Legislative Program
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
The gentleman, if he hasn't read the article, doesn't need to comment on it, 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 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source