Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. I am very pleased at this time to yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 66th Anniversary of Israel's Independence. On this day, called Yom Ha'atzmaut, Israel celebrates its founding by Prime Minister David Ben Gurion in 1948. Since then, Israel has stood as a dynamic democracy in the Middle East region with its rich culture, vibrant economy, and commitment to peace. Yet, independence has come at a great price. This is why, the day before celebrating its independence, Israel observes Yom Hazikaron, Israel's Memorial Day. On Yom Hazikaron, Israel remembers all those who gave their lives defending their families, their communities, and their country. This year, Israel honored the more than 23,000 soldiers killed in the line of duty and another 1,800 civilian victims of terrorism. I have always been deeply moved by the duality of Israel's independence celebration, at once both sorrowful and triumphant, and know of no other country that combines such profound sorrow with such a festive event. I am proud of the close relationship that has developed between the United States and Israel over the past 66 years. These ties, based on the common bond of democracy, economic vitality, and cultural affinity, remain as strong now under President Barack Obama as when President Harry Truman first recognized the Jewish State. From religious kinships to shared interests, and from military strengths to commercial relations, the friendship between the United States is unbreakable. However, Israel continues to face serious regional threats, and these concerns are also shared by the United States. One of the largest threats to regional stability and Israel's security today is Iran. Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and support for terrorism pose a grave threat to both Israel and the global community at large. The statements of aggression made by Iran's leaders must be taken seriously, and the international community has a responsibility to act to prevent a nuclear Iran. I have supported numerous sanctions efforts in Congress to cripple Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons, and will continue to do so as long as Iran insists on pursuing its nuclear program. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have visited Israel 15 times as a Member of Congress, and to have called every Israeli Prime Minister from Yitzhak Rabin to Benjamin Netanyahu my friend. The United States must continue to support Israel's right to self-defense, increase its engagement in the region, and work towards finding a fair solution that enables both Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace, security, and prosperity. As Co-Chair of the Democratic Israel Working Group, I remain committed to working with my colleagues in Congress to further strengthen our special relationship with Israel.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution marking the 60th anniversary of the United States Supreme Court decision of Brown v. Board of Education, which was handed down on May 17, 1954. This case was a landmark decision for the 20th century civil rights movement and a turning point for our nation. Brown overturned 58 years of a ``separate but equal'' policy established in Plessy v. Ferguson that was anything but equal. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in the Court's unanimous opinion that even if facilities are equal with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications and salaries of teachers, and other ``tangible'' factors, that the effect of segregation, the very concept itself, meant that separate facilities could never be equal facilities. The Court ruled: ``Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal'' and, consequently, ``segregation is a denial of the equal protection of the laws.'' After this decision, access to public facilities could never again be denied on the basis of race. The decision was a victory for the mid-century civil rights movement that also led to legislative pushes which drastically changed the outlook of race relations in America: the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act, and the Fair Housing Act. Brown helped level the playing field for all Americans regardless of race. While the battle over segregation continued at the state level for many years afterward, and our nation still today has many civil rights issues to address, Brown remains a moment of historical significance that ushered our country to contemporary standards of humanity and compassion. As we mark this important milestone in our nation's history, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to thank my friend from Oklahoma for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4486, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2015 provides for $165 billion in appropriations for veterans programs, military construction projects, and other agencies and programs. H.R. 4487, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2015, provides for $3.3 billion for legislative branch activities. Clearly, the parties working on this matter worked together, and we need more of that in this institution. This bipartisan effort brought Democrats and Republicans together to draft legislation that appropriates funds to military construction projects, improves quality of life for veterans and military families, and allows for the continued operation of the essential functions of our Nation's governing body. Included within these measures is an increase of $8.8 billion for veterans benefits programs, guaranteeing those who have dedicated themselves to defending our Nation will receive the benefits they earned. I am very proud of the fact that Mike Sykes is sitting with me today, who is one of those veterans that is working in my office and prepared me for this particular day. I would like to thank him, Tom, and all of the people that work with us with reference to this particular part of the responsibilities that we have on the Rules Committee. H.R. 4486 provides for significant reductions to Defense Department construction spending, which is in line with the President's fiscal 2015 request, but uses those savings to increase total funding for the Veterans Affairs Department by 7 percent. This shift represents the growing awareness that as we wind down the costly wars that we have been engaged in for over a decade, we must now turn our full attention to supporting those who will bear the cost of those wars for decades to come. Last week, I participated in a ceremony for World War II, Vietnam, and Korean war veterans where we were honoring a gentleman that has spent a large portion of his career in making sure that veterans receive their proper due. It was telling to me that we had not done all that they anticipated that we could, and, therefore, I am hopeful that we will take cognizance of the fact that the veterans coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan will have tremendous needs, and, hopefully, this small advance will allow for us to attend them properly. The Department of Veterans Affairs is provided a total of $158.2 billion in budget authority, an increase of almost 7 percent over last year. This legislation ensures full funding for essential VA compensation and benefits programs in areas like education, vocational training, and housing assistance. This measure also includes $58.7 billion in advance funding for the VA, ensuring that veterans will continue to have full access to their medical care needs, regardless of where Congress stands in the annual appropriations process. The underlying legislation includes funding for important national programs and activities, such as the Medical and Prosthetic Research account, Post-9/11 GI Bill authorities, and encouragement for the department to maximize the availability of mental health services to veteran victims of sexual trauma while serving in the military. H.R. 4487, the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, while a bipartisan effort--and for the most part, noncontroversial--still falls short of restoring funding levels for Member offices and committee staffs. As with their fixation on cutting spending on any investment in our Nation's infrastructure, education, and scientific research, my friends on the Republican side continue to believe that you can reduce the budget indefinitely and still get the same product. What they fail to acknowledge is that, eventually, there comes a breaking point where the lack of investment produces tangible reductions in the quality of the product rendered, and unfortunately, that time is fast approaching for Members' offices and committee staffs. Two reports mentioned by the minority members on the Legislative Branch Subcommittee bring into stark relief the consequences of ongoing funding shortfalls. The first, by the Congressional Management Foundation and the Society for Human Resource Management, shows that over 50 percent of congressional staff cite salaries as a major factor in their decision to leave their positions. The second, by the Congressional Research Service, found that, between 1977 and 2010, House committee staff levels dropped by 28 percent, while Senate committee staff levels have increased by almost 15 percent over the same time. Either the Senate is doing a lot more work than we are, or we are seriously hamstringing our ability to conduct thorough research and debate on the critical issues before us today. We cannot continue to decimate our staffs and committees, while asking for more and more from them. As we must be responsible stewards of the resources that the American people have entrusted us with, so too must we be responsible to those who have chosen public service. Just as we cannot continue to allow companies to pay nonliving wages, we cannot continue to pay our staffs in the same manner that we have. We can and must do better. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. Mr. Moran is leaving us after this session, and he will be sorely missed, but he takes it upon himself to address an issue that is of vital concern to all Members of the House of Representatives.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the next speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, just in response to my friend from Oklahoma, what Mr. Moran pointed to was the fact that moderate rent in this metropolitan area is $27,000 a year. I don't think it is unreasonable for us to not only have a discussion, but to do something about the fact that there are Members that are here that can't afford that on the salary that they make. Now, it may be that the constituency is unsympathetic. It may be that these are tough times.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. It may be that these are tough times, but the simple fact of the matter is we have at least 20 Members of the House of Representatives living in their offices, and I don't think that that is right. And I think that the public needs to know that, and I think once the public understands that a lot of that is attributed not only to that Member's idea about how to serve, but the fact that he or she cannot serve in a proper manner living in accommodations that I think they deserve by getting to this high station. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Hahn), a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

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

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

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. 1010, our bill to raise the Federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Takano) to discuss the importance of raising the minimum wage.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend from Oklahoma that I am the last speaker, and I am prepared to close if he is prepared to close.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Thank you very kindly. Mr. Speaker, it has been one of our more syrupy debates around here, and it is because of the bipartisan nature that allowed for this legislation to come to the Rules Committee and then to be put here on the floor. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that we can be pleased by the level of support provided in this legislation for essential veterans programs. America's veterans deserve the very best support our Nation has to offer, and I am pleased to note that Democrats and Republicans came together to craft legislation that provides the necessary resources for veterans and their families. At the same time, though, we must realize that if we continue to strangle the support for the offices that are tasked with creating the legislation and programs to support those very veterans, we will eventually begin to fail them, as well. We must break free from the false logic that all spending is bad spending and realize that investments in our country, our infrastructure, our education, our medical research, or even our legislature is a sound one. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 1010, our bill to raise the Federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. And while my friend from Oklahoma makes very salient commentary regarding what might very well be a view of some note in our body politic, I don't deem it unwise or unnecessary to talk about lifting people out of poverty at any time during the course of our legislative business, understanding the rules and the fact that this would not have been a rule germane to the specific issue. But it is germane to the families out there in America. It is germane to the people that are working and are still in poverty that may be lifted out of poverty if we were to have a $10.10-an-hour minimum wage. 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'' and defeat the previous question, and I now 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 rise today to recognize Mr. Philip P. Smith, the president and chief executive officer of Phil Smith Management, Inc., on receiving the Sun Sentinel's 2013 Excalibur Award for Business Leader of the Year in Broward County. Each year, the Sun Sentinel recognizes outstanding business executives who exemplify both business leadership and community involvement, and I can think of no one more deserving of this honor than Phil. Well known as the founder of Phil Smith Chevrolet, a successful General Motors (GM) dealership in my Congressional district that serves the greater South Florida area from Palm Beach to Broward and Miami- Dade Counties, Phil bought into his first auto dealership 35 years ago. While finishing college at Florida Atlantic University (FAU), he started working at a Ford dealership in Pompano Beach. Owner Pete Menten saw Phil's potential, and not only kept him on the job after his graduation but later gave him the chance to buy into a small Toyota store in Homestead. With help and support from Menten, Southeast Toyota Distributors Chief Jim Moran, and others, Phil grew his business and now leads an auto-dominated group with 780 employees and about $500 million in annual revenue. With a direct hands-on sales and management approach, Phil has built his company from the ground up and now operates 17 auto dealerships throughout Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina, as well as the Coral Ridge Country Club in Fort Lauderdale. Just as in the very beginning, he remains true to the principles that have put him at the forefront of his business model: paying it forward and strong relationships with customers. Phil offers promising employees the same chance that he was given, to become a part owner in each of his auto franchises and pursue the American Dream through hard work and dedication. Even with his great success, he remains grounded to the things that matter most. Phil is civically engaged and active in his community. In addition to his charitable giving, he serves on the boards for his alma mater FAU, the Orange Bowl Committee, and various non-profits that focus on issues such as health and education. Phil also welcomes several high school teams to practice on the golf course at Coral Ridge Country Club without charge. Mr. Speaker, Phil Smith is not only an exceptional entrepreneur, but a community leader and dear friend. It is truly a pleasure to recognize him on receiving the Excalibur Award for Business Leader of the Year.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the continued negotiations between Greek and Turkish Cypriots as critically important towards peacefully resolving the dispute surrounding a unified Cyprus. I am pleased to learn that progress has been made following the issuance of a joint statement that resumed negotiations between Greek Cypriot negotiator Andreas Mavroyiannis and Turkish Cypriot negotiator Kudret Ozersay in February of this year. The United States remains committed to supporting peace and cooperative relations in the Eastern Mediterranean. Cyprus was, by legend, the birthplace of the ancient Greek goddess of love, Aphrodite. However, its modern history has, in contrast, been largely dominated by enmity between its Greek and Turkish inhabitants. However, I commend President Nicos Anastasiades of the Republic of Cyprus and President Dervis Eroglu of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus for their leadership and coming together for the future of all Cypriots. It is my sincere hope that we may soon see an end to the Cyprus question once and for all, and welcome a unified Cyprus into the international community of nations. To this end, I encourage President Barack Obama, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and their respective governments to continue their efforts to help facilitate a peaceful resolution. As called for by the United Nations in various statements and declarations, I believe that the reunification of Cyprus based on a bi-communal, bi-zonal federation with political equality represents the most sustainable path to peacefully uniting the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities. A unified Cyprus would positively impact the entire region through improved multilateral relations, greater economic opportunities, and increased security. In particular, the reunification of Cyprus would be a significant step towards strengthening the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) at a time of renewed tensions with Russia. Furthermore, it may signal the beginning of closer cooperation between Greece and Turkey, as well as revitalize discussions for Turkish accession to the European Union. Mr. Speaker, the resumption of negotiations for a unified Cyprus is a most welcome development. I remain a friend and ally to the people of Cyprus, and support their aspirations for peace and unity.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ms. Ineria Elizabeth Hanley Hudnell of West Palm Beach, Florida. Ms. Hudnell is the much loved and widely respected historian and archivist of West Palm Beach's black community. A retired schoolteacher, Ms. Hudnell has spent more than three decades collecting memorabilia, news stories, and photographs of West Palm Beach's often under-reported black history. On April 22, Ms. Hudnell will receive the Judge James R. Knott Award, the highest honor presented by the Historical Society of Palm Beach County. This remarkable lady, a nonagenarian, hasn't slowed down, continuing to collect and curate information about the important events, awards and life in general of African Americans in West Palm Beach. I am delighted that she is a resident of my Congressional district, and am proud to recognize her on this day.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chair, on January 8, 1964, President Johnson came before the nation to deliver his State of the Union address and declared a war on poverty. It has been 60 years since President Johnson gave us that charge, but we have yet to achieve a country free from the burdens of poverty. As President Johnson said all those years ago, ``It will not be a short or easy struggle, no single weapon or strategy will suffice, but we shall not rest until that war is won. The richest nation on earth can afford to win it. We cannot afford to lose it.'' Well, Mr. Chair, President Johnson was correct. The struggle has been neither short nor easy, but he was also right when he said we would not rest until the war on poverty was won. There is no silver bullet, no single weapon or strategy for confronting something as complex as our nation's struggle with poverty. That is why I rise today in support of the budget put forth by the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). This budget is neither a single weapon nor a single strategy, but rather a multi-faceted dynamic approach to responsible governing that will strengthen our economy and reduce our deficit by approximately $1.8 trillion over the next ten years. Mr. Chair, a budget can act as a mirror; a mirror that reflects the priorities, ideals and morality of a nation. When we hold the budget proposed by Chairman Ryan up to the mirror, we see an image that distorts the ideals that provide the foundation for this country. We see an image that prioritizes protecting the wealthy over championing middle class families, small businesses and the poor. We know what we need to do to help those Americans who are struggling. We need to extend emergency unemployment insurance; we need to raise the minimum wage; we need to support the Affordable Care Act; invest in education; invest in job training; and we certainly have to invest in our infrastructure. We need a plan to create jobs. Mr. Chair, the dynamic budget proposed by the CBC addresses all of these issues and more. Under Mr. Ryan's Path to Poverty, these critical issues are not addressed. In fact, they are purposely ignored. Mr. Chair, our tax code is hurting many Americans. It is a code that rewards and protects the rich at the expense of middle class families and the poor. Taken together, the ideas proposed by the CBC would equal roughly $4.3 trillion in revenue enhancement over the next decade in ways that are fairer to more Americans. The CBC only directs the appropriate committees in the House and Senate to find $2.0 trillion in revenue enhancements. Those of us who champion the CBC budget provide a number of ways to reach that $2.0 trillion mark. For instance, we could end special tax breaks and close tax loopholes available only to the wealthiest Americans. This alone could get us $1 trillion over the next ten years. We could also stop the wealthiest among us from using overseas tax havens to avoid paying their fair share. Along these same lines, let us rid our tax code of ridiculous loopholes like deductions for yachts and the loophole for corporate jets. Additionally, we could find $880 billion over the next decade if we taxed capital gains and dividends as ordinary income. We all have constituents back home who work hard all week. They put in their 40 hours, often times more, to provide for their families. At the end of the week they get a check from which taxes have been withheld at rates for ordinary income. This amount is taxed higher than the gains made in from stocks. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has said that these rates are ``the single greatest driver of income inequality over a recent 15 year period was runaway income from capital gains and dividends.'' It does not seem to me, Mr. Chair, unreasonable to ask that the Wall Street banker sitting on a stock portfolio, to pay the same tax rates as a teacher in Florida or a factory worker in Maine. Mr. Chair, we have a truly disturbing income inequality situation in this country. Such inequality is unfair to those who work diligently to create growth for this country, but who do not get to reap the benefits there from. This inequality is bad for the social fabric that binds this country together. While corporations and top level executives make record profits and payout larger and larger bonuses, middle class Americans are left further and further behind as they struggle through this jobless recovery. Additionally, sequestration did not do any favors for the middle class or poor. Sequestration was the brutal swing of a cudgel of despair aimed right at the hopes and dreams of poor and middle class families. Head Start programs were scaled back, summer sessions were cut, instructors were cut, and students were put on waitlists rather than in classrooms. Seniors were placed in danger of facing food insecurities when Meals on Wheels had to cut down on their deliveries. Sequestration led to federal funding being cut for education including science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). This was done at the K-12 level and the college level. It will be absolutely impossible for this country to maintain its advantage in an increasingly advanced and complex world economy if we do not invest in STEM education at all levels. These are but a few reasons the CBC Budget responsibly puts an end to Sequestration. Mr. Chair, our country cries out for a jobs bill that will accelerate economic recovery and helps Americans across this nation. The CBC budget answers these cries by proposing a jobs program totaling $500 billion. This responsible approach to governing will grow our economy by establishing a National Direct Job Creation Program that puts people to work repairing our schools, community centers, parks and playgrounds. This program will add 2.8 million jobs. This responsible approach to growing our economy also includes a plan to modernize our schools. Many of the schools around this country were built decades ago. These schools are approaching the point where we cannot adequately train our young people for the challenges ahead. In order to meet the demands and challenges of the future, our students need facilities that can handle the cutting edge technologies that will undoubtedly form the basis of any decent job of the future. Mr. Chair, the CBC's responsible approach to governing calls for an immediate investment in our country's infrastructure. Not only will an immediate investment in our infrastructure lead to hundreds of thousands of jobs dedicated to upgrading this country's crumbling roads, bridges and railways, but by strengthening our infrastructure, we help businesses small and large alike grow by giving them access to the tools they need to ship goods throughout the country. The CBC's responsible approach to governing also acknowledges the fact that the housing crisis continues to ripple throughout many of our neighborhoods. That is why the budget calls for significant funding to help communities rebuild and helps families facing foreclosures remain in their homes. Furthermore, the CBC budget, acknowledges the fact that a person may come into this economy with one set of skills, but through no fault of their own, find that they need a new set of skills to be competitive in a rapidly changing economy. The budget makes sure that these hard working Americans are not left behind by giving them access to technical training, career services, graduate and certificate programs and other job training programs. Mr. Chair, every day, homeless Americans face constant instability and must cope with difficult and often unhealthy lifestyles. For those living without permanent housing, everyday life is extremely difficult. Storing and preparing food is nearly impossible, and much of the homeless population relies on temporary shelters and soup kitchens to survive. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides working poor Americans with badly needed nourishment. Cutting funding for this program will only add to the difficulties so many are facing. The CBC budget recognizes this reality, and uses the program savings that will come from raising the minimum wage to help improve and streamline the benefits and ensure that this critical lifeline remain available for those who need it most. The budget proposed here today is a budget that protects the poor, while providing security for middle class families. It is a budget that protects the social fabric holding together the greatest experiment in democracy the world has ever known. It is a budget that responsibly rewards innovation, while closing gross inequalities in wealth. It is a budget that helps teachers instill in our young people a thirst for knowledge. It is a budget that invests in this country's roads and bridges to help our small businesses. It is a budget that will bring us further down the road towards ending the War on Poverty, not further down the Road to Ruin that the Republicans want to take us.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, this budget is not about reducing deficit or establishing a regime of fiscal responsibility. This is a budget to dismantle the national safety net system and to transfer those savings to the wealthiest individuals and corporations. Even the Appropriations Chairman, Chairman Hal Rogers, thinks that this budget is ``Draconian.'' If you want a perfect example of Republican ideology and book cooking, look no further than H.R. 1874, the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2013. Republicans want to force the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to use their discredited models to help them mask the true effect of their slash and burn agenda, while at the same time, denying the use of their pseudo-math to the one committee where it would hurt them, the Appropriations Committee. They want to pretend all day long that the discredited ``tax-cuts = revenue growth'' model will do wonders for America, while denying the fact that the economically proven model of ``investment = growth'' will bring the much needed prosperity and equality that our citizens desperately want and need. Defense spending is certainly important, but this budget is a complete failure of imagination when it comes to defending this country. Defense is not simply about bullets, bombs and brigades. We also defend this country militarily and economically through making sure we have an educated citizenry. At the very least, please tell me that you understand that our war materiel is the most sophisticated in the world. Please tell me that you understand that we, at the very least, need educated men and women to operate this equipment. Well, this education does not miraculously appear overnight. Indeed, their journey to where they are today started many years ago. And sure, some of them did not come from wealthy families and yes, some of our men and women in uniform had to rely on federal programs like Head Start, but that is never anything to be ashamed of and is certainly not something we should now turn our backs on. To defend a country as large and complex as ours is a multifaceted endeavor, an endeavor this budget utterly fails to meet. Can ``general welfare,'' a constitutional obligation of Congress, be defined as a budget that places the heaviest burden on the vast majority of Americans, while bestowing the greatest benefits on the wealthiest? What is the appropriate level of shared sacrifice that ought to be required? One percent of Americans take home over one quarter of all income every year, and have seen those incomes rise 18 percent in the last decade. But those in the middle have seen their incomes fall. Why do you think that those who have suffered most severely under this recession should bear the greatest burden of hardship? What does this budget do to help those people, as opposed to the wealthy who will be fine no matter what we do with this budget? In your budget you say, ``The first job of the federal government is securing the safety and liberty of its citizens from threats at home and abroad.'' Why is the only threat to the American Dream that the Republicans deem worthy of funding the one that comes from abroad? While this budget increases defense spending above pre-sequester levels over the next decade, it ignores the very real threat to the American dream at home, by increasing inequality, and removing any hope for struggling families to move up to or stay in the middle class. How will deep spending cuts in service-oriented Federal programs help citizens weather the economic crisis? How will huge tax breaks for the wealthiest enable the poor and middle class to obtain jobs? With individual income and payroll taxes comprising 82 percent of revenue resources, and corporate taxes making up only 9 percent, how does this budget anticipate growing the economy when the burden falls disproportionately on those who need the most help right now? Which specific tax provisions will you target in order to make the ``broadening'' savings claimed in this budget? The biggest four are (1) the home mortgage interest deduction, (2) the exclusion of employer- provided health benefits, (3) charitable deductions, and (4) state and local tax deductions. What specific tax loopholes do you propose to close? Where, specifically, does all the projected revenue come from? This budget cuts the top marginal income tax rate to 25 percent, the lowest the rate has been since Herbert Hoover. Yet the budget also predicts that federal tax revenues will increase by nearly $600 billion by 2021. President Reagan used a similar model which has since been discredited as unworkable, and which, on his watch, drastically increased the deficit and national debt. How will Americans receive the health care they need if their Medicare premium and out-of-pocket costs become unaffordable under this proposed privatized system? Is the value of the vouchers linked to health care cost growth? Americans already pay more than twice as much per persons for health care as other wealthy countries with the same or longer life expectancies. Since the government pays for about half of this country's health care, almost all of which is actually provided by the private sector, future health care costs are increasing because of private sector costs, not the government. Is it your contention that eliminating government support will suddenly render health care affordable? Or does this budget foresee the government washing its hands of the need to ensure quality health care for its citizens? How does converting Medicaid into a block grant bear relation to the actual need for Medicaid services? When two-thirds of participants are seniors and persons with disabilities, when half of long-term care is covered by Medicaid, and when 70 percent of people over the age of 65 will require long-term care services at some point, how will cutting $732 billion benefit these Americans? Is the goal to control costs or to shift costs? The CBO says that privatizing Medicare will shift costs onto seniors. In 2030, traditional Medicare costs would be less than the private costs envisioned by the GOP budget. Under this plan seniors will be out of pocket for about two-thirds the cost of privatized care, as opposed to about one-quarter under traditional Medicare. Isn't it true that rising costs and financial risk simply would migrate from the Federal budget to seniors' household budgets? Wouldn't that mean seniors would face higher premiums, eroding coverage, or both? How do you propose to provide relief to millions of homeowners in this housing crisis? This budget dramatically cuts funding for public housing assistance, foreclosure mitigation programs, and neighborhood development activities. How do you anticipate that communities will be able to meet the housing needs of their most disadvantaged residents? The Republican budget resolution will cut housing aid to 10,000 veterans each year, approximately one-third of the total number of homeless vets. How does the Republican budget plan on taking care of newly homeless veterans? Is cutting these services a fair reward for those who risked their lives in service to our country? If students can no longer rely on Pell grants and other Federal assistance for their college education, how do you propose to increase the number of students going to college and improve America's system of education? This budget reduces Pell grants to the 2008 level and eliminates the grant increases that Democrats achieved previously, bringing the maximum grant award back down to $5,000. But the budget does not seem to provide even enough funding for that amount. In this budget, Republicans slash transportation investment in 2015 by $52 billion. Do Republicans think that our infrastructure will magically fix itself, like they apparently do the rising inequality that this budget perpetuates? How many bridges have to collapse, and how many schools have to remain un-built so that we can provide another increase to our already bloated defense budget? Madam Speaker, I am asking a lot of questions, because this budget does nothing but raise them, and provides no answers. It provides no answer for how we will help middle class families as they continue to struggle on Chairman Ryan's road to ruin. It provides no answer for how we will help low income families send their children to college. It provides no answer for how we will provide quality healthcare to our seniors and those who are one medical emergency away from bankruptcy. It provides no answer for how we will provide housing assistance to those who have served their country and need a helping hand getting back on their feet. The fact that we have to even debate these measures is outrageous. Madam Speaker, we can do better. Not only can we do better, we have an obligation to the American people to do better. This budget utterly fails to meet that obligation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, scripture tells that ``joy cometh in the morning.'' I don't know, but I certainly hope so. I do know, however, that heaven has gained an angel. Carlton Moore, a tireless advocate for the poor, and my friend, passed away on April 2, 2014. He will certainly be missed by his loving family and those of us honored enough to call him a friend. I had the good fortune of witnessing Carlton's entire career. He served with distinction in our community, and he was a businessman par excellence. He was first elected City Commissioner in 1988, a position from which he was a tireless champion of the poor. Carlton worked passionately for the impoverished northwest section of Fort Lauderdale. Indeed, the people of Fort Lauderdale can thank Carlton for the Northwest Progresso Flagler Heights Community Redevelopment Agency; the post office on Northwest Seventh Avenue; the Negro Chamber of Commerce building; a $550 million water and sewage project; and the Seventh Avenue Family Health Center. These accomplishments led to public housing that had swimming pools, tennis courts and child care centers. Carlton was also the first black City Commissioner to be elected Vice Mayor. Mr. Speaker, no one could ever accuse my friend Carlton of sitting on the sidelines while others did the work. As if the accomplishments noted above were not enough, Carlton was the President of the Fort Lauderdale Branch of the NAACP and did endless hours of work for many boards that benefited our community. He sat on the board for the Broward League of Cities; the Broward County Water Advisory Board; the Florida League of Cities' Blue Ribbon Committee; the Strategic Planning Committee; and the Broward Commission on Substance Abuse and Leadership. Carlton garnered many accolades for his dedicated efforts, including the 2008 National Forum of Black Public Administrators' National Leadership Award, and the Broward League of Cities' President's Award. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, Carlton achieved so much in his all too brief time with us--so many things that we can point to with pride and say ``look what he did.'' However, perhaps his greatest legacy will not be the tangible achievements he leaves us with. Perhaps his greatest gift will be the inspiration he instilled in others to work for the common good. As many of my friends in Fort Lauderdale know, Carlton was a surrogate father to many of our young people. It will be upon Carlton's shoulders that these young people stand as they strive to continue the work that Carlton so ably accomplished. Mr. Speaker, we all have that person in our life that inspired us to achieve more than we ever thought possible. For Carlton, that person was his mother, Ada Moore. Carlton rightly gave Ada the credit for instilling in him a social consciousness--a sense of civic responsibility--that gave him the fuel to work tirelessly on behalf of the poor. As Carlton's friend who saw his work up close, I can tell you that Ada did a magnificent job, and we thank her. Indeed, Carlton often referred to Ada as his ``hero.'' I hope the knowledge of his love for her provides solace in these undoubtedly dark hours. I know his friendship does so for me. Mr. Speaker, when asked how he was doing, Carlton would often reply, ``better than good!'' Yes you were my friend, yes you were. I will miss his good cheer and friendship. My thoughts and prayers are with his mother Ada, and with his sons, Martin and Forrest Moore. My thoughts and prayers are also with Carlton's sister DeNese Moore as well as his two brothers, Benjamin Moore, Jr. and Dennis Ronald Moore.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), my friend, for yielding the customary 30 minutes for debate. I rise today in opposition to the rule and underlying bills. In my friend's commentary, I perceived him as being very reasonable, particularly when he gets to the part of the rule that deals with those amendments that were made in order that are germane. It is a particular concern that he has demonstrated in the period that he has been on the Rules Committee. He also is an advocate for open rules. That said, one of the down sides to our process, in my judgment, is that I would imagine that at least a significant portion of this body-- not the majority--don't even know what we are debating today and won't know until they come here to vote. For that reason, we should make open rules; whereas, ideas that germinate during the course of the debate could be put forward by Members under our rules process. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of three bills. Before getting into it, normally when people leave our offices or when we complete the process of debating a measure and want to give kudos to the staff, we do so at the end of the process. But today I want to recognize the rather extraordinary staff on both sides of the Rules Committee, and particularly the young man seated next to me, Ian Wolf, who labors actively to help me put words together to come here with, and two young men that are working in the office with me: Tom Carnes, who recently came to me as a Phi Beta Kappa graduate from Maine, and Mike Sykes, a wounded warrior. Many of the words that I will speak henceforth are from those three gentlemen, and I thank them for that. Normally, like my friend from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), we both are, in my judgment, good extemporaneous speakers. But today, I am going to stick to the script because of these two young men. Then, if I am provoked by my friend from Georgia, I will speak extemporaneously. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the consideration of three bills, all of which impose tortuous new rules on an already convoluted budget process and attempt to embed Republican dogma into what is intended to be an objective analysis based on reality, not fantasy. The bouquet of imagery to explain this latest budgetary behavior is certainly painful: Yogi Berra and deja vu all over again; Groundhog Day with Bill Murray's character, Phil Connors, doomed to repeat the same day over and over again; Sisyphus sentenced for his hubris to push a boulder up a mountain only to see it careen to the bottom and have to start all over again. We have seen these proposals before, Mr. Speaker. Yet, once again, my friends across the aisle try their best to throw up smokescreens right and further right. Once again, my friends, led by Chairman Paul Ryan, present reforms that are not common sense but that are actually nonsense. Once again, Republicans propose budget process changes that are nothing more than gimmicks to eliminate the spending on essential government services and to dress up tax cuts for the wealthy. Once again, we have to waste time considering budgetary gimmicks like ``dynamic scoring'' and whether we should factor in inflation when accounting for future spending instead of dealing with the important issues of the day. The need for immigration reform isn't going anywhere, friends. The need for investment in our infrastructure isn't going anywhere. The need to provide health care for our veterans is not going anywhere, and will I tell you that your budget gimmicks aren't going anywhere either, and you know it. You can pass these gimmicks all day long. You are in the majority. You can pass them all day--24 hours a day--and twice and three times on Sunday, but you know that they are dead on arrival in the Senate. So let's turn to serious business, business the American people would like us to take up, rather than wasting our time and the time of millions of Americans. The changes envisioned within these bills tie Congress and the Congressional Budget Office up in knots in an effort to prove that conservative ideology about taxes and spending is going to grow our Nation's economy--not create more jobs, not stimulate demand, not invest in infrastructure or in education or in any of the many endeavors that are critical to improving the lives of all Americans. In H.R. 1871--Mr. Woodall's favorite bill and for good reason as he is the author of this iteration of it, and he gave attribution to the person who has struggled to put this measure forward--it is proposed that the Congressional Budget Office not include annual inflation when making its budget baselines. This seems like a rather mundane, technical change, but it isn't. I would be pleased to support this, Mr. Speaker, because it means that, in making my own personal budget projections, I can simply ignore the fact that the costs for everyday items and activities tend to go up every year. I can just assume that what I am paying today I can keep paying 10 years from now and still expect the exact same number of goods and services. But, of course, we all know that isn't true. Simply wishing away inflation won't make it so. Fuzzy math, as it has been described by some, does not equal fiscal responsibility. By eliminating inflation adjustments from discretionary spending projections, Republicans are actually reducing the funding for a Federal program. Since the dollar amount would stay the same every year, the number of services that could be covered would decrease. I hasten to add that I agree with my friend Mr. Woodall that accountability ought to be factored in and that these programs should be able to perform in a way that is accountable to the public. When they do not, they should be dispensed with, and that is a prerogative that we can exercise, but it doesn't have to be done the way that it is put forward. It is our responsibility to have the oversight of these structures in our government. Over the long term, this results in a massive decrease in essential services that millions of Americans rely on. This technical change then is actually a backdoor effort to slowly starve necessary government programs. Rather than be up front about which programs my friends on the other side want to eliminate, they would rather put sneaky rules into place to guarantee the outcome they want without having to have an open debate. Through H.R. 1874, Mr. Speaker, Republicans want to introduce dynamic scoring into the CBO's projection process. Dynamic scoring? Take a closer look. It is more like dynamic stealing. By implementing this fantasy math, the Republicans artificially inflate the costs of important programs as a way to steal them out from underneath those who are most in need of them. They tweak the CBO's analysis so that tax cuts for the wealthy seem like they grow the economy while investments in programs that help everyday Americans do not. Let me repeat that. They tweak the CBO's analysis so that tax cuts for the wealthy seem like they grow the economy while investments in programs that help everyday Americans do not. I have lived here long enough to see ``trickle down'' fail repeatedly. Republicans make it easier to cut taxes for the rich rather than to build bridges and schools for the rest of us. This bill specifically instructs the CBO to ignore the positive economic effects that would come about from investments in things like infrastructure and education. I want to underscore the word ``infrastructure.'' We talk about it all the time around here, and a decade ago, one of our colleagues spent a portion of his career here asking us to spend money on bridges. When I came here in 1992, we had 14,000 bridges in this Nation that were in need of repair, and we have not addressed the circumstances surrounding that, and we need to and we can. It is as if dealing with infrastructure and education--as if spending on things that Americans want and need--won't boost the economy, which is the way their approach suggests. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are at it again with H.R. 1872. This proposal seeks to significantly change how the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office calculate the costs of government loans and loan guarantees. This bill would just add an extra price tag to programs based on what an individual would pay for a loan in the private market. Never mind the fact that the United States Government is not an individual acting in a private credit market. What this bill really represents is another attempt by the Republicans to make important programs for the poor and middle class families appear too expensive to be continued--programs meant to help young people get an education, programs that help struggling families afford homes, programs that help the elderly in their need of security in their failing health, programs that help farmers and small businesses grow this economy. By artificially inflating the costs of these programs, the Republicans hope to fool us into thinking that we can't afford them. But as far as I know, April Fool's Day started and ended on Tuesday. I will tell you this: I am not going to be fooled; my constituents aren't going to be fooled; and the American people aren't going to be fooled by your gimmicks--and these budget bills are only the appetizers. The entree was served up by Chairman Ryan when he recently introduced his next budget, which he dubbed--and I was reading it last night--the Path to Prosperity, but it would be more accurately called a path to poverty. As much as I had hoped for the opportunity to turn down a path where we consider meaningful legislation, we are again forced to battle against Chairman Ryan's latest march down his path to poverty, and since we have already adopted top-line numbers for the next two budget cycles, there is no reason for this budget beyond feeding the political base of my friends on the other side. We will see the bumper stickers. We will hear the talk. We will hear the echo chamber recite the mantra of those who would feed their base. I suppose this budget is a solid start for a 10-minute standup set at your local yuck-yucks, but that is about the best that I can say for it. I mean, you are going to cut spending by $966 billion over the next 10 years by cutting funding for food stamps, by cutting funding for income assistance to help needy families, by cutting Pell grants for kids to go to college. You can't be serious. You are going to implement draconian cuts to programs millions of Americans rely upon, but you make sure that we increase defense spending. You can't be serious. Mr. Speaker, what the Republicans are really showing us here is their blueprint for America's future. You don't even have to look that closely to see that this blueprint creates nothing but structural integrity problems for our economy. The Republicans' blueprint lays bare their full frontal assault on middle class families and the poor. Their blueprint calls for turning Medicare into a voucher program. They will describe it differently, but it comes out to nothing more than a voucher program. Their blueprint calls for non-defense discretionary spending to be cut to the tune of $791 billion. This will result in draconian cuts to education, public works, medical research, and the list continues. It goes on and on. Do you want to better yourself by obtaining a college degree? Ryan's road to ruin is going to make sure that there is no money there for you to do so. Do you want to help grow our economy by shipping your goods on our roads and bridges? Good luck, since your goods will undoubtedly be held up at one of the many Ryan roadblocks to prosperity that will strip the budget of much-needed infrastructure investments. Are you or is any member of your family suffering from a disease, the cure for which would certainly be furthered by Federal medical research dollars? Sorry, but with this Republican budget proposed by Mr. Ryan, you have found yourself on Mr. Ryan's fast track to despair. Rather than using the budget process to lead this country into a new era of economic growth, Republicans want to cut taxes for the rich, cut programs for everyone else, and then feel like they have set this country on the right track. This is no way to run an economy, no way to run a budget process, and it is no way to stick up for the millions of struggling Americans, as my friends on the Democratic side are doing and have done for years, who need us to focus on improving the economy. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I thank Mike and Tim and Ian and the Rules Committee staff who are working with me. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Now, I turn to the extemporaneous side. Mr. Speaker, on Monday evening of next week, my friend Mr. Woodall and I will be in the Rules Committee, and we will be taking up the Ryan budget. I might add that we use the names of individuals. I have great respect for Paul Ryan. I think he is a brilliant young man; and clearly, ideologically, he and I have our differences. I remember being on the floor and hearing the two best speeches in the 21 years I have been here that were made pertaining to issues of the moment. One was made by Ron Dellums, chairman of Armed Services at the time, and the other by John Kasich, who is now the Governor of Ohio. I still consider those two speeches to be the best that I have heard in the time that I am here, mine and Mr. Woodall's notwithstanding. On that night that Mr. Kasich made his remarks, I listened very intently to him. I forget the exact numbers that the budget was proposing, but after he finished his remarks, I went up to him and congratulated him on his remarks I then said to him what I will say to Mr. Ryan at some point in the future: I understand what it is that you want to spend, and I believe that we would probably spend right at or about the same amount of money. The difference is what you want to spend it on and what I want to spend it on. That is what I said to John that night. I find myself in that situation repeatedly through the years. I myself, and certainly many others, am a champion of those who are less fortunate in our society, and I don't believe that my friends are unmindful of the great need that our constituents have, be they Republican, Democrat, Independent, or otherwise situated politically. The simple fact of the matter is that there are people in this country who are not as well off as some others in the country. There should be nothing to decry the fact that there are some in our society who have done exceedingly well, even during recessions. I have a friend that is a billionaire. He told me he made money during the Depression, he made money before the Second World War, after the Second World War, and made money after every recession, largely for the reason that he knows how to make money; and I don't begrudge him that. But that same individual told me that any amount of taxes that he paid, he would prefer to see that it goes to educating our children appropriately, and if it required him to pay more taxes, he would have no problem doing so, and toward that end, I feel the same way. People think that those of us up here in Congress live a life of luxury with a high salary of $174,000 a year. Well, the simple fact of the matter is--and rightly, perhaps--we have not had a raise for Congress Members for 5 years. At the very same time, if I use myself as an example, my rent here in this town has gone up $600 during that period of time. My salary didn't go up. So where was I supposed to meet these needs? The simple fact is that, when we talk about a household budget, that is an entirely different set of circumstances than a Federal budget or a State budget or a city budget. They do not operate the same, and we should stop making that analogy. It is not like I sit down and fill out my budget. This is an extremely complex process. The Congressional Budget Office only gives us the numbers that we tell them that the policy is going to be, and they tell us what the numbers are going to look like. They don't provide the numbers. They don't do the oversight on the programs that we make here. We don't have to just give them the money, but if we set a baseline and if we do allow for inflation, when those programs have failed or those that are sunsetting--and more of them should sunset and too many of them have failed--then that is our responsibility. When we cut poor people, when we cut middle class people in this country--that is the base of this country, that is the bedrock of this country. It has been and will continue to be. If we go the path that my friends want us to pass through, what we will do is allow for those people that are better off in our society-- who could afford to help more the poor and the middle class--to get richer, and it will cause more middle class people to become poorer; and then the needs will be greater. If we don't see ourselves as a better society than that, then something is drastically wrong with us. I don't begrudge a single rich person on Earth, but I do feel strongly responsible for those that are poor and not poor necessarily by virtue of their circumstances. What we tend to do to poor people here is, rather than ask them what we can do with them to lift them out of poverty, we do things to them. That is why most of us know that they won't vote at voting time, largely for the reason that they have the most reasons to vote and, at the same time, have the relative least reasons to vote. The insufferable triumvirate of inadequate jobs, inadequate housing, inadequate educational opportunity persists in this country, and the fact of the matter is that we can do better--and we should do better-- by those that are poor. We should do something meaningful to create jobs. After Monday of next week, when we talk about this budget, I defy my friends to tell me that they are going to put that budget on the floor. When we vote on it Wednesday, I say let's go into debate Thursday and debate it until its conclusion and then vote on it. I guarantee you we are not going to vote on the Ryan budget, everybody knows that, and I challenge my friends to bring it forth any day after next Monday when we do the rule. I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?