Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, in Switzerland yesterday, there was a collision of trains--one moving north and the other moving south. A good friend of Mr. Wolf's and of Mr. Pastor's and mine served as chairman and ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, James Oberstar. In addition to the many things that Jim suggested during his tenure here, I think back to some of the things that would have put us in a better position than we are today, particularly with regard to overall infrastructure, roads and rail. I can't understand--and I was saying to the young staffer working with me--what it is that causes the rail industry, both abroad and here, to not have the necessary equipment that would allow one train on the same track to let the other train coming from the opposite direction, and vice versa, know that they are both on the same track. There just seems to be something wrong with that when we have the kind of sophisticated equipment that we do. NextGen, in the air area of the world, allows for us to avoid those kinds of problems and to increase efficiency and safety. It ultimately reduces delays and saves fuel, particularly if we get on with what I'm asking for, which is $62 million for NextGen research and development activities from the FAA's Research, Engineering and Development account. Again, I am not asking for anything that I think would do anything less than help all of us. We don't just live in these places. We fly there. The aviation industry contributes nearly $1.3 trillion to the United States economy. Furthermore, the FAA's air traffic controllers manage nearly 70,000 flights per day, which, on an annual basis, carry more than 730 million passengers. With such a vital role in our economy, now is not the time to underfund our Nation's air traffic control system. I urge my colleagues to make a real investment in our Nation's transportation infrastructure by supporting this NextGen amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and memory of Rev. Lance Chaney, who led St. John Missionary Baptist Church in Boynton Beach, Florida, as its pastor for many years. Words cannot express how deeply sorry I am to hear of his untimely passing at the age of 56, following a long battle with prostate cancer. As a pastor, civic leader, and anti-violence activist, Rev. Chaney leaves behind a legacy of service that reflects his true dedication to the church and community. Before moving his family to Boynton Beach in 2002, Rev. Chaney served as the pastor of the Greater Antioch Baptist Church of Rock Island in Illinois. There, he helped establish a health clinic and a bookstore, which attracted hundreds of new worshipers. Rev. Chaney also served on the school board and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's (NAACP) board of directors. After a nationwide search, Rev. Chaney became the seventh pastor of St. John Missionary Baptist Church on the occasion of its 94th anniversary. He was an active pastor who will be remembered not only for his passionate sermons from the pulpit, but for working to expand the 104-year-old church's services and outreach. Under his leadership, a teen Bible study and church newsletter were established. In addition, Rev. Chaney was also a mentor to other clergy in the area, helping them grow their congregations. Rev. Chaney was a well-known and very popular figure in the Boynton Beach community. He helped thousands of families by opening and serving as the chairman of the Day Star Academy of Excellence, a K-5 public charter school, and Pathways to Prosperity, a non-profit rehabilitation center. He also hosted several back-to-school drives, parenting seminars, and health care screenings, and was known for giving out free bus passes and scholarships. Furthermore, Rev. Chaney worked tirelessly to improve the quality of life in Boynton Beach, as well as make it safer and more inclusive. He was an influential member of Boynton United, a community organization that works to prevent violent crime, and served on the Correction Task Force for the Criminal Justice Commission of Palm Beach County and Boynton Beach's Community Redevelopment Agency board until 2007. Additionally, Rev. Chaney was a speaker and panelist for countless other causes, including the Roots Cultural Festival, Martin Luther King Community Celebration, Save Darfur Coalition, and Haiti relief efforts. While battling cancer over the past five years, Rev. Chaney, who graduated from the University of Arkansas with a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration, continued to pursue a master's degree from Howard University's School of Divinity. And, during his chemotherapy treatment, he constantly urged men to get screened for prostate cancer. Rev. Chaney is survived by his wife, Marilane, and his children, Lance Alexander, Ashley, and Allison. My thoughts and prayers go out to them, friends of the family, members of St. John Missionary Baptist Church, and the entire Boynton Beach community at this most difficult time. In Lance Chaney, God Almighty gave us a man of vision, courage, wisdom, and understanding. Each of us knew him in a different way, but he knew each of us in the same way, with great compassion and love. Mr. Speaker, Rev. Lance Chaney dedicated his life to serving his fellow man, and will be remembered for his tremendous ability to bring people together. It has been my great privilege to know his friendship. I now join all those whose lives he has touched in saying that he will be dearly missed.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Mr. John B. Boy, the former President and C.E.O. of the U.S. Sugar Corporation, who died on July 16, 2013 at the age of 96. He spent 41 years at U.S. Sugar, serving as its President for 17 years until his retirement. John held a degree in mechanical engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology. Under his leadership, the Bryant Sugar House was built in Canal Point, Florida. Additionally, John acquired the South Bay Growers vegetable and sugar cane operations, where he began growing oranges and producing orange juice. Among his lasting contributions while serving as an engineer in his company's agricultural equipment shop, are the many important mechanical advancements in Glades agriculture that are still used today. During World War II, John served in the U.S. Navy, becoming captain of three ships. After the war, he moved from Ohio to Clewiston, Florida, where he began his employment in the sugar industry. John contributed immeasurably to his community, and encouraged employees at U.S. Sugar, as well as those around him, to do the same. As a measure of their appreciation for all that he did for the sugar industry, Clewiston's civic auditorium, located within sight of the U.S. Sugar plant, is named after him. John is survived by his daughter, Betsy Terrill (Jim); sons, John Boy, Jr. (Connie) and H. Lane Boy; grandchildren, Jamie Terrill, Christopher Smith, Jennifer Price, Suzanne Boy, Stephanie Crawford, and Rachael Boy; and 10 great grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, words cannot express how deeply sorry I am for John's passing. My thoughts and prayers go out to his family, friends, and all of those in the sugar community. I was privileged to know him and call him my friend. He will be dearly missed.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to begin my remarks by correcting my friend from Texas with reference to his 1-minute statement previous to the time that we began the rule. As I understood him, he said that for the last 20 months, Democrats have controlled every level of power. Somewhere along the line, I think my friend must be very confused about what the responsibilities of the United States House of Representatives is and are. That said, my recollection is that in this Congress, which has consumed 6 months, and in the previous one, which took 2 years, that my friends in the Republican Party have controlled the House of Representatives. Unless there is no longer one level of power in Washington, something is misunderstood by me. Mr. Speaker, the House faces a number of pressing issues that have bipartisan support and that we could be addressing in our limited time before the August recess. For example, we could be reforming in a comprehensive manner our Nation's immigration system. We could be ending the sequester. I have not met a Democrat or a Republican that did not say that the sequester was a bad idea. We could be addressing the doubling of student loan interest rates. We could be having a conference on a farm bill, or we could be appointing--something that I still find very strange--we could be appointing budget conferees. It used to be that having a conference around this place was a real opportunity for Members, and Members sought to be on the conference. I know my first experience I was fascinated by the fact that I'm on a conference with the other body, the United States Senate. Little did I know that their rules provided for them to vote by proxy, but I came to learn that perhaps it wasn't as important as I thought it was, but it is important to the process. But for any of these important issues to be addressed, Members would have to work together to resolve their differences. Instead, we're spending our time on two bills that my friends across the aisle know will never become law. I don't have to be a betting person to bet anybody in this institution that what we are discussing here today will not become the law of the land. The reason that I know that is we've already done it four times, this same measure, and it didn't see the light of day in the other body. This one ain't going to either. These bills today show what I've been saying for quite some time now, and it's that my Republican colleagues really are not manifesting interest in actually fixing our country's problems. In fact, it seems that they're more happy to simply bring Congress to a standstill and call that success. Mr. Speaker, political victories are not victories for struggling families. In case these bills are not clear enough evidence, my friends recently released their messaging plan for the August work period in our respective districts. That plan is called ``Fighting Washington for All Americans.'' Wow. Despite the irony, I would almost want to call it hypocrisy of sitting Members of Congress trying to paint themselves as outsiders and reformers while ignoring their key role in creating the gridlock. Fighting Washington for All Americans urges Members to consider Washington as a place where nothing good happens, so the less governing that gets done, the better. Yet these two bills today completely contradict those ideas. H.R. 1582 gives the Department of Energy unprecedented authority to veto Environmental Protection Agency-related regulations. Not only does the bill prevent the EPA from finalizing critical public health and environmental rules, it instructs the Department of Energy to conduct a duplicative and convoluted analysis without any new resources. These are the people that say bureaucracy is a problem, and yet they're creating additional bureaucracy within the framework of these two measures. I said yesterday in the Rules Committee I would be astounded at how much time it's going to take the Energy Department and the EPA to coordinate their efforts. Evidently, these people haven't been trying to talk to these bureaucrats the way that I have over the course of time, and it requires, this measure does, extra examination, despite the Office of Management and Budget's interagency review of all regulations, which includes the Department of Energy, in the review of EPA rules. I did a little research, Mr. Speaker, on how many times over the course of the time that I've been here that Members on the other side have offered measures, that did not become law, to abolish the Department of Energy. Hear me loud and clear: to abolish the Department of Energy. Now we come today, after that having been done numerous times, we come today and the Energy Department is the answer. These same people wanted to, I guess everything with an ``E'' that's in the Cabinet, they wanted the Department of EPA to be abolished at one time, the Department of Education. They need to change their acronyms over there or else they'll find themselves abolished, if they don't get past A, B, C, D--E. Not only does the bill prevent the EPA from finalizing critical public health and environmental rules, it instructs the Department of Energy to do, as I said, duplicative measures. As for H.R. 2218, the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act, the second bill being considered under this rule today, it encourages, in my view, a race to the bottom, where the State willing to have the least protections will become the dumping ground for the entire country. I said last night that I would be mad today. I tempered myself with my passion over my reflections of my comments in the Rules Committee, but I cannot but return to them when I think of the community that I live in, and have lived in for now coming up on 51 years, where every one of the Superfund Brownfields was in the minority community. Every dump that ever dumped anything in Broward County was in minority communities--treatment waste across the street from where I live, and I guess perhaps these people have not had those experiences. While there are certainly inefficiencies within the Federal Government--and they are numerous--the 2008 coal ash spill in Kingston, Tennessee, is evidence that the Environmental Protection Agency has an important role to play in protecting our Nation's public health. This bill would allow States to undertake permitting programs for the management of coal ash; and let me talk about what's in coal ash. People seem to think that coal ash is all of this great stuff. Coal ash has in it mercury, lead, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, if you can say that. These are things that are poisonous. And yes, it is true that we have managed under the regulations to constrain ourselves with many of these products that have been utilized for benefit, but do not mistake arsenic and cadmium and lead for anything other than harmful products. The Federal environmental standards that are put forward here do not take into contemplation how important it is to establish uniform protections for our Nation's health and environment. Let me return to the Kingston, Tennessee, situation. The Tennessee Valley Authority is still paying in excess of $1 billion, somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.2 billion for taking this stuff and dumping it in Uniontown, Alabama, 100 feet from where people live; and, I suggest, as is the case in the community that I am privileged to serve, where people that are friends of mine have died as a result of not coal ash but dumps being in their communities and incinerators burning it, and it's the same in many respects. I compliment Florida Power & Light, the largest utility in my State, for destroying their two coal ash plants in Fort Lauderdale, and we still find that Florida Power & Light still manages their business well enough to make handsome profits. As far as electric rates going up, I would suggest to my friend, it's sort of like health care measures. And I continue to ask everybody, tell me the day, before there was anything called ObamaCare, tell me the day when your insurance rates for health went down. Tell me the day that your utilities went down. I don't recall any period where that happened; and somewhere along the line, we need to address these things in meaningful ways. Different standards in each State provide an economic incentive to send coal ash to the State with the lowest level of regulation. This bill will not ensure the safe disposal of coal ash or make current law any stronger. Fighting Washington--that's what you're getting ready to say in August--does not keep our air and water clean. Fighting Washington does not provide the sick with medical treatment. Fighting Washington does not keep Wall Street from preying on the American people. Fighting Washington does not provide student loans for children who aren't going to be able to return to school this year because of the prohibitive costs. Fighting Washington does not provide immigration reform in a comprehensive manner. And somewhere along the line we have to understand there are more than 11 million people in this country that are here illegally. And I can point to you people that work right around this Capitol--and a few that are in it--that we rely upon, that we need to straighten this law out about. But we prefer to fight Washington. Fighting Washington doesn't help the Centers for Disease Control prevent us from having diseases. At Robert E. Lee High School in Fairfax County, one of the best counties for education in this country, they've had a recall of students for tuberculosis, something I thought we had pretty much abolished. But when we can't find the necessary research money and we can't find the necessary provisions--largely because we're fighting Washington--then we're going to have other outbreaks like that that we have to contend with. Fighting Washington doesn't provide the National Institutes of Health the things to do to provide women's health and male research in order for us to better the health of the United States of America. Fighting Washington makes for great talking points, and might even make for great fundraising. It might make for a good bumper sticker, but it is far from a serious strategy to actually make this country better. A better title than ``Fighting Washington for Americans'' would be ``Washington Fighting for Americans.'' Now this do-nothing Congress, and I've been here 21 years, is giving new meaning to do nothing. And all of this repealing things didn't just start this year. Next week, we'll be back here on the floor talking more repeal. We're going to have something called the REINS Act. We're real good up here at naming things--R-E-I-N-S. We're going to be doing some more repealing. But in the 112th Congress--I looked back--we had 137 votes to block actions to prevent pollution. We had 55 votes targeted at the Department of Energy. We had 57 votes to defund or repeal clean energy initiatives. We had 47 votes to promote offshore drilling. We had 81 votes targeted at the Department of the Interior. We had 87 votes to undermine protections for public lands and wilderness. We had 53 votes to block actions that address climate change. We had 38 votes to dismantle the Clean Water Act. So 317 repeal votes. I've changed you- all's name. It's no longer the Republicans; it's the ``Repealicans.'' You must be people that just repeal. And over in the other body, they're ``Republistructionists'' because their whole objective--and that gets ignored here when we start talking about who's responsible for what. It gets ignored that the minority in the other body has arcane rules that permit them to block everything, and that's what they've done, everything you haven't blocked or sought to repeal. Here we have been trying to get health care for people, and you-all are voting to repeal health care 39 different times. I'm tired of voting on that kind of stuff. I want to vote on something that's going to provide some jobs for America. I want to vote on something that's going to help some students have some jobs when they get out of school. I want to vote on something that's going to allow for technology and innovation to catch up with what's going on in the world. I want to make sure that we exact our responsibilities, particularly with reference to education. I just left a meeting with homeless providers and nonprofits. I want to make sure that there's Meals on Wheels. I want to vote on something to make sure that every child has an equal opportunity for a very good education in this country. I want to vote on something that's going to look 50 years down the road to what America looks like, and not 50 months from now, or not 1 month from now in August when you're going to be fighting Washington. I'm going to be up here with you in Washington, and we are consummate insiders, and it's ridiculous for you to go home and try to tell somebody you're anything other than that. And you do control one-third of the legislative body. And you do have exacting responsibilities given to you under Article I that you're not exercising. You have the Ways and Means' ability. You have the numbers to undertake to do those things. So, yeah, I'm mad. And I think many in America are mad, too, with a Congress that's doing nothing. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. And would the Speaker be kind enough to tell both sides how much time we have remaining?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Several of our colleagues, including the previous speaker, are suggesting that this bill is better than previous versions. But this is actually the worst version yet from a public health and environmental perspective. All you have to do is look at the Statement of Administration Policy to see how this bill has gotten worse. The administration is concerned that there's no clear and appropriate authority for taking corrective action on unlimited or leaking impoundments or units. Unlike H.R. 2273, from the last Congress, this says that an unlined impoundment that is found to be contaminating groundwater only has to close after alternative disposal capacity is available at the same site. Well, many of these facilities don't have the space for additional capacity at the same site. That means that the pollution can go on for years, or even indefinitely. This bill is the worst version of coal ash legislation yet. That's why all the environmental groups oppose this legislation. They even sent a letter to the House today that states, ``This bill is more dangerous to human health and environment than previous versions of this legislation.'' Mr. Speaker, I'm very sad today. One of my college classmates is being funeralized, or has been funeralized as we are speaking. Her funeral was at 11 o'clock. She lives in a community called Golden Heights. In Golden Heights, in a 2-square mile radius from a dump that dumped into that community for a considerable period of time, the incidence of cancer of dear friends of mine, male and female, is inordinately high by comparison to any other place in the State of Florida. Something is wrong with the picture of continuing to pollute and to not be mindful of who are the victims of that pollution. Mr. Speaker, I make the distinction that I was not talking about coal ash, and I'm glad I don't live near one of those places where they are dumping like in Uniontown, Alabama. If we defeat the previous question, I'm going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 2070, Representative Tim Bishop's bill to protect consumers from price gouging at the gas pump. To discuss his bill, I would like now to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), my friend.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The previous speaker is a person that, there are few in Congress that I have greater respect for. I certainly understand the dynamics of living in communities. In my judgment, she's absolutely correct that what we should be doing is everything we can to constructively make sure that we are about the business of ensuring the health of the communities that we live in. So, to that degree, while I stand by my position that I'm glad I don't live next to these facilities, unfortunately, I live close to, and have for some time, facilities that have been harmful that claimed that they were protecting the health and the environment of people. Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Rules Committee, my friend from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) said something that I would like to correct. He'll be down here, I'm sure, later today or whenever this measure comes up. He noted that the Environmental Protection Agency testified ``that they do not oppose'' this coal ash bill. I want to make sure that everyone knows that the Environmental Protection Agency said that because they are not permitted to take a position on legislation, only the administration is allowed to say they support or oppose legislation. And in the administration position last night, they did not say that they don't support the coal ash bill, nor was it a veto threat. I would urge my colleague from Texas to point me to the time that Barack Obama has vetoed something. One of the things, I've been on that committee--he's been there 7 months. I've been there years, and I've been there with other Presidents, and it is not uncommon for Congress to propose and to have the administration oppose and vice versa. Mr. Speaker, both of these bills before us today are so tilted toward commercial operations that they reflect a warped sense of what is important to the people in this great country of ours. These bills undermine environmental laws that have been proven to protect communities and provide for the development of energy to run America. While we need to develop laws that promote energy and commerce, snide commentary regarding failed policies at the Department of Energy ignores the number of successes through the years under different administrations and this one that the Department of Energy has put forward. We cannot, in many respects, develop laws that promote energy and commerce and ignore the consequences of those activities. Pollution is not equivalent to progress. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying bills, and I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment to the rule 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 to stop being ``Repealicans'' and be about the business of trying to do something constructive in this House of Representatives. I would ask them to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. 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.

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 the life and legacy of Mr. John B. Boy, the former President and C.E.O. of the U.S. Sugar Corporation, who died on July 16, 2013 at the age of 96. He spent 41 years at U.S. Sugar, serving as its President for 17 years until his retirement. John held a degree in mechanical engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology. Under his leadership, the Bryant Sugar House was built in Canal Point, Florida. Additionally, John acquired the South Bay Growers vegetable and sugar cane operations, where he began growing oranges and producing orange juice. Among his lasting contributions, while serving as an engineer in his company's agricultural equipment shop, are the many important mechanical advancements in Glades agriculture that are still used today. During World War II, John served in the U.S. Navy, becoming captain of three ships. After the war, he moved from Ohio to Clewiston, Florida, where he began his employment in the sugar industry. John contributed immeasurably to his community, and encouraged employees at U.S. Sugar, as well as those around him, to do the same. As a measure of their appreciation for all that he did for the sugar industry, Clewiston's civic auditorium, located within sight of the U.S. Sugar plant, is named after him. John is survived by his daughter, Betsy Terrill (Jim); sons, John Boy, Jr. (Connie) and H. Lane Boy; grandchildren, Jamie Terrill, Christopher Smith, Jennifer Price, Suzanne Boy, Stephanie Crawford, and Rachael Boy; and 10 great grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, words cannot express how deeply sorry I am for John's passing. My thoughts and prayers go out to his family, friends, and all of those in the sugar community. I was privileged to know him and call him my friend. He will be dearly missed.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Mr. Frank Pumilia for his lifetime of community involvement and dedication to South Florida. Frank grew up in Brooklyn, New York, where he was an active member of many community organizations. In 1989, he relocated to Broward County, Florida, and for more than 20 years has been politically and civically involved in his local community. He has served as Chairman and Chief Examiner of the Margate Civil Service Board, as a member of the Foundation of Broward, and also as a member of the Florida Business and Professional Board. Currently, Frank serves as the President of the Margate Democratic Club and as a board member of the Broward County Democratic Executive Committee. During his time as President, he has counseled and encouraged many of South Florida's political candidates and leaders. At the age of 92, Frank continues his role as Senior Political Advisor within the Broward County Democratic Party. Frank has also been an important leader in addressing condominium issues in his local community. He has served as President of the Margate Association of Condominiums for many years. In this capacity, he works to help those facing foreclosure and to advance the rights of condominium owners. It is my true honor and privilege to recognize Mr. Frank Pumilia for his continued community leadership and activism. I offer him my best wishes for continued good health and success in the years to come.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Wildlife Veterinarians Employment and Training Act of 2013. This legislation will serve as a source of job growth, promote robust public health policy, and develop affordable opportunities for individuals who are interested in becoming wildlife and zoological veterinarians. Wildlife and zoo veterinarians are the primary source of essential health care and management for wild animals in their natural habitat and in captivity. Not only do these physicians preserve natural resources and the lives of animals, but they subsequently help protect human health by preventing, detecting and responding to exotic and dangerous diseases. With the intensification of global interaction between humans, livestock and wildlife, the threat posed by emerging infectious diseases to humans and wildlife continues to increase. Controlling these pandemic and large-scale outbreaks of disease has become more problematic and much more pertinent of an issue. However, the United States faces a shortage of positions for wildlife and zoo veterinarians to ensure our safety from this threat. Following graduation, professionals practicing wildlife and zoological veterinary medicine go on to earn relatively low salaries, compared to their companions in animal medicine. Studies also show that on average, veterinarian graduates owe roughly $130,000 in student loans. The reality of a low salary, combined with high educational debt, amidst scarce employment opportunities, discourages students from pursuing these important careers. Furthermore, due to the severe lack of practical training and formal educational programs specializing in wildlife and zoological veterinary medicine, graduates are unable to make significant contributions to the field. My bill will directly address these issues which prevent and dissuade veterinarians from practicing wildlife and zoological medicine. It will contribute to the national job creation effort by funding new positions for wildlife and zoo veterinarians to enter upon graduation. The bill will also limit the amount of educational debt for students while providing incentives to practice wildlife and zoo veterinary medicine through the establishment of scholarships and loan repayment programs. Lastly, my legislation will advance education by helping schools develop pilot curricula around wildlife and zoo veterinary medicine and by expanding the number of practical training programs available to students. Mr. Speaker, we have reached a point in our history when we can no longer ignore the importance of protecting wildlife, domestically and internationally. Wild animals play a very critical role in our natural resources and contribute to maintaining a balanced ecosystem. With an increasing number of endangered species, invasive non-native species, and infectious disease threats, wildlife and zoological veterinarians must be prioritized and given the resources and recognition necessary to protect both animal and human lives. I urge my colleagues to extend a helping hand to America's veterinarians by supporting this important piece of legislation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in very strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it takes the safety net away from America's poor families.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, your position as you enunciate is when a person says why they are opposed, that that is beyond the boundaries of the clarity that you say one must offer when he or she is in opposition to the rule?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, my anxiousness is probably perpetuated by the 6 hours that I've sat here waiting to offer this amendment. That said, over the Fourth of July holiday, when persons working with me sent me the summary of the Rules Committee and I read that we were taking $233 million out of science, I most immediately contacted people working with me and asked if they would prepare an amendment that may very well cause some of the membership to feel a remedy. Let me say most immediately, Mr. Chairman, that Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Kaptur, I have newfound appreciation not just for them, but for all appropriators in working within the framework that they have been given. And certainly my amendment does not address either of them or their respective staffs who are deserving of extraordinary commendations on both sides for having done the best you can with what you have. I appreciate that. Today, I offer a modest amendment that makes a profound statement about our country's priorities. Federally supported basic research at the Department of Energy has helped to lead the development of lithium ion batteries, digital recording technology, communications satellites, and water-purification techniques, among other vital and incredible advances. I might add, some of this work would not be done by the private sector. It may come as a surprise to some to know that some of the research that led to Google came out of the National Science Foundation. Many of my Republican colleagues' insistence on cutting everything except defense spending ignores the realities of our modern world. China, South Korea, and Australia are but three examples that are increasing their percentage of their GDP that's spent on research. If we continue to cut, cut, cut, pretty soon we're going to cut ourselves right out of the equation in innovation and technology. Yet this bill provides $223 million, 5 percent less than the fiscal year 2013 enacted levels, and $500 million, 10 percent less than the administration's request for basic scientific research. The amendment that I'm offering restores basic science research to the enacted levels, and it offsets this change with funds from the $7.7 billion appropriated for nuclear weapons, which is an increase of $98 million, 1 percent over the enacted level. The Congressional Budget Office says that this amendment has zero impact on budget authority and actually reduces 2014 outlays by $22 million. Bombs will not end our dependence on foreign fossil fuel. Bombs don't stop trains and underground pipelines from exploding around this country. Bombs don't prevent oil from washing up on our beaches. And bombs certainly won't put food on the tables of working poor Americans. Mr. Chairman, our country has real needs. Adequately funding basic research is one of them. Basic research will help to ensure that our country continues to be a world leader in research and development, keeping jobs where they belong, here in America. We can no longer afford to spend money on weapons programs that were conceived in the Cold War era. We don't need more bombs. We need to fund programs that will help move this Nation forward and spur economic growth. Congress can and should do better. I want to cite one specific in particular. The B61 life extension program is a perfect example of misplaced Republican priorities. The B61 is the oldest bomb in our nuclear arsenal--almost as old as I am. The committee recommended $561 million, $23.7 million above the budget request for the B61 program. The Senate version assumes a cheaper adjustment, the ``triple alt,'' than this bill. That still extends the program for 10 years. That assumption alone would save $191 million and almost restore research funding to the enacted levels by itself. Mr. Chairman, I am reluctant to yield my time because I waited so long, but I will yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, I am offering an amendment to H.R. 2231, the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act. I want to thank my colleagues, Representatives Gerry Connolly and Jim Moran, for working with me to bring this amendment to the floor. This amendment strikes section 204 of the underlying bill. Section 204 seeks to limit the ability to conduct a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement, EIS. Given our experience with devastating oil spills such as the BP spill, the Exxon Valdez, and a spill off the coast of Santa Barbara, we should be improving our review processes and strengthening safety requirements. The combination of reduced resources and shortened timeframes that are mandated by the bill, as well as the expanse of area to be addressed, make the task of preparing a credible EIS difficult, if not impossible. With these demanding schedules provided by section 204, what information is compelling Congress to seek such swift approval? Oil production, as has been said, is at a 20-year high and natural gas production is also at an all-time high. Furthermore, under President Obama's leadership, our dependence on foreign oil has fallen from 57 percent to 36 percent. Mr. Chairman, we have a responsibility to the American people to pass legislation that will serve them. Section 204 limits the environmental review to provide for less rigor than a typical review process, which can create huge environmental and economic risks. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.