Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, would you be kind enough to tell me how much time I have remaining?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to the cosponsor of this amendment and good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the impacts of a major oil spill off Florida's coast would be devastating to tourism, travel to nearby beaches, mangroves, and wildlife. This is a truncated process and wrong. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the following votes on June 20, 2013, I would have voted accordingly: 1. Roll No. 264 On Agreeing to the Amendment Brooks of Alabama Part B Amendment No. 18--``no'' Vote 2. Roll No. 265 On Agreeing to the Amendment Butterfield of North Carolina Part B Amendment No. 25--``yes'' Vote 3. Roll No. 266 On Agreeing to the Amendment Marino of Pennsylvania Part B Amendment No. 26--``no'' Vote 4. Roll No. 267 On Agreeing to the Amendment Schweikert of Arizona Part B Amendment No. 30--``no'' Vote 5. Roll No. 268 On Agreeing to the Amendment Tierney of Massachusetts Part B Amendment No. 32--``yes'' Vote 6. Roll No. 269 On Agreeing to the Amendment Polis of Colorado Part B Amendment No. 37--``yes'' Vote 7. Roll No. 270 On Agreeing to the Amendment Garamendi of California Part B Amendment No. 38--``yes'' Vote 8. Roll No. 271 On Agreeing to the Amendment Marino of Pennsylvania Part B Amendment No. 41--``no'' Vote 9. Roll No. 272 On Agreeing to the Amendment McClintock of California Part B Amendment No. 43--``no'' Vote 10. Roll No. 273 On Agreeing to the Amendment Gibson/Meeks/Sean Maloney of New York Part B Amendment No. 44--``yes'' Vote 11. Roll No. 274 On Agreeing to the Amendment Walorski of Indiana Part B Amendment No. 45--``no'' Vote 12. Roll No. 275 On Agreeing to the Amendment Courtney of Connecticut Part B Amendment No. 46--``yes'' Vote 13. Roll No. 276 On Agreeing to the Amendment Kind of Wisconsin Part B Amendment No. 47--``no'' Vote 14. Roll No. 277 On Agreeing to the Amendment Carney/Radel of Delaware Part B Amendment No. 48--``no'' Vote 15. Roll No. 278 On Agreeing to the Amendment Goodlatte/Scott (GA)/ Moran/Polis/Meeks/DeGette/Lee of Virginia Part B Amendment No. 99-- ``yes'' Vote 16. Roll No. 279 On Agreeing to the Amendment Radel of Florida Part B Amendment No. 49--``no'' Vote 17. Roll No. 280 On Agreeing to the Amendment Walberg of Michigan Part B Amendment No. 50--``yes'' Vote 18. Roll No. 281 On Agreeing to the Amendment Pitts/Davis (IL) of Pennsylvania Part B Amendment No. 98--``no'' Vote 19. Roll No. 282 On Agreeing to the Amendment Fortenberry of Nebraska Part B Amendment No. 100--``no'' Vote 20. Roll No. 283 On Agreeing to the Amendment Huelskamp of Kansas Part B Amendment No. 101--``no'' Vote 21. Roll No. 284 On Agreeing to the Amendment Southerland of Florida Part B Amendment No. 102--``no'' Vote

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the gentleman from Utah, my friend (Mr. Bishop), for yielding the customary 30 minutes to me. This rule provides for the consideration of three bills, as enunciated by my friend from Utah. However, the only thing that these bills have in common is that they're overwhelmingly partisan in nature and fail to address the most pressing challenges facing our country. Bottom line: we should be doing all that we can to help struggling Americans get back on their feet. The first bill, H.R. 1613, had been relatively noncontroversial and could have been addressed under suspension. But instead, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen to take the partisan route by including a provision that waives the Securities and Exchange Commission natural resources extraction disclosure rule of the Dodd- Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which requires the disclosure of payments from oil and gas companies to foreign governments. I just simply don't understand why this poison pill was added. Similarly, H.R. 2231 opens up new, unsafe drilling off the coasts of 14 States at a time when domestic energy production is booming. Furthermore, the bill does virtually nothing--and I asked that question of our colleague, Mr. Duncan from South Carolina--to implement key safety reforms in the wake of the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster and constrains the statutory review process for offshore drilling. This is a part of the Republicans' ``drill, baby, drill'' energy policy agenda. While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to bring bills like this to the floor which contain huge giveaways to Big Oil, it is clear that they're not interested in doing a thing to protect worker safety, the environment, or the tourism and fishing industries. It is astounding that Congress would move forward to open new natural gas and oil leases when this institution has not acted on the recommendation to improve the safety of offshore drilling. If we didn't learn anything at all from BP, we're not ever going to learn anything. The successor to the BP spill commission recently gave Congress a D-plus grade on its legislative response to the spill. Before opening any new leases, we should enact legislation to improve safety and eliminate or adjust the liability caps upward. We have a pitiable liability cap now of $75 million. It is time to get real about energy policy. We need to invest in the development of renewable resources, which would reduce our impact on climate change and move us towards true energy independence. These two bills today aren't about gas prices or job creation. They're about bolstering the Republicans' political base and lining the pockets of Big Oil and gas CEOs. Republicans' refusal to address the sequester and insistence upon limited cuts in the Homeland Security, MilCon/VA, and DOD appropriations bills leave all the other nondefense measures like H.R. 2410 before us today with inadequate funding levels. The refusal by my friends on the other side to appoint conferees to reach a bipartisan compromise on the budget and end the sequester has left us with this disastrous agriculture bill that we saw last week. As my Republican colleagues very well know, there are $214 million in cuts to Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC, funding, which will prevent 214,000 eligible applicants from receiving the nutrition they need. Furthermore, there are $284 million in cuts to Food for Peace that will result in 7.4 million fewer people receiving food aid from the United States. Mr. Speaker, I'd really laugh, except the prioritization of partisanship and politics over responsibility has become par for the course in the Republican-controlled Congress. As I pointed out before, just last week the Republican partisan farm bill was scuttled. Traditionally--I'm here now 21 years, and that bill, at times that it was brought appropriately, was a bipartisan piece of legislation. Draconian cuts and work requirements imposed upon programs that benefit the poorest among us effectively killed any chance of the FARRM Bill passing. Rather than see passage of a strong, bipartisan bill, Republicans deliberately made it unpalatable to even strong agriculture supporters like myself. These are not the priorities of a Nation that cares about its poor. These are the priorities of a Republican Party that cares only about itself. The poor are not villains. Many are trapped in inescapable situations due to circumstances totally beyond their control and largely, in many instances, by our making here in this institution. Mr. Speaker, it's hard to pull yourself up by your bootstraps when those bootstraps, without any nourishment, may be the only thing you have to eat. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I would say to my very good friend and namesake, if you can do better, do it. I'm very pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) with whom I serve on the Rules Committee.

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 2\1/ 2\ minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to this rule that would allow the House to hold a vote on the Student Loan Relief Act. If Congress doesn't act by July 1, undergraduate students in this Nation, all over this Nation, will see a hike in their student loan interest rates. To discuss our proposal, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller). (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/ 2\ minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to a friend of mine, the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would inform my colleague from Utah that I have no further requests for time, and I would ask whether or not he has additional speakers.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I am looking forward to the brilliant verbiage. Following on from the previous discussion, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment, which has been discussed, in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself the remainder of my time. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I am tempted to take the 8\1/2\ minutes and, perhaps, not offer as much brilliant verbiage but at least add, without hyperbole, the continuing concern that all of us should have. I agree with my friend from Utah when he points to the fact that there has been legislation that has come out of the House of Representatives, regardless of who was in the majority, and that it has gone over to the other body and nothing has transpired. But when the American people look at Congress, they are not looking just at the House of Representatives or just at the United States Senate--it is all of us--and it is our responsibility here in the House, particularly as the body that has the Ways and Means Committee, which generates the financial circumstances of this country that ultimately is voted on. It's our responsibility, in my judgment, to undertake to answer one simple question regarding this loan thing: Why is it that college students are going to be required to have loan obligations that raise their loans from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent when Bank X and Bank Y can borrow money from each other for little or nothing at all? That does not make any sense. We can't do these children this way in this country, and we have an absolute responsibility to all of them to give them the opportunities that many of us had. People here in this House that have come here by way of student loans and some of them have had those opportunities, why not give these children that chance? Mr. Speaker, the most common critiques of this Congress have been bipartisanship and dysfunction. This rule today for these three bills shows that the Speaker and majority leader are perfectly content with that characterization of their work. Congress doesn't have to be this way. It isn't always like this. It wasn't like this when I came here in 1992. It was not like this for the greater portion of a decade after I came here in 1992. Instead of appointing budget conferees, instead of passing a farm bill in a bipartisan way, instead of fixing the pending student loan interest rate, instead of replacing the sequester that has been monstrously all over this Nation hindering our economic recovery and instead of preventing us from yet another game of chicken, which we will be doing sometime in the fall over the debt ceiling, we're considering three purely political bills that will only create more partisanship among us and might, I add, ain't going nowhere. Mr. Speaker, Congress can and must do better. 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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for votes on June 19, 2013, I would have cast the following votes: Roll No. 253 Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 271--``No'' Vote. Roll No. 254 Motion on Agreeing to the Resolution H. Res. 271--``No'' Vote. Roll No. 255 Motion on Approving the Journal--``No'' Vote. Roll No. 256 On Agreeing to the Amendment McGovern of Massachusetts Part B Amendment No. 1--``Yes'' Vote. Roll No. 257 On Agreeing to the Amendment Foxx of North Carolina Part B Amendment No. 3--``No'' Vote. Roll No. 258 On Agreeing to the Amendment Broun of Georgia Part B Amendment No. 5--``No'' Vote. Roll No. 259 On Agreeing to the Amendment Blumenauer of Oregon Part B Amendment No. 8--``Yes'' Vote. Roll No. 260 On Agreeing to the Amendment Blumenauer of Oregon Part B Amendment No. 9--``Yes'' Vote. Roll No. 261 On Agreeing to the Amendment Kaptur of Ohio/Hastings of Florida Part B Amendment No. 14--``Yes'' Vote. Roll No. 262 On Agreeing to the Amendment Royce of California/Engel of New York Part B Amendment No. 15--``Yes'' Vote. Roll No. 263 On Agreeing to the Amendment Chabot of Ohio Part B Amendment No. 16--``No'' Vote.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chair, had I been present for the following votes, I would have voted accordingly: roll No. 264 on agreeing to the amendment Brooks of Alabama Part B Amendment No. 18-- ``no'' vote; roll No. 265 on agreeing to the amendment Butterfield of North Carolina Part B Amendment No. 25--``yes'' Vote; roll No. 266 on agreeing to the amendment Marino of Pennsylvania Part B Amendment No. 26--``no'' Vote; roll No. 267 on agreeing to the amendment Schweikert of Arizona Part B Amendment No. 30--``no'' Vote roll No. 268 on agreeing to the amendment Tierney of Massachusetts Part B Amendment No. 32--``yes'' Vote; 1,6. Roll No. 269 on agreeing to the amendment Polis of Colorado Part B Amendment No. 37--``yes'' Vote; roll No. 270 on agreeing to the amendment Garamendi of California Part B Amendment No. 38--``yes'' Vote; roll No. 271 on agreeing to the amendment Marino of Pennsylvania Part B Amendment No. 41--``no'' Vote; roll No. 272 on agreeing to the amendment McClintock of California Part B Amendment No. 43--``no'' Vote; roll No. 273 on agreeing to the amendment Gibson/ Meeks/Sean Maloney of New York Part B Amendment No. 44--``yes'' Vote; roll No. 274 on agreeing to the amendment Walorski of Indiana Part B Amendment No. 45--``no'' Vote; roll No. 275 on agreeing to the amendment Courtney of Connecticut Part B Amendment No. 46--``yes'' Vote; roll No. 276 on agreeing to the amendment Kind of Wisconsin Part B Amendment No. 47--``no'' Vote; roll No. 277 on agreeing to the amendment Carney/Radel of Delaware Part B Amendment No. 48--``no'' Vote; roll No. 278 on agreeing to the amendment Goodlatte/Scott (GA)/ Moran/Polis/Meeks/ DeGette/Lee of Virginia Part B Amendment No. 99-- ``yes'' Vote; roll No. 279 on agreeing to the amendment Radel of Florida Part B Amendment No. 49--``no'' Vote; roll No. 280 on agreeing to the amendment Walberg of Michigan Part B Amendment No. 50--``yes'' Vote; roll No. 281 on agreeing to the amendment Pitts/Davis (IL) of Pennsylvania Part B Amendment No. 98--``no'' Vote; roll No. 282 on agreeing to the amendment Fortenberry of Nebraska Part B Amendment No. 100--``no'' Vote; roll No. 283 on agreeing to the amendment Huelskamp of Kansas Part B Amendment No. 101--``no'' Vote; roll No. 284 on agreeing to the amendment Southerland of Florida Part B Amendment No. 102--``no'' Vote.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chair, my amendment today is simple: No bees, no food. The amendment improves federal coordination in addressing the documented decline of managed and native pollinators, as well as promotes the long-term viability of honey bees, wild bees, and other beneficial insects in agriculture. Beekeepers and their honey bees are vitally important partners in American agriculture. They provide essential pollination services to a diverse array of important agricultural commodities. Bee pollinated crops represent an estimated $20 billion in value annually. Furthermore, one in three bites of food that we eat directly or indirectly comes from pollinators. Unfortunately, our honey bees, native bees and other pollinating partners are showing signs of decline. Colony collapse Disorder (CCD), multiple pests and diseases continue to plague beekeepers and their honey bees, as well as affect agriculture producers who depend on their pollination services. This means that our food and job security, and healthy ecosystems are also at risk. A recent study released by the National Academy of Sciences on the status of pollinators in North America, highlighted the lack of research and coordination in the federal government when it comes to pollinator health and protection. In 2008, I offered an amendment to the Farm Bill aimed at protecting pollinators through additional research at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Those provisions went a long way in highlighting the seriousness of pollinator health decline and Colony Collapse Disorder. I am pleased to see those provisions preserved and extended in this year's Farm Bill. While progress has been made, we still have a long way to go. My amendment will help address these issues. Bee health is affected by the activities of a number of federal agencies who are dedicated to finding a solution. But this is a complex problem and it requires a sophisticated and multi-agency response. For example, USDA activities alone include the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the National Institutes of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), the Farm Services Agency (FSA), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), and the U.S. Forest Service. Forage area for bees can be enhanced through federal programs on conservation and public lands that are managed by the U.S. Departments of Interior and Transportation. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for striking the delicate balance between pollinator health and the ability of our nation's growers to produce strong crop yields. And, of course, agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), as well as the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency all have a role in ensuring a safe food supply and level playing field capable of supporting our nation's commercial beekeepers. Specifically, my amendment: promotes cooperation between federal agencies to support the long-term viability and health of pollinator populations including to share guidance and technical expertise, establishes a task force on bee health and commercial beekeeping to coordinate federal efforts; requires the production of a report on the United States' and international efforts to address the decline; requests regular monitoring and reporting on health and population status of pollinators (including bees, birds, bats, and other species); encourages agencies to utilize the best available peer-reviewed science on environmental and chemical stressors to pollinators, including giving consideration to international efforts addressing pollinator declines; as well as encourages the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct feasibility studies for the creation of a new bee lab at ARS, and the modernization of current facilities. Mr. Chair, I thank you for the time and urge the Committee to make my amendment in order.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Ms. Antoinette ``Toni'' Jones Pauline on the occasion of her 75th birthday. An outstanding educator, mother, and grandmother, I am truly blessed to be able to count Toni among my dearest friends. Throughout the years, she always has been a great source of motivation and inspiration to me, and exemplifies what it means to serve the community. Toni was born in Gainesville, Florida to Allen Quinn Jones, Jr. and Glovine. She spent her early childhood in Gainesville before moving to Fernandina Beach, where she attended Peck High School and was a majorette. Following her graduation from Peck High School in 1956, Toni went on to continue her education at my alma mater, Florida A&M University, and then Nova Southeastern University, where she graduated with a Bachelor's degree in Library Science and a Master's degree in Media Science, respectively. With a love for education, Toni began her career in the Florida public school system as a librarian at Bradenton Elementary. She continued working at various libraries in schools throughout Broward County, including Chester A. Moore Elementary and Dillard High School. Wanting to do more to help those who are underrepresented and underserved, Toni found work with both the State of Florida and Broward County to improve migrant education. For nearly seven years, she dedicated her time to working with migrant camps in communities all across the State. Toni then returned to the Broward County Public Library System, where she spent the latter years of her career as the Head Reference Librarian at the Pompano Branch Library. After over 43 years of public service, Toni now fills her days spending time with her granddaughter and volunteering in her community. She is also a lifelong member of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate Toni's 75th birthday, I would like to wish her and her entire family all the very best.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I'd also like to thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Florida, the former Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, who clearly championed there and here, likewise, regular order. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2216 and H.R. 2217, as outlined by my colleague from the other side, two appropriations measures that fund military construction and family housing projects, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Homeland Security. Once again, my friends on the other side are using this particular rule as yet another attempt to deem and pass the controversial budget offered by our colleague Paul Ryan. This is exactly what they did in April of last year when they reneged on their promises in the Budget Control Act and also during consideration of H.R. 5326, the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations for fiscal year 2013. My Republican colleagues have been calling for regular order; however, both the House and the Senate each passed a budget this year and regular order would have them go to conference to negotiate a budget for the 113th Congress. But instead of appointing conferees, the Speaker of the House and the House Republican leadership are deeming the Ryan budget passed. Someone in a graphic that I saw said they're deeming the impossible deem. I, as one exemplar, should know, having served on the Rules Committee in the majority when we were going forward. We did consider deem and pass, and we learned along the way that that was going to skew the process. Therefore, we retreated from that, and I would urge my friends, the Republicans, to do likewise. They would rather see, it appears, greater military spending, at the expense of vital programs that millions of Americans rely on, than work with Democrats to replace the sequester and properly fund our Nation's government. Now, I'm not going through the litany of all the things that the sequester has cut and the problems that it has caused. Most people know that. But the Meals on Wheels program has been the one put forward, and I just think it is plain dumb and crazy to not take care of older people in our society. Never mind all the ideology, all the deficit, all the other hawk talk, who cares when someone that is a grandmother goes to sleep hungry because we didn't do what we should have done and that we passed a foolish sequester that has caused these problems. As a result, we're working with different budget target levels. In the House, it is $0.966 trillion and approximately $1.07 trillion for the Senate, which both sides agreed upon in the Budget Control Act of 2011. These differences are important. The reductions imposed by the House 302(b) allocations mean greater cuts for agencies and programs that already face difficult budget decisions due to sequestration. The two funding bills coming before us for consideration this week, along with those for defense and the legislative branch, are the only ones expected to receive an increase over the 2013 post-sequester levels. This means that we'll be forced to sacrifice health care, environment, education, transportation, and other important spending priorities in order to meet the new overall reductions required by the sequester. Furthermore, the appropriation for Military Construction and Veterans Affairs is the only budget with a 302(b) allocation that is higher than pre-sequestration funding levels, whereas funding for Homeland Security, in my opinion, is unacceptably low in some areas, and the bill is encumbered by very, very troublesome riders, and I would urge the Members of the House to look carefully at those riders. Consequently, the 302(b) allocation would provide a 22 percent reduction to the pre-sequestration budget for health care, education, and labor programs. In my opinion, that's just plain outrageous. Republicans are again asking--I'm fond of saying in the Rules Committee that when I was 11 and 12 years old, my favorite radio program that my grandmother would let me listen to on Saturdays was a program called ``Let's Pretend.'' Little did I know 65 years later that I would be in an august body that is also in and of itself sitting around with people pretending that things are happening that are not happening. Republicans are asking us to pretend that the Ryan budget is law, when in fact it is not. This unilateral action is a formula for conflict, and I predict for you that that's what we'll have. While I appreciate the spirit of bipartisanship, and those gentlemen who came yesterday, Mr. Price and Mr. Bishop, the ranking members, and Judge Carter and his counterpart did an exceptional job, as did John Culberson, in showing this body that there can be bipartisan efforts. They did so, and I would hope that would serve for the rest of appropriations and for this body to take notice that people can work together when they try. And that bipartisanship led to the funding levels contained in both of these bills that we are considering under this rule. It is regrettable that it was not extended to the entire process. Simply put, the framework within which we are considering these bills--the Ryan budget that House Republicans have deemed as passed--is a nonstarter. Administration folks said yesterday that unless this bill passes the Congress in the context of an overall budget framework that supports our recovery and enables sufficient investments in education, infrastructure--and a footnote right there: Do we need to be reminded about the bridge that fell in the State of Washington, about the number of bridges in this Nation that are in disrepair and have been in disrepair? When Bill Clinton became President, he advocated that there were 14,000 bridges in need of repair, and he asked for a little bit of money that we should have allocated then. Now we have thousands of bridges in disrepair, and we are going about a process like this ignoring them. Where do we get the innovation at NIH for the health needs that are coming and the technological needs that are coming? How do we protect national security for our economy to be able to compete in the future? The President's senior advisers indicated that they would recommend to the President that he veto H.R. 2216 and H.R. 2217, and any other legislation that implements the House deemed budget framework. As I've said time and again, this is no way to run a budget process, and no way to conduct the business of the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, my colleague began by saying that's as close to regular order as we can get. I would tell him, close, but no cigar. Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my very good friend from New York, Mrs. Lowey, who has been on the Appropriations Committee at times when we didn't deem things and we did, in fact, pass appropriations measures.