[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5471-5473]
[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 majority leader, Mr. McCarthy, 
for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule of the week to come.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, on Monday, no votes are expected in the House. On 
Tuesday, the House will meet at noon for morning hour and 2 p.m. for 
legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30. On Wednesday 
and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and noon 
for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for 
legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 
3 p.m.
  Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of suspensions next 
week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business 
tomorrow.
  In addition, the House will begin the annual appropriation process. 
The House will consider the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs 
appropriations bill sponsored by Representative Charlie Dent. This 
important bill provides funding to house and train our military and 
ensures that we can meet the growing health care needs of our Nation's 
veterans.
  The House will also consider the Energy and Water appropriations bill 
sponsored by Representative Mike Simpson. This bill ensures that we 
safely maintain our nuclear weapons stockpile and provide for critical 
infrastructure projects through the Army Corps of Engineers.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the House is expected to consider the budget 
conference report. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. He indicates 
that the appropriations process has started. First I want to say, as a 
Member who served on the Appropriations Committee for 23 years, I 
always thought we ought to start the appropriations process early, 
i.e., in May, but starting it, I think, is good news. We have had 
trouble on both sides getting all 12 appropriations bills--it used to 
be 13--12 appropriations bills done. So I congratulate the committee 
for initiating its work in a timely fashion.
  Hopefully, Mr. Leader, that will lead to, hopefully, passing 12 bills 
in the regular order, which, as I pointed out last week with respect to 
some other legislation, will require the kind of bipartisanship that we 
saw displayed ultimately on the DHS bill, but certainly on the SGR 
bill, and then this week we had two bills pass with a bipartisan--both 
sides--majority voting for it. Hopefully, we will be able to do that on 
the appropriations bill.
  I ask my friend on the MILCON, Military Construction bill, VA funding 
bill and on the Energy and Water bill, does the gentleman expect to 
follow what the gentleman and his party have indicated would be the 
process for appropriation bills under an open rule?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The answer to your question is ``yes.'' The gentleman does know, 
having been a part for many years of the appropriation process, that 
this is actually the earliest in the history of Congress we have ever 
started appropriations. It is our goal--I know it is your goal as 
well--to get all bills done through the House in regular order. It is 
something that we strive towards, and I thank the gentleman for his 
help.
  Mr. HOYER. I congratulate the gentleman and his party on bringing 
these bills to the floor early.
  He also says we are going to be considering a conference report. I 
don't obviously know what that conference report is. The budget itself, 
though--which of course sets the parameters for the appropriations 
bills in terms of caps on spending--was, as the gentleman knows, not a 
bipartisan bill. There were party differences on that bill. I would 
hope that in the conference report we can reach an agreement.
  My own view is, Mr. Majority Leader, that if we stay at sequester 
levels we will not be able to pass bills and the President will not 
sign them. The reason being that our side, and I think the President, 
perceives, and many in your party perceive at least as it relates to 
some aspects of the sequester, that the sequester numbers are not 
workable.
  As you know, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee has called 
the sequester numbers, which are reflected in the budget that passed 
the House, ill-conceived, unworkable, and unrealistic. In that context 
it will be difficult for us to get, no matter how early we start, these 
bills completed. I would hope that we could come together at some point 
in time as was done in Ryan-Murray. I know there are Members on your 
side, including I think the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, 
who believe that if we don't come together on an agreed figure that 
will allow the Appropriations Committee to meet its responsibilities, 
then we will have great difficulty getting appropriations bills done.
  I don't know whether the gentleman has any thoughts on that, but if 
he does, I would be glad to yield to him on that.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate his 
comments, and we will continue to work together to get our 
appropriations process finished.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I don't know whether the gentleman 
had an opportunity to read an article--it may have been an op-ed, I 
have got the clip--but I am not sure where it appeared in the paper. 
But the former Speaker, Newt Gingrich, wrote an article that 
essentially stood for the proposition that Republicans and Democrats 
about a decade or a little over a decade ago were able to come together 
and to take advantage of the research opportunities that Speaker 
Gingrich, former Speaker Gingrich, said were apparent and possible in 
today's day. I share that view.
  Many people, including your predecessor, Mr. Cantor, were concerned 
and have recently said that we need to increase substantially the 
investments and the resources that we have at NIH. Unfortunately, as 
the gentleman may know, in the allocations to subcommittees that were 
adopted yesterday in the Appropriations Committee, as I understand it, 
there was $3 billion cut from the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and 
Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, which covers NIH, 
which will make it very difficult to do what Speaker Gingrich, former 
Speaker Gingrich, suggested we do in The New York Times today.

                              {time}  1215

  The gentleman, if he hasn't read the article, doesn't need to comment 
on it,

[[Page 5472]]

but I want to call to his attention that we are very concerned, but 
people on your side and your former Speaker are very concerned that we 
are not investing sufficient sums to take advantage of the 
opportunities, and it is costing us.
  He particularly mentioned Alzheimer's and the extraordinary costs 
related to Alzheimer's disease and that, if we can either delay the 
onset of Alzheimer's or prevent Alzheimer's, that we will, in effect, 
save tens of billions of dollars.
  I bring that up simply in the context of we really do need to get the 
resources into the Appropriations Committee that Mr. Rogers, the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, a senior Republican in this 
House, says are necessary to meet our responsibility.
  I would hope that the majority leader would be looking at that and 
would, hopefully, work towards that end.
  Let me ask you two more questions, Mr. Leader. The highway bill, as 
the gentleman knows, expires in terms of its authorization for funding 
on the 31st of May. It is not on the schedule, obviously, this month, 
but can the gentleman tell me--we are very concerned, and, as you know, 
every Governor, every county executive, every mayor--you have talked to 
them; I have talked to them--are very concerned about the resources 
that they are going to have available to do bridges and highways 
maintenance, infrastructure investment.
  Can the gentleman tell me when we might, in the 2 weeks that we will 
have in May, be able to consider the highway bill?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The gentleman is correct about the highway funding. We look forward 
to making sure we get that done on time in a bipartisan manner. We will 
be continuing to work with you as we move forward.
  Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the fact that we can work on a bipartisan 
manner. I look forward to doing that. I know that Mr. DeFazio looks 
forward to doing that; I know Mr. Shuster looks forward to doing it--
both very, very positive Members of this body.
  I will tell the gentleman, I am somewhat concerned, however, about 
rumors that I have heard that we are looking at, perhaps, a short-term 
patch. The problem, as the gentleman so well knows, with a short-term 
patch is it does not allow for the kind of planning that is necessary 
in terms of significant infrastructure projects, which require some 
significant lead time.
  Does the gentleman know whether or not we might be considering at 
least a 5-year or at least a longer term, maybe even as long as a 7-
year authorization? Or are you contemplating that we, in May, would do 
another short-term patch?
  As you know, we Democrats opposed May 31. We wanted a longer 
extension. The House and the Senate agreed on a short-term patch--or 
short-term May 31 deadline.
  Does the gentleman have any expectations that we have the possibility 
of doing a 5-year or longer, so that the States and communities can 
plan on a long-term basis, as opposed to a very short-term basis?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  No decisions have been made at this point. This could be a prime 
example, just like our work on SGR.
  As a personal note, I would like to solve these problems in the long 
term. There is no reason to come back to it.
  If we have to get in a situation that is short-term, hopefully, that 
that would be short to fix a long-term, much like the issue that we had 
with SGR. I am hopeful that we can get that done in a very long-term 
manner.
  Mr. HOYER. Well, I thank the gentleman for that comment. I think it 
is a very positive comment.
  I will tell the gentleman, next week, perhaps you and I can talk 
about this towards that end because I think, if we talk about creation 
of jobs, we talk about giving confidence and stability to the economy, 
I think that is one way we could do it, and, hopefully, we can work 
together.
  The last issue I would bring up, Mr. Leader, as you know, I worked 
with your predecessor, Mr. Cantor, very successfully on the 
reauthorization of Export-Import Bank. That issue is coming up, and it 
will be expiring at the end of June, on June 30. We need to reauthorize 
that.
  I am someone who believes that that is critical in terms of our 
exports. I know there is some disagreement on that issue, maybe between 
the two of us and between our caucuses; but, as you know, there are 60 
Members in your caucus who have written a letter to the Speaker 
indicating their support and urging that that be brought to the floor.
  Very frankly, with 185-plus Members, I think we will be unanimous on 
it, as we were last time. That makes somewhere in the neighborhood of 
240 to 250 votes on this floor for the reauthorization of Export-Import 
Bank.
  Does the gentleman see any prospect of that bill coming to the floor 
any time in the near future? As I say, as you know, the authorization 
expires on June 30.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The gentleman is correct, the authority for the Export-Import Bank 
does expire at the end of June.
  I know the respect the gentleman has, as I do, for regular order and 
working through committees. The committee of jurisdiction has had a few 
hearings, and I know they have some hearings scheduled in the future 
continuing.
  Nothing is scheduled at this point, but, if anything comes forward, I 
will notify.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  I will just say this: we know that the chairman of the authorizing 
committee is opposed to Export-Import Bank. He was opposed to TRIA as 
well. He is opposed to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As the gentleman 
knows, those, nevertheless, enjoy broad-based support in this House to 
a greater or lesser degree.
  TRIA, we passed, notwithstanding the chairman's opposition to TRIA, 
on a bipartisan basis with overwhelming big numbers. I think that was 
the right thing to do.
  I would urge the majority leader to urge the chairman, who I think 
does not enjoy the support of the majority of this House, on his 
position. I know you may share that position, but I really do believe 
the House has a position that we ought to pass the Export-Import Bank, 
and we need to do it sooner rather than later, to make sure that we 
continue the confidence that purchasers of U.S. goods, whether they be 
airplanes or widgets, will continue to keep doing so with the thought 
that we have in place what almost every country in the world has in 
place, a facilitating of that export ability of our country.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I do want to correct one part of history here. You referred to our 
chairman. Our chairman did move a TRIA bill through his committee. We 
did move it off this floor. The chairman you speak of, Chairman 
Hensarling, managed the bill, got it through the House. We got it over 
to the Senate, and unfortunately, the Senate didn't take it up in the 
last hours, and then we got it done and signed into law this year.
  I believe our chairman works very hard on these issues and did an 
excellent job in the TRIA.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  I have no disrespect for Mr. Hensarling. I think he is a very able 
Member of this body, and I have great respect for him. I disagree with 
him both on the Export-Import Bank, and I think I correctly 
characterize his view on whether we ought to do TRIA, but I do respect 
the fact, yes, he did bring it to the floor, and when he brought it to 
the floor, it passed overwhelmingly.
  I won't pursue that further, but I don't expect Mr. Hensarling--
because I think he honestly believes that we ought not to have an 
Export-Import

[[Page 5473]]

Bank involvement, but having said that, I think that is not the 
position of the majority of this House.
  When we last voted on it, it wasn't the position of the majority of 
your party or of mine. Now, that may have changed; I agree with that, 
but I think I am pretty confident in saying the majority of this House 
believes, in order to make sure that we stay competitive with worldwide 
competitors, that the Export-Import Bank is a critical component of 
that competitive ability. I simply hope that we will be considering it.
  If it fails, it fails, but I think the American public, on this and 
so many other issues, deserves a vote on this floor. As the Speaker, 
and I have repeated this time and again, said at the beginning in the 
last election that his objective was to let the House work its will on 
this matter, as well as some others that I will discuss in the future, 
I would hope we could do that.
  Unless the gentleman wants any more time, I yield back the balance of 
my time.

                          ____________________