[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 43 (Thursday, March 17, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H1447-H1450]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McCarthy), the majority leader and my friend, for the purpose of 
inquiring about the schedule for the week to come.
  (Mr. McCARTHY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning hour 
and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 
6:30. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and 
noon for legislative business, and on Wednesday, the House will meet at 
9 a.m. for legislative business. No votes are expected in the House on 
Thursday or Friday.
  Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of suspensions next 
week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business 
tomorrow.
  Mr. Speaker, the House will also consider H.R. 2745, the SMARTER Act, 
sponsored by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold). The bill will 
ensure that no matter who reviews mergers and acquisitions, be it the 
Federal Trade Commission or the Department of Justice, there will be 
uniform rules so that every transaction is reviewed fairly.
  I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information.
  I did not see or hear ``the budget for this coming year.'' I know the 
Committee on the Budget marked up the budget yesterday. As I understand 
it, they completed their work, and they have reported a budget. I do 
not see it on the calendar for next week, which means that the earliest 
we could consider a budget would be April.
  Speaker Ryan, as the majority leader knows so well, indicated we are 
going to pursue regular order, which would be the adoption of a budget, 
the establishment of a 302(a) allocation, which means the overall 
expenditure level for discretionary spending, and then the markup and 
consideration in this House of the 12 appropriation bills.
  It would appear, if we are not going to do it next week, could we 
expect to see the budget on the floor, Mr. Leader, in April?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The gentleman is correct that the Committee on the Budget 
successfully reported a budget resolution last night. I want to take a 
moment to thank Committee on the Budget Chairman Tom Price for his 
work, and the whole committee.
  There are more conversations among Members which will be required 
before moving the budget to the floor, and therefore it will not be 
scheduled for the upcoming abbreviated week, but I will let the 
gentleman know as soon as we do schedule it.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for that information.
  As the gentleman probably recalls, back in January Majority Whip 
Scalise was quoted as saying: ``We will forge ahead with spending bills 
and other initiatives in the coming year.'' He implied that the House 
would start early on its appropriation bills.
  Now, I can remember, as a long-time member of the Committee on 
Appropriations, that early for us was early

[[Page H1448]]

May for actual appropriation bills to be on the floor. In December, 
Speaker Ryan stated: ``By having this budget agreement that my 
predecessor put in place, we no longer have a dispute over the 
sequester.''
  Now, it is my understanding, Mr. Leader, that the budget that is 
being proposed is inconsistent with and does not carry out the 
agreement that was made between the Speaker and our leader and on which 
the House voted, a significant majority of the House voted to pass a 
budget deal. It is my understanding this budget does not carry it out.
  After saying: Let's set aside the dispute over the sequester, the 
Speaker went on to say: ``By getting the slate cleaned now''--Mr. 
Leader, this was December 22 that the Speaker said this. ``By getting 
the slate cleaned now''--which meant this argument over sequester, 
which of course your chairman of the Committee on Appropriations has 
said is unreasonable and unworkable, in effect, and ``ill-advised'' was 
the word that he specifically used.
  The Speaker said: ``By getting the slate cleaned''--by making that 
deal--``by getting this behind us, we can start our appropriations 
process early next year''--now, we are beyond early next year, of 
course--``and do it the right way, individual bills, all 12 bills, open 
up the process . . . do it the way the Founders intended in the first 
place.''
  My question to you is, Mr. Leader, do you expect that we will start 
considering appropriation bills on or before the end of April? Does the 
majority leader contemplate the consideration of all 12 appropriation 
bills, as the Speaker indicated he wanted to do, with full 
consideration open to amendment prior to the July adjournment, for 
essentially 6 weeks, coming back in September?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank my friend for yielding.
  You always make me smile when you come with your quotes. At times 
they seem selective.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time just for a second, it always gives me 
great pleasure to bring a smile to your face, Mr. Leader.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Well, if the gentleman just wished me happy St. 
Patrick's Day, that would have done the same thing.
  Mr. HOYER. I will wish you happy St. Patrick's Day, and I 
congratulate Kelly on that beautiful green blouse she is wearing.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for his mood today, but I do want 
to correct the Record; and this is probably a good reason why we are 
not bringing the budget to a shortened week next week, because you have 
some misinformation.

                              {time}  1245

  The budget that passed the committee abides by the exact number of 
what the agreement was. So I would find that you would probably be very 
supportive.
  Secondly, one thing that I would find is that it is our full 
intention to do all the appropriations bills on the floor. We believe 
in regular order. I remember a time here when I was in the minority 
that we didn't have any appropriations bills on the floor. I did not 
spend the time to get the old quotes about that, because I think 
America wants us to move forward.
  We want to allow time for conversations on the budget.
  Appropriations have been going through with their committee meetings. 
So we are in line to get them done on time and moving them forward.
  Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the gentleman's comments and observations.
  He and I, frankly, have a factual disagreement on whether or not the 
budget that was reported out does, in fact, reflect the agreement. 
Technically, he may be accurate.
  But, of course, the problem with this budget taking so long to 
present--which I know the majority leader and the Speaker were hopeful 
it would have been done either in very late February or very early of 
this month--clearly, the disagreement, as everybody knows, is that so 
many of your caucus did not want to abide by the agreement that the 
three leaders of their party voted for back in December. And we 
understand there are additional actions going on to placate those on 
your side of the aisle who don't want to follow the agreement; and, in 
fact, they are looking for cuts beyond to return to sequester. That is 
why I referred to the sequester in my opening remarks, although the 
Speaker said we have gotten beyond that argument. Well, obviously, we 
haven't gotten beyond that argument. And that is, obviously, why your 
budget has been delayed and why we are not considering it before we 
leave here for the Easter break and, therefore, will not consider the 
budget in March.
  So I understand that we have a different perspective perhaps--not a 
disagreement necessarily, but a different perspective on what the 
budget process is presenting.
  If I can go on, Mr. Leader, let me ask you this. Very frankly, we are 
concerned about adjourning next week. We are very concerned, Mr. 
Leader, that we have a brief week. Essentially, in the 2 weeks that we 
have been here--this week and next--we are going to be meeting 3 full 
days. We come in at 6:30 on one day. We will leave early today. We will 
leave early on Wednesday of next week.
  We have three crises confronting Americans, and we ought to be 
dealing with those, Mr. Leader. We would urge that we not adjourn next 
Wednesday. We would urge that we meet Thursday. Friday, of course, is 
Good Friday; and Sunday is Easter. Those are very serious holidays for 
an overwhelming number of us, and we ought to observe those.
  But in the spirit of that holiday--of Good Friday and of Easter--we 
ought to at least sacrifice some of our time in the week following that 
to address these three crises.
  Mr. Leader, I just had the opportunity to meet with a young man, who 
is in the eighth grade, and his brother, who is in the sixth grade. 
They are from Flint, Michigan. They have to pay for the water that they 
drink at school because the water at school is unsafe for them to 
drink.
  Now, the administration has dealt with that, partially. Those of us 
who have been to Flint, Michigan, have seen a lot of people on the 
ground--from Health and Human Services to the CDC to the Health 
Department, from a lot of agencies of the Federal Government there to 
help. We should be acting on giving some direct help to Flint, 
Michigan, and assisting.
  It is, I think, unfathomable why the State of Michigan that caused 
this problem by shifting the water supply from Lake Huron through 
Detroit to the city of Flint--controlled by a receiver, appointed by 
the Governor, not the mayor or council of Flint, Michigan. It is 
unimaginable to me that we would be charging children for water that 
they ought to be supplied, as almost every school in America does.
  So, we ought to be dealing with Flint.
  Secondly, Mr. Leader, we have a crisis for a large number of 
Americans. Both of these crises are somewhat related but are separate 
and distinct issues we ought to be dealing with, and you and I have had 
the opportunity to discuss them. I appreciate your leadership and 
concern.
  You and I convened a joint meeting with the Department of Health and 
Human Services; with the CDC, the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention; NIAID and NIH's Tony Fauci; Secretary Burwell; and Dr. 
Frieden were there talking to us about Zika.
  Zika is a health crisis for America and for Americans, and we ought 
to be dealing with that. We ought to be dealing with it by giving to 
the administration the resources it needs to respond to this to make 
sure that America's health is safe and to make sure that the Americans 
who are living in Puerto Rico have the resources to deal with the 
eradication of the mosquito that transmits this disease and is a threat 
to health generally, but particularly the health, as the gentleman 
knows, of pregnant women or women who may become pregnant.
  So Flint and Zika.
  Lastly, I would mention that we ought to be dealing with the crisis 
that confronts Americans in Puerto Rico who are going to be unable to 
pay their bills. On May 1, they will have another large indebtedness 
due.
  We have been considering for many months now the authorization for 
Puerto Rico to be able to declare bankruptcy so that it can, in a 
reasonable, ordered fashion, settle that which they owe in a way that 
they can accomplish.

[[Page H1449]]

  All three of these issues, Mr. Leader, we believe are critically 
important for us to address now. They have been pending for months--
some for as long as a year, in terms of Puerto Rico's prospective 
bankruptcy.
  I would ask the leader if he would consider coming back after Easter 
and doing the work that we ought to be doing to meet these three 
crises. I believe if we did so, the American people would say that we 
are a responsible body doing the work that needs to be done.
  Frankly, Mr. Leader, over the last 3 weeks, we have done things that 
could have mostly been done under suspension. We are filling time. We 
need to fill that time with policies addressing the crises that 
confront us.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  There are three questions in there, and I want to answer each and 
every one of them.
  As the gentleman did note, next week is Holy Week. We have Holy 
Thursday; we have Good Friday, and, of course, Easter.
  Now, the gentleman spoke with great passion, but there is one thing I 
think you missed in this. I hope you have the same passion for those at 
the EPA who knew of Flint and stayed silent, who did not warn those of 
the water that had been poisoned.
  The gentleman talks very boldly about wanting things done, but we 
should talk about what has happened.
  As we speak today, we just had a hearing on Flint, Michigan, where 
you had Gina McCarthy in; you had the Governor of Michigan in.
  Secondly, the gentleman knows that, when it comes to Zika, we had a 
meeting together, where we pulled in all those in government who are 
dealing with this issue. And they will tell you, there is no short 
answer for it. They will tell you the mosquito is not as easy as just 
spraying. And they will tell you, each and every day, they are learning 
something more.
  The White House did not send us a supplemental until just a few weeks 
ago. We have done nothing but move even faster. There is no agency--
from the NIH or the CDC--lacking in money to be acting today, and they 
will answer that question for you. They have money to go forward and do 
the work that they need to do and that we believe needs to happen. We 
can argue later about where that money comes from. But in no way have 
we stopped or slowed down. We have actually been in front of this.
  If I recall correctly, it was me who approached you on the floor and 
requested that we work together on this. It was me who called you and 
said: Let's make this bipartisan. So we brought all the committee 
members in with the Secretary and Directors. So in no way do I want the 
American public to think for one moment that we are not doing the work.
  Now, there is not one easy answer for it. You can look around the 
world to Australia; they have been battling this for quite some time. 
There are challenges, but we want to make sure we get it done. I want 
to work with you to make that happen, but I don't want to play 
political games with it.
  You know as well as I do, if you think we are here just on Good 
Friday and there is going to be a fundamental change, there won't be. 
But we are making change on the work we are doing.
  When it comes to Puerto Rico, we have been working on Puerto Rico. We 
have been working on Puerto Rico so much, the committee chairman just 
went there the last time we had a district work period to investigate. 
So did Congressman Sensenbrenner and Chairman Bishop.
  Yesterday the Speaker, myself, the committee chair from the Judiciary 
Committee, Congressmen Goodlatte, Sensenbrenner, and Bishop, all met. 
After that meeting, Congressman Sensenbrenner directly went to speak to 
Leader Pelosi on what we are doing because we are doing this in a 
bipartisan manner. I think you are going to see hearings being 
scheduled very shortly. We want to get this right.
  I understand your frustration because my frustration is across the 
Chamber over here with the Senate, because we have acted many times on 
the direction of where we are going.
  The last part I would bring up is that we are going to have 
disagreements on the budget. And maybe your argument is thinking the 
budgets are different. They are different. We have brought a budget to 
the floor every year we have been in the majority here, and they have 
balanced. Every time the President has sent a budget here and we have 
put this on the floor, there have only been two votes on the other side 
of the aisle for the President's budget.
  So, yes, we are going to have disagreements on the budget because we 
are going to fight over here to balance the budget and give us a 
brighter future. And, yes, maybe philosophically, you think we need to 
spend more money. But that is a disagreement that I think the American 
public expect you and I to have a disagreement on and fight for what we 
philosophically believe in.
  I just firmly disagree with your last question on all three--not from 
a basis of politics, but a basis between you and I knowing what we are 
doing. You and I both know personally what we have been working on. We 
haven't hidden the fact. We haven't made it partisan. We have been very 
open with it. We are going to solve the problem.
  I am not going to play political games with you and say, if you come 
on a Saturday, we are going to solve it. I am going to put us in a room 
on the exact day that we should be. I am going to have the experts in 
the room as well. We can disagree with where we want to go. But at the 
end of the day, we are going to solve the problem.
  And I welcome working with you as we solve them.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  I want everybody to know that he is correct. He came to me to work in 
a bipartisan fashion. In fact, we have come to one another at various 
times to work in a bipartisan fashion. And I am pleased to work with 
the majority leader.
  I think the majority leader--as I have said with him not present and 
I will say it here today--is someone with whom I can work, have worked, 
and expect to work. I think he is honest and straightforward when he 
makes his representations to me, Mr. Speaker, so I want to thank him 
for that.
  But I want to reference all three of the issues that you just 
discussed. I am going to go in the opposite direction you went. The 
gentleman started out with the EPA. I am going to start out with the 
budget.
  As the gentleman I am sure knows, there is a $1.5 trillion asterisk 
in this budget: savings to be determined at some time in the future. 
Hooray. What courage.

                              {time}  1300

  What I am saying about the budget is we had a deal. We agreed, in a 
bipartisan fashion, an agreement that you and I both voted for.
  Mr. Speaker, we both voted for it. It wasn't what either of us 
probably wanted, Mr. Speaker, but it was an agreement. It was 
compromise. It was how this body should and does work.
  And the problem is we have had such great difficulty saying we are 
going to implement that agreement, notwithstanding what Speaker Ryan 
said just a few months ago.
  So from the budget standpoint, A, I don't share the gentleman's 
optimistic view, Mr. Speaker, that it is balanced. It is easy to put an 
asterisk in there and say we are going to get $1.5 trillion somewhere, 
somehow, from someplace. It is much more difficult to say where you are 
going to get it. And what the American people have seen is that 
asterisk is never realized.
  So he and I disagree on the fact that, A, we haven't worked in a 
bipartisan fashion. We did. It was very tough. The Speaker, you, Mr. 
Scalise, Leader Pelosi, and I, all five of us voted for an agreement.
  Very frankly, it is our perception, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader's 
side of the aisle has not been able to carry out their agreement 
because of internal divisions within your party. Frankly, that is 
reported on. It seems to be self-evident, and that is our view. Our 
view is we had a number agreed upon.
  It is not about spending more money. It is what we agreed to spend, 
in a bipartisan fashion, that is not being adhered to.
  Secondly, when the gentleman says there is money somewhere, of course 
there is money somewhere, but it is not a zero sum game. Somebody will 
be

[[Page H1450]]

disadvantaged and hurt and left behind if we take money from the 
program that this Congress appropriated to be spent on Ebola.
  The gentleman came to me, we did have a bipartisan meeting, which I 
have referred to and the gentleman has referred to. Tony Fauci was 
there, Secretary Burwell was there, Dr. Frieden was there from the 
Centers for Disease Control.
  All of them said that the suggestion that we take money from Ebola 
and put it towards Zika would harm the effort to ensure that Ebola does 
not come back to our shores and, in fact, is controlled overseas as 
well, because if it is overseas, it will ultimately come on shore here 
in America; so that they have asked for the resources to deal with Zika 
now. The longer we wait, the more difficult it will be.
  I agree with the gentleman entirely, that we are finding out new 
things as each day goes by, as each week goes by. But the fact of the 
matter is we need to give them the assurance that they will have the 
resources to deploy the kind of effort that we need to make sure that 
Zika does not become an epidemic here in this country, in Puerto Rico, 
in the Virgin Islands, and in other places in the world.
  Lastly, Mr. Speaker, it is, to me, very ironic. I have heard this 
year, in years past, EPA, get out of our lives. EPA, stay out of our 
communities. EPA, we don't need your advice and counsel.
  Mr. Speaker, the Governor of Michigan, knowing full well that the 
water from the Flint River was not the kind of water that we ought to 
be feeding to our children and to our adults, and refusing to spend the 
money to treat the pipes so that they would have been lined and the 
lead from the pipes would not leach into the water and adversely affect 
the health of the children of Flint, nevertheless, went ahead.
  In January of last year, the EPA advised the Governor of Michigan and 
the Department of Environmental Quality in Michigan, you are getting 
lead in your water. It is dangerous. January 15, 2015.
  Notwithstanding that advice, the Receiver, appointed by the Governor 
of Flint--the mayor wasn't in charge, the city council wasn't in 
charge. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, appointed by 
a Republican Governor, kept feeding the water to the people of Flint. 
And we have now determined that EPA kept after them after January 15, 
and their advice was ignored and, in fact, said, look, we have got it. 
We can handle this. We have experts.
  Frankly, a professor from Virginia Tech started testing the children 
and found that, tragically, the lead levels in the blood of the 
children of Flint were going up to dangerous and harmful levels.
  So, Mr. Leader, very frankly, your party has made it very clear 
repeatedly on the bills that you have brought to the floor, you don't 
want EPA involved. I don't mean you personally. Let me make that clear, 
Mr. Speaker.
  But the votes on this floor have been to reduce EPA's authority, to 
reduce their involvement, to reduce reliance on EPA's wisdom on behalf 
of the health and environment of our country.
  So then on all three of those issues, Mr. Speaker, let me say 
something in conclusion.
  I know it is Holy Week. And what Holy Week teaches us is that we need 
to care for one another; that we need to make sure, Mr. Speaker, when 
there are those in trouble and at risk, that we act. If that is not 
what Holy Week is about, I don't know what it is about.
  We ought to be about the business of responding, Mr. Speaker, to 
these three crises. Now, we don't have to do it on a Saturday, and I 
agree with my friend, the majority leader.
  We say that all the time, ``my friend,'' but Kevin McCarthy is my 
friend, Mr. Speaker. I have great respect for him. He is hardworking, 
he is honest, and he cares about our country. Let there be no mistake.
  But what I am trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is simply to elevate a sense 
of urgency to respond to two emergencies that confront Americans; and 
that we, therefore, have a responsibility to act, act promptly, 
decisively, and effectively. I am urging that we do that, and I am 
urging that we not waste time in accomplishing that objective.
  I am through, unless the majority leader would like to respond 
further. I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I just want to 
respond to a few points you made.
  The money that we are talking about using for Zika, so nobody is 
delayed, is leftover money from the emergency supplemental voted in 
2014. I know it is dealing with Ebola, but it is $3 billion sitting 
over there. They have some leftover money that they should make sure 
that they don't wait 1 day to start working.
  Now, you talk of the budget. We just passed a budget out of the 
Budget Committee that had a discretionary number of $1.07 trillion. 
Nowhere does it show that that is not the agreement.
  Now, you and I can debate a lot, but since Republicans took the 
majority, if you look at the numbers of--and I know in your last year 
in the majority, you didn't produce a budget. But we have saved America 
tremendous, more than $800 billion by taking the majority.
  Now, you and I both know that the real challenge for America is the 
mandatory spending, and we have to get to that.
  Now, when you talk about the EPA, the challenge that I find, and 
nobody should ever have water like Flint had. But I am very passionate 
about this issue. I am passionate that the children have drinking 
water. You know why? Because that same thing is happening in my State 
because of lack of water.
  Every year we have been in the majority, we have passed a bill here 
dealing with California water, but it goes nowhere in the Senate.
  I want the same for children across the country, because it is not 
just these two areas, there are lots of places we have to deal with 
this.
  But if I remind the gentleman, I think it was just a month ago, 
bipartisan on this floor, the vote was 416-2, telling the EPA not to 
hold information because, when it came to Flint, they knew of it and 
they waited months before they brought that information forward.
  So you and I work together, just as both sides of the aisle in here. 
They said the EPA needs to stop. If they have information on any 
community, don't hold that, release it. People need to be warned. 
People need to be advised.
  I was proud of the fact that both sides joined together, and I look 
forward to our being able to work on the other issues.
  Now, you and I may have a disagreement on the timing, because what I 
have found, these committees have been working. We want to get it 
right. And in no way, in no shape, have we not kept you, one, a part of 
it, or if we even have a meeting, advised of it.
  Congressman Sensenbrenner walked from a meeting with the Speaker, the 
committee chairs, and me directly over to your Leader Pelosi, the same 
time that we have been dealing with this within the committee, showing 
all what is being worked on, and I hope we can keep that same working 
together as we solve the problem.
  I wish the gentleman from Maryland good luck in his NCAA bracket. But 
as he knows, Cal State Bakersfield has never lost in the tournament. 
Now don't take it we have never been in it, but we have never lost yet.
  Mr. HOYER. I appreciate his wishes of good luck, and I hope they 
result in many Maryland victories. I appreciate that.
  Mr. Speaker, obviously, we don't have a difference on objectives. And 
yes, the gentleman from Wisconsin did walk across yesterday, yesterday.
  The Puerto Rican bankruptcy challenge has been confronting us for 
more than two-thirds of a year. This is not something new. Zika is new, 
but Puerto Rico's bankruptcy challenge is not new.
  So I am simply saying, Mr. Speaker, that these are matters of 
urgency, of crisis, and we believe that we ought to work on those. We 
believe working together, as the majority leader said, we can get that 
done, and we would hope that we would do so.
  Unless the majority leader wants to say something further, I yield 
back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________