Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

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. 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.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday Secretary of the Treasury Lew announced that for the first time U.S. paper currency will feature portraits of great American women. I am very proud that a Maryland native, an abolition hero, Harriet Tubman, was selected to be the new face on the $20 bill. Born into slavery on Maryland's eastern shore, she escaped to freedom but returned to rescue her family members. It was dangerous and could easily have cost Tubman her life or her freedom. After rescuing her family, she kept coming back for others who sought freedom, using the alias, Moses. How appropriate. She brought dozens of people out of slavery, never once losing a passenger on her Underground Railroad route. During the Civil War, she was an agent for the Union. In the decades following the war, she was active in the movement for women's suffrage. I can think of no one more suited to be honored with a portrait on the $20 bill. I am also pleased that other women will be featured on our currency.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his distinguished service. Madam Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee for leading today's Special Order on the important issue of the vacancy on the Supreme Court and the Senate Republicans' unprecedented obstruction of the President's nominee. That nominee, of course, is Judge Merrick Garland of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. He is one of the most highly qualified nominees ever. Let me repeat that. He is one of the most highly qualified nominees ever to be put forward for a seat on the Nation's highest court. He is a respected former prosecutor and is well regarded as an appellate judge. He was confirmed to his present position in 1997 by a vote of 76-23, with a majority of Republicans voting in favor. Madam Speaker, in fact, notwithstanding the opposition of some Republicans, they articulated--in particular, Mr. Grassley, who is now the chairman of the Judiciary Committee--that Judge Garland was eminently qualified and would be good for an appointment to another court but that he was not for expanding the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia, and it was for that reason alone that he voted against Mr. Garland. Madam Speaker, today is the 21st anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing. Judge Garland, as Deputy Assistant Attorney General during the Clinton administration, oversaw the successful investigation into the bombing and the prosecution of its perpetrators. His insistence on traveling to see the remains of the Murrah Building in the days after the attack and his hands-on approach to the investigation and prosecution won him praise across the political spectrum. The Constitution is clear: the President has a responsibility to nominate Justices to the Court, and the Senate has the ability to advise and consent, but it also has the responsibility to provide its advice and consent with regard to these nominees. It can, of course, reject a nominee, and it can advise and consent to the appointment of a nominee; but the Senate has chosen to do neither. It has chosen to do nothing. It has chosen to perpetrate gridlock in the Supreme Court of the United States. President Obama met his responsibilities. Now the Senate must do the same. It needs to do its work. Senate Republicans can't just pick and choose when to do their jobs. Last month, we saw the real-life consequences of an eight-member Supreme Court as it split 4-4 in a key case concerning the right of the teachers to organize and collect union dues. Madam Speaker, I was pleased with that particular outcome because the lower court had ruled in a way that I thought was appropriate. It is an example, however, of a case too important to be the result of a default to the lower court because of a split bench. In cases like these, the Court cannot set precedent. The American people, however, deserve a Court that operates at full strength so that it can establish precedent. We cannot wait until after the election to vote on Judge Garland's nomination. Senate Republicans, Madam Speaker, continue to insist that, somehow, their obstruction is based in precedent--that a nomination ought not to be made in the final year of a President's term. Ranking Member Conyers, the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, just spoke to that. Nowhere in our Constitution is the President's authority limited by the number of days or months into or remaining in his or her term. The President is the President from January 20 until January 20 4 years later. This is yet another example of congressional Republicans holding this particular President to a different and unfair standard. The Senate confirmed Justice Anthony Kennedy, as has been said, during the final year of President Reagan's second term. Thirteen other Justices have been confirmed during Presidential election years, including Louis Brandeis and Benjamin Cardozo--two of the great members of the Supreme Court of the United States. During the Kennedy confirmation process in 1988, President Ronald Reagan said: ``The Federal judiciary is too important to be made a political football.'' I would hope that Senate Republicans, who often cite President Reagan as a guide for the kind of leaders they want to be, would heed this admonition. Some have had the political courage to reject their colleagues' disrespectful approach of refusing to even meet with Judge Garland. I congratulate them. They are doing their jobs. Not only should all Members of the Senate give him the courtesy of a meeting, they ought to do their jobs as well and not stand in the way of hearings and consideration. The Senate's duty to advise and consent certainly, Madam Speaker, was not envisioned by the Founders to be optional or that the Senate could effectively pocket veto a nomination to the Court. The Senate ought to do its job. I don't think a single Founder would have conceived of the possibility of the Court receiving a nomination pursuant to the President's constitutional responsibility and authority and simply say: Too bad, Mr. President. Too bad, Supreme Court. We are not going to consider that nomination. No Founding Father would have conceived that to be possible, and they, therefore, did not provide for a time limit in which the consideration could occur. I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that, if we meet our oath to the Constitution of the United States to uphold the laws of the United States, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that the Supreme Court of the United States is fully manned so that it can, in fact, assure the faithful execution and adherence to the laws and Constitution of this country. I thank my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for leading this Special Order tonight on a subject of profound consequence to all Americans.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank both Mr. Curbelo, the chairman of the subcommittee, and the ranking member for moving this resolution forward. I think this is the 25th year that I have sponsored this resolution, and I have had great support throughout. I thank them both. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of this resolution, which I sponsor each year on behalf of the Washington metropolitan delegation, to permit the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Association to hold its annual race on the grounds of the Capitol Building. This is a very special year for the soap box derby as it celebrates its 75th anniversary. For three-quarters of a century now, young people from across the Greater Washington, D.C., area have assembled at the Capitol for a fun, educational, and exciting event. First run in 1938, when Norman Rocca sped past 223 of his fellow young racers on New Hampshire Avenue to capture the first soap box derby victory, the race brings together those between ages 8 and 17 to compete in three divisions. Those divisions are Stock, Super Stock, and Masters. The winner of each division will qualify to race against the regional champions from across the country later this year at the All- American Soap Box Derby in Akron, Ohio. This year's race here in Washington will take place on June 18. There is a reason, of course, the soap box derby has been called the ``greatest amateur racing event in the world.'' It is not only because it is a thrill to watch on race day, but because of everything that happens before race day as well. For weeks in advance, the young drivers and their parents--and, yes, sometimes grandparents--gather in garages and basements to build, test, and improve their soap box racers together. It is a process that brings the generations together and teaches valuable lessons about hard work, science and engineering, sportsmanship, leadership, and pride of achievement. Many of the skills learned in building these soap box racers are the same ones that help students succeed in science, technology, engineering, and math--or the STEM subjects as we refer to them--which will prepare them for success in college and careers. In addition to bringing families together, the soap box derby brings entire communities together with civic groups, police and fire departments, and service organizations that sponsor participants in whom they see the future leaders of their communities and of our country. Mr. Speaker, I said before that this is the 75th anniversary of the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby. It also marks, as I said, the 25th year that I have had the honor of sponsoring this resolution. I have done so because I am incredibly proud of this tradition and of all of the young people from Maryland's Fifth District who have participated year after year. In fact, I say with some degree of pride that the Fifth District has been home to many soap box derby champions, including the winners of 2007, 2008, 2009, 2012, 2013, and 2014, which is to say, recently, we have done pretty well, Mr. Speaker. Our racers even brought home national championship victories in 2007 and in 2008. I thank all of those who worked to make the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby possible. I also thank the cosponsors of this resolution: Representatives Chris Van Hollen, Gerry Connolly, Don Beyer, John Delaney, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Donna Edwards, and Barbara Comstock. I hope the House will offer its strong support once again for this great American pastime and for all of those young people and their families who participate. I thank the two gentlemen for their leadership.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy) for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader about 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 my friend for that information. I want to ask him just one question on one of those commonsense bills that seeks to remove those employees who work for the IRS who collect taxes, that if they are delinquent, they will be removed. Does that apply to the Congress of the United States as well which levies those taxes, that if we have any Members who are delinquent, that they, too, would be removed? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I may do that. First of all, let me thank the gentleman. We are confronting a crisis, as the gentleman so well knows, in Puerto Rico. On May 1, they will be unable to pay their debts. I want to thank the majority leader who has been leading to reach a bipartisan solution. Unfortunately, as the majority leader and I both know, there was a failure in committee this week to move the bill forward. But I want to reiterate my appreciation to the gentleman from California, the majority leader, for his efforts to make sure that we do, in fact, address this issue before May 1. I want to thank him for that. It is critical that we do so, it is critical that we do so in a bipartisan fashion, and it is critical to have a bill that both sides can support. I have told the majority leader, and I reiterate, we hope that on both restructuring and the composition and the authority of a board of review, an oversight board, that we can come to an agreement so that we can have such a vote and have it in the near future. Secondly, can the majority leader tell me where we are? I know the budget has been reported out of committee. The gentleman talks about Tax Day. Obviously, we are now at the point when a budget was expected to be brought to the floor. Can the majority leader tell me where we stand on the budget process and the budget coming to the floor of the House of Representatives? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Let me mention two other items briefly because I know the gentleman has a time constraint. Zika and Ebola continue to be challenges to the health of Americans and, indeed, the health of the international community as well. Obviously, we previously committed a significant sum of money to meet the Ebola crisis, which still remains with us. It is not on the front burner as it was for a period of time, but it is, nevertheless, as the gentleman knows, a very significant and serious one. In addition, of course, we have the crisis that Zika poses to the health and welfare not only of women who either are or may become pregnant, but also to others as well. Can the gentleman tell me where the funding--as the gentleman knows, the administration transferred some funds out of the money that was dedicated to Ebola. And I want to thank the gentleman for having a hearing, which he invited me. We joined in having that hearing, and we had Secretary Burwell of HHS, Tony Fauci of NIH, and Dr. Frieden of CDC--a very important hearing. They have transferred some money. Does the gentleman have any information as to when we might move forward, both on backfilling the money that has been taken from Ebola and responding to the administration's request for funding for response to Zika? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I look forward to working with him on both--continuing to focus on Ebola, while at the same time we focus on the immediate threat of Zika. The last comment I would make, Mr. Speaker, is that Members ought to be disabused of the concept--and I have heard it, as well as the gentleman has heard it--that the legislation under consideration for Puerto Rico is a bailout. There is no money going to Puerto Rico. There is no guarantee of any of their indebtedness going from the United States to Puerto Rico. This is simply whether or not we can construct a mechanism so that they can restructure their debt, which may prolong the period of time in which the debt is paid off. It may reduce by some amount the debt that is repaid. But as the gentleman knows--and he is shaking his head in agreement--we are not contemplating nor are we moving forward on a bailout for Puerto Rico. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, I introduced the Information Technology Modernization Act, a bill that will make our government more transparent, more efficient, more responsive, and more secure. Dangerously, many Federal Government agencies, as we have seen, rely on technology systems that are decades old and hinder digital interagency collaboration. As a result, government services are less efficient than they could be, and Americans' personal data is put at higher risk every year that goes by without critical system upgrades. This was the experience for almost 2 million employees of our Federal Government. I am partnering with the White House and U.S. Chief Information Officer Tony Scott to propose a new way to invest in upgrading the government technology infrastructure that serves the American people and this institution. My bill authorizes a one-time investment of $3 billion into a revolving fund that will be overseen by an independent review board. The fund will invest in large-scale, rapid systems upgrades deemed to be in the greatest need and that would provide the greatest impact on serving the American people. Once an upgrade is completed, the receiving agency will then begin paying back the fund over time, using the savings achieved from greater efficiency. In such a way, this one-time investment of $3 billion will support at least a minimum of $12 billion--that is 400 percent more-- worth of upgrades in the first 10 years alone, after which it would continue to fund upgrades into the future. This is a novel approach for government, though it has been employed successfully in the private sector, where it has a proven track record. Tony Scott himself, Mr. Speaker, implemented a similar program when he was the chief information officer at Microsoft, which was successful and resulted in significant long-term savings. Additionally, the fund will ensure that upgrades make use of the latest and best practices from Silicon Valley, including shared services, cloud hosting, and agile development. This will enable agencies to create new user-friendly apps and services, and facilitate the sharing of data between agencies to root out fraud and waste. It will promote the use of systems that are secure and prevent cyberattacks. My bill will also ensure transparency by requiring all upgrade projects to provide regular status updates on a publicly available digital dashboard. I want to thank all those who signed on as original sponsors, Mr. Speaker, and I want to say that I had discussions last night with Mr. Issa, the former chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. I think he is going to cosponsor this bill with me, and we want to see this bill be a bipartisan bill. I have also talked to ranking members on my side of the aisle in each of the relevant committees: Mr. Cummings, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Connolly, Ms. Duckworth, Ms. Robin Kelly, and Mr. Ted Lieu, all of whom are excited to support this piece of legislation. Again, this is a totally nonpartisan bill looking for government efficiency and safety and transparency for the American people. I hope that my friends on both sides of the aisle who care deeply about making government as effective and transparent as possible, as well as eliminating fraud and inefficiencies, will partner with us by cosponsoring this bill and helping to bring it to the floor as a bipartisan measure overwhelmingly supported by this House. I am proud of the bipartisan work we have done together already to encourage innovation in the use of technology in Congress, particularly the hackathons I have hosted with Leader McCarthy and his predecessor, Mr. Cantor. Let's work together. Let me say that again. Let's work together to expand that effort to the executive branch and make sure that the Federal Government can and is serving the American people effectively and transparently.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my Maryland colleagues in paying tribute to the life and memory of Officer First Class Jacai David Colson, who fell in the line of duty on Sunday. Officer Colson was twenty-eight years old and had served with the Prince George's County Police Department for four years. He lost his life responding courageously to an attack by a gunman on the District Three police station in Landover, Maryland. He did what he and his brothers and sisters in law enforcement have been trained to do: run toward gunfire in an attempt to save lives and protect bystanders and their fellow officers. Officer Colson is a hero, and our thoughts and prayers are with his family and his fellow officers. His father, James Colson, called his son `courageous' and `an excellent role model.' Officer Colson's high school football coach cited his extraordinary character and how he `treated everyone with respect.' Originally from Delaware County, Pennsylvania, Officer Colson followed in the footsteps of his grandfather, who served on the Upper Chichester Township police force in Delaware County for more than four decades. Prince George's County was fortunate to have Officer Colson on the force, and he left a lasting impression on so many people both here in Maryland and back home in Pennsylvania. I join with my Maryland colleagues in mourning this tragic loss and honoring Officer Jacai Colson for his service to our Prince George's County communities, to the State of Maryland, and to our country.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this week marks the sixth anniversary of the adoption of the Affordable Care Act. I am proud of the role I played as majority leader in 2010 to bring that legislation to the floor, legislation that has been extraordinarily successful in making affordable coverage accessible to millions of Americans. The Affordable Care Act has become a critical tool in fighting poverty. As a result of the Affordable Care Act, 20 million previously uninsured individuals now have coverage. Expanded Medicaid is now covering 8.6 million Americans in 28 States and the District of Columbia. Were the rest of the States to implement it, it would provide access to affordable, quality care to another 5.1 million Americans. Young people under age 26 can be covered under a parent's plan, making it easier for them to find their footing in the workforce. And insurance companies, Mr. Speaker, can no longer deny coverage based on a preexisting condition. As we mark this anniversary, the Democratic Whip's Task Force on Poverty, Income Equality, and Opportunity will continue to lead efforts to defend the law against attempts to repeal or undermine it, and we will pursue additional policies that help more Americans stay healthy, put roofs over their heads, and find jobs that lift them out of poverty and into the middle class.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reserving my right to object, and Mr. Speaker, I will not ultimately object; but on Thursday or Friday last, I had an extended conversation with the majority leader about adjourning. I pointed out to the majority leader at that point in time that there were a number of critical health issues pending that needed to be addressed by this House. Frankly, we should not be adjourning without doing so. Zika is a threat to young women, to young men, and to our populations in Puerto Rico and in the Virgin Islands, and we should have responded to the President's supplemental request so that it could be effectively responded to. In addition, we still have the ongoing Flint water crisis, caused by the negligence, frankly, of the Governor and the Department of Environmental Quality in Michigan. Thousands of young people have been put at risk. We also, of course, have the opiate addiction crisis with which we ought to be dealing. It is an immediate threat to each and every one of our communities. Lastly, I am pleased that the Speaker and the majority leader are working towards an early consideration, as soon as we get back, of legislation which will allow Puerto Rico to face the financial crisis that confronts it. As I said, Mr. Speaker, I will not object, but it is lamentable that we have not dealt with these four critically important issues before we adjourn. I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Garland is an extraordinarily qualified candidate, highly esteemed within the legal community, and highly accomplished as a prosecutor and appellate judge. He was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1995, by a vote of 76-23, with a majority of Republicans voting in favor of his confirmation. Indeed, an even larger number of Republicans said he was well qualified, and I will speak to that. Under normal circumstances, Judge Garland would now be sitting down this week for one-on-one meetings with Senators on both sides of the aisle in preparation for his confirmation hearings, but Senate Republicans, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, have made it clear that they will not be operating under normal procedure. Instead, they are refusing even to meet with Judge Garland. Let me suggest they are refusing to do their duty. Their approach is inconsistent with the expectations of our Founding Fathers and a disservice to the American people, to the Court, to American justice, and to the American people, and their justification has no basis in fact. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who sits now on the Court, was confirmed during the final years of President Reagan's second term. In fact, he is one of the 14 Justices in our history who have been confirmed during a Presidential election year, including Louis Brandeis and Benjamin Cardozo. So, Mr. Speaker, there is hardly precedent that a lame duck President must allow a Supreme Court vacancy to sit unfilled for months. We do not allow that for the House of Representatives and, for the most part, we don't allow it for the United States Senate. There is a timeframe, indeed, in every State to fill seats in the House of Representatives so that the American people will be represented. To politicize this process is irresponsible and jeopardizes the proper functioning of our Supreme Court. In 1988, during the Kennedy confirmation process, President Reagan said, ``The Federal judiciary is too important to be made a political football.'' I agree, and I hope Senate Republicans would, too, because we all know that their decision has nothing to do with Judge Garland's qualifications. Senator Hatch, a Republican from Utah, in 1997, called Judge Garland ``highly qualified'' and said, ``his intelligence and his scholarship cannot be questioned.'' When put forward for the D.C. Circuit Court, Judge Garland was cited by Senator Hatch as ``a fine nominee.'' He ultimately voted to confirm Judge Garland to the D.C. Circuit Court. While Chairman Chuck Grassley, who chairs the Judiciary Committee on the Senate--also a Republican--opposed Judge Garland's nomination to the Circuit Court, it ought to be noted that it was only because he thought there were already too many judges on that bench, not because Judge Garland lacked qualifications. In fact, Senator Grassley made this clear by saying, ``I have nothing against the nominee. Mr. Garland seems to be well qualified and would probably make a good judge on some other court.'' Senator Jeff Sessions, a conservative Republican from Alabama, agreed with Senator Grassley about too many judges on the Circuit Court, and said of Judge Garland: ``I would feel comfortable supporting him for another judgeship.'' Although he didn't say it, but another judgeship would be a Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. Now, Senator Grassley and Senator Sessions have an opportunity to put Judge Garland on another court--one that has a vacancy needing to be filled. Our Founding Fathers set up a Court of nine Justices, cognizant of the problem that would occur if there were a 4-4 tie. That is the situation that exists today, and it can be remedied by the United States Senate now. Let's not play political games. If Republicans don't want Judge Garland on the Court, schedule a vote and cast their votes accordingly. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said just yesterday on ABC's This Week: ``Under the Constitution, we have a shared responsibility. This is not something he''--referring to the President--``does alone. He nominates; we confirm.'' That, of course, is absolutely accurate. I would say to Senator McConnell that the President has met his responsibilities. Now it is time for the Senate to do so as well. Some Senate Republicans, Mr. Speaker, agree. Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois said on Friday: ``Cast a vote. The tough thing about these senatorial jobs is you get `yes' or `no' votes. Your whole job,'' Senator Kirk observed, ``is to either say `yes' or `no' and explain why.'' That is democracy. That is responsibility. Furthermore, in February, Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, said: ``I think the obligation of the Senate is to carefully consider any nominee whom the President submits. The best way to do that, in my judgment, is public hearings.'' Senator Collins was absolutely right. Under pressure from within their own ranks, Senate Republican leaders can only stall for so long before they must face up to their responsibility to give Judge Garland the fair hearing he deserves and that the American people expect. I believe Judge Garland will make a fine Supreme Court Justice, Mr. Speaker, and I thank President Obama for selecting someone so ``highly qualified,'' intelligent, and whose ``scholarship cannot be questioned,'' ``a fine nominee.'' All of those, of course, are Senator Hatch's words. I hope that Judge Garland will be swiftly confirmed. Leaving the Supreme Court with the possibility of gridlock, as we have seen the Congress at gridlock, is not good for our country, not good for the American people, and does not serve our democracy well. Senator McConnell, hold hearings. Reflect upon Judge Garland's competency, intellect, and suitability to serve on the Supreme Court. Do your duty.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend from Colorado. Where we were was doing a lot of business unlike we are doing now. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. I say to my friends across the aisle, who are so passionate about Congress having a role in this case: where was that enthusiasm when Congress had ample opportunity to prevent this case by doing its job and enacting real, bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform? The only reason this case exists is that Congress did not do its job, and then President Obama had no choice but to act in the limited capacity that he could under the law. He acted within his legal authority--something I am confident the Court will affirm. He acted because it would have been inhumane not to do anything while families were being torn apart by our broken immigration policies and this Congress' failure to act. The Democratic-controlled Senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill in June of 2013, and House Republicans did nothing for more than 500 days before President Obama resorted to the power of his pen. Now to authorize the Speaker to file an amicus brief opposing the President's actions rather than acting through the office known as the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group is a break from the usual procedure by which the House weighs in on a matter before the courts in which it may have an interest.

Mr. HOYER. In other words, this is not regular order, as is so often the cry of my Republican colleagues. This is regular disorder. I am a member of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group. It was never brought to us. We never considered it. Mr. Speaker, we ought to oppose this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. I say to my friends across the aisle, who are so passionate about Congress having a role in this case--where was that enthusiasm when Congress had ample opportunity to prevent this case by doing its job and enacting real, bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform? The only reason this case exists is Congress did not do its job. And then President Obama had no choice but to act in the limited capacity that he could under the law. He acted within his legal authority--something I am confident the court will affirm. And he acted because it would have been inhumane not to do anything while families were being torn apart by our broken immigration policies and this congress failure to fix them. The Democratic-controlled Senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill in June 2013, and House Republicans did nothing for more than 500 days before President Obama resorted to the Power of his pen. Now, to authorize the Speaker to file an amicus brief opposing the President's actions, rather than acting through the office known as the ``Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group,'' is a break from the usual procedure by which the House weighs in on a matter before the courts in which it may have an interest. This amicus brief, which no one has even yet seen, reflects this majority's policy of opposing the administration's legal, policy determinations to help immigrant families after having earlier abandoned its reponsibility to do so through statute. I was proud to be one of 225 Democratic members of the House and Senate to sign our own amicus brief last week supporting the administration's position. I'm also among the Democratic members of the House proud to cosponsor a reslution today in support of the President's executive actions and offering our amicus brief as an alternative to the one Republicans are putting forward to represent the views of the House. And I will continue to work toward the goal of comprehensive immigration reform legislation that offers an earned pathway to citizenship, keeps families together, and makes it easier to recruit and retain talented innovators and entrepreneurs from abroad to contribute to our economy and create jobs here in America. I urge my colleagues to defeat this resolution.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time just for a second, it always gives me great pleasure to bring a smile to your face, Mr. Leader. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. I will wish you happy St. Patrick's Day, and I congratulate Kelly on that beautiful green blouse she is wearing.

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

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. I did not see or hear ``the budget for this coming year.'' I know the Committee on the Budget marked up the budget yesterday. As I understand it, they completed their work, and they have reported a budget. I do not see it on the calendar for next week, which means that the earliest we could consider a budget would be April. Speaker Ryan, as the majority leader knows so well, indicated we are going to pursue regular order, which would be the adoption of a budget, the establishment of a 302(a) allocation, which means the overall expenditure level for discretionary spending, and then the markup and consideration in this House of the 12 appropriation bills. It would appear, if we are not going to do it next week, could we expect to see the budget on the floor, Mr. Leader, in April? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for that information. As the gentleman probably recalls, back in January Majority Whip Scalise was quoted as saying: ``We will forge ahead with spending bills and other initiatives in the coming year.'' He implied that the House would start early on its appropriation bills. Now, I can remember, as a long-time member of the Committee on Appropriations, that early for us was early May for actual appropriation bills to be on the floor. In December, Speaker Ryan stated: ``By having this budget agreement that my predecessor put in place, we no longer have a dispute over the sequester.'' Now, it is my understanding, Mr. Leader, that the budget that is being proposed is inconsistent with and does not carry out the agreement that was made between the Speaker and our leader and on which the House voted, a significant majority of the House voted to pass a budget deal. It is my understanding this budget does not carry it out. After saying: Let's set aside the dispute over the sequester, the Speaker went on to say: ``By getting the slate cleaned now''--Mr. Leader, this was December 22 that the Speaker said this. ``By getting the slate cleaned now''--which meant this argument over sequester, which of course your chairman of the Committee on Appropriations has said is unreasonable and unworkable, in effect, and ``ill-advised'' was the word that he specifically used. The Speaker said: ``By getting the slate cleaned''--by making that deal--``by getting this behind us, we can start our appropriations process early next year''--now, we are beyond early next year, of course--``and do it the right way, individual bills, all 12 bills, open up the process . . . do it the way the Founders intended in the first place.'' My question to you is, Mr. Leader, do you expect that we will start considering appropriation bills on or before the end of April? Does the majority leader contemplate the consideration of all 12 appropriation bills, as the Speaker indicated he wanted to do, with full consideration open to amendment prior to the July adjournment, for essentially 6 weeks, coming back in September? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the gentleman's comments and observations. He and I, frankly, have a factual disagreement on whether or not the budget that was reported out does, in fact, reflect the agreement. Technically, he may be accurate. But, of course, the problem with this budget taking so long to present--which I know the majority leader and the Speaker were hopeful it would have been done either in very late February or very early of this month--clearly, the disagreement, as everybody knows, is that so many of your caucus did not want to abide by the agreement that the three leaders of their party voted for back in December. And we understand there are additional actions going on to placate those on your side of the aisle who don't want to follow the agreement; and, in fact, they are looking for cuts beyond to return to sequester. That is why I referred to the sequester in my opening remarks, although the Speaker said we have gotten beyond that argument. Well, obviously, we haven't gotten beyond that argument. And that is, obviously, why your budget has been delayed and why we are not considering it before we leave here for the Easter break and, therefore, will not consider the budget in March. So I understand that we have a different perspective perhaps--not a disagreement necessarily, but a different perspective on what the budget process is presenting. If I can go on, Mr. Leader, let me ask you this. Very frankly, we are concerned about adjourning next week. We are very concerned, Mr. Leader, that we have a brief week. Essentially, in the 2 weeks that we have been here--this week and next--we are going to be meeting 3 full days. We come in at 6:30 on one day. We will leave early today. We will leave early on Wednesday of next week. We have three crises confronting Americans, and we ought to be dealing with those, Mr. Leader. We would urge that we not adjourn next Wednesday. We would urge that we meet Thursday. Friday, of course, is Good Friday; and Sunday is Easter. Those are very serious holidays for an overwhelming number of us, and we ought to observe those. But in the spirit of that holiday--of Good Friday and of Easter--we ought to at least sacrifice some of our time in the week following that to address these three crises. Mr. Leader, I just had the opportunity to meet with a young man, who is in the eighth grade, and his brother, who is in the sixth grade. They are from Flint, Michigan. They have to pay for the water that they drink at school because the water at school is unsafe for them to drink. Now, the administration has dealt with that, partially. Those of us who have been to Flint, Michigan, have seen a lot of people on the ground--from Health and Human Services to the CDC to the Health Department, from a lot of agencies of the Federal Government there to help. We should be acting on giving some direct help to Flint, Michigan, and assisting. It is, I think, unfathomable why the State of Michigan that caused this problem by shifting the water supply from Lake Huron through Detroit to the city of Flint--controlled by a receiver, appointed by the Governor, not the mayor or council of Flint, Michigan. It is unimaginable to me that we would be charging children for water that they ought to be supplied, as almost every school in America does. So, we ought to be dealing with Flint. Secondly, Mr. Leader, we have a crisis for a large number of Americans. Both of these crises are somewhat related but are separate and distinct issues we ought to be dealing with, and you and I have had the opportunity to discuss them. I appreciate your leadership and concern. You and I convened a joint meeting with the Department of Health and Human Services; with the CDC, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; NIAID and NIH's Tony Fauci; Secretary Burwell; and Dr. Frieden were there talking to us about Zika. Zika is a health crisis for America and for Americans, and we ought to be dealing with that. We ought to be dealing with it by giving to the administration the resources it needs to respond to this to make sure that America's health is safe and to make sure that the Americans who are living in Puerto Rico have the resources to deal with the eradication of the mosquito that transmits this disease and is a threat to health generally, but particularly the health, as the gentleman knows, of pregnant women or women who may become pregnant. So Flint and Zika. Lastly, I would mention that we ought to be dealing with the crisis that confronts Americans in Puerto Rico who are going to be unable to pay their bills. On May 1, they will have another large indebtedness due. We have been considering for many months now the authorization for Puerto Rico to be able to declare bankruptcy so that it can, in a reasonable, ordered fashion, settle that which they owe in a way that they can accomplish. All three of these issues, Mr. Leader, we believe are critically important for us to address now. They have been pending for months-- some for as long as a year, in terms of Puerto Rico's prospective bankruptcy. I would ask the leader if he would consider coming back after Easter and doing the work that we ought to be doing to meet these three crises. I believe if we did so, the American people would say that we are a responsible body doing the work that needs to be done. Frankly, Mr. Leader, over the last 3 weeks, we have done things that could have mostly been done under suspension. We are filling time. We need to fill that time with policies addressing the crises that confront us. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I want everybody to know that he is correct. He came to me to work in a bipartisan fashion. In fact, we have come to one another at various times to work in a bipartisan fashion. And I am pleased to work with the majority leader. I think the majority leader--as I have said with him not present and I will say it here today--is someone with whom I can work, have worked, and expect to work. I think he is honest and straightforward when he makes his representations to me, Mr. Speaker, so I want to thank him for that. But I want to reference all three of the issues that you just discussed. I am going to go in the opposite direction you went. The gentleman started out with the EPA. I am going to start out with the budget. As the gentleman I am sure knows, there is a $1.5 trillion asterisk in this budget: savings to be determined at some time in the future. Hooray. What courage. What I am saying about the budget is we had a deal. We agreed, in a bipartisan fashion, an agreement that you and I both voted for. Mr. Speaker, we both voted for it. It wasn't what either of us probably wanted, Mr. Speaker, but it was an agreement. It was compromise. It was how this body should and does work. And the problem is we have had such great difficulty saying we are going to implement that agreement, notwithstanding what Speaker Ryan said just a few months ago. So from the budget standpoint, A, I don't share the gentleman's optimistic view, Mr. Speaker, that it is balanced. It is easy to put an asterisk in there and say we are going to get $1.5 trillion somewhere, somehow, from someplace. It is much more difficult to say where you are going to get it. And what the American people have seen is that asterisk is never realized. So he and I disagree on the fact that, A, we haven't worked in a bipartisan fashion. We did. It was very tough. The Speaker, you, Mr. Scalise, Leader Pelosi, and I, all five of us voted for an agreement. Very frankly, it is our perception, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader's side of the aisle has not been able to carry out their agreement because of internal divisions within your party. Frankly, that is reported on. It seems to be self-evident, and that is our view. Our view is we had a number agreed upon. It is not about spending more money. It is what we agreed to spend, in a bipartisan fashion, that is not being adhered to. Secondly, when the gentleman says there is money somewhere, of course there is money somewhere, but it is not a zero sum game. Somebody will be disadvantaged and hurt and left behind if we take money from the program that this Congress appropriated to be spent on Ebola. The gentleman came to me, we did have a bipartisan meeting, which I have referred to and the gentleman has referred to. Tony Fauci was there, Secretary Burwell was there, Dr. Frieden was there from the Centers for Disease Control. All of them said that the suggestion that we take money from Ebola and put it towards Zika would harm the effort to ensure that Ebola does not come back to our shores and, in fact, is controlled overseas as well, because if it is overseas, it will ultimately come on shore here in America; so that they have asked for the resources to deal with Zika now. The longer we wait, the more difficult it will be. I agree with the gentleman entirely, that we are finding out new things as each day goes by, as each week goes by. But the fact of the matter is we need to give them the assurance that they will have the resources to deploy the kind of effort that we need to make sure that Zika does not become an epidemic here in this country, in Puerto Rico, in the Virgin Islands, and in other places in the world. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, it is, to me, very ironic. I have heard this year, in years past, EPA, get out of our lives. EPA, stay out of our communities. EPA, we don't need your advice and counsel. Mr. Speaker, the Governor of Michigan, knowing full well that the water from the Flint River was not the kind of water that we ought to be feeding to our children and to our adults, and refusing to spend the money to treat the pipes so that they would have been lined and the lead from the pipes would not leach into the water and adversely affect the health of the children of Flint, nevertheless, went ahead. In January of last year, the EPA advised the Governor of Michigan and the Department of Environmental Quality in Michigan, you are getting lead in your water. It is dangerous. January 15, 2015. Notwithstanding that advice, the Receiver, appointed by the Governor of Flint--the mayor wasn't in charge, the city council wasn't in charge. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, appointed by a Republican Governor, kept feeding the water to the people of Flint. And we have now determined that EPA kept after them after January 15, and their advice was ignored and, in fact, said, look, we have got it. We can handle this. We have experts. Frankly, a professor from Virginia Tech started testing the children and found that, tragically, the lead levels in the blood of the children of Flint were going up to dangerous and harmful levels. So, Mr. Leader, very frankly, your party has made it very clear repeatedly on the bills that you have brought to the floor, you don't want EPA involved. I don't mean you personally. Let me make that clear, Mr. Speaker. But the votes on this floor have been to reduce EPA's authority, to reduce their involvement, to reduce reliance on EPA's wisdom on behalf of the health and environment of our country. So then on all three of those issues, Mr. Speaker, let me say something in conclusion. I know it is Holy Week. And what Holy Week teaches us is that we need to care for one another; that we need to make sure, Mr. Speaker, when there are those in trouble and at risk, that we act. If that is not what Holy Week is about, I don't know what it is about. We ought to be about the business of responding, Mr. Speaker, to these three crises. Now, we don't have to do it on a Saturday, and I agree with my friend, the majority leader. We say that all the time, ``my friend,'' but Kevin McCarthy is my friend, Mr. Speaker. I have great respect for him. He is hardworking, he is honest, and he cares about our country. Let there be no mistake. But what I am trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is simply to elevate a sense of urgency to respond to two emergencies that confront Americans; and that we, therefore, have a responsibility to act, act promptly, decisively, and effectively. I am urging that we do that, and I am urging that we not waste time in accomplishing that objective. I am through, unless the majority leader would like to respond further. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I appreciate his wishes of good luck, and I hope they result in many Maryland victories. I appreciate that. Mr. Speaker, obviously, we don't have a difference on objectives. And yes, the gentleman from Wisconsin did walk across yesterday, yesterday. The Puerto Rican bankruptcy challenge has been confronting us for more than two-thirds of a year. This is not something new. Zika is new, but Puerto Rico's bankruptcy challenge is not new. So I am simply saying, Mr. Speaker, that these are matters of urgency, of crisis, and we believe that we ought to work on those. We believe working together, as the majority leader said, we can get that done, and we would hope that we would do so. Unless the majority leader wants to say something further, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York (Mr. Jeffries) for his excellent presentation. I want to thank Mr. Scott, who, as the gentleman observed, is one of the leaders in this Congress on the Constitution and on the law and on equal justice. I want to thank my friend from Ohio, the gentlewoman from Ohio, for her remarks. I noticed that the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Mr. G.K. Butterfield, formerly a judge on the Court in North Carolina, is here. Mr. Speaker, I want to first say that I thank the Congressional Black Caucus for sponsoring this Special Order. I want to tell every Member, and all Americans ought to know, this is not an issue related to one group, to one gender, to one race, to one nationality. The failure to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court will affect every American. So we rise tonight to ask the Senate to do its duty. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here on the floor this evening with my distinguished colleagues from the Congressional Black Caucus for this Special Order. The Supreme Court now has a vacancy, as everyone knows, that must be filled. The American people deserve a Supreme Court operating at full strength. Mr. Speaker, I am old enough to have been alive at the time that John Kennedy was assassinated. Within hours of his death, we swore in Lyndon Johnson as President of the United States because we wanted to make sure that there was a continuity of service. As sad and as tragic as those hours were, the responsibility of having a President of the United States was met within just a few hours. Mr. Speaker, when a vacancy occurs in this House--and there are, after all, 434 of us left when that happens--the State laws put a time limit on the Governors' action to call an election so that that vacancy can be filled. Why? Because the Constitution of those States do not want to have a vacancy exist for very long and have their State or their district not represented. Now, there is not a time limit with respect to the Supreme Court, per se. And the reason for that, of course, is the process, as Mr. Scott just pointed out, sometimes take a little longer, sometimes takes a little shorter. But in 7 months, as the gentleman pointed out, they had three nominees considered. Two were defeated after debate and a vote, and the third was confirmed. The process worked, and it worked in the last year of an administration. President Obama has a constitutional responsibility to nominate a candidate for the Court that will exercise sound judgment, uphold the principle that all people are created equal and must be treated equally under the laws. The Founders of our country very wisely made the number on the Supreme Court an odd number, not an even number, because the Founders did not want gridlock. Now we are used to gridlock in this Congress. But they did not want gridlock on the Court, and so they provided for a decision to be made by five members out of nine. Now, however, with four and four, they will maybe not be able to make a decision. That was not contemplated by the Founders, nor would it have been welcomed by the Founders. Shamefully, Senate Republicans have said they have no intention of even meeting with a nominee put forward by President Obama. That is not only disrespectful of the President of the United States, Barack Obama, but it is contrary to the best interest of the Supreme Court, but more importantly, to the people of this country. It is appalling that Republicans would prefer to leave a vacancy on the Supreme Court, thereby rendering it in some cases unable to make a decision, unable to perform its duties of being the final arbiter when circuits may differ on an issue. If Members of one party or another were simply to ignore the other side and refuse to carry out their duties within a divided government, our democracy would break down, and in some respects it has. We ought not to carry that conduct to the Supreme Court. We must not let that happen and we must not allow this Supreme Court vacancy to remain unfilled. The Court currently has a number, as the gentleman from New York has pointed out, of major cases pending that require a decision; not to be remanded to a lower court, because if that is done, that judgment may stand for that circuit, but there will be other circuits around the country who may make a different decision. Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has been a powerful safeguard of American's liberty and equality over the past century and beyond. From recognizing the right of every child to attend desegregated schools, to protecting every loving couple who wishes to marry, the Court has breathed life into the words of our Declaration of Independence that all are ``created equal, and they are endowed by their Creator,'' not by us, not by the Constitution, ``by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.'' That may be self-evident, Mr. Speaker, but it is not self-executed. And we have established the Supreme Court of the United States to make a decision so that that can be realized. Melissa Hart, Director of the Byron White Center, a former member of the Supreme Court for Constitutional Law at the University of Denver said, if we don't act, ``It would be a monumental crisis for the development of the law and the need to resolve legal questions.'' Caroline Frederickson, president of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, wrote on February 19, ``It would be unfathomable to go through this term,'' and as Mr. Scott pointed out, the next term, ``with a Supreme Court hobbled by a vacancy.'' Mr. Speaker, let me remind you again, if a President dies, immediately we fill the vacancy. If a Member of Congress dies, every State has a time limit in which that must be filled so that democracy can be represented and operate in the way our Founders wanted it to operate. When the President nominates a candidate to the Court, the Senate, in my view, Mr. Speaker, has a responsibility under the Constitution to give that nominee every due consideration. They do not have a constitutional responsibility to approve it, as Mr. Scott has pointed out, but they have a responsibility to consider it. We must not allow politics, we must not allow politics, we must not allow politics to allow the obstruction of this most essential institution of our democracy and the rule of law. I want to thank my friends in the Congressional Black Caucus for leading this Special Order and for their efforts to hold Senate Republicans accountable for their blatantly irresponsible action on this matter. Mr. Speaker, there is always another election. It may be 2 years away, it may be 4 years away, but if we adopt the principle that if we don't think we can win now, we will obstruct now and hope to win later, America and Americans will not be well-served. I thank my friend for yielding.