Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I have listened attentively to the debate over the last 15 minutes about Zika, and it has been very entertaining to me. But it has also been interesting just to hear the numbers being thrown around. There is a series of numbers being thrown around as if it is an apples-to-apples comparison.
So let me try to break down a few things with an apples-to-apples comparison about Zika and the funding.
The President has asked for $1.9 billion for Zika. The Senate has now responded back to say: We will do the $500 million the President has already moved over from Ebola funding and add to it $1.1 billion to come up with about $1.6 billion--almost $1.7 billion--so about $200 million short, which is being declared as grossly inadequate. That is 0.2 short from what the President had asked for.
There is also being thrown around the House proposal, saying the House proposal is grossly inadequate to be able to cover what is being discussed there because it is a little over $600 million. The President wants $1.9 billion, and the House is offering $600 million. But what is not being stated is that what the Senate has done and what the President has asked for is $1.9 billion over 2 years. The House has said a little over $600 million this year and added to the Ebola funding that was already there--meaning $1.1 billion this year and then in our normal appropriations process to take it up again next year. It may be the same amount.
It has become very fascinating to me to hear some say: Well, they are cutting it in half, and it is insulting and it is all these things.
I think to myself: It is the same numbers. They are just cutting the times to be able to break it down into different numbers.
So all of these number games are very interesting, but they still don't drive at one essential thing. We do need to deal with Zika, but we also need to deal with Zika in a fiscally responsible way. The assumption that to deal with Zika means we have to throw the budget out and there is no way we can find $1 billion in a $4 trillion budget to cover Zika is laughable.
So what I propose is something very simple. Right now, the Department of State, HHS, and USAID have $86 billion in unobligated balances-- right now. There is absolutely no reason $1 billion of that could not be moved to deal with Zika right now. It would be the exact same proposal that Senator Murray and Senator Blunt have proposed but actually doing it with unobligated balances. There is absolutely no reason that wouldn't occur.
We know that $500 million had already been moved over from Ebola funding. That would be $1.6 billion moving over to help fight Zika.
The real issue to fighting Zika is three simple things. CDC is actually tracking the movements so we can stay attentive to it. The second thing is dealing with the mosquito population, which is aggressive spraying. The third thing is working on a vaccine. All three of those things we can do, and all three of those things have already begun. The research has already begun on the vaccine. The mosquito spraying has already begun, and working through the tracking and the movement of the disease has already started. The implication that nothing can start until this body acts is not true.
The administration, starting in January and February, came in and said: This is urgent. We need to be able to move funds, and we need to be able to have funds to do it.
Ironically, in January and February, they came and held hearings on that, but in March of this year--2 months ago--this same administration took half a billion dollars out of the economic support fund that Congress had allotted to them last December, which was earmarked especially for--get this--infectious diseases. So in March of this year, the administration took half a billion dollars out of the infectious diseases account for international infectious diseases and moved that over and gave it to the U.N. for the Green Climate Fund. Now they come to us, high and mighty, and say we need $1 billion, when the one-half billion dollars we already allotted that can be used right now along with the one-half billion from Ebola, equaling $1 billion, was already allotted by Congress--was already there--and could be in operation right now. They chose to reallocate to a different priority. So it disturbs me to hear the administration saying, ``Why aren't you doing anything about this,'' when we did last year, and then they spent that money on green climate funds rather than spending it on Zika--what it was allotted for--infectious disease control.
So here is my issue. We need to do both. We need to deal with Zika, and we need to do it in a fiscally responsible way, and we can. I understand the term ``emergency'' means one simple thing, spend more-- spend more and add more debt because it is an emergency.
I don't think Americans believe that with a $4 trillion budget, we cannot cover $1 billion from previous accounts. In fact, if we want to be specific, the three accounts the Blunt-Murray amendment puts money into--they are putting $1.1 billion into a set of accounts. If we took those accounts alone, those accounts alone that they are adding $1 billion to already have $15 billion in unobligated balances in those accounts right now.
We can be efficient in what we do and still treat things seriously, and I think we should. I think it is fiscally responsible to not just say the Zika virus is moving quickly so we need to add more debt to our children to respond to it. I think we can take care of our debt and take care of Zika.
For anyone who would say it is unheard of to be able to move funds for an emergency like this, may I remind you in 2009, this same Obama administration facing the H1N1 virus moving around the world, asked for permission to move unobligated balances out of some of these same accounts to deal with the H1N1 virus. We are just saying, if it is OK for the H1N1 virus, why is it suddenly not allowable now dealing with Zika? This is not about Zika anymore; this is about breaking the budget caps.
We need to be responsible in our spending and responsible in how we deal with Zika. Both things can be done.
3955 to the Blunt amendment No. 3900.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, there is one clarification I would like to be able to make. This amendment I have proposed--and would still stand by--allows us to be able to continue what is going on with mosquito eradication right now. That doesn't stop. I would hate for anyone in this body to promise every American that if we give DC enough money, we will make sure they are never going to be bitten by a mosquito. I am not sure that is a promise we would ever want to make because we can't keep that promise, but the amendment I propose gives the administration the latitude to be able to select which accounts this money would come from. We are talking about $86 billion of options on multiple accounts from the State Department, USAID for international aid, and also HHS. That is not for medical research and not for children getting immunizations. There is enough money in those accounts.
I will repeat back the same thing I said before. This administration transferred one-half billion dollars just 2 months ago from the infectious diseases account, noting, apparently, that we didn't need money in the infectious diseases account and moved that money to the Green Climate Fund. So for the administration to say it is more important that the U.N. get green climate funds than dealing with the Zika virus is a different set of priorities than where we are in this Congress and a different set of priorities than we put into place in December of last year.
This is an issue this administration already has the authority to deal with. It doesn't have to come from cancer research. It can come from allocating accounts. But there is no reason to add debt to our children to also deal with mosquito eradication in the United States. We can do both, and we should do both.
I yield back.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source