[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.
____________________