Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, first of all, let me begin by saying how encouraged I am that we are finally seeing some action here in Congress dealing with the Zika virus. Today, we have not one but three separate proposals to deal with this which are going to come up for a vote.
I support fully funding the request made. People say the President's request. Fine, it came from the White House. But it is really the scientists' request, the doctors' request, and the public health sector's request for how to address this issue.
The fundamental point I make is twofold. We can pay for it. We can find $1.9 billion. By the way, we can always come back later and find it, too, although I know that is hard to see happening here in Washington. But this is a public health emergency that cannot wait for this extended debate on this issue, especially when you talk about an $18 trillion debt. Zika funding is not the reason why we have an $18 trillion debt. It is not the national driver of our debt. That is why dealing with the long-term security of Medicare and Social Security is so critical. But we can pay for $1.9 billion, and we should. But it is public health experts who have said the amount we need is $1.9 billion.
I continue to urge my colleagues to take this with the sense of urgency that the public health experts have. The people I have met with, the people I have interacted with, and the people I have been talking to are not political people. I haven't been talking to people in the White House political office. I have been meeting with people who work at the Centers for Disease Control. I have been meeting with people who work at the Florida Department of Health. I have been talking to department of health officials in Puerto Rico. I have been talking with doctors who are in the frontline of dealing with microcephaly and what it means long term for the children who have been impacted by it. That is with whom I have been talking.
They have outlined the kinds of things we need to be doing. But more importantly, what they outlined is that there is so much we still don't know about Zika. For example, we don't know what the long-term consequences are of a mother who is infected with Zika while pregnant and the child was born without microcephaly. We don't know what happens in 6 months, 9 months, 1 year, or 5 years down the road. But I do know that many medical experts believe there will be further manifestations of the disease's impact on the central nervous system in many of these children years after this debate in Congress is finished.
I do know that Puerto Rico is being ravaged by this. Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States. These are American citizens who have been infected with Zika. They don't have a Senator from Puerto Rico, although I am more than honored and grateful for the opportunity to speak on their behalf on these issues. But what people have to understand is--this is not the right way to approach it, but even if your approach is that it is Puerto Rico and it is not the mainland of the United States, then I invite you to go to the airport in Orlando or Miami, and you can see the daily flights and the constant flow of people back and forth.
We also look at the fact that the summer months are coming. This is a mosquito-borne infection. We know that mosquito season is here, and it is coming fast. We know that the Zika virus becomes more potent as temperatures get warmer. Guess what. It is about to get really warm not just in Florida but throughout the Gulf Coast States and throughout the country.
We know that places such as Brazil have been deeply impacted by the Zika virus. Guess what. Tens of thousands of people are about to travel through the United States to and from Brazil for the summer Olympics.
We know that Major League Baseball canceled a game in Puerto Rico because they believed it was a serious enough risk that they didn't want to put the players at risk, not to mention the crowd.
We see something percolating, and we don't know much about it. We know enough about it to know it is a serious problem. We do not know how far this is going to go. As a result, we see the people of this country facing a public health threat, and our response should be to deal with it the way medical experts say we need to deal with it.
We can put language in the proposal that says: If you don't end up spending the full $1.9 billion and you don't need all of that money, all of that money automatically goes back to Treasury within it a year or two if it hasn't been spent.
Why take the chance? Why take the chance that at some point this summer we could have a significant and serious outbreak in the United States of America when all the Senators are back in their home States doing campaign stuff or whatever they are doing and have to come back here and deal with it and explain to the people why, when doctors and medical experts were warning us that this was a significant risk, we decided to lowball it and spend less than what was called for by experts.
By no means do I intend for this to sound as if I am criticizing Senators Murray and Blunt. I thank them for their work. They have tried to come up with a bipartisan proposal that can pass.
I said earlier, I am proud of the amendment that my colleague from Florida, Senator Nelson, and I are proposing here today. I hope that the $1.9 billion amount passes, but if we are left with a vote on the Blunt-Murray amendment, I think that is better than nothing, and I will support it. But why are we taking this chance? It makes absolutely no sense.
While I am happy that the Senate will hopefully take action on this issue, I am concerned about what I hear coming from the House. I am glad that they are finally beginning to move on the legislation and that something is happening, but I am very concerned about the direction of their own funding measure. Their funding measure isn't even $1.1 billion. It is $622 million, and quite frankly, that will not cut it. If we don't spend more than that on the front end, I believe we will spend a lot more later on because the problem is not going to go away, and it certainly will not go away with $622 million to combat it. This is concerning to me because even if we do manage to pass the $1.9 billion request, I am afraid even that may not be enough for the long term.
The issue that seems to be holding them back is the desire to offset spending. As I said, I support that 100 percent. I believe we can find $1.9 billion and transfer it from some other part of our budget to ensure that we are not deficit-spending. We can do that and we should do that. I am in favor of doing that, but that will not keep me from trying to do something about it.
In times of public health emergencies, just like during times of natural disasters, I don't think we should delay action while we try to figure out these budgetary moves and try to agree on what we are going to cut from other parts of the budget. I still belive we should do it, but we cannot hold back for another few weeks while we are trying to get to that point.
The administration has already diverted half a billion dollars that was intended for the fight against Ebola, but the House would raid even more of the Ebola funds for the Zika response.
It is easy to say: Ebola is not in the headlines anymore. We are not reading about it that much, so it must not be a problem.
Ebola still exists. It is not polio. We haven't eradicated it from the United States or the world. It is just not a percolating crisis right now, but there is nothing to say that it couldn't pop up again.
By the way, these sorts of pandemics will become more and more common as people are able to extensively travel all over the world. We are at the crossroads of a lot of that travel.
I don't think I am prepared to walk away. Maybe they don't need the full half a billion dollars, but I think it would be shortsighted to say that Ebola is finished, so we don't have to worry it anymore. There has to be some money available in case that comes up again, because it could.
I believe the House can and should do better than what it has proposed and should provide offsets to the spending--provide the $1.9 billion offsets. I guarantee they will be able to find that fairly quickly. They could provide stringent accountability measures. They could stipulate in the law that they pass, for example, that if we are wrong and don't end up spending or needing anything close to $1.9 billion or even $1.1 billion, that the taxpayers' money will be returned to the Treasury. But let's not play with fire.
As of now, there are 112 people in the State of Florida who have been infected. We have many more American citizens who have been infected in Puerto Rico. There are many unborn children who are at risk, and many more will be impacted once mosquito season sets in. At the end of the day, these are the people we should be fighting for, and quite frankly, we can do much better than what the House is proposing.
This is a devastating disease. It has taken lives throughout our hemisphere, and the way it impacts unborn children alone should call us to action. We have seen the images from Brazil of the children born with microcephaly. This is a devastating condition. The cost of caring for those children throughout their lives is extensive, and we are going to do it. We need to do it, and we will do it, but let's try to prevent it. Let's try to get ahead of it. Let's try not to just be reactive but proactive.
There are reports in the press today that scientists have been able to take a significant step toward potentially creating a vaccine. Once there is a vaccine for Zika, this problem will be under control.
As I said earlier, let's not play with fire. I hope my colleagues will jump on board and fully fund the $1.9 billion. If they want, we can put language in the legislation that says that if the money isn't fully spent, it will be refunded to the Treasury.
Why take the chance? Why take a chance on an issue that is not yet well defined? Why take the chance on a disease that we still don't know everything about? Why take the chance that we could have an outbreak much worse than anything any of us anticipated and be caught off guard? Why take the chance that you will have to go home in August and September and explain to millions of people across this country why so many Americans are now being infected by this disease and you lowballed our approach to it a few months ago? Why take the chance?
Let's do it once. Let's get it right. Let's ensure that we are protecting our people and deal with it now and deal with it fully. This is our obligation, and I hope we will embrace it here today. There is no reason we should not fully fund this proposal and listen to the doctors and health care experts who are asking us for this and build from there. I hope that is what my colleagues will do in a few hours when we vote on these proposals that stand before us.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source