Zika Response Appropriations Act, 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for yielding me the time I need.

I want to begin my remarks by complimenting our chairman. Quite frankly, I don't know anybody that has spent more time on this issue and devoted more thought to it than Chairman Rogers.

He took a codel down to the region. Our first stop was in Peru where we stopped at a Naval research station. It has been there for many decades. Their purpose normally is to look at tropical diseases, which they are doing, but they have now switched their efforts primarily to Zika, just as they should. So we were on top of this early.

Then we went to Brazil and, under Chairman Rogers' leadership, we had the opportunity to meet with the Centers for Disease Control's people on the ground and also talk to our colleagues in the Brazilian Government about the appropriate ways to move forward on this that were done thoughtfully and responsibly.

What Chairman Rogers has laid before us is essentially a three-part plan that funds all the administration wants to do. The first is the initial $600 million that would not be available had the chairman not directed the administration to immediately use available funds.

Now, when we passed money for Ebola, if you go back and look at the legislation, it was not only for Ebola. It was for Ebola and other infectious diseases. Frankly, the money there may well be more than we need for Ebola. But in any case, it is going to be spread over many years. So because the chairman pushed hard on this, we actually have $600 million available immediately, and the message to the administration was to start spending what you need to do now.

The second piece of this three-part plan is the bill that is in front of us today. It is over $600 million. As the chairman pointed out, this is two-thirds essentially of what the administration has requested and more than they requested in this fiscal year. Remember, this bill is only for this fiscal year.

So the next third will come in the bills that are presented by my subcommittee and by my good friend, Chairman Granger's subcommittee, the Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs.

So if you actually look at the total amount provided, it is about what the administration has requested, and it arrives in a timely manner to meet all their needs. The one single critical difference is that what the chairman has provided is fully offset.

Now, my very good friend from New York mentioned that, in emergencies, we don't normally offset. The reality is we do offset when we can. She mentioned tornados. Let me give you an example.

In 2013, my home community of Moore, Oklahoma, was hit by tornados. There was a question of whether or not there would be money available. There was, in fact, money available. That money was in the FEMA disaster relief fund. There was more than enough money in there that had already been appropriated to use. That is what is true here again today.

We have more than enough money in the Ebola funds that we appropriated 2 years ago to actually take care of the initial phase of this action and any other problem that comes up. This is now additional money on top of that.

So the wise thing, it seems to me, is to actually use the funds that you have set aside for these purposes. First, $600 million from the Ebola money and infectious diseases. The next would be this. The next tranche of money would be in the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education bill that I am privileged to be chairman of and will bring to this floor in June, and my friend Ms. Granger will also bring forward additional money in her bill to help with the efforts overseas.

So the simple fact is this really isn't an argument about Zika. It is an argument about whether you will pay to take care of the needs that we have. We have more than enough funds in what we have already voted, what we will vote for here, and what we will provide next year to actually take care of the problem. The chairman has made an additional commitment that if we need to backfill that money, if we are short for some other infectious disease that none of us can anticipate or for Ebola, we will take care of that during the regular appropriations process.

So this is, essentially, I think honestly, a solution in search of a problem. The money is here. We have the money. We are appropriating the money. The administration has not failed to do one thing it wanted to do because of lack of money. The money is available. The real question here is: Are you going to offset that money and make sure that we don't add another $1.9 billion to the national debt by using the money you have got available or are you just going to simply charge it to the national credit card? That is what my friends on the other side--with the best of intentions, I am sure--are actually advocating. Let's just put the country $1.9 billion deeper in debt as opposed to using available resources, appropriating additional resources and offsetting them, and then using the normal appropriations process to go forward.

I want to commend the chairman, honestly, for being thoughtful, careful, and prudent with taxpayer dollars. That is what this is all about. If we work together, we can provide all the money that the administration needs without increasing the national debt. If we do what our friends on the other side suggest, we will simply add $1.9 billion more, and at the end of the day, we won't be in any different place than we will be under the chairman's plan.

Mr. Speaker, I would recommend that we pass this legislation, build on top of the $600 million we have already provided, and allow Ms. Granger and myself to bring forward to the full Congress the additional funds that they need in the normal appropriations process.

Remember, this $1.9 billion isn't needed today. It is needed over a multiyear period. We are providing it over a number of years, and we are doing it without adding to the national debt. It seems to me pretty clear.

Actually, both sides have the same aim here. We want to take care of an urgent healthcare problem. The difference is the chairman has presented--first, in the $600 million we have already deployed, and in the $622 million that we will deploy in this bill, and the additional money that will come in the normal appropriations process--everything we need. In some sense, this argument is an argument we don't need to have unless your aim is simply to have $1.9 billion more.

I want to thank the chairman for what he has done. I look forward to continuing to work with my friends on the other side of the aisle. At the end of the day, we will have more than enough money. The difference will be we will not have added one cent to the national debt.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source