight an issue of growing concern to this nation: cancer among men, by introducing a resolution recognizing June as Men's Cancer Awareness Month. Cancer is a deadly disease that does not discriminate. It impacts all demographics and every segment of our population. However, what I find extremely alarming is that cancer is claiming the lives of males of all races and ages at an alarming rate. One in 2 men will be diagnosed with cancer over the course of their lifetimes. Men face a 43.31 percent lifetime risk of being diagnosed with some form of cancer. Statistics show that men have a 22.83 percent chance of dying from cancer versus 19.26 percent of women. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that nearly 300,000 men die annually as a result of cancer. Furthermore, African American men have the highest cancer incidence and mortality rates according to the CDC. I ask my fellow Members of Congress to join me in shining a light on this deadly disease that is plaguing the men of our communities. These men are our fathers, grandfathers, brothers, uncles, sons, grandsons, and nephews. Recognizing and preventing men's health problems is not just an issue facing men, it also has a profound impact on the lives of wives, mothers, daughters, and sisters, and is truly a family issue. No one should ever be put in a position to have to prematurely bury their loved one. Additionally, there are a number of consistent gender differences in cancer susceptibility. In fact, gender differences in cancer susceptibility are rarely publicized and often inadequately addressed. There are a number of common cancers that have the highest male-to- female (M:F) ratios, including colorectal cancers; cancers of the lung and bronchus; non-Hodgkin lymphoma, urinary and bladder cancers, and most alarming Kaposi sarcoma. I was inspired to introduce this resolution by a constituent from my district, Mr. Joel Greshman, who founded the Not 1 Forgotten campaign in 2013, after losing two close friends and family members to cancer. Joel created the organization to encourage men to get regular check-ups in order to stay healthy and live longer. By joining Joel and others across the nation to bring greater awareness of cancer among men, it is my sincere hope that we can work together to better promote expanded advocacy, media campaigns and other events. The Not 1 Forgotten campaign has gained momentum in states and cities across our nation from Fort Lauderdale located in my Congressional district to Atlanta, Augusta, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami Dade County, and New York. The purpose of Men's Cancer Awareness Month is to heighten awareness and encourage early detection and treatment of cancer among men and boys. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this critically important resolution and recognize June as Men's Cancer Awareness Month.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the executive summary of a report conducted by Equality Means Business, a project of Equality Florida and the Equality Florida Institute, organizations dedicated to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The report demonstrates what we already know to be true--that LGBT discrimination in the workplace is corrosive to both the domestic and global marketplace. We must continue to work diligently to ensure that all citizens are guaranteed equal rights and equal protection under the law. The full report is available online at http://www.eqfl.org/emb/ economic_impact_study. Florida State laws are negatively impacting business operations and profits to a much higher level than previously suspected. A groundbreaking study, released by Thinkspot Inc. in March 2015, demonstrates the costly negative impact on Florida's employers from lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) discrimination. Equality Means Business, formed to spotlight major employers in Florida that have adopted comprehensive nondiscrimination policies, commissioned Thinkspot to conduct research addressing the economic case for ending discrimination against LGBT people in the Sunshine State. The study details extensive analysis of published research and findings from in-depth interviews with C-level business leaders. It reveals negative costs realized by individual employees, employers, and Florida's business community. Study findings also illuminate areas of erosion for Florida's competitive position in the global marketplace. This summary provides highlights of the study's findings. the costs The costs resulting from lost productivity and employee turnover alone are estimated conservatively to exceed $362 million annually. Other costs recognized by the state's business community include forgone new business opportunities, product quality degradation, customer loyalty erosion, safety incidents, corporate reputation damage, and lost opportunities to attract talent--particularly among the Millennial generation. The cost of LGBT discrimination is not isolated to the individual. Discrimination in the workplace negatively impacts the host company, its customers, its industry (e.g., supply chain), and the geo-political areas (i.e., city, county, state) those employers call home. Research demonstrates that the link from employee engagement to profits and competitiveness is direct. diminished competitiveness For many companies, a culture of non-discrimination fostered and maintained through policies is a prerequisite for daily operations. Global corporate peers demand their vendors demonstrate ``cultural intelligence.'' Global business opportunities (i.e., revenues) are lost in the absence of workforce discrimination protection. Responses from business executives reveal that representative companies have interests far beyond the ability to attract and retain the best talent, as well as responding to global customers' demands for inclusion policies as a prerequisite for doing business. The currently unrealized effort to pass federal legislation providing non-discrimination intensifies the competition between states in realizing the benefits of protection in the workplace. Florida ranks in the middle of the national pack at 25. Florida businesses are at a competitive disadvantage created by the collective perception as being hostile to the LGBT community. The lack of protections available to LGBT people in a state like Florida stands in stark contrast to the protections available in high-equality states, where state law eliminates these differential costs. inconsistent policies within the state In researching for the report, the authors discovered employers that made significant effort to implement internal policies that protect members of the LGBT community within the office, but felt those efforts were ``undercut'' by inaction or regressive action of government at the local and state levels. The interviews also revealed a perception that some governments appear to be actively working against companies' ability to create a ``safe'' and ``inclusive'' environment and fail to demonstrate critical ``cultural intelligence'' to industry peers and global partners. An employer pointed out that the workplace is only one part of the factor--an employee would also need to go home and may have a partner working at a different location without protections and could face any number of other discriminations. One CEO noted where a highly-sought after C- level candidate turned down a very attractive job offer because, although the company was a great fit and provided partner benefits and other protections, the candidate did not feel he would be welcomed in the state and in the community. Potential employees considering work in Florida carefully examine the environment created by the host communities and state. interviews with florida business leaders In-depth interviews were conducted with participants representing organizations of varying sizes and sectors, from manufacturing and medical services to Florida's emerging tech sector. They spanned in size of workforce from 18 to 400,000. The interview findings document an overall theme that broad and consistent discrimination protection is a matter of state competitiveness. This is especially evident for critical industries such as technology, tourism, and medical services, and for companies operating or headquartered out of the state while competing within a global market. For many companies, a culture of non-discrimination fostered and maintained through formal policies is a prerequisite consideration for daily operations and for promoting their own relevancy among global corporate peers who demand their supply chain partners and vendors demonstrate ``cultural intelligence''. damaged state reputation Leaders provided continual reference to concerns over Florida's negative reputation, especially related to diversity, inclusion, and discrimination at the state-level. Executives link this reputation issue to the loss of highly sought-after candidates, the direct loss of high-potential incumbent talent, and hesitancy of large global partners considering acquisitions or including Florida companies as supply chain partners, often in a global arena. Executives noted that when identifying their companies as operating within or headquartered in Florida, responses of industry peers, potential partners, or clients will often be negative and even express doubt about the value and validity of the company itself. Executives linked these responses directly to negative perceptions of Florida's brand as ``backwards'' and not promoting diversity of ideas and cultures. Participants repeatedly noted that they had to exert deliberate effort to ``overcome'' negative reputational issues related with being headquartered or having major operations within Florida. On one account, a company headquartered in a major metropolitan area in Florida noted that their largest competitor (based out of California) had raised questions about how ``good your talent could actually be'' because they are living and working in Florida ``where basic human protections are either not provided or fought against.'' an economic development imperative Seventy-five percent (75%) of the participants noted plans to expand in the coming 36 months. Several reported that relocation or expansion decisions were made in favor of a location with a public policy climate that promoted diversity and non-discrimination for the LGBT community. millennial expectations The executives suggest that Millennials are flocking to workplaces where they believe their values are reflected, and suggest they want a company culture that ``treats all people fairly.'' Meanwhile, leaders report hearing frequent expressions of frustration and confusion by highly-sought younger workers at why ``some older people'' make a ``big deal'' out of non-discrimination (in and outside of the workplace) or speak actively about LGBT issues in negative, cautionary, or bigoted tones. Competing for talent, particularly for members of the Millennial generation now entering the workforce, makes inclusion and diversity a requisite. supporting discrimination protection is status quo Executives suggest that the ``battle is over'' in corporate America and the boardroom. Supporting discrimination protection is status quo for large companies and for most medium-sized firms, and a requirement for competition in many cases. Business leaders felt their competitive positioning efforts were ``undercut'' by negative or absent external public policies in local markets and inaction at the state level to support business needs. Some suggested the need for state action to address these issues and eradicate both the negative perceptions of the state and cultural landscape. compliance throughout supply chains Failing to represent the presence and authentic implementation of a non-discrimination policy can result in real, hard loss of revenue from global clients and partners as well as significant damage to brand reputation. a prerequisite for business For companies to compete for business, they must both have and evidence non-discrimination policies and culture. Another element relates to softer aspects of brand reputation and acceptance among industry peer groups. Leaders express ``reputation'' as extremely delicate and important, especially in the early stages of competitive opportunities. public support and legislative effectiveness Public opinion in Florida supports the passage of legal protections from workplace discrimination for LGBT people. Survey results found that 73% of respondents supported passage of this legislation that would have added protections from sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination to existing state law. Three sources of public opinion data indicate that 80% of Florida residents think that LGBT people experience a moderate amount to a lot of discrimination in the state. The study also shows evidence of the effectiveness of state legislation. Evidence from states with sexual orientation non-discrimination laws indicates that the likelihood of a gay or lesbian employee in those areas even filing a legal complaint is estimated at only 0.01 to 0.08 percent annually.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution recognizing Dr. Elmira Mangum as the First Female President of Florida A&M University. A trailblazer in higher education and model of academic success, Dr. Mangum has broken gender barriers by becoming the first permanent female president of one of our nation's most distinguished Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU). Dr. Elmira Mangum is a born leader. Growing up in North Carolina, she always went above and beyond the call of duty to ensure she excelled academically and socially. She earned her bachelor's degree in geography and education from North Carolina Central University and graduated with honors from the University of Wisconsin-Madison with two master's degrees, one in public policy and public administration and another in urban and regional planning. Dr. Mangum furthered her studies and earned a Ph.D. in educational leadership and policy from the University at Buffalo. It was here that she received distinction for her work on leadership in higher education. Never one to settle for less, she attended the Harvard Graduate School of Education Management Development Program, was in the inaugural class of the Millennium Leadership Institute, and completed Cornell's Administrative Management Institute. Extremely civically minded, she is a life member of Zeta Phi Beta Sorority, Inc. and the National Council of Negro Women. Her path to becoming the 11th president of my prestigious alma mater, Florida A&M University, has led her through some very notable positions. She has been Assistant Dean, Associate Provost for Resource Management, a Vice Provost, Senior Associate Provost, and Vice President at other noteworthy institutions, such as Cornell University and the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. I am extremely proud of Dr. Mangum's accomplishments and am certain that she will carry out her vision of grandeur for one of the nation's most premier HBCUs. She has already made extraordinary progress in advancing the institution and this is only the beginning. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Elmira Mangum is paving the way for women across the country to continue to realize their dreams and achieve greatness. She is a trailblazer who serves as a role model for men and women alike. I urge my colleagues to support the Resolution to Recognize Dr. Elmira Mangum as the First Female President of Florida A&M University.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess, for yielding the customary 30 minutes. I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying bills. Mr. Speaker, we are fortunate to have put the most recent Republican manufactured crisis of funding the Department of Homeland Security behind us. This was not the first crisis caused by the extreme rightwing in this body, and I am certain that it won't be the last. In looking ahead to the balance of the year, I am sure that my Republican colleagues are preparing themselves to continue with the same trend. For example, the current suspension of the debt limit, which expired on March 15, is a crisis. By the end of this month, Congress has to act on the so-called ``doc fix'' or else--crisis. The highway trust fund is set to run out of money in about 3 months. There is another crisis. At the end of June, the Export-Import Bank will have to be reauthorized-- crisis. That takes us all the way to the end of the fiscal year, in September, when we push reset and have to do it all again from the beginning. This is no way to govern, and it is not what Americans who are struggling to put food on the table want or deserve. I haven't mentioned the two bills in question today. That is not by accident. It is because they are typical go nowhere, do-nothing pet projects. Mr. Speaker, having served on the Rules Committee for as long as I have and having made the prediction, as my colleagues on the Democratic side of the Rules Committee have repeated, that the legislation is going nowhere, I think that we have been confirmed virtually every time. These two measures are attempts by corporate interests to compromise the Environmental Protection Agency's integrity and stock its scientific review board with sympathizers. Neither will become law. ``Secret science'' might sound scary, but the rhetoric has outpaced the reality. Furthermore, this bill will not improve the EPA's science or make it more transparent. In fact, the bill's impossible standards and mechanisms will actually force the Environmental Protection Agency to ignore major and consequential studies. De-identifying the data is not so simple. Firstly, just because the data is de-identified doesn't mean that it will stay de-identified. We are all familiar with how much personal information is readily available. Only a few pieces of information are required to reconnect the de-identified dots across the Internet and social media. Moreover, de-identifying the data means removing critical information that often renders the results not reproducible, which, under the regime created by this bill, would then force the EPA to ignore legitimate and, possibly, important studies. Dr. Burgess pointed out that it would protect the wallets of some. I am equally concerned about the bodies of all. The other measure we are considering today, H.R. 1029, will give private industry substantial influence over the EPA. As we should have learned from the economic collapse, stuffing the regulatory agency with industry-affiliated experts is like leaving the wolves to mind the flock. Mr. Speaker, I find it most unfortunate that my Republican colleagues continue to bring up do-nothing bills that will go nowhere and then spend the rest of their time doing everything in their power to oppose the President of the United States. Quite frankly, the American people deserve better. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the March 3, 2014, statements of the administration on the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act and Secret Science Reform Act. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 1029--EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015 (Rep. Lucas, R-OK and 24 cosponsors) The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1029, which would affect the ability of EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) to form panels and perform its essential functions. The SAB, along with other functions, reviews the quality and adequacy of certain scientific and technical information used by EPA or proposed as the basis for EPA regulations. Therefore, it is imperative that the SAB be composed of the most knowledgeable scientific and technical experts available. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which governs Federal advisory committees such as the SAB, provides for balanced panels and subcommittees that include experts with diverse backgrounds who represent wide-ranging perspectives. H.R. 1029 would negatively affect the appointment of experts and would weaken the scientific independence and integrity of the SAB. For example, the bill would impose a hiring quota for SAB members based on employment by a State, local, or tribal government as opposed to scientific expertise. The bill would also place limitations on SAB members' participation in ``advisory activities that directly or indirectly involve review and evaluation of their own work.'' Determining the practical meaning of ``indirect'' involvement will be difficult and consequently problematic to implement. The provisions on appointment of experts to the SAB and various other requirements could also preclude the nomination of scientists with significant expertise in their fields. In addition, H.R. 1029 would add burdensome requirements on the SAB with respect to solicitation of and response to public comments, above and beyond those imposed by FACA. These new requirements would saddle the SAB with workload that would impair its ability to carry out its mandate. Further, H.R. 1029 would add an unnecessary, burdensome, and costly layer of requirements for hazard and risk assessments without defining the scope of these requirements and absent recognition that many high profile assessments already are reviewed by the SAB. If the President were presented with H.R. 1029, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

Mr. HASTINGS. I would urge that my colleague who made the comment that we don't know where the President is, well, there is where the President is. I would also ask rhetorically, if it is that all these things that we passed that I said were going nowhere last year, why is it that we haven't had anything go anywhere this year with both a Republican Senate and a Republican House, and neither of these measures is going to go anywhere nor are they going to go to conference, and I believe people know that. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, we are going to offer an amendment to the rule that would allow the House to consider the Promoting U.S. Jobs Through Exports Act. This bill would renew the Export-Import Bank's charter for an additional 7 years, ensuring certainty for U.S. exporters and businesses through 2022. To discuss our proposal, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services and my good friend.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I would think the time to create American jobs is anytime, and sooner rather than later. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), my good friend, the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck), my good friend and a member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am always fascinated when our colleagues come to the floor of this great deliberative body and argue against government. The last time I looked, all 435 plus 6 of us and the 100 United States Senators sought public office to be involved in making government better. The government is the people of the United States. And it is not only the respective agencies; it is also our counties, our parishes, our districts, our cities that are the government. When we say that, it makes it sound as if the government is bad, and defense is the only entity that all of us agree is our responsibility. But yes, clean water is our responsibility, and, yes, emissions that cause harm to the environment and to individuals are our mission. Those are responsibilities of government. Yes, air traffic control is a responsibility of government. Yes, the way our roads are undertaken, or the repair of bridges, yes, that is the government. So I have a lot of trouble with an antigovernment attitude when, in fact, we are just being anti-ourselves. Mr. Speaker, we know that science is the formation of conclusions upon a foundation of testable observation. Sometimes mistakes are made, and they can be construed as valuable because you learn what not to do the next time. Government, for example, operated NASA and still has some role in that, and many of the experiments that were failed experiments led to us understanding how to develop the microwave and how to develop scientific heart devices that have benefited the American people. Yes, that was the government. But this Republican-caused crisis was resolved in the same way it was a few weeks back, the same way it was resolved the last time the Republicans shut down the government. It was resolved on the backs of Democrats. When the other party decides to work with the Democratic Party, the American people benefit from its government, and we saw evidence of that in the Homeland Security financing measure. Given how often we find ourselves in similar situations, I can't help but wonder what hypothesis my friends are trying to test. I do not think that seeing how far our security and economic stability can bend before breaking is what is meant by ``the great American experiment.'' 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. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule that is going nowhere fast, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. 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, on the final vote results for rollcall vote No. 118 that took place on March 17, 2015, I would have voted in favor of H.R. 1191.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Dillard High School ``Lady Panthers'' Basketball team for winning the Class 5A Florida State Championship on February 21, 2015. With their 51-35 victory over the Jacksonville Paxon School for Advanced Studies the Lady Panthers brought home their 9th state championship for Hall of Fame coach Marcia Pinder. Coach Pinder now has the most girls basketball state titles of any coach in state history, and is the winningest coach in Florida high school basketball--boys or girls--history. I would like to take this opportunity to personally congratulate all of the outstanding players and coaches for this amazing achievement: #3 Jamesha Paul, #4 Destiny Frazier, #10 Tiera Wilks, #11 Tyler Wilks, #12 Jacaira Allen, #20 Jade Alexander, #21 Dominique Fields, #25 Jade Wyatt, #30 Ragene Grier, #31 Amber Lee, #32 Courtney Parson, #33 Harmony Adams, #35 Daymia Ware, #40 Katrina Savage, #44 Linsey Francois. Head Coach: Marcia Pinder, Asst. Coach: George Adams, Asst. Coach: Brandon Adams, Asst. Coach: Tania Miller, Asst. Coach: Enewetok Ramsey, Asst. Coach: Chanell Washington. The Lady Panthers displayed hard work, perseverance, and dominance on their road to winning the state championship, losing only one game all season and winning their six previous postseason games by an average of nearly 30 points. This state championship is the Lady Panthers' fifth in the last six years--a truly remarkable feat that has made South Florida very proud. I commend the players and coaching staff for their dedication to excellence, and I wish them continued success in the future. Go Lady Panthers!

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the girls basketball team of Palm Beach Lakes High School located in West Palm Beach, Florida. On Saturday, February 21, 2015, the Lady Rams soundly defeated last year's state champions, Apopka-Wekiva, 58-40 for the team's first state championship win. Their 28-2 record and convincing win in the title game are two things for which the Palm Beach County community should be very proud of. I want to congratulate Coach Cassandra Rahming, herself a former star at Palm Beach Lakes, and the entire team for a job very well done. I especially want to praise star guard Kayla Thigpen, who scored nine points in the second quarter, and power forward Jackie Johnson, who recorded six points, nine rebounds, three blocks and four steals in the first half. Mr. Speaker, the Palm Beach Lakes High School Lady Rams are fine examples of young women who have excelled at athletics and academics. By working hard and focusing on the tasks at hand, they have reached the pinnacle of their sport. I wish the entire team much success and look forward to Palm Beach Lakes High School winning more championships for years to come.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce the Services for Ending Long-Term Homelessness Act. Homelessness continues to be a troubling issue facing our nation. In 2014, studies show that anywhere from 700,000 to 2 million children, families, and veterans found themselves homeless. Nationally, on any given night, there are approximately 84,291 people who are experiencing chronic homelessness. Chronically homeless people often live in shelters or on the streets for years at a time, experience repeated episodes of homelessness without achieving housing stability, or cycle between homelessness, jails, mental health facilities, and hospitals. These individuals are all too often confronted with, or a combination of, mental illness, substance addiction, life-threatening illness or other serious health problems that make it impossible to maintain or access shelter. Fortunately, this bill presents us with the opportunity to address this national issue by ending long-term homelessness in America. Studies have demonstrated that supportive services are a practical and a guaranteed investment of public and private resources to end long-term homelessness. These programs result in a 39% reduction in total cost of services from pre- to post-supportive housing with an overall savings of $854,477. Furthermore, residents were significantly less likely to return to hospitals, nursing homes or prisons and there was an overall positive shift in mental and physical well-being. The Services for Ending Long-Term Homelessness Act does three key things: It requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), acting through the Administrator of Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, to design a national strategy for providing services in supportive housing that will assist in ending chronic homelessness and to implement programs that address chronic homelessness. It calls for the HHS Secretary to make multi-year, renewable grants based on performance criteria, including the outcome of ending long- term homelessness matching the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Grants to eligible entities in order to provide services promoting recovery and self-sufficiency. Furthermore, it addresses barriers to housing stability for chronically homeless individuals and families in, or who are scheduled to become residents of, permanent supportive housing. This will also apply to other individuals and families who have voluntarily chosen to seek other housing opportunities after a period of tenancy in supportive housing. It directs the HHS Secretary to require grantees to report data regarding the performance outcomes of projects carried out under this Act, which shall include measuring and reporting specific performance outcomes related to the long-term goals of: (1) increasing stability within the community for individuals and families who have been chronically homeless; and (2) decreasing recurrence of periods of homelessness. Mr. Speaker, it is time that we take a stand to put an end to long- term homelessness in America. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this critically important bill, so that we can end homelessness across this nation, because no person deserves to live without a home or to be on the streets.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished leader of the Democratic Caucus, for purposes as she sees fit.