Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. But let me make an observation. I wish the gentleman would stay in the well because he might want to respond. I did not accuse the Republican Party of discriminating. I will not, at this point in time, hazard an opinion on that fact. However, I want to recall to the gentleman that, in the Armed Services Committee, after due consideration, the Armed Services Committee voted not to discriminate, not to discriminate against women, not to say to women: Yes, you can serve, but you don't have to sign up for the draft. Many of us felt that if you are going to ask young men to sign up for the draft, young women ought to be treated equally. We felt not to do so was discrimination. That amendment passed in the committee and came to the Rules Committee--my understanding is--without a vote, without discussion. The rule that was issued from the Rules Committee said that, upon adoption of that rule, the adopted amendment in the Armed Services Committee, without a singular vote on this floor of the House, would be defeated. That, I say to the gentleman, was neither regular order, nor was it giving us an ability to make a decision on that issue. And I believe, I personally believe, that it results in continuing discrimination against young men and young women, one of which has to sign up, the other whom does not; but they both have to serve, or can serve voluntarily in the Armed Forces of the United States. So we may have a difference of opinion on whether or not that was, in fact, discrimination. But I will tell the gentleman that I was not happy, and I am still not happy that we did not have a vote on the floor about what we perceive to be discrimination. And I regret that the Rules Committee chose to hide in its rule the repeal of what the Armed Services Committee adopted. If the gentleman wants to respond, I will yield to him.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the schedule for the week to come. Madam Speaker, I thought I saw the whip. I am prepared to yield to someone to tell us the schedule for the week to come. Pending someone telling me about the schedule for the week to come, let me observe, as someone who has served, Madam Speaker, in this House for a very extended period of time--some 36 years--I was here in the era not too long ago, but long ago--when, if we had done to the Republicans what was done to us, what was done to switch votes so that discrimination could prevail, there would be outrage expressed long into the night from our Republican colleagues who would accuse us of undermining democracy, undermining this House, and making the House less than it should be. 217 people stood up and said: We ought not discriminate. And then, very frankly, Mr. Speaker, the leadership on the Republican side started its activity. And I have been the majority leader, I have been the whip. I understand that process. And they reached out to people and said: No, let us be able to discriminate. Let contractors be able to discriminate. Mr. Speaker, seven people who had voted not to allow discrimination decided perhaps that principle was not as important as they thought just a minute or so before. I have a list of those names here--a lamentable list of people who did the right thing, who stood up for nondiscrimination, and then were opportuned to change their vote. And the Record reflects, Mr. Speaker, sadly, that they changed their vote. I won't characterize those votes, because that would not be in order on this floor. And they will have themselves to look at tonight in the mirror and explain to themselves whether their first vote was a principled vote, or whether they had a Damascus Road experience in the few minutes that transpired between their voting not to allow discrimination, until they later--just a few minutes later--at the opportuning of some of their leaders, voted to allow discrimination. A sad day, Mr. Speaker, in the history of the House. I still see no leader, unless Mr. Dent, who I have great respect for, wants to tell us what the schedule is for next week. I would be glad to yield to him for that purpose. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the majority leader is not here. The majority leader has a very happy day today, and I congratulate him. His son is graduating from Georgetown, and he obviously needs to be there. I was hoping someone else could tell us the schedule. At this point in time, I would be glad to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), my friend, the chairman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. And the gentleman will observe, I have neither mentioned the names, nor did I impugn their integrity or their motivation. What I said and what I will repeat is, initially they voted for an amendment that said there shall not be discrimination by contractors who get government money. That is what the amendment said. And they voted against discrimination, and for that amendment. But in a short period of time, they changed that vote, resulting in, not becoming law yet, but this House saying to the administration: You cannot require contractors not to discriminate. That was the effect of it. And characterizing the effect of a vote is what our debate is about, what our country's values are about, what our country's future is about, and the respect we have for every citizen in this country, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. And we ought not preclude those through discrimination. That I can characterize without impugning motives. But the effect of the vote, we had 217 people for nondiscrimination right up until the last moment. And by the way, the last moment was far beyond what Speaker Ryan has said ought to be the end of votes.

Mr. HOYER. If I could just finish my sentence, I will certainly do that. I talked to the Parliamentarians. Interestingly, the presiding officer did not ask: Does any Member want to change his vote? Because once that, as I understand it, is intoned, then the ability to change one's vote, except to come forward and be seen in changing your vote, was not stated, which I suggest to the chairman of the Rules Committee, who knows the rules very well, is unusual--perhaps not against the rules--but unusual. And the vote was an extended vote. The Speaker, Speaker Ryan, has talked to us from the rostrum, saying that we want to keep votes to a limited period of time. Particularly, I would suggest, we all want to keep votes to a limited period of time when it is a so-called getaway day. But in this instance, that did not occur. In this instance, to change from 217 to a lesser number that was a losing number--215-214, I believe, was the final vote--excuse me, 212-213, 212 ``ayes.'' So five votes were switched, net. However, one person voted late. Again, seven people changed their vote. You are correct. They had a right to do that, but the consequences of that vote are subject to debate. And I raise for you, for this House, and for the American people, that the changing of those seven votes resulted in this House saying to the President of the United States: You cannot tell contractors that they cannot discriminate. That, I think, was unfortunate. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I do.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, it seems what the gentleman is saying is that people vote not to discriminate, and then some time a little later on, they have an epiphany that perhaps discrimination is okay. Perhaps that is what the gentleman said.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, it appears that no one is going to be able to tell me what the schedule is for the week to come. I will tell you that that is unfortunate. I hope there is a schedule for the week to come because there is a lot to be done. We haven't finalized Zika. We passed a bill here which we think was inadequate. We haven't dealt with Flint. We need to pass Puerto Rico restructuring. I think they have made some progress on that. I congratulate the Speaker and the leader for facilitating that progress. We don't have a voting rights bill scheduled. We need to do that. There are a number of other serious pieces of legislation this House needs to consider. We are going to go out next week, and we will have no colloquy next week, Mr. Speaker. There will be no opportunity to discuss the schedule for, obviously, the break, and we will have no schedule for June or the weeks thereafter to do some of the serious business that confronts us and to help some of the people in this country who need help. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that nobody on the other side is going to have any response. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. This is not consistent with what the Speaker and the other leaders of the Republican Party have said they were going to do. It is inconsistent with how they said they were going to manage this House. It is inconsistent with the rights of the American people to have their Representatives vote on issues of great importance, which, of course, is what the Speaker and Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Cantor said in this book, ``Young Guns.'' I am going to read a paragraph from this book. This is in Paul Ryan's section, under his heading, the Speaker of the House: ``The new Washington way,'' in speaking about what was apparently the stuff he didn't like, ``isn't open debate broadcast on C-SPAN; it is closed-door, backroom deals. The Washington way doesn't seek input from both sides of the issue; it muscles through bills on strict one-party votes. And the Washington way,'' speaking clearly of the way the majority of the Democrats were leading, ``isn't interested in honest up-or-down votes on transformational programs. It rigs the process,'' it reads, ``to produce the outcome it desires through any means necessary.'' That is exactly what is happening in this rule--exactly. Paul Ryan and the young guns promised transparency, openness, and the House's being allowed to work its will. So what has happened in the Committee on Rules? Exactly the opposite. No transparency--a muzzling of the Members of the House of Representatives in not allowing a vote--but simply, unilaterally, in the dead of night, pocketing an amendment that was adopted in the committee that says that women would be treated just like men. Now, I know that is a revolutionary concept for some on your side of the aisle here, and I know you certainly didn't want your Members to vote on that extraordinarily controversial issue. So in the dead of night, without any debate, without a vote in the Committee on Rules, it was simply put in the chairman's pocket, and 434 of us were ripped out of the process. The young guns said that wouldn't happen. Now, the young guns, by the way, so we all understand, are the Speaker and the majority leader now.

Mr. HOYER. Ladies and gentlemen, we ought to reject this rule, and the American people ought to reject this rule. The American people ought to say: bring the issues to the floor and let the House work its will. That is why they elected us, not to have the chairman of the Committee on Rules say: Sorry, you don't get to vote. He wasn't elected dictator; Steny Hoyer wasn't elected dictator; Jim McGovern wasn't elected dictator. We were elected to be one of 435 people to make policies for this country and for our people. Reject this rule. Bring democracy back to the House of Representatives. Let the people's representatives set policy in the light of day.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for protecting us from ourselves. That seems to be somewhat paternalistic, of course. As I understand it--and I was not there, but it wouldn't have mattered whether I was in the Committee on Rules--it was not done in open session in the Committee on Rules. The Committee on Armed Services voted upon it, and apparently the majority of your side lost, and they don't want us to consider it, and they don't want to subject your Members to voting on it and letting the American people know where you stand.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I like Mr. Diaz-Balart. But if I get sick, I hope it doesn't take 90 days for the emergency responders to come to my aid. February 22 is when the administration said we needed this money. Almost 90 days later, we are talking about one-third of what they said was necessary. Mr. Speaker, our Nation faces a very real and present danger from Zika. Our people face that crisis. Already, more than 1,200 Americans, including more than 110 pregnant women, have confirmed cases of Zika virus. Would that have been the case if we had acted on February 22? I do not know. But I certainly wouldn't want to rely on this Congress to enact anything in a timely fashion. We know that there is a link between Zika virus and severe birth defects, including microcephaly, which can be life-threatening and for which there is no cure. We saw a tragic picture of a child. Puerto Rico, with its 3.5 million American citizens, has been especially hard-hit and needs help from the Federal Government to prevent and contain the spread of the virus and ensure access to health services for those affected, particularly pregnant women and children. Last week, Puerto Rico health officials reported the island's first confirmed case of Zika-related microcephaly. This is a public health crisis. And I guarantee you, if it had been a terrorist who had attacked, we would have responded on February 23. The President has requested $1.9 billion in emergency funding to combat the Zika outbreak, but that is not what House Republicans brought to the floor today. Instead, they are putting forward legislation that would provide just $662 million--less than a third, as I said. That means we can't fully fund the development of a vaccine; deployment of diagnostic testing, especially for pregnant women; and vector control to manage mosquito populations. In addition to its inadequate funding level, the Republican bill offsets the spending by further depleting funds that were appropriated to combat the Ebola virus. I know they are going to say they are going to backfill it. I won't hold my breath. The administration has already been forced to borrow more than half a billion dollars in Ebola accounts, while Congressional Republicans ignored its Zika supplemental funding request from February 22 to this day. That is no way--no way--to handle public health crises. I urge my colleagues on the Republican side to join us to respond effectively to the President's request.

Mr. HOYER. Representative Vern Buchanan of Florida, who supports the President's request, said last week--not Steny Hoyer, a Democrat--but Vern Buchanan, a Republican: ``All Members of Congress should take this virus seriously and put aside partisanship-time is not on our side as the summer months draw near.'' Senator Marco Rubio of Florida said in April: Congress is ``going to have to explain to people why it is that we sat around for weeks and did nothing on something of this magnitude.'' That is Marco Rubio. Let's work together to pass an emergency supplemental. Steve Womack said this: ``If we fail to deal with the issue and there are hardships that would be posed on society in this country, you wouldn't be able to compute those costs.'' ``It's a dice roll to get into an argument about Zika funding and running the risk in having something catastrophic happen and we own it.'' You will own it if this gets out of hand and we don't have the appropriate resources deployed now. It should have been 30 days ago, 60 days ago, 90 days ago. Let's not have this become a crisis. Let's act now on the full sum necessary to meet this crisis.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of meeting on March 30 with William ``Bill,'' Dawson of Waldorf; Maryland, in the Fifth Congressional District. Bill is the last living member of the first class of Naval Special Warfare Operators to train for duty with the U.S. Naval Combat Demolition Units that were the precursor to today's Navy SEAL teams. He is ninety-one years old and a retired Washington, D.C. firefighter who remains deeply proud of his service to our nation and to his community. I was honored to receive from him a copy of his book Before They Were SEALS They Were Frogs, which recounts the story of the Naval Combat Demolition Units during the Second World War and his own service in the Pacific. First created in 1943 and led by Lt. Draper L. Kauffman, the first Naval Combat Demolition Units were tasked with the reconnaissance of amphibious landing sites and the demolition of enemy obstacles that would hinder the advance of invading Allied forces. After their specialized training at Fort Pierce in Florida, including the series of grueling tests that is now considered to have been the first-ever ``Hell Week,'' the first Navy ``Frogmen'' deployed to the European and Pacific theaters of operation in support of combat operations. Navy Frogmen were instrumental in clearing obstacles on Omaha Beach and Utah Beach during the Normandy invasion on D-Day in 1944, and many were killed or wounded performing their dangerous missions. In the Pacific, Frogmen demonstrated similar gallantry during the operations to liberate the Philippines, Guam, Borneo, and many other places that had been occupied by Japanese forces and that were instrumental in the advance toward victory. Frogmen were training for cold-water operations in preparation for an anticipated invasion of the Japanese home islands when the war ended. The Underwater Demolition Teams that succeeded the initial Naval Combat Demolition Units saw action in Korea and Vietnam, and it was in the early 1960's that the Navy decided to transition them into the Navy SEAL teams we know today, in a reflection of their broadening role beyond the water's edge. Americans are grateful for the extraordinary service and sacrifices of our Navy SEALs, among the most skilled, experienced, and courageous to serve in defense of our nation. I'm proud to represent many Navy personnel and veterans in Maryland's Fifth District, which is home to Pax River Naval Air Station, the Naval Surface Warfare Center Indian Head Division, and Webster Field. I join in thanking Bill Dawson and all of those who were our nation's first Navy Frogmen for their gallant service in defense of freedom and for their crucial role in the history of U.S. Naval Special Operations.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to mark an important milestone in the history of the Fifth District and the State of Maryland. This year, the City of Bowie celebrates the centennial of its incorporation, which took place on April 18, 1916. In the intervening century, Bowie has grown and flourished, becoming the fifth-largest city in Maryland and a vibrant and diverse community. Bowie has its roots in a small village called Huntington City that developed in 1870 alongside a railroad depot named for Maryland Governor Oden Bowie, a local resident who had been instrumental in bringing the railroad to the area. Within twelve years, the village had grown into a small town of several streets lined with shops and houses, which was renamed Bowie after the rail station. When the Town of Bowie was first incorporated in 1916, its first commissioners were R.P. Watts, William Luers, and Thomas P. Littlepage, who held their town meetings in the Knights of St. John Hall, which still stands today. In the 1950's, Bowie began to spread south of the original railroad settlement to include new suburban developments. These included Belair at Bowie, whose annexation by the Town of Bowie marked the beginning of today's City of Bowie. Today, the city operates under the same charter as it adopted in 1916 and is home to approximately 56,000 Marylanders. While still retaining the feel of a small town, Bowie has grown to include a number of new suburban developments that have brought diversity and economic opportunity that are benefitting the residents of Bowie and the surrounding area. I'm honored to represent the City of Bowie and its residents in Congress. Bowie continues to follow an upward trajectory of growth and development, and I look forward to continuing to work with the Mayor and city officials to ensure that Bowie has all the resources it requires to succeed. I hope my colleagues will join me in marking this important milestone for Bowie and wishing it much success as it enters its second century of incorporation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the memory of the Hon. Thomas A. Rymer, who passed away on April 15. He was ninety-one years old and had dedicated his career to public service on behalf of the State of Maryland and Calvert County. I was privileged to be Tom's friend for decades, and I was deeply saddened by his passing. He served in the Maryland House of Delegates from 1971-1987 and was Majority Whip for a good portion of that time. During part of that period, I served as President of the Maryland State Senate, and we worked together on a number of occasions. During his tenure, Tom fought for school funding that invested in education for students in Calvert County. He spearheaded efforts to build roads and infrastructure and encourage development in what was then a very rural part of our state. Tom was also a tireless advocate for justice and equal opportunity. Judge Rymer was born in Asheville, North Carolina, and he moved with his family to Washington, D.C., in 1939. A student at the University of Maryland when World War II broke out, he enlisted in the U.S. Navy and was commissioned as an Ensign. After serving our nation honorably, he returned stateside and finished his degree at Cornell University in New York in 1948. He then went on to earn his law degree from the George Washington University in 1955. During the 1950's, Tom worked as an engineer with the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission and served in a number of civilian roles with the Navy, Air Force, and Secretary of Defense's office. When he left the Pentagon in 1964, he was serving as chief of the Air Force Military Construction Program. From 1966-1970, Tom served the people of Calvert County as State's Attorney before running for the House of Delegates. In Annapolis, he chaired the Calvert County delegation and served as Chair of the Tri- County Council for Southern Maryland from 1979-1982. He also Chaired the Joint Ethics Committee. Tom was well respected in the Assembly, lauded for his integrity and honesty and for his mentorship of younger lawmakers. After leaving office, Tom was appointed to sit on the Calvert County Circuit Court. He served until his retirement in 1995. Mr. Speaker, I extend my condolences to his beloved wife of four decades, Grace Mead Rymer. My thoughts and prayers are also with his sons Gary Rymer, Ronald Rymer, and Thomas Rymer Jr.; his stepchildren, Grace Mary Brady, Robert Manual Garrett, John Michael Garrett, Nell- Marie Chaney, William Francis Garrett, and Allan Garrett; his fifteen grandchildren and step-grandchildren; and his ten great-grandchildren. Sadly, his stepson Thomas Garrett passed away last year. Many of the Rymers and Garretts continue to live in Calvert County, on which their father and stepfather leaves a lasting impact that will surely benefit generations to come. I join in thanking Judge Thomas A. Rymer for his service to Calvert County, to the Fifth District, to the State of Maryland, and to our nation, and I hope my colleagues will do the same.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to an outstanding public servant for Maryland, Judge John J. Garrity, who sadly passed away on April 14 at the age of eighty-two. John and I had been friends for many years, going back to the 1960's, when I was a young State Senator and he was an Assistant State's Attorney and President of the Prince George's County Young Democrats. John began his life in the St. Joseph's Orphanage in Burlington, Vermont, and after finishing secondary school joined the U.S. Navy, where he served honorably from 1955-1959. During that time he married his wife, Bertha Ann, with whom he would spend sixty wonderful years and raise two sons, Kevin and John Jr. He earned undergraduate and law degrees from American University and began practicing law in Maryland in 1964. John first served as Assistant State's Attorney for Prince George's County in 1967 and two years later became Assistant Attorney General for the State of Maryland. He was selected as a Prince George's County Commissioner in 1970 and then elected to the Prince George's County Council the following year, serving as its Chair in 1973. In 1974, the people of Maryland Legislative District Twenty-Two sent him to the House of Delegates in Annapolis, and in 1978 he became my colleague in the State Senate, when I was serving as its President. While in the Senate, John stood up for the rights of crime victims and sponsored legislation to ensure that victim impact statements could be given during sentencing, ensuring their voices would be heard in court. In 1982, John was appointed to the Court of Special Appeals, where he served with distinction for twelve years. Mr. Speaker, I will miss John Garrity very dearly, and I will never forget his friendship or his kind spirit. He was so proud of his service to Maryland and to our nation, and he was proud as well of his Irish roots. My thoughts and prayers are with his Ann, Kevin, John Jr., daughter-in-law Karen, and grandchildren Kelly, Colleen, and Kerry. I hope my colleagues will join me in thanking Judge John J. Garrity for lending talents and wisdom to the work of securing justice and creating opportunity for Marylanders throughout his life and career.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the ranking member and former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and, if I could say, in a bipartisan bill, maybe the next chairman of the Judiciary Committee, with all due respect to my friend Mr. Goodlatte. I thank the gentleman very much for bringing this bill to the floor. I thank the majority leader for his comments, and I rise in support, obviously, of this legislation, which I am proud to cosponsor with my friend, the majority leader, Mr. McCarthy, from California. Mr. Speaker, this bill, as he said, will help ensure that future investments in the fight against opioid addiction are allocated in the most effective way possible. We owe that to the American people, and we owe it to the effectiveness of our efforts against this scourge on our country. Our bill requires the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services to develop, as you have heard, metrics by which opioid-related grant programs will be evaluated: Do they work? Are they worth the investment? It will facilitate data collection and analysis in order to determine best practices--what works and what doesn't--so policymakers can best target resources. The opioid epidemic is a major public health challenge that requires and demands bipartisan cooperation and leadership across the branches and offices of our government at the Federal, State, and local levels. This crisis has already quadrupled--quadrupled--the rate of overdose deaths between 2000 and 2013 and continues to plague communities across the country. Between 2007 and 2014, 237 people in southern Maryland died as a result of prescription opioid overdoses, and 287 more died from using heroin, a drug to which those addicted to opioid painkillers often turn when they can no longer access prescription medications. This is a critical problem affecting lives and families across the Nation, which is why the Congress must take action and is doing so on a bipartisan basis. In addition to the OPEN Act, the House is considering a number of bipartisan bills this week that will likely be adopted as part of an amendment to the legislation passed in the Senate, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, CARA. Democratic Members have been instrumental in writing these bills in such a way that the policies and programs they create have the greatest chance of saving lives and preventing addiction. The good news is they have worked with their Republican colleagues, and their Republican colleagues have worked with them. These bills reflect the seriousness with which Democrats and Republicans have been leading on this issue and the bipartisan nature of efforts in Congress to address the challenge. But it isn't enough to enact these bills and the ones put forward by my Republican colleagues. We need to ensure that our efforts to combat opioid addiction receive the funding necessary to succeed. That funding is not in this bill, nor is it in some of the other bills that will be considered. It is nice to say that we ought to get something done, but if we do not apply the resources to accomplish the objective, it is empty rhetoric and political posturing. President Obama has requested $1.1 billion to fight opioid addiction, but the majority has not yet committed to acting on that request, nor has it committed to funding the bipartisan legislation that we expect to pass this week. The legislation is good, but if we don't give it the resources to be implemented, it will not bring the relief that is needed. So as we work together to take these important steps to prevent opioid abuse and promote recovery, Congress needs to work together to ensure that these efforts are not left unfunded. I am certain that there is a way we can work together to pay for them and help our communities fight this epidemic that has destroyed so many lives and devastated communities and families across this country. Again, I want to thank the Republican leader, Mr. McCarthy. He and I have found opportunities to work together, and we believe those have had positive results. He has partnered with me on this OPEN Act, and I hope we can keep working together to fund these initiatives and help end the scourge, the cancer, of opioid abuse and addiction in our country. If we do so, Americans will thank us, and they will think we have done a better job, frankly, than they think we are doing.

Mr. HOYER

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

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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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.