[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4904-4906]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McCarthy) for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the 
schedule for the week to come.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, on Monday, no votes are expected in the House. On 
Tuesday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and 2 p.m. for 
legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On 
Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour 
and noon for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 
9:00 a.m. for legislative business.
  Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of suspensions next 
week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business 
tomorrow.
  Mr. Speaker, the House will also consider H.R. 4498, the Helping 
Angels Lead Our Startups Act, sponsored by Representative Steve Chabot. 
This bill extends the role of angel investing in assisting start-up 
businesses to acquire the financing needed to grow, innovate, and 
create jobs.
  The House will also consider H.R. 4901, the Scholarship for 
Opportunity and Results Reauthorization Act, sponsored by 
Representative Jason Chaffetz. This bill is essential to improving 
education outcomes for low-income students in the District of Columbia.
  Mr. Speaker, the House will consider H.J. Res. 88, sponsored by 
Representative Phil Roe, which disapproves of the rules submitted by 
the Department of Labor relating to the definition of the term 
``fiduciary.'' This ill-advised rule will result in thousands of 
individuals being dropped by their financial advisers and unable to 
receive sound financial advice.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information as 
to the schedule. As I am sure he knows, I will want to ask him some 
questions about things that are not yet scheduled and, of course, the 
next week we will take a recess.

                              {time}  1130

  As the gentleman knows, the budget was passed out of the Budget 
Committee last month. We understand, of course, obviously, the 
Appropriations Committee is proceeding to mark up bills notwithstanding 
the fact that the budget has not been passed.
  We are not sure exactly what the allocations for each subcommittee 
are going to be because, apparently, there has been no 302(b) 
allocation, which is the allocation to the 12 subcommittees.
  It is going to be hard for us to tell exactly how much money is left 
if, in fact, appropriations bills are brought to the floor without 
knowing fully the distribution of funds for both defense and domestic 
priorities.
  First, let me ask the gentleman: Does the gentleman expect the budget 
to be brought to the floor prior to the bringing of appropriations 
bills to the floor?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  We will continue to work through the budget process, and I will 
update the Members once there is more information.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for the depth of that information.
  We do have a serious problem. And I want to tell my friend, the 
majority leader, as someone who had served on the Appropriations 
Committee for 23

[[Page 4905]]

years, obviously, one of the important facts to know is how much will 
be allocated for each one of the 12 subcommittees so you can make 
judgments, as bills come to the floor or as they come to full 
committee, about whether the funding levels for those are appropriate 
or whether there ought to be other priorities that ought to be brought 
to the floor.
  I appreciate the gentleman's response. I know that the Speaker has 
indicated that doing a budget is absolutely the responsible thing to 
do, that that is the regular order to do, and I know the budget has 
passed out of the committee. So I am wondering: What is holding the 
budget up, Mr. Leader? Why aren't we considering it?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding and asking again.
  As for the schedule, we are not scheduled for next week. We continue 
to work through. We think the budget is very important. When we have it 
scheduled, I will notify.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman, I suppose, for that additional 
information.
  Of course, it goes without saying that it is not scheduled next week, 
and we still don't have the knowledge that I think is necessary for us 
to have before you bring the appropriations bills to the floor. In 
having said that, I understand the gentleman's answer.
  There are three items that I have brought up before, Mr. Leader, that 
we think are critical items to be brought sooner rather than later that 
we need to deal with.
  First, I want to reiterate what I said last week. I appreciate the 
majority leader's and I appreciate the Speaker's action and the 
chairman of the committee, Mr. Bishop, in working with Treasury and 
with our side of the aisle to try to get a bill that we can agree on--
that can enjoy bipartisan support--that will address the crisis that 
confronts the American citizens who live in Puerto Rico.
  I also want to thank the gentleman--we had a meeting in his office--
in that he and I shared the view that we ought to have a bill that is 
simple and straightforward so that we can forge a bipartisan agreement 
and get this bill done.
  The Speaker has set May 1 as the deadline. It would appear that we 
are not going to meet that deadline. And we did not meet the March 31 
deadline. But I know we had a meeting yesterday with our staffs. It was 
a positive meeting, and I hope it will lead to a productive meeting as 
well.
  I would like to yield to my friend to see if the gentleman has any 
comments about where we stand on our moving forward on a bill to 
address the fiscal crisis in Puerto Rico.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Yes, the gentleman is correct in that we have been working together, 
especially with the Natural Resources Committee, on the proposal.
  I appreciate the gentleman's commitment as well in making sure that 
we produce a bill that has solid financial footing and no financial 
bailout, which the work we are doing right now does not.
  As the gentleman knows, the discussions are ongoing, and part of the 
challenge of finishing it is the Treasury Department. The Treasury 
Department still had some concerns.
  I know there were some meetings this week, and I know there were 
Members on your side of the aisle who did not feel comfortable in 
moving forward until the Treasury Department had finished some of those 
negotiations.
  But we look forward to getting the bill finished and moving it 
forward on a bipartisan basis, a bill that has no bailout, but that 
meets the needs with what is going on in Puerto Rico.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  I would reiterate what he and I both stated last week, which is that, 
clearly, this is not a bailout. There is no money contemplated that is 
going to Puerto Rico, and there is no extension of U.S. credit backing 
from the United States to Puerto Rico.
  What it is, as the gentleman knows, is just setting up a process for 
a restructuring of debt that everyone knows cannot be paid, and there 
needs to be some sort of rational way that Puerto Rico can work itself 
to both repay that which it can repay while, at the same time, maintain 
the absolutely essential services of education, health care, and public 
safety for the American citizens who live in Puerto Rico. So I would 
hope that we would continue to work on that.
  Again, the majority leader's staff and my staff, Treasury, and Mr. 
Bishop's staff, the leader's staff and Mr. Ryan's staff all have been 
working towards that end, and I appreciate that.
  But I think we all feel a sense of urgency. Even if we could work it 
out over the weekend or before we end next week, if we could bring it 
to the floor next week, if we had an agreement, I think that would be a 
good thing for us to do. I don't know whether it is possible--I hope it 
is possible--but I look forward to working with the majority leader 
towards that end.
  There are two other items, as you know, that I have mentioned in the 
past.
  Zika. There was a very compelling editorial in The Washington Post 
today about Zika. The administration has asked for $1.9 billion to 
address that crisis, which, clearly, almost every week, the CDC says is 
a growing one, with more exposure, with more of the United States' 
mainland being implicated as being at risk.
  In addition to that, of course, Ebola continues to be a continuing 
health challenge both in Africa and in this country, but mainly in 
Africa. As you know, we appropriated money.
  Mr. Rogers and the Appropriations Committee and the gentleman said: 
Look, we can take some of that money and move it over to the Zika 
effort.
  The problem with that, Mr. Leader, as I think you have heard me say 
before, is that Ebola continues to be a crisis.
  Is there any expectation that we could bring a supplemental 
appropriations bill for this emergency that confronts the health of our 
people here, in Puerto Rico, in the Caribbean, and, frankly, in other 
parts of the world? Is there any chance of bringing a supplemental to 
the floor to address both of those?
  In addition, Flint continues to be on bottled water because they have 
not yet been provided with a water system that works for their people.
  So those three items, in addition to Puerto Rico, I think are 
compelling, timely issues for us to address.
  Will the gentleman give me any additional information as to when that 
might occur?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to take the opportunity to thank the gentleman for working 
with us on Zika.
  As he knows, I approached him early on to make sure we dealt with 
this in a bipartisan manner. As to any threat, we want to make sure it 
is not a partisan issue.
  As the gentleman knows, there was somewhere around $2 billion in 
unobligated Ebola money. One of the ideas, especially when the 
administration had requested money, was to have time to go through and 
ask the question, and many of those questions have not been answered 
yet.
  We wanted to make sure no funding problems would happen. We are proud 
of the administration for its being able to take our idea and move 
almost $600 million into Zika as we go forward. That will take us quite 
a ways into this fiscal year.
  We are continuing to look at and to ask questions. I have a whole 
list here of questions that have been asked from a standpoint of an 
updated spending plan from HHS, which still hasn't been planned, of 
where they go, of what activities will the funds carry out, of how much 
funding do the agencies anticipate needing in 2016.
  I mean, as the gentleman knows, never should we write a blank check, 
but never should we turn a blind eye to a problem. I am proud of the 
fact that we have not and that we have responsibly made sure that close 
to $600 million is used right now.
  We have asked the questions of what we need to go forward. I know the 
Appropriations Committee is continuing

[[Page 4906]]

to work on that. We have the appropriations process going through, and 
that will probably be the ideal time to deal with it and anything going 
any further because we would have the questions answered and the 
ability to fund it.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Let me make a couple of observations.
  I hear there is some discussion about the appropriations process. As 
the gentleman well knows, the appropriations process hasn't done too 
well lately.
  Forgetting about who is to blame or who is not to blame, the 
appropriations process, essentially, has not worked, as the gentleman 
knows. Of course, last year, as we had done the year before, we passed 
an omnibus and didn't pass the appropriations bills.
  My view is we have an emergency. It is doubtful that appropriations 
bills are going to get done in time. My own supposition is we are going 
to have a CR in September.
  We have, really, 40 days left between now, I think, and the August 
break of legislative days. It is going to be problematic, at best, to 
get appropriations bills done by October 1, much less to respond to an 
emergency, which is why we believe that a supplemental, really, is 
called for.
  We have two emergencies that are ongoing and a third in Flint, 
Michigan, and we believe that we ought to respond to those long before 
the possibility, much less the probability, of the appropriations bills 
passing this House, the Senate, and being signed by the President.
  Does the gentleman have any thoughts on that? Because, if you are 
contemplating an appropriations process, Mr. Leader, with all due 
respect, past history would tell us, over the last few years--again, 
forgetting about who is to blame for it--the appropriations process 
does not get done in a timely fashion.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As the gentleman knows, the Appropriations Committee has already 
marked up three bills. The gentleman having served on Appropriations, 
he also understands that that is where you get a lot of questions 
answered, that that is where you get a lot of the good information from 
both sides of the aisle.
  There is close to $600 million for Zika right now. I have the same 
concern that you have. That is why I am telling the administration and 
the agencies that it would be very helpful if they would answer the 
questions needed.
  Where would this money go? There are so many from the perspective of: 
Is Ebola no longer a public health risk? You have $2 billion, 
unobligated, sitting in there that we could use.
  If we want to solve the Zika problem, I think we should all work 
together. I am looking for the administration to answer some questions. 
I think that is the most responsible way to go about solving this 
problem.
  I haven't given up on the appropriations process. I think it is a 
perfect opportunity, and I would think, for Members on both sides of 
the aisle, maybe it would give them a little incentive, in knowing the 
challenges that are out there for the American public, that this is the 
process that was created. And we could all have input.
  One thing that we know, since this majority has taken over, is that 
we have an open process in appropriations as well; so, anybody can 
offer an amendment. I think that would be the best place to deal with 
this.
  I do have a very personal compassion in talking about water. I know 
the situation that happened in Flint. I have lived with water problems 
in California for quite some time. For the last three Congresses, I 
have fought very hard to solve that for California.
  Unfortunately, the other Chamber has done nothing. I have kids in the 
Central Valley who do not have water, people who are on bottled water 
they bring in, people who have portable water, where they have to come 
in and bring the tanks.
  We have lived this for quite some time; so, you will find, on this 
side of the aisle, someone who is very compassionate about it and who 
wants to deal with that water issue at the same time as well. I think 
it would be appropriate.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments and for his 
concern, which I think is sincere, about California.
  Let me say to him that I would certainly be open on this side of the 
aisle, as, I am sure, my Members would be, to working with him to 
address those issues.
  It is not a question of Flint, per se, but it is a question of some 
6,000 to 9,000 children who have been exposed immediately, and it is an 
emergency now as they are not able to drink the water; they are 
drinking bottled water.
  My point is not that we ought not to address problems in California 
or, very frankly, in Maryland or in Ohio or in Florida or wherever else 
they may occur in league with the States and municipalities. Obviously, 
this is a partnership, not just our responsibility.

                              {time}  1145

  I would again reiterate, Zika and Ebola are both emergencies that 
need to be dealt with now. I think the gentleman is absolutely correct 
that we ought to know how much is needed, how it is going to be spent, 
and what effect it will have.
  I will tell you that one of my members in the whip meeting this 
morning, Mr. Leader, said that her understanding from her local health 
department was that their efforts with respect to Ebola and other 
infectious diseases are being adversely affected by the fact that that 
$589 million, which didn't just come out of the air, was transferred, 
as you pointed out and as I pointed out, to the Zika response. It was 
money that was--not obligated--planned to be spent in communities and 
in other areas to effect a solution to the challenge that confronts us.
  So it is not just as if that $589 million didn't have a purpose when 
we originally appropriated it. The gentleman supported it and I support 
it, so we allocated that money. I know the Appropriations Committee 
supported it. And I presume, as the gentleman points out, they had 
hearings to know exactly the answers to the questions. But we will work 
with you on getting answers to those questions from the administration.
  We would urge that, within the next few weeks, we have a supplemental 
on the floor, having those questions answered and being confident that 
the money is going to be spent, but knowing full well that people's 
health is at risk in this country. We have an empathy and a concern 
about that and want to respond to it. So I would hope that we could 
move it before the appropriations process because I think, 
unfortunately, the experience is, under all the parties that have been 
in control of this House over the years, that sometimes it happens 
slower than this emergency requires.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________