[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 79 (Wednesday, May 18, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H2713-H2721]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4974, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND
VETERANS AFFAIRS AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2017;
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5243, ZIKA RESPONSE APPROPRIATIONS
ACT, 2016; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 736 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 736
Resolved, That (a) at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4974) making appropriations for military
construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, and
for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to
comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. Clause 2(e) of
rule XXI shall not apply during consideration of the bill.
(b) During consideration of the bill for amendment--
(1) each amendment, other than amendments provided for in
paragraph (2), shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent;
(2) no pro forma amendment shall be in order except that
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to
10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of
debate; and
(3) the chair of the Committee of the Whole may accord
priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member
offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the
portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in clause 8 of rule
[[Page H2714]]
XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read.
(c) When the committee rises and reports the bill back to
the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. (a) (a)
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5243) making
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016,
to strengthen public health activities in response to the
Zika virus, and for other purposes. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall
be considered as read. All points of order against provisions
in the bill are waived. Clause 2(e) of rule XXI shall not
apply during consideration of the bill. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 3. Section 514 of H.R. 4974 shall be considered to be
a spending reduction account for purposes of section 3(d) of
House Resolution 5.
Sec. 4. During consideration of H.R. 4974 in the Committee
of the Whole pursuant to this resolution, it shall not be in
order to consider an amendment proposing both a decrease in
an appropriation designated pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 and an increase in an appropriation not
so designated, or vice versa.
Sec. 5. During consideration of H.R. 4974 pursuant to this
resolution--
(a) section 310 of House Concurrent Resolution 125, as
reported in the House, shall have force and effect in the
Committee of the Whole; and
(b) section 3304 of Senate Concurrent Resolution 11 shall
not apply.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
{time} 1230
General Leave
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule for consideration of both H.R. 5243, the Zika Response
Appropriations Act of 2016, and H.R. 4974, the Military Construction
and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017.
The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 5243 under a closed rule
with an hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, along with a motion
to recommit.
In addition, the rule provides for an open rule for consideration of
the MILCON-VA appropriations bill for FY 2017. It also provides for a
motion to recommit on the MILCON-VA bill.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule includes three budget provisions,
which allow for the enforcement of the OCO firewall, allow for Members
to deposit savings from their amendments in a spending reduction
account, and provides limitations on advance appropriations consistent
with the budget resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present H.R. 5243 to the House for its
consideration. As I said in the Rules Committee yesterday, the debate
over this legislation isn't about whether or not we provide resources
for Zika, it is about whether or not we pay for it through our existing
resources or just add it to the national debt. I am pleased that we
have chosen the former course.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5243 provides an additional $622.1 million, for a
total of over $1.2 billion to fight the Zika outbreak. H.R. 5243
provides additional money to the Centers for Disease Control for
mosquito control and programs for prenatal care, delivery, and
postpartum care. In addition, we provide the NIH with the resources
needed to develop vaccines and diagnostic tests.
In addition, as opposed to the President's request, this legislation
maintains important oversight restrictions on the use of these funds.
Understandably, they must be used solely for Zika. The President's
supplemental request, in addition to not being paid for, would allow
the so-called emergency funds to be used for almost anything.
Importantly, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is fully offset by using
leftover, unobligated Ebola funds and the unused Health and Human
Services administrative funding. In addition, Mr. Speaker, this
legislation reflects the emergency of this situation by making these
funds available through the end of this fiscal year.
Yesterday, Chairman Rogers told the Rules Committee that a standalone
piece of legislation stands the best chance of becoming law. If we were
to attach this measure as part of one of the fiscal year 2017
appropriations bills, as the Senate has done, there is no guarantee
that it would be enacted swiftly. In my opinion, the best way to ensure
its quick enactment is through standalone legislation, like H.R. 5243.
In addition to the Zika response appropriations bill, this rule
allows for the consideration of the first appropriations bill
considered by the House for FY 2017, the MILCON-VA appropriations bill.
I am pleased that the House is, once again, going through regular
order and considering appropriations bills under an open process. As a
member of the Appropriations Committee, I am always proud that we can
bring these bills up under an open process where all Members have the
opportunity to bring their ideas for an up-or-down vote by the entire
House.
H.R. 4974 provides $73.5 billion in discretionary funding for the
Veterans Administration, a 3-percent increase over FY16. In addition,
it includes important oversight and good government provisions, like
preventing the closure of Guantanamo Bay, prohibiting bonuses for all
VA Senior Executive Service personnel, and increased oversight, like
requiring large-scale construction projects to be managed by an outside
entity so that mistakes like the Denver VA health facility, now $1
billion over budget, will never be repeated.
I am encouraged by the hard work of Chairman Rogers and Ranking
Member Lowey for their commitment to regular order and ensuring that
the power of the purse is one that this House can continue to exercise.
Both the Zika Response Appropriations Act and the FY 2017 MILCON-VA
bill demonstrate our commitment to that end.
I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes for debate.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate the rule for H.R. 4974, the
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, and H.R. 5243, the Zika Response Appropriations
Act.
There are many things to praise in the military construction and VA
appropriations bill. This is the first of the FY17 appropriations bills
to reach the floor, and I hope that we soon have the opportunity to
vote on other important appropriations packages.
The legislation, as pointed out by my good friend, provides $81.6
billion in total discretionary funding for fiscal year 2017 to fund
military construction projects and programs within the Department of
Veterans Affairs. It provides funding to hire 242 new VA staff to help
reduce the VA's backlog in processing claims, as well as important
funding for mental health programs and suicide prevention outreach.
Certain VA medical services, including long-term care for veterans and
support services for caregivers, are also included in this bill, which
increase health program funding by approximately 5 percent as compared
to the last fiscal year.
As co-chair of the Congressional Homelessness Caucus, I also welcome
the inclusion of the President's full fiscal year '17 request for
veterans homelessness outreach programs in this legislation. We have
made great progress in our work to end veteran homelessness, and these
programs play a critical role in getting our veterans off the streets.
[[Page H2715]]
However, despite these points, the bill is not without criticism. The
additional language that indiscriminately denies performance awards as
well as the inclusion of other ideologically divisive provisions that
are outside the scope of this legislation, to me, are problematic.
Because of these provisions, the President has indicated that he will
veto this legislation in its current form. So it is my hope that we can
work together to present a final package that will be able to become
law, providing the important funding that our military servicemen and -
women, their spouses, and our veterans need and rightly deserve.
I now turn to debate the Republican majority's so-called response to
Zika. Despite any hope I had that the generally bipartisan effort
crafting the military construction and VA appropriations bill may
perhaps signal that my friends in the majority are suddenly able to
govern responsibly, I am beyond disappointed in the inadequate measure
presented here today.
Nearly 3 months ago, the President requested Congress to provide $1.9
million to combat the spread of the Zika virus. This number was based
on what our Nation's top experts and scientists at the National
Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, and elsewhere
believe is needed to meet the challenges of this impending public
health emergency.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health, our national
top expert on infectious diseases, has warned that if we don't provide
funding at this level, and I quote him, ``that is going to have a very
serious negative impact on our ability to get the job done.''
So, naturally, after these warnings and nearly 3 months after the
administration's request, what have my friends in the Republican
majority presented today? A bill with a funding level less than one-
third of the amount our Nation's top doctors tell us is needed to win
the fight against the Zika virus.
I fear that in trying to address the Zika virus, my Republican
colleagues are many days late and many dollars short. This decision
risks worsening an already severe crisis. As of May 11, the Centers for
Disease Control reports the following: In the continental United
States, there have been 503 reported travel-associated cases of Zika.
In the United States territories, including Puerto Rico, American
Samoa, and the United States Virgin Islands, there are 698 locally
acquired vector-borne cases reported.
{time} 1245
While these numbers may seem small, we must take into account that we
are not even in the summer months, and mosquito season has not even
started. Despite these troubling figures, if you want to learn what is
most important to the majority and their response to this emergency,
one need look no further than the summary of this bill prepared by the
Committee on Appropriations Republicans. At the top of that summary,
they noted for their Members that the funding was ``entirely offset.''
This statement was underlined, bolded, and italicized.
Mr. Speaker, we are facing a public health emergency, and apparently
the most important thing to my friends on the other side isn't that we
address this emergency head-on with adequate and robust emergency
funding but, rather, that we make sure what little funding they are
allocated doesn't cost new money to do so. I guess my Republican
friends will be at ease in the face of this looming public health
emergency knowing that their response to pay for it is ``offset.''
One would think that the duty to provide an appropriate level of
funding to respond to a national health crisis would be enough to
garner a ``yes'' vote from the Republican majority. Apparently not.
I represent one of the States that everyone agrees will be hardest
hit by the Zika virus. Indeed, Florida already reported 106 travel-
related cases. Twenty-two of the cases in Florida are from Palm Beach
and Broward County, areas that I represent. When the summer months come
and this emergency worsens, I don't think my constituents will be at
ease knowing that at least the money Republicans approved of was an
offset.
Later, Mrs. Nita Lowey, the ranking member of the Committee on
Appropriations, the subject matter for today, is going to make
statements. I haven't had an opportunity to talk with her this morning,
but yesterday in the Committee on Rules I asked her whether or not,
when other emergencies have come up, it has been required that they be
offset, and her response was that it was not.
She, like myself, has been here during a lot of emergencies that we
must and, rightly, should address for the American citizenry. This
happens to be one more, and here we are haggling about offset rather
than addressing the seriousness of this public national health
emergency.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to begin by agreeing with my friend in terms of the
appropriations process itself. He is right to celebrate the appearance
of one of the bills down here under an open rule, just as I am sure my
friend is aware, the Committee on Appropriations, under Mr. Rogers' and
Mrs. Lowey's able leadership, has actually produced a series of bills
ready and lined up. So I have no doubt this is the first of many
bills--I would hope all bills--that we eventually see on the floor that
every Member has an opportunity to come down here and amend as they see
fit.
I also want to appreciate what my friend had to say about the VA and
military construction bill. I think he is absolutely correct. That is
one of our very best subcommittees. Chairman Dent and Congressman
Bishop are chair and ranking member. They work together extremely well.
While I know my friend has some concerns with specific provisions of
that, again, this is a process. As he knows, this is our opening
process. We will see what happens. I think at the end of the day, that
particular legislation will garner a great deal of bipartisan support,
in part because of the very points my good friend made in talking about
the bill.
Now let's move to Zika. Here, we obviously have a different point of
view. Let me posit some things, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps those
watching this debate and discussion aren't aware of.
First, $600 million has already been deployed for Zika. That was out
of money set aside for both Ebola and other infectious diseases. That
money, by the way, totaled over $5 billion originally. There is still
close to $3 billion of it left. It was to be spent over several years.
So when the President made his request, the initial response from
Chairman Rogers was, spend this money now. Don't wait on Congress to
act. You have got available resources. The administration eventually
agreed with that point of view.
So to this point, nothing has been left undone because of money.
Everything the Federal Government has wanted to do has been fully
funded. And, indeed, in that fund, there is still well over $2 billion,
so literally everything it plans to do in the timeframe it plans to do
it can be done. So that is $600 million of the $1.9 billion immediately
available.
This bill would provide another $622 million, which is actually more
money than the administration plans to spend in this fiscal year. So
they will have more than enough resources. In the bill, there is
actually money included for the National Institutes of Health that will
not be spent until next year as they work through the process of
developing vaccines and diagnostics. So there is more than adequate
funding here.
Finally, in the remainder of the year, when we get to the Labor-HHS
bill and the foreign operations bill, we will put in literally hundreds
of millions more money for fiscal year 2017. That $1.9 billion isn't to
be used right now. It is to be used over a 2-year period, so you don't
need all of it right now.
The key difference is not the amount of money. The key difference is,
number one, this is offset. My friend is correct about that. It is paid
for. Rather than saying we are going to just immediately add an
additional $1.9 billion to the national debt, say: Look, we have money
set aside; we have got money here we can offset through other unused
funds, and we have got money in the regular appropriations process for
next year.
All of this can and should be paid for. Frankly, it is not like a
Hurricane
[[Page H2716]]
Sandy or a Hurricane Katrina with massive damage, immediate response
required. This is actually smaller, more manageable, and these are
moneys spent over not a short period of time, but over a couple of
years. So this is actually the prudent way to actually move forward on
this money.
But again, the important thing to know is everything that has needed
to be done has been done. There hasn't been anything delayed. Nothing
has been set back. Frankly, what Mr. Rogers offers us will actually
speed money to the process.
The debate, here again, as I said in my opening remarks, isn't about
Zika; it is about whether or not you want to pay for the response, and
that requires some tough choices to be made. That means other things
that aren't emergency might not get as much funding.
The administration, like anybody else, if they can have their cake
and eat it too, is delighted to do so. The more prudent path is to
actually pay for the emergency that you have if you can. If you can't,
then you move to something bigger. But in this case, we have the
ability to do that, and I think we ought to do it.
I would hope our friends work with us on this. We see that this is an
emergency. We have provided money immediately. We are moving now,
prudently, to provide additional money, more than is needed in the
short term and, frankly, as the bills roll out, you will see that there
will be additional money yet to come--money that, by the way, was not
intended to be spent until next year anyway. So there is no reason to
spend it all right now.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am
going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up the Democratic
alternative Zika bill that provides the administration with the $1.9
billion its top scientific and medical experts say is needed to mount a
robust response to the Zika crisis without jeopardizing its ability to
address other public health threats, like Ebola.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the
Committee on Appropriations and my good friend, to discuss our
proposal.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, the Republican Zika bill provides $622
million, about one-third of the $1.9 billion requested. The bill also
steals more Ebola funding as an offset instead of replenishing what was
already redirected to Zika. We don't offset spending to respond to
emergencies, and we certainly don't steal from prior emergency response
efforts still underway when a new emergency arises.
Let's just consider, my friends, recent history.
Emergency funding was provided to respond to both Ebola and H1N1. In
last year's omnibus, Congress used emergency funding without offsets to
pay for wildland fire suppression, mostly in the West. Congress also
provided emergency funding to respond to two hurricanes and flooding in
the Carolinas and Texas, again without offsets.
When those disasters struck, we didn't steal money from prior
disaster response, like the emergency funding provided for hurricane
damage in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida; or storms in
West Virginia; or tornadoes in Oklahoma and Kentucky. In fact, after
the 2013 Oklahoma tornadoes, my friend, Chairman Rogers, said: ``I
don't think disasters of this type should be offset. We have an
obligation to help these people.''
Now that the Zika public health emergency has ravaged Brazil, spread
to Puerto Rico, and threatens an outbreak in the continental United
States, suddenly Republicans insist on shortchanging efforts to ensure
the deadly Ebola virus doesn't reemerge to pay for Zika response. The
money they would take from Ebola isn't nearly enough to prevent the
spread of the deadly Zika virus that especially endangers pregnant
women and children who could be born with very severe disabilities.
If the previous question is defeated, Mr. Hastings will amend the
rule to offer my bill, H.R. 5044, as a substitute, providing the full
$1.9 billion the administration requested without offsets to ensure an
adequate response to Zika that doesn't rob our Ebola response. I urge
my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me begin by thanking my good friend for her wonderful work on
that committee. She has had the opportunity to serve on her
subcommittee when she was a subcommittee chairman and now to work with
her ranking member. There is no better person than Nita Lowey on that
committee.
However, we are going to disagree a little bit here. First of all,
when you say the bill only provides a third, of course, you have
already got a third. The first $600 million is the first third. That
has already been deployed. It is being spent. This is the next third.
The remaining third is money that will be spent--by the way, not this
year, but next year--and it will be presented in the normal
appropriations bills.
I happen to chair one of those committees, the so-called Labor-HHS
Subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education. We will have hundreds of millions of dollars in that bill
for next year's Zika response. So to suggest that somebody is being
shortchanged, the money is just being prudently laid out at an
appropriate pace and paid for along the way. That is point number one.
Point number two, again, this isn't a debate about the disease. It
was this committee and our chairman who immediately responded and said:
You have extra money left.
Now, by the way, the Ebola money, if you go back and look at the
legislation, is Ebola and other infectious diseases.
{time} 1300
In other words, when Congress appropriated that, they knew they might
be appropriating more than was needed for Ebola and there might be
other crises to come up. So that money is being used exactly the way it
is supposed to be used.
The Appropriations Committee has assured that both the CDC and the
NIH and the administration that, should additional money be required--
and there is still almost $2 million of Ebola money--and if you need
more and you are going to spend it over the next several years, come
back and we will sit down and we will work with you and get you the
money.
So this suggestion that somehow the fight against Ebola has been
sidelined or cut short or shortchanged, again, is simply not true.
My friends use a lot of rhetoric here, largely to hide the fact that
while we have got plenty of available money both set aside in the
normal appropriations process and certainly in this bill of Chairman
Rogers to pay for things, they just simply want to add it to the
national debt. They don't want to use available resources. They don't
want to operate within the normal Appropriations Committee, I guess
because they want to spend that money someplace else.
To suggest that anybody is disingenuous or shortchanging either Zika
or Ebola simply doesn't square with reality. It was Congress, after
all--a Republican majority in the House and a Democratic majority in
the Senate, but, frankly, a genuinely bipartisan effort--that voted the
$5 billion-plus for Ebola in the first place.
Last year, the President asked for a billion-dollar increase at the
National Institutes of Health. We gave him a $2 billion increase. I
can't remember the precise number last year, but I do remember we
appropriated more for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
than the President requested.
So it is not as if these things are not a priority. I think they are
a priority on both sides of the aisle. We have proven that by bringing
appropriations bills to the floor beyond what the President requested.
But we think the prudent thing to do is not just willy-nilly add $1.9
billion worth of debt on the American taxpayer, particularly when the
money is at hand to pay for what we need right now and we have an
appropriations bill coming up in June
[[Page H2717]]
where the rest of it can be taken care of and we can actually monitor
this thing.
On the Ebola crisis, we may well have appropriated more than we
needed to. That is why we have the other infectious diseases. In fact,
if you look at the administration's budget proposal, they actually were
taking $40 million out of this same pot of money to spend on unrelated
malaria suppression abroad.
I am not quarreling with that--that is fine--but it suggests, again,
even the administration thought, ``Well, maybe there is more money than
we need in here for Ebola, or we can count on Congress to come back,''
which, by the way, is true if they need more money.
This is all about trying to circumvent the appropriations process and
trying to add debt when there are sufficient resources available. If
there were not, then that would be another matter. I agree with my
friends: the response is important. But in this case, because the
response is spread out over 2 years, you have plenty of time. And this
is a relatively modest amount of money. This isn't like an $80 billion
expenditure that we had for Hurricane Sandy. We can do this in a
thoughtful and prudent way and avoid the debt that is associated with
emergency spending.
We want to continue to work with the administration. We have
demonstrated in the past that we are willing to fund NIH and CDC above
administration-recommended levels. We responded quickly during the
Ebola emergency. We think this is the appropriate way to go.
The Senate is moving a vehicle, as we all know. At some point, if we
pass this--and I think we will--we will sit down with our friends, and
we will hammer out a common response. But, again, do remember that
nothing is not being done for lack of money. Everything the
administration has wanted to do to date, it has had the resources to
do. And we will continue to make sure that it does.
At the end of the day, we think they ought to be paid for, since we
have the ability to do that. And that is what we are trying to
accomplish: keep debt off the back of the American taxpayer, if we
possibly can. In this case, we can and we should.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, before yielding to my good friend from Texas, I include
in the Record a letter from the White House over the signature of Shaun
Donovan, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Susan
Rice, National Security Adviser, directed to the Speaker of the House,
Paul D. Ryan, on April 26, 2016.
The White House,
Washington, DC, April 26, 2016.
Hon. Paul D. Ryan,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan: As you are aware, on February 22, the
Administration transmitted to Congress its formal request for
$1.9 billion in emergency supplemental funding to address the
public health threat posed by the Zika virus. Sixty-four days
have passed since this initial request; yet still Congress
has not acted.
Since the time the Administration transmitted its request,
the public health threat posed by the Zika virus has
increased. After careful review of existing evidence,
scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) concluded that the Zika virus is a cause of
microcephaly and other severe fetal brain defects. The Zika
virus has spread in Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the U.S.
Virgin Islands and abroad. As of April 20, there were 891
confirmed Zika cases in the continental United States and
U.S. territories, including 81 pregnant women with confirmed
cases of Zika. Based on similar experiences with other
diseases transmitted by the Aedes aegypti mosquito--believed
to be the primary carrier of the Zika virus--scientists at
the CDC expect there could be local transmission within the
continental U.S. in the summer months. Updated estimate range
maps show that these mosquitoes have been found in cities as
far north as San Francisco, Kansas City and New York City.
In the absence of action from Congress to address the Zika
virus, the Administration has taken concrete and aggressive
steps to help keep America safe from this growing public
health threat. The Administration is working closely with
State and local governments to prepare for outbreaks in the
continental United States and to respond to the current
outbreak in Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories. We are
expanding mosquito control surveillance and laboratory
capacity; developing improved diagnostics as well as
vaccines; supporting affected expectant mothers, and
supporting other Zika response efforts in Puerto Rico, the
U.S. territories, the continental United States, and abroad.
These efforts are crucial, but they are costly and they fall
well outside of current agency appropriations. To meet these
immediate needs, the Administration conducted a careful
examination of existing Ebola balances and identified $510
million to redirect towards Zika response activities. We have
also redirected an additional $79 million from other
activities. This reprogramming, while necessary, is not
without cost. It is particularly painful at a time when state
and local public health departments are already strained.
While this immediate infusion of resources is necessary to
enable the Administration to take critical first steps in our
response to the public health threat posed by Zika, it is
insufficient. Without significant additional appropriations
this summer, the Nation's efforts to comprehensively respond
to the disease will be severely undermined. In particular,
the Administration may need to suspend crucial activities,
such as mosquito control and surveillance in the absence of
emergency supplemental funding. State and local governments
that manage mosquito control and response operations will not
be able to hire needed responders to engage in mosquito
mitigation efforts. Additionally, the Administration's
ability to move to the next phase of vaccine development,
which requires multi-year commitments from the Government to
encourage the private sector to prioritize Zika research and
development, could be jeopardized. Without emergency
supplemental funding, the development of faster and more
accurate diagnostic tests also will be impeded. The
Administration may not be able to conduct follow up of
children born to pregnant women with Zika to better
understand the range of Zika impacts, particularly those
health effects that are not evident at birth. The
supplemental request is also needed to replenish the amounts
that we are now spending from our Ebola accounts to fund
Zika-related activities. This will ensure we have sufficient
contingency funds to address unanticipated needs related to
both Zika and Ebola. As we have seen with both Ebola and
Zika, there are still many unknowns about the science and
scale of the outbreak and how it will impact mothers, babies,
and health systems domestically and abroad.
The Administration is pleased to learn that there is
bipartisan support for providing emergency funding to address
the Zika crisis, but we remain concerned about the adequacy
and speed of this response. To properly protect the American
public, and in particular pregnant women and their newborns,
Congress must fund the Administration's request of $1.9
billion and find a path forward to address this public health
emergency immediately. The American people deserve action
now. With the summer months fast approaching, we continue to
believe that the Zika supplemental should not be considered
as part of the regular appropriations process, as it relates
to funding we must receive this year in order to most
effectively prepare for and mitigate the impact of the virus.
We urge you to pass free-standing emergency supplemental
funding legislation at the level requested by the
Administration before Congress leaves town for the Memorial
Day recess. We look forward to working with you to protect
the safety and health of all Americans.
Sincerely,
Shaun Donovan,
Director, The Office of Management and Budget.
Susan Rice,
National Security Advisor.
Mr. HASTINGS. Excerpting from that letter a portion of the first
paragraph on the second page, let me read what is said, in partial
response to my good friend from Oklahoma:
``Without significant additional appropriations this summer, the
Nation's efforts to comprehensively respond to the disease will be
severely undermined. In particular, the administration may need to
suspend crucial activities, such as mosquito control and surveillance,
in the absence of emergency supplemental funding.
``State and local governments that manage mosquito control and
response operations will not be able to hire needed responders to
engage in mosquito mitigation efforts. Additionally, the
administration's ability to move to the next phase of vaccine
development, which requires multiyear commitments from the government
to encourage the private sector to prioritize Zika research and
development, could be jeopardized.
``Without emergency supplemental funding, the development of faster
and more accurate diagnostic tests also will be impeded. The
administration may not be able to conduct followup of children born to
pregnant women with
[[Page H2718]]
Zika to better understand the range of Zika impacts, particularly those
health effects that are not evident at birth.
``The supplemental request is also needed to replenish the amounts
that we are now spending from our Ebola accounts to fund Zika-related
activities. This will ensure we have sufficient contingency funds to
address unanticipated needs related to both Zika and Ebola. As we have
seen with both Ebola and Zika, there are still many unknowns about the
science and scale of the outbreak and how it will impact mothers,
babies, and health systems domestically and abroad.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al
Green), my good friend.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned. I am concerned
because, while the mosquito is not the unbeatable foe, it is the
deadliest living organism on the Earth. The deadliest life form is the
mosquito.
Annually, the mosquito kills 1 million humans, mostly from malaria, I
must tell you, but I must tell you that they also kill by way of the
West Nile virus. In Houston, Texas, we have had people contract the
West Nile virus. We have people die. I would also mention that they are
the greatest survivors. They survived the dinosaurs.
We are dealing with a deadly foe. Make no mistake, the size should
not in any way cause us to believe that this is something we can take
as less than a deadly enemy that we have to confront.
The World Health Organization has indicated that there may be as many
as 4 million cases of the Zika virus from Zika-carrying mosquitoes in
the Americas. As of February 1, we had seven confirmed cases in
Houston, Texas.
It appears, from what I have read, that standing water activates
them. It appears that rain can activate these mosquitos. If this is
true, in Houston, Texas, given that we have just had the so-called tax
day flood and because we are still being inundated with rain quite
regularly--an 80 percent chance of rain today in Houston, an 80 percent
chance tomorrow--it appears that we have the makings of a special
problem in Houston, Texas.
So, I am gravely concerned. I hope that we do all that we can to make
sure that we get the necessary equipment and the necessary funding so
that this enemy can be confronted properly.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by actually agreeing with my friends
and, certainly, my good friend from Texas. He is right about the danger
that we are dealing with. My friend from Florida is certainly right
about the severity of this. I think where they are wrong is the
suggestion that nothing has been done; $600 million has been deployed.
This bill is actually a response to the very letter that my good
friend from Florida read. This does provide the next third of the
requested money by the administration. And, frankly, the bill extends
this into next year to address the concerns my friend expressed about
having a multiyear commitment.
The money in here for the National Institutes of Health, which is the
lead agency in developing vaccine and diagnostics, is fully funded for
what they have asked to be funded for next year. So this actually does
that.
Now, we will have an additional bill through committee in June where
we will provide additional resources for the CDC for next year and
whatever other things needed.
The total spending here on both sides is about the same. It is being
deployed right now. This is a response to some of the concerns. What
concerns my friends, I think, is they would just prefer not to pay for
it. They would just prefer to add it to the national debt. Well, gosh,
that is a great thing to do, but that is probably how we ended up with
a deficit of over half a billion dollars for FY 2017 and a national
debt of over $19 trillion.
If this were something that we couldn't handle any other way--that we
only had an emergency--I would agree with my friends. I did that when
we had the Sandy relief. There was no other way for something that
large. That is not the case here. This is $1.9 billion. Most of that
money is coming out of the Labor-HHS bill, which, by the way, spends
$163 billion a year.
If you can't fund $1.9 billion spaced over 2 years in a bill that
provides in that period of time around $320 billion, you are just not
trying.
This is all about being able to spend someplace else. And, again, not
one thing has not been done. Everything that anybody in the Federal
Government has wanted to do, they have been able to do. In addition,
the Ebola money is not just the Ebola money; it is Ebola and other
infectious diseases. That is what it was there for. It was not just
meant to be spent only on Ebola.
Even after the $600 million, even after the money that is offset in
this bill, which is roughly at $350 million, that fund still will have
almost $2 billion in it that can deploy any way against infectious
diseases that the administration says it needs, and it has the
commitment of Appropriations, which has demonstrated again and again
that it will do this: If you run short in this area, we will backfill.
That is why we have appropriations bills moving now. We can take care
of you. But we can do it within the budget limits negotiated with the
administration. That is prudent management of the money.
So, given the track record here, both in responding on Ebola and
putting more money in the NIH and the Centers for Disease Control than
the administration expected and now moving quickly to be helpful here,
I think we have either a misunderstanding or a manufactured crisis.
There is no crisis. There is a real challenge, and money needs to
move toward it now. That is exactly what we have done. That is exactly
what we are doing in this bill. That is exactly what we will do in the
appropriations bills that will be presented in Congress as the
appropriations season progresses.
With that, I want to reassure my friend that the resources will be
there. They have been there thus far. They will continue to be there.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett), my good friend.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the indifference by some in this Congress
to a looming public health crisis is truly stunning.
This Republican bill cuts the emergency funding request for the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by 80 percent. That is $4
out of every $5 it asks for that will be eliminated.
The Zika virus is a terrible virus. It eats away at the brain of a
fetus and results in a family tragedy of a child who is born with very
severe birth defects. It will require costly lifetime care.
{time} 1315
Zika can be sexually transmitted, and it has spread to many parts of
Texas. We have Texas-tough mosquitoes, and the season is just beginning
there. We are on the cusp of an epidemic spreading across our region;
meanwhile, the Republicans are refusing to provide the resources to
prevent it.
Now, I appreciate the very reassuring words that we have been hearing
here, but just this morning I sat down and met with the Director of the
Centers for Disease Control, Dr. Tom Frieden, and I asked him: What
difference does it make that $4 out of every $5 you have asked for are
being cut?
He said in our discussion: If this Republican bill is approved to
deny this vital CDC and NIH funding, we will not be able to develop the
tools to diagnose the virus, combat the mosquitoes, and develop a safe
and effective vaccine against it.
He said: We cannot monitor all of those who are being infected, have
already been infected, and the neighbors around them that another
mosquito bite might transmit the virus to them.
He said: We cannot get back to Texas and other States' general
emergency preparedness funds that we have taken away in order to try to
fight the Zika virus.
To do the job effectively, this Administration needs more than four
months of temporary funding. It needs long-term contracting authority
to get at this crisis and to prevent it.
I think that disease control and prevention represents some of our
best and most effective investments in health. We can save a lifetime
of suffering to so many families, and we can save millions of dollars
of public and private monies that these children
[[Page H2719]]
born with severe birth defects will have.
The gentleman is correct that the Republican Senate is considering
this matter. In fact, it not only considered it, but, finally,
yesterday it approved legislation that offers almost twice as much in
the way of resources to address this crisis as the bill the gentleman
is promoting today includes.
I say let's join together and reject this rule--reject it, and demand
that the Republican leadership respond with the funding necessary to
protect families across America from an emerging Zika tragedy.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to always recognize my good friend from Texas, who is really
one of my good friends in this body.
But I am not surprised that the Senate bill is twice as much money
because it runs for twice the time. This bill runs to September 30th.
The Senate bill runs until September 30, 2017, so they are not
materially that different.
What we have said is we would deal with next year's problem in the
appropriations process for this year.
Now, again, I know my friend's concern is legitimate. I do. I don't
have any doubt about it. But I point out one more time, $600 million
has been appropriated or has been made available. This is an additional
$600 million. This $1.2 billion for the time of this fiscal year is
actually more than the administration had planned to spend in this
period. It reaches into next year, but they will have it available for
this year if they need it.
They have another nearly $2 billion in Ebola/other infectious
diseases money, and they have the assurance that additional things are
coming.
The only difference here is, are you going to pay for it? Or are you
just going to add it to the national credit card, another $2 billion,
roughly, on the national debt, when you have the resources and the time
available to operate within the appropriation system?
So this debate, as I have said repeatedly, isn't about Zika. It is
about whether you pay to deal with Zika, or whether you would just like
to do whatever you want to do and forget about paying for it.
Unfortunately, we don't have that luxury indefinitely. So this is a
responsible, well-thought-through measure. It is fully paid for.
Nobody is short of resources, nobody will be short of resources. The
money is available to do whatever the administration wants to do. It is
well aware of that fact. And these are additional resources deployed
here, with the assurance of other resources that will be deployed
during the course of the normal appropriations process.
So I fail to see, when the amount of money is essentially the same on
both sides over essentially the same period, why we keep going back and
acting as if this $600 million is all there is. There is another 600
that has already been spent. There is more coming. It is coming in a
regular way.
The only thing that upsets my friends on the other side is it is
being paid for. I mean, how outrageous: we are actually going to pay
for a government activity that is important for us to accomplish, with
the assurance that if more is needed, more will be made available.
Mr. Speaker, that is the simple difference here, despite all the
discussion about the disease, about readiness, is who is willing to pay
for what needs to be done and who, frankly, would just prefer to put on
it the national credit card.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), my very good friend.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Members, I thank my colleague
from the Committee on Rules and my classmate for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and to H.R.
5243.
The last three Democratic speakers are from Texas. The Southeastern
States are ground zero for Zika and other diseases. It is the first
known vector-borne disease to cause microcephaly and other severe fetal
brain defects.
Our knowledge of the disease and how it is transmitted and its
complications have evolved rapidly since the epidemic began, but there
is still a lot unknown. We do not have rapid diagnostic tests or an
effective vaccine against this virus.
The mosquito vector is actively present in several parts of the
United States, including Houston and the Southern States. Current
vector control efforts are uncoordinated and inadequate.
Cases of Zika are being introduced frequently by returning travelers,
and mosquito season is rapidly approaching our community.
As of May 11, there were more than 1,200 confirmed Zika cases in the
continental U.S. and U.S. territories. Robust action is required to
protect Americans, and this bill falls dramatically short of the
response this epidemic demands.
H.R. 5243 only provides a third of the funds necessary to respond to
a Zika outbreak and, even worse, a large portion of the funding is
taken from money Congress has appropriated to respond to the Ebola
crisis. We are taking money away from researching Ebola cures to put on
Zika. Ebola will not go away. We cannot rob Peter to pay Paul.
My good friend from Oklahoma, I know in 2003, we sent legislators up
to his district. I hope in Texas we don't send mosquitos up to his
district, because that could happen.
Congress has a constitutional and moral duty to protect the health
and welfare of our country. I am saddened to say this bill fails to
uphold our responsibilities to the American people.
Crises of this magnitude demand robust, multi-year investments in our
public health infrastructure, vaccine, diagnostic development, and
transmission control.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Funding to fight the Zika virus must be
treated as an emergency that is similar to past emergencies, like Ebola
and H1N1 viruses. It should not be offset or use previously
appropriated funds for other public health priorities. Doing so will
only continue the broken cycle of lurching from outbreak to outbreak.
Even worse, this bill only funds the Department of Health and Human
Services' response until September 30. Mosquitos don't follow our
fiscal year. This threat is real, immediate, and grave.
On behalf of American families, mothers, and the next generation, we
must do better.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and bring meaningful
legislation to the floor that adequately and responsibly funds our
response to the Zika virus.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My good friend, Mr. Gene Green--and he is my good friend--as I
recall, those Texas legislators were called the Killer Bees. And if you
want to compare them to mosquitos, I will leave you that luxury and
that political risk. We just call Texas legislators welcome guests. So
they are welcome to come any time.
In terms of the point, though, I think I agree with much of what you
say, other than the last part of what you said about adequately,
responsibly funding. That is exactly what we are doing.
The total amount of money here we are talking about, my friends keep
forgetting about this $600 million that has already been deployed, and
they keep suggesting that this is like only Ebola money.
That is not the way the legislation is written. It is written for
Ebola and other infectious diseases. In other words, we are using that
money exactly the way we are supposed to use it, not shortchanging
anybody.
If we need money later--because this is money that is to be spent
over multiple years--we will come back and put it in. But that money,
frankly, if it had not been available, there would not have been an
immediate response possible. It was available, so it is being used in
the appropriate way.
This is the next third. So when we hear this talk about only a third
of what the administration requested, we have already done a third. We
are getting ready to do the next third, and we are telling you, in
bills that are coming
[[Page H2720]]
to the floor, both State and foreign ops, and Labor-HHS, that there
will be additional money that will essentially total about what the
administration has asked to spend.
We recognize that these things do develop, do change. Our
understanding of them changes over time. This is actually a thoughtful
way to do this. But the assurance has been made: if you need more
money, then you have got it. We will work with you. We will find a way
to do it. Our assistance is, if we can pay for it, then we do pay for
it; and that is exactly what we do in this bill.
We hear comparisons, erroneous comparisons, you are only doing half
as much as the Republicans in the Senate. No. We are doing it through
September 30 of this year. They are doing it through September 30 of
next year. The amounts are essentially about the same.
The difference, then, is also the same, frankly, with all due respect
to my friends in the Senate, we are offsetting and paying for this. And
that just seems, to us, the prudent way to do it, not to put more debt
on the back of the American taxpayer when you don't have to.
If we had some emergency that called for hundreds of billions of
dollars or something of that nature, that would be different. That is
not what we are dealing with here.
Now, I have a lot of respect for my friend's concerns, but the
chairman of our committee actually led a delegation to South America
partially on this issue recently. I happened to have the privilege of
going along with Chairman Rogers.
We stopped in Peru, where there is a Naval research station we have
operated for decades. It normally focuses on tropical diseases--we have
a lot of issues with that when our military is deployed in those
areas--but it is working around the clock on Zika and is doing some
great work.
Then we went to Brazil, which is really the epicenter of this
outbreak; sat down and talked with the Centers for Disease Control
people on the ground, which we did; talked with the Brazilian
government, which we did; saw, as Brazil was deploying literally
hundreds of thousands, 220,000 of its own military personnel, to go
door to door.
So I think probably Chairman Rogers has as good a grasp, with all due
respect, as anybody in this body on what is being done, what needs to
be done, and how to proceed.
At every step along the way, he has shown that resources are going to
be made available. They have been, but they are being made available in
a responsible, prudent way, with appropriate oversight, in a timely
manner, but in a manner which is offset and paid for.
That is what I think the American people want us to do: take care of
what is important, do it right, do it responsibly, and pay for it if
you have the funds available before you automatically add it to the
credit card that our kids and grandkids are going to someday have to
pay off.
So we will continue to work with our friends. We will work with our
colleagues in the Senate. But to suggest for 1 minute that the Federal
Government doesn't have the resources it needs, when it has much more
than it has asked sitting still unobligated in funds, is just simply
not the case. It has the money it needs. It is getting the resources in
the right way. We are simply paying for them.
I know that is hard for some of my friends to accept, but it is
actually the appropriate way to proceed. We actually should do more of
this in this body rather than less.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it has become clear that the Republican leadership has
either abdicated its authority to govern to the far right of its party,
or never had the wherewithal to do so in the first place.
{time} 1330
Either way, the American people are tired of this majority's
inability to address the issues facing our country.
During the 114th Congress, Republicans have brought to the floor
bills with absolutely no hope of becoming law, strictly partisan
measures that were more messaging bills than serious legislative
proposals. We saw it a couple of weeks ago with a string of bills
attacking the Internal Revenue Service to score political points during
tax day.
None of that is going to become law. We have seen it with bills to
weaken environmental protections or to limit a woman's right to choose.
Now we see it with a bill that the President has threatened to veto
because Republicans have included ideological riders. The majority
seems to be more focused on scoring political points than actually
getting to the business of governing.
Our friends on the other side of the aisle attempt to merely swat
away the looming public health crisis posed by the Zika virus. This
approach is as lacking in leadership as it is callous. I can guarantee
you that the mosquitos carrying the Zika virus do not care if you are a
Democrat or a Republican. They do not care if the money used to stop
them is offset. But I can promise my Republican friends, pinching
pennies on basic investments to address a public health emergency will
inevitably heighten costs--in dollars and lives--down the road.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to thank, as always, my
good friend from Florida. He is truly a delight to work with, one of
the really great Members in this body. Not surprisingly, he knows I
disagree with him on his characterization of the current Congress,
because saying that we haven't done anything is forgetting what has
actually happened.
This is the first Congress to pass a multiyear highway bill since
2005 and the first one to overhaul common education since 2002. Last
week, we had opioid legislation on this floor that we all know is
critical and is certainly going to come into law, and it will be
funded. We had the first real human trafficking bill; an overhaul of
the Veterans Administration; a budget agreement that meant we had no
closures and no debt crisis; more funding for the National Institutes
of Health--it has been one of the central issues in this debate--than
the President asked for last year, more new funding; and the same thing
for the Centers for Disease Control. So I actually argue it has been a
pretty productive Congress in many, many ways.
In terms of Zika, though, let's again get back and just clarify
things. The President asked for $1.9 billion in emergency funding. The
chairman of the Appropriations Committee immediately said: You have got
plenty of money. Use whatever you want; $600 million of that was used.
If you need that replenished, we will replenish that in the normal
course of appropriations.
He now brings to the floor a bill that carries the next third of the
funding that the administration has asked for, fully offset, money that
is more than they expect to spend from now until September 30. Some of
that money is available into next year, certainly the money that the
NIH would need for diagnostics and vaccines. We will bring to the floor
the rest of it.
So the only thing that we really differ on is should we pay for this
major effort or not when we have the resources. We have the resources.
Ours is paid for. The administration's proposal is not. It is just that
simple. Do you just want to add $1.9 billion, or do you want to
responsibly work the problem?
This committee, the Appropriations Committee, has been at the
forefront of responding to this every step along the way. It will
continue to do so. We will work with our friends.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, the Constitution gives the Congress the
power of the purse. Article I, section 9 gives that authority to
Congress. While the President has every right and duty to submit a
supplemental appropriations request, it is the duty of Congress to
examine that request and provide for the funds and conditions it feels
appropriate to execute them. That is exactly what we have done on Zika,
and that is exactly what we have done on MILCON-VA.
With that in mind, I would encourage my friends to support the rule
and the underlying legislation.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:
[[Page H2721]]
An amendment to H. Res. 736 Offered by Mr. Hastings
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
5044) making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2016
to respond to Zika virus. The first reading of the bill shall
be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration
of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to
the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Appropriations and the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Budget. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and
reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then
on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately
after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of
rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XLX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 5044.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . . [and] has
no substantive legislative or policy implications
whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said.
Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative
Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th
edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the
previous question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is
generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority
Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . . When
the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of
the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to
ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then
controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or
yield for the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________