Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS

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

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 2069, the Fostering Stable Housing Opportunities Act of 2017.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Mr. Nathaniel Reed. Nathaniel was a stellar supporter of national parks, a staunch environmental advocate and co-author of the Endangered Species Act. Nathaniel was a powerhouse of Florida politics, but more than that, he was a dear friend and a mentor to me, as well as to countless others. In a long career spent both in and out of government service, Nathaniel played a role in stopping construction of the world's largest airport in Big Cypress Swamp, helped establish a national park in Biscayne Bay, and assisted in preserving more than 100 million acres of parks and wildlife refuges in Alaska. During his six decades of activism, he was a tireless crusader for the environment and the Everglades. Nathaniel inspired generations of conservationists, and what he did for America's River of Grass is immeasurable. Mr. Reed is survived by his wife of 54 years, Alita, three children, Adrian, Nathaniel Jr. and Lia, and five grandchildren. I offer my thoughts and prayers to Alita, his family, and all who called Nathaniel a friend during this great time of sadness. I am so pleased to honor his life and legacy. He will be dearly missed.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman, my friend from Georgia, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate the rule for this measure, the Matthew Young Pollard Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019. Today's bill comes to us through a process that is marginally better than that which we saw last year. As many of you may remember, last year, it took my friends on the other side a couple of tries to get the Intelligence Authorization Act to the floor. Though that one was, unlike today's bill, cosponsored by the ranking member, Republicans raised the ire of many of us on this side of the aisle by trying to move this bill under suspension of the rules. After that move fell flat, the Republican-led Rules Committee reported the bill under a closed rule, blocking no fewer than 13 amendments. That bill, though passed, never saw sunlight in the Senate. Today's bill avoids some of those avoidable self-inflicted wounds and is indeed better for it. But unfortunately, drama of some kind or another seems to follow Intelligence Authorization Acts, no matter what. Last night at the Rules Committee, we witnessed, in my view, the unprecedented silencing of one of our colleagues. Congresswoman Norma Torres had just begun her first question of the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Nunes, when she was gaveled down by the chairman of the House Rules Committee. Subsequently, he abruptly recessed the meeting. It is, in my view, Congresswoman Torres' unquestionable right, based on longstanding committee practice, to question a witness. And it is absolutely unbelievable and, in my view, a great shame that she was not able to continue her line of questioning. When the hearing reconvened after a near 20-minute recess, rather than answering questions, Chairman Nunes was permitted to leave. He had made the request, indicating that he had matters before the Ways and Means Committee. This was not just unfortunate for Mrs. Torres, but also for the rest of us on the committee, because during that short recess, the Trump administration issued its Statement of Administration Policy on today's underlying bill. Frankly, the administration's statement raised more questions than it answered. It would have been helpful to have Mr. Nunes at the hearing so that we could ask him important and relevant questions about the administration's statement and what that statement meant for his bill. Now, I look forward to our meetings returning to normal next week, and I look forward to them being run as they have been in the past, with witnesses staying before the committee until all of our members have been able to ask all of their questions. Mr. Speaker, the bill is also not without its laudatory provisions. As my friend from Georgia has mentioned several of them, let me proceed to add to that particular observation of his. It increases pay for professionals in the intelligence community who have expertise in the cyber arena or have extensive knowledge in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics--all areas that are crucial to the success of the intelligence community's core mission. Footnote there: I served for 8 years on the Intelligence Committee, and I know full well, firsthand, the importance of this particular aspect of the committee's duties and the agency's duties. The bill, at the insistence of Democrats on the committee, addresses Russian meddling in our elections by requiring the intelligence community to brief key congressional leaders and committees on threat assessments related to foreign meddling in our Federal elections. The bill also requires the Director of Intelligence to publicly post a report on foreign counterintelligence and cybersecurity threats to Federal election campaigns. Although these provisions are welcomed, it is beyond any doubt that more must be done to strengthen our defenses against any foreign interference in our Federal and State elections and to rebuild Americans' confidence in the democratic process and in its institutions. Mr. Speaker, there has also been good bipartisan work on a matter that has been, for years, as it is today, near and dear to my heart, and that is increasing diversity hires and promotions within the intelligence community. Indeed, I have not stopped championing these twin causes since leaving the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence as its vice chair. Diversity is a mission imperative for the intelligence community. Three of my predecessors, two of whom are deceased--Lou Stokes from Ohio and Julian Dixon from California--as well as my classmate and colleague Sanford Bishop, who served on the committee as well, worked assiduously in an effort to increase minorities and give them opportunities to climb the ranks. We also, in my view, now need to recruit who will be able to blend in, speak foreign languages, and understand the cultures in countries that are now central to our foreign policy interests. At the end of the day, such diversity is achieved through the hiring process; and, therefore, we need to ensure that we are hiring more Arab Americans, Iranian Americans, Pakistani Americans, Chinese Americans, Korean Americans, and many other Americans from diverse backgrounds as we confront a myriad of threats and work hard to better understand our adversaries wherever they may lurk. We do not seek this diversity in the name of political correctness but, rather, in the name of national security. Mr. Speaker, even with these sensible additions, I can understand why some of my colleagues are reluctant to support today's bill. When we live in the shadow of a President who is bent on denigrating the brave men and women of the intelligence community in a brazen attempt to undermine the crucial work they do on a daily basis; when we live under the shadow of a President who has, as a candidate for the highest office in the land, compared those in the intelligence community to Nazis; when we live under the shadow of a President who is quicker to take the word of an authoritarian dictator like Vladimir Putin over the studied and sober word of his own intelligence community--all positions, by the way, that not only undermine our own intelligence community, but also the relationships that we have with allies and the world over--one would be right to pause and consider whether he or she should vote in favor of handing over immense and powerful authorities to such a person. I certainly understand the great cause for concern in handing such authorities over to this administration. In fact, last night at the Rules Committee, I offered a sensible amendment, in my view, that would have reinstated the cybersecurity coordinator on the National Security Council. As many may remember, in the not too distant past we had such a coordinator. Why? Because this country faces, on an hourly and, indeed, minute-by-minute, second-by-second basis, attempted and sometimes successful attacks on our Nation's cyber infrastructure, both private and public. It made sense to President Bush's and President Obama's administrations to have a person who could coordinate the complicated responses to these myriad attacks. The now-President and his national security adviser, on the other hand, had the inspired idea to jettison the position of cybersecurity coordinator from the ranks of the National Security Council. Now, the optics alone of the current administration canning a cybersecurity coordinator are enough to make one shake one's head, but the real-world effects of such a misguided and reckless action should be cause for great concern. My friends on the other side of the aisle will tell us that sacking the cybersecurity coordinator was done in the name of bureaucratic efficiency, when what the Trump administration has really done, in yet another misguided decision, is make protecting our country more difficult and more cumbersome. It is time that Republicans take these threats seriously and stop aiding and abetting an administration that puts its own personal interests ahead of those of the American people. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres), who is my and Mr. Collins' distinguished colleague on the Rules Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

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

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I invite, Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Georgia to show me an example of where we shut down a Member that was asking a question. And I might add, Chairman Nunes did not send a designee. He came to the committee himself, and then Mr. LoBiondo, which is not unprecedented, as you have outlined the numbers, took his position at that time. But I know of no time that we have failed to allow a Member of the committee to ask questions. Can the gentleman give me such an example? Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I will take that as my colleague doesn't have an answer. I will take that as my colleague's nonresponse to my question with reference to show me a precedent in that regard. There was none. I have been on that committee for 16 years, and we talk all over each other all the time and back and forth, but in an orderly manner, and yesterday's example was not orderly. If we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Nadler's bill, H.R. 6135, the Keep Families Together Act. This important proposal would prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from separating children from their parents, except in extraordinary circumstances, and limit the criminal prosecution of asylum seekers. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a member of the Judiciary Committee, to discuss our proposal.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Washington.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Kihuen), who is a member of the Financial Services Committee, to further discuss our proposal for the previous question, and I apologize for botching his last name.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is left on both sides of the aisle?

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat), who is a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Education and the Workforce, and the Committee on Small Business, to further discuss our proposal for the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, we consider today's important bill as we approach the hour of our President, Donald John Trump's, private sit down with President Vladimir Putin in Russia. We don't know what will come of this meeting, but if past is indeed prologue and we look to the President's handling of his negotiations with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, or his steadfast denial of the obvious, namely Russia's meddling in our elections, or his policy of tearing toddlers away from their mothers and fathers, then we can assume that nothing good will come from this upcoming get together. And I would urge those traveling with him to sweep the room with Vladimir Putin because he will certainly be being listened to. We can assume that there will be further concessions that benefit Russian interests. We can assume that the President will further insult our friends and allies, as he did yesterday morning in Brussels. We can assume that he will further erode the institutions created by the greatest generation, institutions that have made and kept the United States the dominant power in an uncertain world, institutions that have kept war off of western European soil for more than a generation, institutions that have kept at bay those nation-states that champion oppression and fear rather than freedom and the rule of law. Finally, I will say this. In the current environment, it is more important than ever to stand united against those forces that wish to see us divided. It is more important than ever that we support the difficult and brave work of those individuals who make up our intelligence community. And the latter can be achieved, quite simply, by Republicans in this Chamber taking a note from our Republican friends on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and learn how to call a spade a spade. The assessment that the Russians meddled in our election; that the Russians concertedly attempted to undermine Secretary Clinton's chances to be elected the first female President of the United States; that the Russians did this work to favor the election of the current President are all trustworthy and well-founded assessments. And remember, that it is not Alcee Lamar Hastings saying that, though I do. That is the assessment of the entire Republican-led Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. That is the assessment of the intelligence agencies of this community. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS

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

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, my staff and I worked with Democratic staff members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and received input from the majority staff to craft what I believe is a commonsense amendment that will increase diversity throughout the intelligence community. Mr. Chair, I just want to depart from my prepared remarks to say a word about the young man who is seated with me, Tony Matthews. It is a good indication of what the Brookings Institution does when they send us fellows from either the Democratic or Republican side, and I am very pleased that he has been with my office and, in many respects, is the author of this amendment. The amendment directs the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to, in consultation with heads of other intelligence community agencies, create and implement a plan that will successfully expand the intelligence community's recruitment efforts so that rural and underserved regions in the United States are more fully represented in these efforts. It is my belief that this amendment will provide a unique opportunity for the intelligence community agencies to actively join forces in order to broaden their respective recruitment efforts and, by so doing, increase the diversity among their ranks. Although we have seen improvement in some areas--for instance, an increase in minority hiring for fiscal year 2017 over that of fiscal year 2016--we have also seen a disappointing decrease in the percentage of women hired over that same period of time. I believe that we can do better in both metrics, and I think one smart way of doing that is getting agencies to broaden their searches geographically. This country's strength is born from its dedication to the rule of law, the belief that the best form of government is one that is of the people, by the people, and for the people--and from its diversity. It is time for our intelligence community agencies to more fully commit to reaching all American people in an effort to let them know that inspiring and important work awaits them in the intelligence community. Indeed, by more fully tapping into this diversity, we can be assured of at least one result: the strengthening of our intelligence community. If the intelligence community is to succeed in its global mission, it must have a global force. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), the distinguished ranking member with whom I had the pleasure of serving on the Intelligence Committee when I was there some 100 years ago.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, it is my great honor to rise today and recognize the achievements of Dr. Lenora Peters Gant, current Senior Executive Academic National Security Fellow at Howard University School of Business through the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). Revered for her U.S. security and intelligence expertise, Dr. Gant's profound leadership speaks to her devotion to public service and the impact she has made throughout the intelligence community. Dr. Gant holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Business Education and Management from Florida A&M University, a Master of Education from the George Peabody College at Vanderbilt University, and a Ph.D. in Education/Technology Learning & Human Resources Management from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. In addition, Dr. Gant furthered her academic pursuits by obtaining certificates in Executive Development and Leadership Development from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and a certificate in 21st Century Leadership from the Wharton Business School at the University of Pennsylvania. Her tenacious desire to pursue her education is truly inspiring. Dr. Gant's phenomenal leadership expands numerous roles that include the U.S. Department of Defense, where she managed a multi-million dollar budget for human resources management, education, and technology-based diversity training initiatives. From 2004 to 2012, Dr. Gant served as Director of the ODNI Intelligence Community Center for Academic Excellence, which is comprised of over 30 colleges and universities across the United States. Under her leadership, IC-CAE became a standard bearer for government partnerships with academia. In 2014, she was appointed as the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) Senior Executive for Academic Outreach and STEM where she directed, planned, and executed approaches to originate, develop, and formalize NGA corporate academic outreach for Geospatial Sciences and Scientific and Technology. In 2016, Dr. Gant led the ODNI Office of Policy and Strategy's Career Mobility Program Initiative, where she oversaw and directed over fifty senior leaders and managers across five ODNI Directorates. In addition to Dr. Gant's professional pursuits, she has received numerous awards in honor of her achievements and contribution to her line of work. In April 2010, Dr. Gant was awarded Harvard University Donald M. Stewart Alumni Achievement Award for leadership and public service. In May 2016, she was awarded the Vanderbilt University's Peabody College Distinguished Alumna Award. Furthermore, the former Director of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) George Tenet appointed Dr. Gant as the international community's representative to the President's White House One America Initiative. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Lenora Peters Gant is more than deserving of recognition for her service to our country. I am pleased to take this moment to celebrate her dedication and unwavering contribution to the intelligence community. I want to congratulate her once again for her many years of distinguished service to our nation. I wish her well as she embarks upon her retirement.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, my friend from Wyoming, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate, and I will proceed to debate the rule for H.R. 2083 and H.R. 6157. The first measure, H.R. 2083, in my opinion, is an overly broad bill that will lead to the needless slaughter of more than 1,000 sea lions without addressing the serious problems facing our country's endangered salmon stocks. Thirteen populations of salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River are listed under the Endangered Species Act, with their greatest threat to extinction coming from deadbeat dams, habitat loss, and climate change. This bill does nothing to address those issues and will not lead to the recovery of the salmon populations. Mr. Speaker, in a change of pace for this Republican-controlled Congress, H.R. 6157, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2019, is a largely bipartisan bill. Totaling $674.6 billion, $20 billion above the fiscal year 2018 enacted level, H.R. 6157, as my colleague said, increases military pay by 2.6 percent and funds military procurement, readiness, and research and development. The legislation, in a break from the strategy implemented by the Republican Trump administration, actually works to keep our commitments to our allies and provides resources for the European Reassurance Initiative to counter Russian aggression, continues our support for Ukraine, and fulfills our obligations to Israel with funding for the U.S.-Israel joint anti-tunneling research technology initiative and the Israeli Missile Defense Cooperative program. H.R. 6157 also provides new funding for Department of Defense schools and Historically Black Colleges, Universities, and Minority-Serving Institutions, partnerships that are critical for preserving readiness into the future by investing in our servicemembers today. I was also pleased that the committee included parts of the Families of Fallen Servicemembers First Act in this bill, which will ensure that families of fallen servicemembers can always access the immediate death gratuities they are entitled to, even in the event of a lapse of government funding. Politics should never be a factor during such an unimaginable time, and yet that has been the case in each of the last three government shutdowns. I commend my colleagues, Representatives Gerry Connolly and Tom Rooney, for taking on this critically important issue. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, this bill does a lot of good. I wish that bipartisan legislation like this was the norm. I congratulate the committee for working together in a bipartisan fashion to ensure that our country's security needs are met without needlessly injecting partisan fights into the process. I would, however, be remiss if I did not mention the omission of any language pertaining to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, known colloquially as the 2001 AUMF. We continue to give Presidents a blank check to wage war. Let me repeat that: We continue to give Presidents--not President Trump, not President Obama, not President Bush, not President Clinton--a blank check to wage war. Since the 2001 AUMF was enacted, it has been cited as the statutory authority for military actions more than 40 times in at least 18 countries. That is 18 countries, Mr. Speaker, using an authorization passed 17 years ago. I and other Members, like Congresswoman Barbara Lee and Congressman Jim McGovern, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, have been relentless on this issue, relentless on the need for this body to take its constitutional duties seriously and discuss how and if we will authorize the executive branch to wage war. In fact, last year, the Appropriations Committee adopted an amendment by Congresswoman Lee to begin the process of repealing and replacing the AUMF with an updated measure. In an underhanded move, the Rules Committee stripped the provisions in an undemocratic and underhanded way. Since then, Congress has done nothing to reassert its constitutional authority to decide when and where to commit our troops overseas. I don't know why it is that this continues, and I don't know what it is going to take for us to have a vote on a new AUMF, but I think that the people of this great country deserve to know why House Republicans are protecting the President's ability to wage unchecked war around the globe. I felt the same way when President Obama was in office, as well as previous Presidents. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Ranking Member Nadler's bill, H.R. 6135, the Keep Families Together Act, of which I am an original cosponsor. This much-needed proposal would prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from separating children from their families, except in extraordinary circumstances, and limit the criminal prosecution of asylum seekers. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so that we may protect these innocent children. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my colleague that I have no further speakers and am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.