Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on this matter, the administration, as it is wont to do, filed administration policy. We refer to them in our committees and around the House as a SAP. What the administration said is the following: The administration supports measures that enhance nonprofits, philanthropic organizations, and faith-based and other community organizations in their many roles, including as a safety net for those most in need, an economic engine for job creation, a tool for environmental conservation that encourages land protections for current and future generations, and an incubator of innovation to foster solutions to some of the Nation's toughest challenges. The President's budget includes a number of proposals that would enhance and simplify charitable giving incentives for many individuals. I am going to come back to this, but before we go forward, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that would give Members a second opportunity this week to consider reversing the damage done by the recent Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision. No employer should have the right to limit the health choices of its employees, male or female. It is pure discrimination when 99 percent of women in this country have used some form of birth control during their lifetime, but to now have to literally go through unreasonable measures to simply secure the fundamental health care they need. To discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Bera), a good friend who serves on the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), my classmate and good friend.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am a proud cosponsor of the measure that was just spoken to, and I am very pleased that my colleague came here to speak on it. Rather than read the entirety of the Statement of Administration Policy at this time, I will submit that statement for the Record. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 4719--America Gives More Act of 2014 (Rep. Reed, R-New York, and 9 cosponsors, July 17, 2014) The Administration supports measures that enhance non- profits, philanthropic organizations, and faith-based and other community organizations in their many roles, including as a safety net for those most in need, an economic engine for job creation, a tool for environmental conservation that encourages land protections for current and future generations, and an incubator of innovation to foster solutions to some of the Nation's toughest challenges. The President's Budget includes a number of proposals that would enhance and simplify charitable giving incentives for many individuals. However, the Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 4719, which would permanently extend three current provisions that offer enhanced tax breaks for certain donations and add another two similar provisions without offsetting the cost. If this same, unprecedented approach of making certain traditional tax extenders permanent without offsets were followed for the other traditional tax extenders, it would add $500 billion or more to deficits over the next ten years, wiping out most of the deficit reduction achieved through the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2013. Just two months ago, House Republicans themselves passed a budget resolution that required offsetting any tax extenders that were made permanent with other revenue measures. As with other similar proposals, Republicans are imposing a double standard by adding to the deficit to continue and create tax breaks that primarily benefit higher-income individuals, while insisting on offsetting the proposed extension of emergency unemployment benefits and the discretionary funding increases for defense and non-defense priorities such as research and development in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013. House Republicans also are making clear their priorities by rushing to make these tax cuts permanent without offsets even as the House Republican budget resolution calls for raising taxes on 26 million working families and students by letting important improvements to the Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, and education tax credits expire. The Administration wants to work with Congress to make progress on measures that strengthen America's social sector. However, H.R. 4719 represents the wrong approach. If the President were presented with H.R. 4719, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Now, there is something else we need to discuss about this rule. Once again, we are debating a closed rule. When I came to Congress, I was listening on the radio. I didn't know very much about rules. And a part of why Democrats in the majority lost, in my opinion, was the harangue that was going on on the radio about closed rules. Well, I came here, and I wound up on the Rules Committee, and now I know a little bit about closed rules. I also know that we have set an all-time record in the history of the United States Congress, for now, in this particular rule that is before the House of Representatives, the 65th time this session, we are going to have a closed rule. What that means, America, is that your Representative on either side will not have an opportunity to offer an amendment to this measure with reference to tax extenders. This is the most closed rules that this Congress has considered ever, and I expect we are not finished yet and that the number of closed rules will continue to grow. We started the 113th session with a pledge of transparency and openness from the Speaker of the House, but that has fallen by the wayside, and it has done so in historic proportion. Enough already. The majority should do the responsible thing and bring up bills that actually matter, bills that will address the many challenges facing this country, challenges, as I have pointed out before, about our crumbling infrastructure and, most importantly, creating jobs, even as it pertains to immigration reform. Everyone who looks at that measure that says, if we had clear immigration policy, whether it was dealing with H-1B visas, whether it was dealing with farmworkers, whatever the measure, that it would increase our revenue in this country and enhance our overall economic circumstances. 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 of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on this 65th closed rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Kishan Patel and AJ Kolondra for winning first place with their website entitled ``Freedom Beach: A History of the Fort Lauderdale Beach Wade- Ins'' in the 2014 National History Day Competition. Kishan and AJ have exemplified a strong commitment to the important history of South Florida. This was clearly displayed through the remarkable website they created. I lived through the years of segregation and experienced the wade-ins first hand. It is great to see how far we have come through the work that Kishan and AJ have put on display. I had the pleasure of being interviewed by Kishan and AJ for their project, and am delighted to hear of their success in the competition. They were both able to come to Washington, D.C. as finalists, where they toured the White House and U.S. Capitol. Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to recognize Kishan and AJ for what they have accomplished. Their hard work and dedication has paid off. I wish them both much success in their future endeavors.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman, my friend from Utah (Mr. Bishop), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate. Mr. Speaker, I join my good friends on the Energy and Water Committee, Representatives Lowey and Kaptur, in applauding the chairman's concerted effort to compose H.R. 4923 in an inclusive manner. I appreciate the bipartisan nature of the bill and am supportive of many of the provisions contained within it. However, I am not without my concerns. All of these phrases that my friends on the other side of the aisle bandy about--``increase over this,'' ``funding above last year's levels''--sound great, but as always, we need to see what is lurking in the shadows. For example, H.R. 4923 is completely uninspired when it comes to renewable energy. Its approach, in my view, is a myopic one--one that, if we follow it too far, leaves us trying to play catch-up with our competitors, like the Chinese and many other countries, that have turned their attention to renewable energy. As China continues its now decade-long trend of increasing investment in its renewable energy sector--a footnote here: it invested $56 billion just last year--we take the truly uninspired step of cutting funding for renewable energy by 6.4 percent. I am aware of the studies that conclude that our Nation will be able to meet 97 percent of its energy needs through domestic production by 2035, and I consider that to be great. This Nation has spent $2.3 trillion on importing foreign oil since 2003. This is a serious national security vulnerability, and I think we can all agree that lessening this dependence is a desirable goal. I also know that, for many in this day of Twitter and Facebook and Instagram, 2035 seems like a long way off. Those of us in this Chamber do not have the luxury of thinking that way. We have a responsibility to look past 2035, and we have a responsibility to leave our children and grandchildren with an energy portfolio that will keep them in good stead for the years after 2035. We abdicate this responsibility when we underfund research and development in the renewable energy sector. We abdicate this responsibility when we skew applied energy programs at the Department of Energy too heavily toward nuclear energy and fossil fuels. An increased investment in renewable energy makes good economic sense; it makes good environmental sense; and it makes good national security sense. The time to make this investment is now. We need to be careful even where we see funding increases. Though these funding increases may seem impressive and prudent, we need to be reminded that all that glitters is not gold. They merely mask a continuation of the status quo for my friends from across the aisle. They would have you believe they are increasing funding for environmental protection while reducing spending on defense, but alas, in my view, this is an illusion. In reality, this bill represents business as usual for the Republican Party--slashing funding for research in renewable resources while doling out more handouts to dirty energy and environmental polluters. It seems like every other week we are voting to drill off our shores, in our parks, or on Federal lands. To that end, H.R. 4899, the Lowering Gasoline Prices to Fuel an America That Works Act of 2014--we are the greatest naming people in the world here in Congress--is just a greatest hits record, rehashing two measures the House has already voted on, one of which itself was already cobbled together from a number of separate bills. Like all greatest hits albums, it, too, is stuck in the past. Those past attempts rightly died in the Senate, and there is no reason to expect a different result this time around. Yet here we are again, tossing legislation into the void while our country's very real problems fester. My friends across the aisle have no ideas, evidently, for energy independence and security beyond more drilling. They would rather score political points than propose real solutions. I am sure they will go home to their districts next week for one of the biggest driving weekends of the year. Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, I commented that the oil industry manipulates us. Every year in the summer, prices go up on gasoline, and I just don't think that is coincidental when gas prices historically tend to be high. Yet they are going to point to these votes as evidence that they tried to lower gasoline prices. While it may make for a good feel-good story, that is all it is. Putting more oil out there won't move prices. Domestic production is already at a 25-year high in this country, up 60 percent since 2008. Imports are at 29-year lows. Despite my friend's claims, onshore oil production from Federal lands has gone up 30 percent since 2008. I can never pass up an opportunity to say that I will continue to resist offshore drilling off the coast of Florida beyond the accommodations that have already been made by this body. Yet gas prices remain unchanged. The U.S. holds only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves. Even tripling current offshore drilling capabilities by the year 2030 would lower gasoline prices only 5 cents per gallon more than if we would continue at the rate we are going; or if we would increase oil production all the way to 50 percent--which is more than drilling in the Arctic, increasing public lands and offshore drilling, and the pipelines would provide--prices would decrease by only 10 percent at most. Oil is priced on the global market, which is far more complicated than my friends let on. Record demand for fossil fuels in this country and in places like India and China and Singapore and Japan have far more impact on the price of gasoline than anything my friends here hope to do. The liquid natural gas export bill the House passed yesterday shows they understand the nature of the market. They just choose to ignore it whenever it is convenient. My friends across the aisle have no plans for addressing the demand for the kinds of policies that actually could help reduce energy costs, like increasing our energy efficiency, improving the fuel mileage of our cars, and developing renewable energy resources. I was visited by one of our college presidents, John Kelly, who is new at Florida Atlantic University. He visited with me today, and that university has a new grant dealing with currents, which may very well at some point add to our understanding with reference to renewable energy resources. So it won't be the American people who benefit from more drilling. It will be the bottom lines of the companies that own the wells. Hardworking Americans will be left to bear the risk. This ``drill everywhere, all the time'' plan isn't a serious energy strategy; it is a cash grab by the fossil fuel industry. It is not a path to energy independence and security; it is a road to environmental and economic collapse. This isn't a game. The threat is real, Mr. Speaker. We haven't enacted any safety or environmental reforms in response to the BP Deepwater Horizon spill. Let me repeat that. We haven't enacted any safety or environmental reforms in response to the BP Deepwater Horizon spill. A footnote here: BP has not paid for all of the damage that they did in that area, and I defy anybody to show me how it is that they did. I ask anybody who is getting ready to eat seafood that comes out of that bay to look at the damage that was done and at the continuing sediment that continues to rise from that area that was polluted. What happens to all of those Floridians whose livelihoods depend upon our oceans and beaches? If you want to know, ask the oyster people what happens. Ask the shrimpers who go out into the gulf what their product looks like nowadays, including the deformed product that they are seeing from this awful disaster. Florida's GDP from its living resources, which includes fishing, hatcheries, aquaculture, seafood processing, and seafood markets, is worth nearly $300 million. Additionally, the State's GDP from ocean- based tourism and recreation is nearly $16.5 billion. On top of that, Florida generates millions of dollars in commercial fishing, including shrimp, mackerel, blue crab, swordfish, and stone crabs, which we are finding are diminishing in numbers. We have 350,000 jobs in tourism and recreation and nearly 120,000 direct jobs in recreational and commercial fishing. But you can't eat contaminated fish, and who wants to spend one's hard-earned dollars and vacation time lounging on a beach that is covered in tar balls? When I lifted up on Monday in the US Air plane and looked down at the shore of Florida, I saw what amounts to about a mile-long oil slick. I saw people walking, and I knew that, in a matter of time, they would be walking on tar balls. How bad does the next spill have to be? Climate change is not even pending anymore. It is here, and its effects are conspicuous. Downtown Miami, for example, floods whenever it rains, and so does Hollywood, Florida, and areas that I live around. People can't get to work, businesses can't open, and historic droughts have now ravaged the West, and my friends say that there is nothing to concern ourselves about as it pertains to climate change. The Risky Business report just released by President George W. Bush's former Treasury Secretary--Henry Paulson--and Mayor Bloomberg and Tom Steyer and other former Cabinet officers, lawmakers, corporate leaders, and scientists says climate change could cost the country billions of dollars over the next two decades. This bill fully ignores the reality of the world we live in, but I do want to say one thing. In yesterday's Rules Committee, my friend who is managing this rule, Mr. Bishop from Utah, did make to me a compelling argument regarding education in the State of Utah and the fact that, on some of the Federal lands in Utah, if they had an opportunity to do further oil exploration, it could have an impact on Utah's economy. I think that, in many respects, a lot of that is reasonable. I am hopeful that at some point some of his views in that regard will prevail, but I hope, for the most part, that his overall views do not prevail. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), my good friend.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 1426, the Big Oil Welfare Repeal Act of 2013, Representative Tim Bishop's bill, to end the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies given to the largest, most profitable oil companies each year. To discuss our proposal, I am pleased, at this time, to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), my good friend.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would advise at this time and ask if you would learn from my colleague if he is ready to close. I have no further speakers, and I am prepared at this time to close.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that these bills just leave us spinning our wheels, while we could be making actual progress in helping hardworking Americans all across this Nation. It is outrageous that 3 million Americans have lost their emergency unemployment insurance since it expired in December 2013. I might add that we learned yesterday that 300,000 of that 3 million are American veterans. We have also had, along with the expiration of tax extender provisions that help individuals that have expired, they help families and small businesses invest. Republicans and Democrats should be working together to move our Nation forward on comprehensive immigration reform, and I might add that I agree with everybody that says that the border needs to be secure, and one good way to do that is to do comprehensive immigration reform and tax reform. We need to raise the minimum wage in this country, and we need to protect voting rights and secure equal pay. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, before I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' I just want to make it very clear that the measures that we are considering today have already been voted on by the House and did not go further to become law. The likelihood of this measure reaching that same fate is very strong. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. Vote ``no'' on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the medical marijuana provision that came before the House of Representatives for a vote on May 30, 2014--H. AMDT. 748 to H.R. 4460--an amendment to prohibit the use of funds to prevent certain States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana. Had I voted on May 30, 2014, I would have voted in favor of H. AMDT 748 to H.R. 4460, which was offered by Rep Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) to the FY 2015 Commerce, Justice, and Science (CSJ) Appropriations bill. The amendment was agreed to by recorded vote: 219-189. Specifically, the bill is a bipartisan appropriations measure that looks to prohibit the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) from spending funds to arrest state-licensed medical marijuana patients and providers. Many of my colleagues and their constituencies agree that patients who are allowed to purchase and consume medical marijuana in their respective states should not be punished by the federal government. I believe that we must modernize our federal laws to reflect the updated approaches to medical marijuana use, and allow states to determine the parameters, practices, and effects of legalization. Mr. Speaker, 22 states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana for medical use. In my home state of Florida, the majority of voters support the legalization of marijuana for medical use, and I stand behind them. Mr. Speaker, I support the legalization of marijuana for medical use, and remain committed to protecting citizens nationwide that are the subject to detainment for use despite their medical needs.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman, my good friend, the chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions, for yielding the customary 30 minutes. I rise today in opposition to the rule for H.R. 4413, the Customer Protection and End User Relief Act, which reauthorizes through 2018 the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Mr. Speaker, the CFTC plays a critical role in protecting market participants and our Nation's economy from fraud, manipulation, abusive practices, and systemic risk related to derivatives, both futures and swaps, as well as in fostering transparent, open, competitive, and financially sound markets. However, H.R. 4413 contains several harmful provisions that impede the CFTC's ability to enforce existing derivatives rules and roll back meaningful reforms in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Specifically, title II of this bill carves out the CFTC from the Administrative Procedure Act process for establishing regulations, which represents the most longstanding and broadly applicable requirements for Federal rulemaking and was written to bring regularity and predictability to agency decisionmaking. Furthermore, section 203 of the legislation imposes burdensome cost- benefit requirements that likely serve only to prevent, delay, or weaken any rules that implement Dodd-Frank. Current law already requires the CFTC and other agencies to conduct economic analyses pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Congressional Review Act, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. In addition, the CFTC is also bound by the Commodity Exchange Act to consider the protection of market participants and the public; the efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets; price discovery; sound risk management practices; and other public interest considerations, under the supervision of the courts. The redundant cost-benefit requirements contained in H.R. 4413 will not only hamper the appropriate consideration and promulgation of new rules, but expose the CFTC to greater industry litigation. Finally, H.R. 4413 threatens American taxpayers by deregulating foreign derivatives transactions. Under section 722(d) of Dodd-Frank, the CFTC is authorized to oversee derivatives transactions that ``have a direct and significant connection with activities in, or effect on, commerce of the United States.'' Section 359 of this bill exempts overseas derivatives transactions from regulation, creating a loophole in our system of regulatory oversight that could be gamed by large multinational swaps dealers. Just 6 years ago, derivatives trading related to the activities of the corporate structure AIG and Lehman Brothers nearly brought down our economy and cost every American household more than $50,000. I related last night in the Rules Committee that we were there--Ms. Slaughter and I and the chairman, Mr. Sessions--all of us--when Mr. Paulsen and Mr. Bernanke brought to us the notion on three or four paragraphs and two pages that this Nation was about to go bust. It is clear that derivatives transactions outside of the United States pose real risks to United States financial institutions, yet instead of strengthening the CFTC's ability to effectively regulate derivatives transactions involving the foreign operation of U.S. banks, H.R. 4413 presumes that they will be governed by foreign rules, disregarding whether those foreign rules are adequate or if the trades will import risk back to the United States. Moreover, this presumption can only be overturned after the CFTC and the Securities and Exchange Commission go to considerable procedural lengths to make a joint determination that a foreign host country's regulations are not broadly equivalent to United States regulations. The futures and swaps markets are essential to our economy and the way that businesses and investors manage risk, particularly for farmers, hospitals, manufacturers, and certain utilities industries. While I share my colleagues' concern regarding issues affecting many of these end users, I believe that this legislation falls short of the goals of comprehensive Wall Street reform and ensuring that derivatives transactions do not contribute to another global economic crisis. I also said last yesterday, in the Rules Committee, that I predict that if this measure were to become law, we could reasonably expect that we would have the same kind of financial crisis that we did 6 years ago. Instead of creating new, heavy administrative burdens, we should further empower the CFTC to be able to carry out its responsibilities, including those under Dodd-Frank. Just last week, House Republicans proposed to dangerously underfund the CFTC at 22 percent below the President's request, with an appropriation that will likely lead to either agencywide closures or employee layoffs. This would make the already underfunded CFTC less effective at protecting consumers, end users, and investors. Additionally, because this bill retroactively reverses rules that have already gone into effect and many of those that are in the pipeline, it increases uncertainty and costs to businesses and end users that will unnecessarily have the rules of the game changed on them. I simply don't understand this logic. Reducing the CFTC's ability to effectively oversee these financial activities only increases the likelihood that we will find ourselves in another potentially disastrous situation. Additionally, I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that several of my colleagues on the Financial Services Committee share these concerns. It was also pointed out by my colleague that this came out unanimously from the Agriculture Committee. It did in fact do so, but in the Rules Committee, we had the prerogative, if we so chose, to allow the Financial Services Committee to be able to make presentations that I believe--and in a bipartisan way--other Members, particularly those of the Financial Services Committee, believe should be a part of this discussion today. However, this rule cuts them out of the debate. In fact, H.R. 4413 rehashes several earlier bills that Financial Services Committee members have previously voiced concern over, including H.R. 1256, the Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act; and H.R. 1003, to improve consideration by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission of the costs and benefits of its regulations and orders. The administration has also come out in opposition to the bill. We can't continue with more of the same failed partisan practices and effect a different outcome. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the chairman, my good friend, that good intentions don't always manifest themselves in a positive way. I am sure before we had the recession that there were good intentions. My prediction is that, without appropriate regulation, we can reasonably expect that these same kinds of recessive measures might come into play. I recognize my good friend, the chairman, has his script together when it comes to something bipartisan coming out of the Agriculture Committee, but I also know that this is an end run around the Financial Services Committee, which also has germane interests in the particular legislation at hand. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), my very good friend and the ranking member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentlelady an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, through you, I would advise my good friend that we have no further speakers and that I am prepared to close at this time if he is. In closing, what has transpired here is interesting. The Agriculture Committee had finished its product, and then it came yesterday to add provisions that in the final analysis are dealing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Then my friend, the chairman, would argue that it is an agriculture bill. Clearly, it is smack-dab in the lane of Financial Services, and they were excluded. Yes, Ms. Waters did come to the Rules Committee last night, and there is no requirement that she be here now, but what we could have done--we keep saying ``last night,'' but it was late yesterday evening--is to let the Financial Services people participate in this debate--but no. What we have are the two people, the chairman and ranking member, who are given time with reference to this matter, and the Financial Services Committee is shut out of this debate. That is just plain wrong, and I believe most people know that. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4413 creates significant loopholes for derivatives by hamstringing the CFTC, and it undermines comprehensive financial reform. Six years after the Great Recession, families are still struggling in this country. As of last week, 3 million Americans have lost their emergency unemployment insurance since it expired in December 2013. I want to repeat that: 3 million Americans have lost their emergency unemployment insurance since it expired in December 2013. After my friends finish their reconstitution of their leadership this afternoon, I would hope that their new then leadership would come down here and put something on the floor that would allow us at least to have a vote, up or down, as to whether or not people should receive unemployment compensation. Other things that have expired, along with unemployment compensation that expired in December, are the tax extender provisions, which help individual families and small businesses invest. In the coming months-- real soon--Congress is going to be faced with even more pressing challenges as our Nation's highway trust fund is expected to go 0.0-- bankrupt--and the authorizations for Federal surface transportation projects will also expire. The Export-Import Bank and the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act are set to expire. The House still has eight appropriations bills left to pass, and with each passing day of inaction on these items, we come closer to another economic crisis. Republicans and Democrats must come together to prevent this from happening as well as to move our Nation forward on comprehensive immigration and tax reform, raising the minimum wage, protecting voter rights, and securing equal pay. Let me go back through that. Securing equal pay, protecting voter rights. I am personally tired of the suppression and oppression measures with reference to voting in this country. Why in the world would we want less people to vote than, under the circumstances, people that should be participating in this great democracy of ours? And yet we have States, including my own, circumventing the process of voting, restoring, if you will, age-old problems having to do with voting rights. How about raising the minimum wage? Put something down here on the floor and stand up and vote for it or against it. But don't come in here and have everybody believe that you are moving this country forward. I predict for you what is going to happen: 28 more days, 27 more days, are going to go through the rest of this process. There is going to be further obstruction from the majority in this particular House of Representatives, and then we will go out and we will have an election, and the American people will speak again to those of us that are in the House of Representatives. Most of us are likely to be back here, and we will be right back here in what is referred to as a ``lame duck session,'' and we will hold that lame duck session, pass some kind of an omnibus bill, and be off into the sunset for the 2016 election. Enough already. Stop pretending, and have people know that we are confronted with real problems in this country, and it is this institution that has a responsibility to attend to them. The reauthorization of CFTC is both important and necessary. However, H.R. 4413 includes provisions that put the safety and the stability of the United States financial system at risk. Therefore, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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