[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 17113-17114]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McCarthy), the majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring of the 
schedule for the week to come.
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour 
and 2 p.m. for legislative business, but no votes are expected. On 
Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour 
and noon for legislative business. On Thursday, the House will meet at 
9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no 
later than 3 p.m. On Friday, no votes are expected.
  Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of suspensions next 
week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business 
today.
  On Monday, in addition to our usual suspensions, the House will 
consider H.R. 5781, the California Emergency Drought Relief Act of 
2014, authored by my good friend, Representative David Valadao.
  California is facing the worst drought in over a century, and that 
has a negative impact not only on our State's economy, but on the 
entire Nation's food supply. This legislation is critical so that we 
don't let precious water from current and future storms wash away to 
the ocean.
  Mr. Speaker, the House is also expected to consider legislation to 
address the upcoming expiration of our current continuing resolution, 
as well as legislation on the expiration of the Terrorism Risk 
Insurance Act.
  I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his information.
  I note in his comments, with respect to next Thursday, that we do not 
expect to meet on Friday, which I understand, but it does not 
specifically reference that that will be the end of the session of this 
Congress and, therefore, conclude the 113th Congress.
  Is the expectation, Mr. Leader, that, in fact, Thursday will be the 
adjournment date for the 113th Congress?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The answer to his question is: yes, it is.
  Mr. HOYER. As the gentleman has just announced, therefore, we have 4 
days left to go in this session, three of which will be voting days. I 
know that we have a number of things yet to come, one of which, of 
course, is the funding of the government.
  I know there have been a lot of discussions about what form that bill 
will take: whether it will be an omnibus; whether it will be a CR, a 
continuing resolution; whether it will be a combination of those two. 
There is concern on our side of the aisle.
  Mr. Price, who is the ranking member on the Homeland Security 
Committee, is very concerned that some of the security needs of the 
country will be put, if not at risk, then in doubt if there is a short-
term funding of that part of the one-twelfth of the appropriations 
bills.
  Does the gentleman know whether or not we are going to have an 
omnibus, which will cover all 12 of the appropriations bills and 
departments, or whether or not it may be a combination of some shorter-
term funding and longer-term funding?
  I yield to my friend.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. McCARTHY of California. I thank my friend for yielding.
  As my friend knows, negotiations are ongoing between the 
Appropriations of the House and the Senate; and as soon as the 
conclusion of the negotiations is done, we will notify everyone and 
post what comes out.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his information.
  I have had a brief discussion with the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers), with whom I have served for, I guess, about two decades while 
I was on the Appropriations Committee. While you and I have had 
conversations--I won't disclose the substance of those conversations--I 
believe strongly that an omnibus will give greater stability and 
confidence to those who carry out the programs that the Congress has 
set forth.
  So we are very hopeful that we can reach an agreement both on--we 
have already reached agreement, as you know, on funding levels in the 
Ryan-Murray budget agreement that related to last year's fiscal year 
and this year's fiscal year, fiscal year 2015. So we have agreed-upon 
numbers.
  The only thing we need now agree on, I think, specifically, is 
riders. Those are legislative provisions in the appropriations bills. I 
know that we are having a lot of discussions about those, and I know we 
have negotiations about those. In those negotiations, Mr. Leader, I 
would urge you, as the majority leader of your party, to do what you 
can to provide for full-year funding for the entire government because 
I think that will give confidence to people.
  With respect to Homeland Security, it will put us in a better 
security position--less doubt, more ability to plan, more ability to 
respond effectively. So I would hope that the leader could lend his 
very, very substantial influence and intellect and judgment to that 
process, which I think will be good for the country.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. I thank the gentleman for always being 
willing to give advice, and as soon as we get the negotiations done, we 
will keep you abreast.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for being pleased that I continue to 
give advice, and encouraged by that, I will continue to do so.
  One of the gentleman's colleagues that I know is very close to the 
Speaker, Senator Burr from North Carolina, said: ``Shutting down the 
entire government over something never did make sense to the American 
people, still doesn't and won't in the future.''
  I know that you are committed and the Speaker is committed to not 
shutting down the government. I share that view with you and want to 
work towards that end. But there are those who do; and to the extent, 
therefore, that we get the government fully funded through September 
30, we will not have that confrontation. I suggest, with all due 
respect to the leader, that if we delay a portion of that funding 
requirement, we are just going to have that fight 60 days from now or 
90 days from now or however long this is put off when we have already 
agreed upon the numbers that those agencies will be funded at. But I 
understand what the gentleman says.
  There are two other issues that I think are very, very important, one 
of which is TRIA. You referenced TRIA in your comments. We are very 
hopeful that we will follow the Senate in terms of a bipartisan 
engagement on this issue.
  As you know, Mr. Leader, the Senate passed the TRIA bill, which 
extended

[[Page 17114]]

the Federal reinsurance program for 7 years by a 93-4 vote. It was not 
close. There was an overwhelmingly bipartisan judgment that extending 
this would be good for business, good for insurers, good for 
contractors, good for jobs, and good for our economy to give, again, 
confidence that there would be the insurance available so that people 
could undertake construction projects either in urban, suburban, or 
rural areas.
  I would hope very much that we could bring a bill to the floor next 
week, Mr. Leader, that extends for no less than 2 years--I would pull 
that out of it because it is less than, because I know you have the 
chairman of the Financial Services Committee who does not want to do 
the 5 years or 7 years. But the way we are going to give confidence to 
people in this economy is to give them some ability for long-term 
thinking.
  If TRIA ends, there are going to be many, many projects that will not 
be undertaken in the private sector--forget about the public sector--
which I know the gentleman from California wants to see, additional 
economic activity in the private sector.
  As you know, 45 House Republicans have written to Speaker Boehner, 
and in that they said: ``We respectfully urge you to schedule action on 
a multiyear extension.'' That would be at least 2 years. ``Businesses 
with terrorism coverage are being told that their coverage will end if 
Congress fails to act, causing the sort of uncertainty that hurts 
economic growth.''
  Those are 45 of your Members, your colleagues, our colleagues who 
have made the observation. I think, therefore, for all the reasons they 
articulated, they are right. I have said that just now.
  They also indicate, Mr. Leader, that there are at least, therefore, 
in this Congress, over 230 votes to pass a TRIA extension with a 5-year 
window. I say that because every Democrat will vote for a long-term 
TRIA extension. Forty-five of your Members have written a letter 
clearly indicating they support that. That gets you well over 230 
votes. I think a majority of your party would vote for that as well. So 
I think we would probably get closer to 300 votes. But I would hope 
that we would do that because I think that is in the best interest of 
our country.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As the gentleman was correct in my announcement, I did announce that 
we will have legislation on TRIA on the floor next week. And I take 
what the gentleman said prior, about not wanting to shut the government 
down, and I am glad that you feel the same way. I just, at times, get 
concerned with the news reports that I hear from your leader--I don't 
know if they are true or not--from inside your own conference about 
trying to withhold votes. I hope that we can continue the working 
relationship that we have developed and, into the new Congress as well, 
work together, because no one on this side of the aisle ever wants to 
shut the government down. That is why we will bring forth legislation 
that will not shut the government down and protects it at the same 
time.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment.
  Very frankly, I am convinced that the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey)--Mrs. Lowey 
being the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee; Mr. Rogers 
being the Republican chair--could agree today and could bring a bill to 
the floor on Tuesday that would get overwhelming support.
  The gentleman knows that in accommodating some in your caucus either 
for legislative additions to the appropriation bill for which you need 
a waiver--as you know having served on the Appropriations Committee, 
legislating on appropriation bills is not consistent with the rules, 
and therefore you need a waiver to accomplish that--and the, what we 
hear, unwillingness to fund the Homeland Security agency, which, as the 
gentleman from South Carolina, Senator Graham, said just the other day 
was a bad idea and would undermine national security because of the 
duties of the Homeland Security Department, what the leader on our side 
of the aisle, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), was saying 
is that we cannot commit to something that, A, we don't know what is 
happening fully, that hasn't been decided yet, but, secondly, that is 
inconsistent with the agreement that we have on a bipartisan basis with 
the Ryan-Murray funding caps and that we think Mr. Rogers and Mrs. 
Lowey have agreed upon and can report out a bill that will be one that 
we can support fully. That, I think, is what the leader is saying. I 
agree with her on that.
  I am, therefore, hopeful that the bill will be in a fashion that will 
reflect, A, the Ryan-Murray agreement on numbers, and, B, not have in 
it ``poison pills,'' as we refer to them, that will make it difficult, 
if not impossible, for us to support. Both of us want to keep the 
government open. That is the responsibility of the appropriations 
bills. Other extraneous legislative actions that may want to be taken 
which would put that at risk I would hope would not be taken; and that 
was, I think, what the leader was saying.
  If the gentleman has nothing further, I yield back the balance of my 
time.

                          ____________________