[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.

                          ____________________