Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader, for giving us the schedule. (Mr. McCARTHY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. Mr. Speaker, the legislation we will be considering next week, I am sure, has support in a number of quarters. The majority leader mentioned, in the last line, that we will be considering efforts to fund the government, the so-called continuing resolution. Mr. Speaker, as the Speaker knows and the House knows, we have not passed any appropriation bills through the Congress and sent them to the President, nor have we adopted a budget. In the absence of both of those, certainly in the former, we need to have a funding of government passed by September 30th. I ask the majority leader, therefore, Mr. Speaker, if the majority leader has any knowledge of the status of the CR, either in this House moving forward or in the other body. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for that. Let me say that I would hope, given the fact that we have a maximum of eight or nine legislative days left before the end of the fiscal year, end of the September 30 fiscal year, that the CR hopefully will be a document on which we have consensus on all its parts. The majority leader, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, has heard the same kinds of rumors I have heard, which is not unusual, that the Senate may pass a CR and then decide their work, at least prior to the election, is done. If that is the case, or, in any event, whether it is the case or not, and we initiate a bill, it will be critically important that that bill be a bill that can be supported by both sides. So I look forward to working with the majority leader to ensure that when a CR is brought to the floor, either a Senate bill--which will be a House bill amended by the Senate, I presume--or a House bill, that we have agreement, Mr. Majority Leader, on the component parts of that continuing resolution so we do not put at risk the shutting down of the government of the United States. I don't know whether the gentleman wants to respond at all. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. In addition to the CR, which is necessary to fund government, we have a crisis in America, a health crisis. We spent a lot of time talking about it last time. We won't spend a long time, but Zika continues to be a real challenge. We have continuing incidents. The moral and fiscal costs of not addressing this issue are of great magnitude, great seriousness. Can the gentleman tell me whether he believes that sufficient resources to respond to the Zika crisis will be included in the CR or whether it may be a freestanding bill that we could reach consensus on and send to the President? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the majority leader, Mr. Speaker. I would reiterate, Mr. Speaker, the observation that I made last week, that the Senate has, in fact, passed a Zika response with 68 votes. And if the Senate fails to move legislation, the majority leader--and I share his view--hopes it will be included in a continuing resolution. In the event that does not occur, I would urge the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, to consider putting a House bill in which reflects the Senate compromise supported by more than two-thirds of the Senate and a bill which I represented to the majority leader last week--but I want to represent again--I can't say unanimously but overwhelmingly, with well over 180 votes, in my view, we would support. I give that information, Mr. Speaker, to the majority leader so that he will know that in the event we have not responded in the CR that I believe the Senate-passed legislation incorporated into a House bill and brought to the floor can pass on suspension and may well even be able to pass on unanimous consent. I don't know that that is the case, but it certainly could pass on suspension. I would urge him to consider that as an alternative available to us to respond so that we do not have the situation which we had in July of leaving town for 7 weeks without having addressed this crisis that confronts the health of our people. Mr. Speaker, let me indicate that we have a number of other pieces of legislation that I would last like to ask the majority leader about. There are rumors that our schedule is going to be over in the next few weeks. I don't know. The Senate was planning on going presumably to the first week of October. I don't know that they are going to do that. We are planning to go to the end of September. There are a number of other pieces of legislation which I think need to be addressed. We continue to be very concerned about our failure to respond to the Flint crisis. The mayor of Flint was in my office yesterday. They are still drinking bottled water because the water in their pipes that is being delivered to their homes is still unfit for human consumption unless a filter is in place and unless that filter is working efficiently and effectively. We really need to, I think, help on that. With respect to opioids, we passed a piece of legislation that was, Mr. Speaker, a bipartisan piece of legislation. We continue to believe, however, the resources to carry out the policies included in the authorizing bill need to be addressed. Lastly, Mr. Speaker--I mentioned this before--we continue to urge that in light of the scourge of gun violence in America that we take up two bills sponsored by the former chairman, Republican chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security. They are not Democratic bills, although Democrats support the bills and are cosponsors of the bill, but they are Peter King's bills to provide greater safety. First of all, Mr. Speaker, we have adopted the premise that background checks are a good thing. We require background checks. The problem is, we don't require background checks in every instance of a transfer of a weapon from seller to buyer. The problem with that, of course, is if you want to buy a gun for a nefarious purpose, one would assume you are not going to go and have your background checked. You will find some other way to purchase that gun. We would hope that bill would be brought to the floor. The second bill that Mr. King has, of course, seems to us to be a very reasonable piece of legislation, which simply says, if you are judged too dangerous to fly on our airplanes, you ought to be too dangerous as well to buy weapons to injure people in our country; we think you are too dangerous to go on an airplane and that you might injure people in that fashion. I would urge, Mr. Majority Leader, Mr. Speaker, before we leave before the election, two things, that we bring those to the floor and we carry out--and I want to repeat again because I think it is important. Speaker Paul Ryan said on October 29, 2015, just a year ago: ``We will not duck the tough issues; we will take them head on . . . we should not hide our disagreements. We should embrace them. We have nothing to fear from honest disagreements honestly stated.'' Mr. Speaker, I share that view. I think the bills that I have mentioned--Flint, opioids, gun violence, and certainly Zika, and, yes, there are others--ought to be brought to this floor, and the House ought to work its will. I would hope that in the next few days that are available to us that the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, gives careful consideration to bringing those pieces of legislation to the floor. In the gun violence case, the polls reflect that over 85 percent--and in one case over 90 percent--of Americans support those pieces of legislation. They would pass, Mr. Speaker, overwhelmingly. The only reason they haven't passed--the only reason they haven't passed-- contrary to the statement that we will not duck the tough issues, said by Speaker Ryan just about a year ago, the only reason they haven't passed is because they have not been brought to the floor. I would urge, Mr. Speaker, the majority leader consider that.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for taking this Special Order hour. We are all sad and lament the fact that an extraordinary human being was taken from us far too early. I tell my colleagues, this picture says it all: that wonderful, warm, accepting, engaging aloha smile that is represented in this picture of our colleague, Mark Takai. I join my colleagues in celebrating and remembering a life well lived. Though he only served alongside us in this House for a short time, he made a big impact on us all with his kindness, his sincerity, and his intellect. All of us admired the steadfastness with which he fought for his constituents and the courage with which he fought his illness. All of us saw Mark on this floor, determined to serve his constituents for as long as his health allowed him to do so. As was said yesterday, Mark did not greet us with any self-pity or any wringing of hands, but with a positive attitude to the end. I wasn't with him at the very end, but my, how we were blessed to be with him for the short time that we had him. What an example he set for all of us to overcome adversity and welcome opportunities rather than focusing on that which he could not do. Not only was Mark an outstanding Member of Congress, he was, as has been said by his fellow officer, a warrior willing to serve, to risk, and to save this great country, its democracy, and its people. As a lieutenant colonel in the Hawaii Army National Guard, he deployed on Active Duty to Kuwait in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He earned the Army's Meritorious Service Medal for his achievements there. We all are standing here to speak of the meritorious service he gave right here. Yes, on the battlefield; yes, at the point of the spear; but right here as well. He drew on his experience in the Army as a veteran when he served as chairman of the House Committee on Veterans, Military, and International Affairs in the Hawaii legislature, and later as a member of the House Committee on Armed Services here in Congress. A proud native of Hawaii, Mark dedicated his life and career to the people of his beloved State. He was elected to the Hawaii House of Representatives at the age of 27. I can empathize with that because I was elected to the Maryland State Senate at the age of 27. We talked about that. Some have entered earlier, but that was pretty early. It gave us a great opportunity to serve. Mark believed strongly that every child deserves a chance to learn in a safe and nurturing environment. In my own State, there are 52 Judy Centers named after my late wife, who died almost 20 years ago, that serve 3-and 4-year-old children. Mark had that same kind of compassion and concern and focus on making sure that young people received all that we could give them early in life so that they could succeed later in life, as Mark Takai did so extraordinarily. I have other words that I will submit for the Record because there are so many of my colleagues who want to speak about Mark and their relationship to him, their respect for him, their love for him, and his love for us. I thank Congresswoman Gabbard for taking this hour, and I thank her for being such an example. Both of you define aloha. God bless. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues today in remembering the life of our friend, Representative Mark Takai, who lost his battle against cancer in July. Though he only served alongside us in this House for a short time, he made a big impact on us all with his kindness, his sincerity, and his intellect. All of us admired the steadfastness with which he fought for his constituents and the courage with which he fought his illness. Not only was Mark an outstanding member of Congress, he also served our nation in uniform. As a lieutenant colonel in the Hawaii Army National Guard, he deployed on active duty to Kuwait in support of operation Iraqi Freedom, and he earned the Army's Meritorious Service Medal for his achievements there. He drew on his experiences in the Army and as a veteran when he served as chairman of the House Committee on Veterans, Military, and International Affairs in the Hawaii Legislature and later as a member of the House Committee on Armed Services here in Congress. A proud native of Hawaii, Mark dedicated his life and career to the people of his beloved state. Elected to the Hawaii House of Representatives at the age of twenty- seven, he spent two decades working hard to improve lives, strengthen communities, and bring jobs and opportunity to Hawaii. He championed education and fought for better schools. Mark believed strongly that every child deserves a chance to learn in a safe and nurturing environment. He stood up for Hawaii's veterans and worked to combat homelessness among those who were coming home from war. Concerned about the dangers of climate change and rising sea levels, Mark did more than just support green energy through tax credits; he outfitted his own house with solar panels and drove an electric vehicle to show others how easy it is to live sustainably. When Mark ran for Congress in 2014 and won, all of us believed he would be making a difference here in Washington for many, many years ahead. He was one of those who loved being a legislator, who had the experience and talent to get things done in Congress. All of us are deeply saddened that our country lost Mark at such a young age, with surely many great achievements ahead. Losing a colleague is always difficult, but with Mark Takai it was more than that--we lost someone who had quickly become our friend, someone as warm as he was dependable, as jovial as he was wise. My thoughts continue to be with Mark's wife Sami and their two children, Matthew and Kaila. My heart goes out to them and to the people of Hawaii's first District he served so ably. I also offer my condolences again to Senators Schatz and Hirono and Representative Tulsi Gabbard, Mark's colleagues in the Hawaii Congressional delegation, who worked closely with him every day. We will miss him dearly in the halls of Congress, and I thank Representative Gabbard for leading the effort to pay tribute to him in the United States House of Representatives today.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy) for the purpose of giving us the schedule for the next week. (Mr. McCARTHY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. I will be glad to yield to my friend. I have a comment, but I will yield to him first.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman aware that the major deliverer of health services to women in Puerto Rico is through Planned Parenthood? Is the gentleman aware of that? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that schedule. I won't discuss any of the bills that the gentleman mentioned on the schedule, but I do want to note a couple of absences. One is, of course, the continuing resolution. As the gentleman knows, after next week where the CR is not included, we have 9 legislative days left before the scheduled adjournment. As the gentleman knows, we have not passed a single appropriations bill. And without finding fault with either side--because I know each side thinks the other side is at fault--the fact remains we have not passed a single appropriations bill. So there is no alternative to a continuing resolution, and we must pass a continuing resolution if the government is going to operate on October 1 in the new fiscal year. The limited number of days in session--9 days after next week. There are reports that the House Republicans are already divided on how long the CR ought to be, whether or not we ought to go into the 115th Congress or not. Representative Tom Cole was quoted as saying, ``Since we're all drawing our checks, we ought to actually do our job and get it done''--meaning the appropriations process and the funding of the government--``and recognize that the next administration and the next Congress are going to have plenty to do and to deal with on their own and not throw additional work at them because we are either too lazy or incompetent to do our work.'' That is Representative Tom Cole, one of the senior Members of this body, a former chairman of the campaign committee, and a respected Member of this body. Mr. Leader, I believe we ought to pass a CR as soon as possible, consider it as soon as possible. My own belief is that it ought to be short-term. I believe many people share that view. Apparently, Senator McConnell shares that view as well. It is my understanding the Senate is going to consider such a CR and send it to us. Obviously, it is our responsibility on fiscal matters under the Constitution to move pieces of legislation. They may well amend theirs into a House bill, as I am sure you know that both sides do from time to time. Can you tell me, A, how long do you expect the CR--first of all, when do you believe we will consider a continuing resolution to fund government past September 30? Secondly, how long do you think that CR will extend? Thirdly, as we did last year, is it your expectation that we will do an omnibus in December in the lameduck? I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, as the gentleman and I both know, no appropriations bills have been enacted. As I pointed out, forgetting about who is to blame--and I am sure you and I have different perspectives on that--the fact of the matter is they haven't passed, and they haven't been signed by the President. When I say ``passed,'' that's the Congress. They haven't passed the Congress, and the President hasn't signed any. So there is no possibility we are going to pass one or more of those bills. As you know, there are 12 appropriations bills to fund government. We haven't passed one of them. It doesn't look like we are going to pass any of them, so we are going to need a CR. So my question relates to the CR. There are three points. I thank the gentleman for clarifying it. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOYER. Well, I presume that. I presume that the majority--and I will say this, that for whatever reasons--and your party is in control of both the House and the Senate. Yes, we have the Presidency, the Democrats, but no bills have reached his desk. Whether they got out of committee or not, no bills have reached his desk. You and I both know getting out of committee means nothing. Nothing happens because it gets out of committee, other than it is eligible to come to the floor. Beyond that, nothing happens with respect to funding government. And your party is in the majority. It is not a question of blame. It is a question of no bill has passed from the Congress to the President of the United States for signature. He hasn't vetoed any bills because they haven't gotten to him. So we need to adopt a CR. I think the gentleman is correct that we are not going to go home, I presume, without passing a CR. The government was shut down for 16 days some years ago because we wouldn't repeal the Affordable Care Act. I don't presume that is going to happen this time. I certainly hope that we address the CR. It is not scheduled for next week. I am going to discuss another subject in just a second that should have been scheduled, in my view, this week. But we did bills that, frankly, aren't going to pass or be sent to the President. We spent a full week--otherwise known as 25 percent of the time--that is scheduled for us to be here before the election. Next week, it will make it 50 percent of the time, and still no CR is being brought forward. We left town in July without passing the Senate bill--it passed 68-30, a bipartisan bill--to address the critical health crisis confronting the American people, Zika. You don't schedule that for next week either on your schedule, Mr. Leader. I am very concerned. I think America is very concerned. Certainly, on this side of the aisle, we are very concerned. I want to make a representation here publicly, so that America will know and you will know, that I am prepared to say that almost everybody in our caucus--I would say ``unanimous,'' but I haven't talked to everybody--is ready to pass the bipartisan Senate bill, which passed 68-30, which would appropriate $1.1 billion. Tony Fauci was on the Hill, who is the director of NIH's NIAID, National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, which of course Zika falls within the ambit of his expertise and authority. He has said as of October 1, he is going to have no money to deal with the development of a vaccine. I know the gentleman is as concerned as I am because we have talked about setting up funds for disasters; and this is a health crisis, obviously a disaster. Let me ask the gentleman if he expects Zika funding to come to the floor either with the CR or as a separate bill, and again, I represent to him, I believe every Democrat--I haven't talked to every Democrat, but I believe every Democrat will support the bipartisan Senate bill which passed 68-30, which appropriates money and has the virtue, unlike the conference report, which the House added poison pill language that they knew neither the Democrats would support in the House nor the Senate nor would the President support, undermining, frankly, the ability to have health services delivered in Puerto Rico to women, the epicenter of the Zika crisis. It should have been no surprise that that was not going to be supported, and the President made it very clear he was not going to support it. We need to reach a compromise. The Senate reached a compromise. I urge the majority leader to address this and bring it to the floor. I tell him, he will have my full support and engagement for the Senate bill, which was a bipartisan bill. I yield to my friend to let us know when he expects to deal with this critical health crisis confronting the American people.

Mr. HOYER. I could get very animated in my answer. The fact of the matter is, what the majority leader represents, in my view, is inaccurate. The Senate sent us a bipartisan bill, and because you think you needed to serve some of your most hard-line Members, you made it a political bill. And we were not going to take it. We are not going to see you eliminate Planned Parenthood, which overwhelmingly is the-- listen to me, Mr. Majority Leader. I listened to you respectfully. The bill eliminated Planned Parenthood services and funding to deliver services in Puerto Rico, the epicenter of this disease. And you put other legislation in that bill you knew was unacceptable to us. The Senate did not do that because they need 60 votes, which means they need to come to a bipartisan agreement. You rejected a bipartisan agreement on your side of the aisle.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the majority party rejected the bipartisan legislation that came from the Senate with 68 votes. That is more than two-thirds of the Senate. Half of the Republicans in the United States Senate passed that bill over to us, and we could have passed it. I know some people said we needed the $1.1 billion, but I will tell you, had you brought that bill to the floor without adding political aspects to it that you knew we would not support, it would have passed. You could have passed it on your own, but you chose to make it a political bill. And we are not going to accept that because the American--you are right, Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve that we deal with this issue now. The President asked for this money on February 22. We are now at September 10, Mr. Speaker, and we have not dealt with this except in a way that, frankly, the majority party knew would not be acceptable, would not be bipartisan, would not pass the Senate, and would not be signed by the President. It is, I say with all due respect, Mr. Majority Leader, not credible to say because we didn't take what you wanted to jam down our throat when we had an agreement--not everybody agreed. I understand some people on my side said, oh, no, 1.1 is not enough, and I frankly don't think it is enough. But it is a very substantial sum that would enable NIH to pursue vaccines and pursue other matters in Puerto Rico and Florida and other places in this Nation to keep our people safe. So I tell the majority leader, again, bring the bipartisan bill passed to us by the United States Senate with 68 votes. Bring it to the floor as a House bill and we will pass it, and that is why I tell the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, that I believe every Member on my side of the aisle will vote for that, not because they believe $1.1 billion will be sufficient to address this problem. Leader Pelosi makes the very cogent point, Mr. Speaker, the Director of CDC says that it will cost $10 million per child who suffers from microcephaly, which is the result of Zika. Very frankly, in Brazil they found that the results go beyond that. $10 million. If 200 children get microcephaly, that gets to the dollars that the President wants from us to prevent this horrible consequence to the children and to the families of America. So I say with all due respect, Mr. Majority Leader, you can say all you want--and I know the spin: the Democrats in the Senate are holding this up. I do not accept that. I think it is inaccurate. What is holding it up is putting in items in a bill that is absolutely essential, gratuitously, that you know we will object to as opposed to doing what the Senate did, Mr. Speaker, and that is reaching a bipartisan agreement. It is very tough to reach bipartisan agreements in this House because we have a group in this House who wants to wag the dog. And that is not what the American people expect. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I have great respect for the majority leader, and he is accurate. We do sit down, we work together, and we can come to bipartisan agreements. We didn't sit down on this. The conference report was not signed by a single Democrat. There was no doubt that when it came to this House floor, there were no Democrats on that conference report, and we had no debate. Now, one of the reasons we had no debate--I want to make it clear because the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, is going to make that clear as well--was our side, we thought there was another important issue, but the fact of the matter is not whether it was debated. There would have only been 30 minutes a side anyway, a short debate. But the fact of the matter is the majority leader knows that the $1.1 billion bill that the Senate passed, even though it is not the President's request, would have passed on this floor, and it would pass on this floor today. And NIH and CDC would have the resources, Mr. Speaker, that they need to protect the American people. Mr. Speaker, that is what we ought to do. I now yield to my friend, the majority leader.

Mr. HOYER. I understand the majority wants to vote for what they want us to vote for. They don't want to reach a bipartisan----

Mr. HOYER. I did vote against that.

Mr. HOYER. It is so hard, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, that language was clearly designed, as the gentleman knows, as the staff knows, and as has been publicized, to preclude one of the agencies that delivers health care in Puerto Rico from doing so, and that is Planned Parenthood that gets public funds. This is designed, we believe, to restrict it. But let's put that aside. Let's say we have a disagreement on that. Let's accept that. What the Senate said, if we have disagreements on these things, we are going to pass a bill that gets that money out the door. And they passed it 68-30, which means approximately one-half of the Republicans voted for it because--and, very frankly--a predecessor of yours, Mr. Blunt, was a cosponsor of that bill--one of my very close friends, as you know--along with Mrs. Murray. So, they achieved the objective in the United States Senate of doing exactly what I think you are actually correct, Mr. Speaker, in saying, and that is that the people want us to act. It is not on the schedule this week. It is not on the schedule next week. And it ought to be on the schedule for consideration, and it ought to be in a bipartisan way, which means that both you and I could say that, yes, our sides can support this. Without, we have some very significant differences, Mr. Speaker. We all understand that. The American people understand that. And we ought not to try to deal with those in something as critically important. That is what the Senate decided to do. That is what Roy Blunt decided to do. That is what Senator Murray decided to do. And that is what 68 Members of the United States Senate decided to do. Now, let's, just for the sake of argument, agree that we have a disagreement on the interpretation of what that does, but if we have a disagreement, that means that we are not able to pass that bill. You may disagree with our reasoning, but that is the fact. And that is the conclusion the United States Senate came to, Mr. Speaker. So they did a bill that they could agree on in a bipartisan way. And I tell you, Mr. Speaker--I will reiterate it once again--bring the Senate bill. It wasn't our bill. This is a Blunt-Murray bill. Mr. Blunt is the former majority leader and majority whip and minority whip of the House of Representatives. The Senator from Missouri, a Republican leader in the Senate, sent us a bipartisan bill. Let's take that bill, and whatever other differences we have, let's debate them, Mr. Speaker. Those provisions can be brought to the floor separate and apart, without undermining the need to immediately fund the Zika public health efforts. So, I, again, say to my friend, those two issues--and I might also add, perhaps in closing, that we ought to be dealing with Flint as well, another public health issue that has been pending, Mr. Speaker, for over a year.

Mr. HOYER. I would be glad to yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I do. That is why we didn't have a lot of debate because we were asking for Mr. King's bills to be brought to the floor, as I recall. So I do believe in that.

Mr. HOYER. I would be glad to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, they are not blocking anything. They passed a bill 68-30. They sent it here, and it was blocked from coming to the floor. And it would have passed. If you believe, as you asked me, do I believe, should we consider things, the answer, of course, is yes. And I said, as an aside, Peter King, the former chairman of the Homeland Security Committee has two bills that are supported by over 85 percent of the American public. Bring them to the floor on the premise, Mr. Speaker, that we ought to debate, consider, and vote. Bring them to the floor. Bring Mr. King's bills to the floor. Bring the Senate bill. You know the Senate bill has 68 votes. Mr. Speaker, I will tell the majority leader that, had he brought the Senate bill to the floor--we were precluded from voting on the Senate bill, Mr. Speaker. The majority leader just said, Oh, we ought to bring the bill to the floor. Isn't that the right thing to do? Well, if it is right for the Senate--and we can't control the Senate, but we can control the House. And, as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, as you know, I was the majority leader, and I could decide whether to bring the bills on the floor or not bring them on the floor. The majority leader has that authority. Bring the Senate bill to the floor. If, in fact, as the majority leader just said we ought to have debate, we ought to consider it, and we ought to vote, and if it goes down, fine; if it passes, that is the will of the House--will of the Senate, you said. If that is a good premise in the Senate, it is an even better premise in the House of Representatives. So, Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend, the majority leader, to bring that bill to the floor. Let's vote on it. That is what he said his premise was and what we were committed to. I agree with him. I don't like the filibuster. I don't like the 60-vote rule in the Senate, I will tell you that. The 60-vote rule undermines democracy. If a bill has 50 percent and a committee reports it out, it ought to come to the floor. I agree with the majority leader on that. And Mr. Reid and I have had some discussions on that. My colleague Senator Cardin and I have had some discussions on that. But if it is good for the Senate, it is good for the House. And the House does that. The majority can rule in this House. And if he brings that bill to the floor, it will pass. It will pass on Monday, I guarantee the gentleman. And I know we need to conclude this. In all consideration, Ms. Kelly is coming over to explain to me schedules. But this is serious, and I don't say this--the majority leader and I do work together. But let's pass this Zika bill, as the Senate passed it, and then have the arguments on stuff that we don't agree on. We do agree on the Senate bill, at least to the extent it goes, and there are things that we don't agree. To make an aside, you stripped the Confederate Flag amendment from the conference report on the MILCON bill because you didn't want your guys to vote on it. Mr. Speaker, I understand that. That is why it was done. I didn't like that, but that passed the House, stripped out of the bill, not by the Senate, but by us. But that is an aside. It is an aside because, you are right, Mr. Speaker, the majority leader is right, that doesn't affect Zika. What affects Zika is that $1.1 billion that we can get to them on Monday, Mr. Speaker. If the majority leader will bring it to the floor, we can pass it on suspension. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the majority leader's discussion on this matter, but we have some critical issues, Mr. Speaker, that we need to deal with: funding government, getting Zika passed, helping the people in Flint, funding opioids. We passed a bill. It was a good bill. The President signed it. We passed it in a bipartisan way, but we didn't fund it. Another health crisis. We need to address these critical matters. These other bills may have merit, but they are not a crisis. Mr. Speaker, unless the majority leader wants to say something further, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I rise to oppose this bill. I have historically and repeatedly worked in a bipartisan fashion to bring bills to this floor that were supported by both parties as it relates to the security of Israel. This bill comes to the floor as we take stock of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the Iran nuclear deal. This bill, disappointingly, was written without any input from Democrats or any committee or through regular order. By not acting in a bipartisan manner, we are missing the opportunity to send an important message to Iran of our steadfast resolve in holding it accountable both to their commitments under the JCPOA and under applicable U.S. laws and U.N. resolutions. We need to remember that it was toughness born from bipartisan unity that brought Iran to the table in the first place. That, again, is what will be required to ensure its full compliance. As much as Iran has mostly complied with the letter of the deal, it has pushed the limits when it comes to its spirit. One of my major concerns about the deal from a year ago remains, and it is that the deal is limited in scope only to Iran's nuclear activities. It does not cover the other areas in which Iran has proven to be a dangerous and threatening actor. Mr. Speaker, U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231, which implemented the JCPOA, called for Iran to halt its ballistic missile program. Instead, Iran has continued to develop and test missiles that could carry a nuclear payload. There have also been reports that it is attempting to acquire ballistic missile technology in violation of U.N. Resolution 2231. Iran's sponsorship of global terror has continued unabated, and its arms and fighters stream into Syria, exacerbating the instability there and threatening regional security. Hamas and Hezbollah continue to threaten Israel with Iranian arms and financial support, and Iran's leaders continue to call for the end of the Jewish State of Israel. That is why, even as Iran has received sanctions relief through the JCPOA, it was always understood that we would need and be able to increase pressure on Iran with additional sanctions targeting its ballistic missile program and other destabilizing actions. We must not allow Iran to violate the nuclear deal. If Iran does not feel that it is sufficiently benefiting from the nuclear deal, frankly, that is because its malign activities and its outdated banking system are continuing to deter foreign investment. Iran and the world need to understand that it is not America's job to fix the problems that Iran has created for itself. That is why, as Iran continues to flaunt its obligations and sponsor terrorism around the world, its leaders must know with certainty that there will be real consequences from the United States and our allies for those actions. I am opposing this bill and urging that Democrats and Republicans-- and my friend, Mr. Royce, has done that repeatedly throughout his leadership of the Committee on Foreign Affairs--return to our successful bipartisan partnership, as we have in the past, to reauthorize the Iran Sanctions Act as soon as possible, and then work toward enacting sanctions targeting Iran's ballistic missile program. Let's come back here with legislation that sends a powerful message to Iran that there is no daylight between the parties in Congress when it comes to our shared resolve that Iran must abandon its sponsorship of terror, end its ballistic missile program, and comply fully with the JCPOA. My friends, Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, and my colleagues, our commitment to Israel and international peace and security demands no less. Let us return to bipartisanship on which Israel has relied and the message that we sent was stronger, firmer, and more effective. Let us defeat this partisan legislation and return to the bipartisan table.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, normally, I would be having a colloquy with the majority leader about the schedule for the week to come, but there is no schedule for the week to come, and there is no schedule for 6 weeks thereafter. We were scheduled to meet tomorrow to do the business of the American people. We will not meet that schedule, and we will not meet the schedule of doing the business of America for those who are concerned about the epidemic of gun violence in America, not even the small but meaningful and important steps of making sure that, if you can't fly, you can't buy a gun, to make sure that the background checks are universal and comprehensive so that dangerous people do not get guns. We will not do the business of those who are confronting being bitten by a mosquito and having the risk of having a child who is deeply disabled, nor will we do the business of those thousands of children in Flint, Michigan, and of the people in Flint, Michigan, who still, 2 years later, do not have clean water to drink. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I sit here, ready to do the business of our country. We sit here, ready to address those critical public health issues that confront our country--of gun violence, of Zika, of Flint, and of water that is not drinkable and that will damage our children. Mr. Speaker, the American people will see that there is a party here that is willing to work and protect them every day; so my colleagues will, one after another, express their own views as to what this House ought to be doing. We ought not to have taken a walk on the American people. We ought to be sitting here, doing the work of the American people. Yes, we will go to a convention, and we will tell them that we are going to protect them, that we are going to make their lives better. We can do so right here, right now.