Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, as for the last speaker, I heard that speech in 1981. I heard it in 2001. I heard it in 2003. The certainty of this bill is that we will explode further deficits and provide for disinvestment. That is the certainty of this bill, and I rise in strong opposition to it. This package will raise deficits by approximately $622 billion over the next 10 years. Add to that the $58 billion in unpaid-for tax provisions in the omnibus bill of approximately $680 billion. When you add interest to that, it is almost $800 billion in additional debt, Mr. and Mrs. America. I came to this floor on Tuesday and spoke in greater detail about my opposition to this package. I, again, want to highlight one major issue, and that is how enacting this legislation will set the stage for the next round of painful sequester cuts, otherwise known as disinvestment in growing our economy and jobs. Do my colleagues not see the tragic symmetry of this package's almost $800 billion in new deficits and the sequester's $813 billion in cuts that were imposed for the sake of deficit reduction? Republicans will again insist upon hundreds of billions of cuts from domestic discretionary investment--i.e., growing jobs and the economy-- in order to make up for the budget shortfall incurred by the extension of these tax credits, some of which are made permanent. There are, certainly, good reasons to make a number of these tax credits and deductions permanent, and I support making many of these permanent, but we ought to pay for it in the process, as your predecessor did, Mr. Camp. It was a tough decision he made, and it was dismissed out of hand because it was hard to do. This is easy to do. There is no courage required to vote for this bill. All you have to do is suspend common sense. This legislation flies in the face of the basic budgeting principle, which hardworking families all across our Nation understand and have to live with every month. Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, wrote in The Washington Post last week: ``How do we explain to our children that we borrowed more than $1 trillion--counting interest--not because it was a national emergency or to make critical investments in the future but because we just don't like paying our bills?'' Republicans would answer as they always do--that tax cuts somehow, magically, pay for themselves. I have been here 35 years. It has never happened.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we have seen that notion disproven several times over, and the results of experimenting with that idea have been higher deficits and a ballooning debt that fuel Republican efforts to disinvest in our future and to dismantle Medicare, Social Security, and safety net programs. Let's not make the same mistake again. Instead, we ought to be voting on a straightforward, 2-year extension, and then commit ourselves to meaningful tax reform as David Camp did. It is tough to do, I understand that, but it is the right thing to do. Let us show that we have courage as well as common sense. Defeat this bill. Let us move on to meaningful tax reform and to growing our economy.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Lowey and Chairman Rogers for their leadership on this bill. Mr. Speaker, there is no such thing as a perfect bill. There are a number of things about this bill that I would change--and, to that extent, I am probably like everybody else in this House--and that I opposed when they were brought to the floor on their own; specifically, ending the 40-year ban on crude oil exports. However, this bill, in addition, fails to include language that will enable Puerto Rico to restructure its debt at no cost to the taxpayer, which is a resource the Puerto Rican Government deserves to avoid real harm to our citizens living on the island. The Speaker has indicated a willingness to work across the aisle on this early next year. We must do so. But this omnibus represents a compromise that will avert a government shutdown and continue our investment in national security, education, housing, public health, innovation, environmental protection, and maintaining justice. No one--as never happens--is going to get everything they want or prevent everything they oppose from being included. Businesses and workers across our country deserve the certainty that comes from ensuring that our government remains open and serving the American people. I am glad that the most egregious partisan policy riders were removed from this bill. I congratulate Mr. Rogers and Mrs. Lowey for that accomplishment. I believe we can do better, especially when it comes to making investments in areas that grow our economy, such as infrastructure, research and innovation, higher education, and workforce development. But I will support this omnibus, and I urge my colleagues to support this omnibus because we must not let the perfect stand in the way of the practical and the appropriate. It is our responsibility not to kick the can down the road with a continuing resolution, but to pass commonsense appropriations that avert the dangers to our economy that stem from a shutdown. This bill achieves those goals. I hope we can move into the new year with a renewed sense of what we ought to do together to invest in a stronger future for America. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this omnibus bill. I thank Mr. Rogers and Mrs. Lowey for their leadership.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding. Can the leader tell me what the expectation would be for Members on Friday as to when would be a target date to complete business on Friday?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for the information.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, within the next few days, the House could take up a tax package that extends a number of tax breaks permanently. The cost of such a package runs in the $600 billion to $800 billion range--none of which is paid for--ballooning our deficits in a way that reinforces a misguided double standard that investments in the growth of jobs and opportunities must be offset, but tax cuts are always free. Tax cuts, like everything else, have a cost. If we fail to pay for them, we will once again increase deficits and debt, which in turn will be used as the catalyst for another round of cuts to the very programs I believe are vital to our economy and to our people. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will oppose an unpaid-for tax extenders package like this that is proposed, should it come to the floor. Before going through my concerns about this deal in greater detail, let me say that the package being discussed has a number of tax preferences that I and many others support. These include making permanent expansions of the earned income tax credit, the child tax credit, and the American opportunity tax credit launched under the Recovery Act in 2009. It would also provide incentives to businesses and individual filers for investment, research, charitable contributions, and teaching expenses, among others. Most of us support those efforts. In many ways, this would be a bill where everyone gets something they want. But, Mr. Speaker, our children and grandchildren will get the bill. What concerns me most about this deal is that it further entrenches the false notion that offsets only matter when it comes to spending priorities. The direct consequences will be providing Republicans with the ammunition they need to propose even deeper cuts to the very investments that help grow the economy and create jobs both in the short term and in the long term. Frankly, I am surprised that we haven't heard more of an outcry that the roughly $800 billion in lost revenue from this package is nearly the same amount as the $813 billion in discretionary cuts Republicans insisted upon in the sequester. It would appear that we are setting ourselves up for Republicans demanding the next round of severe cuts that harm our economy and our people, both on the nondefense side and on the national security side. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, we must move away from this dangerous pattern. Republicans have continued to argue that tax cuts pay for themselves by spurring economic growth, a theory that has been proven wrong, and, sadly, as I said, our children will pay the price for the deficits that have resulted. Others will argue that the effect on our deficits and debt of another $700 billion in unpaid-for tax expenditures over the next 10 years can be ignored because we would extend them every year anyway. While convenient, neither of these is a responsible position for governing. In a Wall Street Journal piece last Monday, Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget--the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget--asked: ``How do we explain to our children that we borrowed more than $1 trillion--counting interest--not because it was a national emergency or to make critical investments in the future but because we just don't like paying our bills?'' Our answer has to be not to justify the irresponsible behavior, but to correct it. And this tax extenders package will make that much more difficult. First, this package undermines Congress' ability to invest in creating jobs and opportunities that make the American Dream possible for millions of families. When we cut taxes without paying for them, there are consequences. Every dollar in lost revenue is a dollar that must be made up somewhere else in the budget. As I said earlier, these unpaid-for tax extenders will set the table for further Republican attempts to slash critical investments in our Nation's future. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, it will hinder our ability to restore fiscal stability by making it less likely that we will be able to protect the future sustainability of entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security. In order to appear balanced, recent Republican budgets proposed trillions of dollars in cuts to health programs for seniors and the most vulnerable in our society. Worsening our deficit outlook by passing this bill invites them to continue that tack. While we face a challenge to our most critical retirement and health programs--a challenge driven by the retirement of the baby boom generation and the looming effect of compound interest on our debt--my Republican friends continue to offer budget proposals that severely cut benefits for seniors and the most vulnerable Americans and they try to justify doing so because our deficits are too high. Their proposal would exacerbate that by about $1 trillion, as Maya MacGuineas said. Here we are, though, about to consider proposals to raise the deficits even higher. Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, this type of unpaid-for, permanent extension will undercut our economic competitiveness by making comprehensive tax reform more difficult to achieve, not easier. We need comprehensive tax reform, and this will make it more difficult. Locking in preferences while lowering the revenue baseline by more than half a trillion dollars will ensure a plunge into further debt. Mr. Speaker, I continue to believe that the business community would much prefer to see rates go down through comprehensive reform than simply an extension of individual preferences. This bill promises them both--more preferences and lower rates--at the cost of deficits, debt, and diminished investment in our economic competitiveness. There are certainly components of this tax extenders package that I, as I said before, would like to make permanent. I wish we could make them even better, in fact. For instance, the child tax credit should be structured to keep up with inflation so those working the hardest to get by don't continue to see their resources dwindle year after year. Again, let me quote Maya MacGuineas when she highlighted this important point in her op-ed when she said: ``Most of the extensions under consideration are sensible enough policy--and their merit is an argument for paying for them.'' I couldn't agree more. This tax extenders package, itself, serves as a powerful argument for Democrats and Republicans to come together to achieve that which we really need: comprehensive tax reform. So, in closing, Mr. Speaker, while I agree we need short-term certainty for tax filers before the end of the year, I believe the price this package would have us pay is too steep and too irresponsible in the short term and in the longer term. Instead, we could provide that same immediate certainty with a simple 2-year extension. That is what we ought to do. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to think carefully about the long- term impact and consequences of this tax extenders package on the ability to create jobs and opportunities, grow our economy, invest in strengthening our security, reduce our Nation's debt, and balance our budget. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this Congress and our people expect us to do better. We have a responsibility to our country and to our children to do better. Let's do it.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy) for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the leader for that information. In any event, Mr. Speaker, the Members, as the majority leader has indicated, will not be having votes until, at the earliest, 6:30 on Tuesday. I believe that the balance of the week--or such time as may be necessary in order to complete the work of this session of the Congress--will dictate the length of time that we go on the schedule. Is that accurate? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. To further clarify, I know there has been some talk about a CR that may be sufficient to get us into next year. As I understand what the majority leader is saying, it is our intention not to do that, but to, in fact, complete the appropriations process and the funding of government for the balance of the year until September 30 of next year. Is that accurate, sir? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the public's perception-- because that is what is covered most--is the confrontation that occurs between the parties, the differences that we have. But one thing that is a reality that the public ought to feel good about is they have extraordinarily good staffers, staffers who are committed to their country, to the House, and to the American people, who do wonderful work. Stip is a wonderful, wonderful positive participant, who made this House a better place in which to work, who made the substance of what we did more understandable for Members. He facilitated cooperation. He did not create confrontation. And we will miss it. We wish him the best, of course, as he leaves the House of Representatives, like so many of our staffers do, who go on to do better than most of us are doing, at least from a certain perspective. I want to wish him the very, very best. I want to thank him on behalf of not only myself, because he is a good friend, but also on behalf of my staff with whom he has worked very closely over the years. I know all of them appreciated the relationship they had, and have, with him. So I want to congratulate him and wish him good luck and great success. I yield, again, to my friend, the majority leader.

Mr. HOYER. Just to repeat--of course, the majority leader announced it yesterday, and again today--we will not be having votes on Monday. Has the gentleman decided whether there will be a pro forma session yet on Monday? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. I would say to him that--and I think he knows and I know--although I don't think either of us is directly involved in the hour-to-hour negotiations that are going on--but, nevertheless, negotiations still go on, Mr. Speaker--I am hopeful that, on both sides, we can see that which is unacceptable to the other side and put that aside for a later day. The appropriations process, of course, is about funding government. The appropriations process is about keeping government open. The appropriations process is about how do we best serve the American people. I am hopeful that that will not get mired down or prevent our success in coming to an agreement on the omnibus because of issues on which, clearly, there are significant policy differences and which can be argued on another day and in another bill, but will not undermine the completion of the appropriations process. I presume the majority leader hopes that as well. Hopefully, over the next few hours and, really, over the next couple of days, we will work on that because, if we don't, we are going to be here on the 17th, the 18th, the 19th, or the 20th, according to what the majority leader said, in order to get our work done. Is that accurate, Mr. Leader? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that comment. The only thing I would add, Mr. Speaker, is there is also a tax extender bill that is being discussed. The tax extenders are some of the items that Members on both sides of the aisle believe are appropriate and necessary to help grow our economy and create jobs, which has support on both sides of the aisle. But it is clear that the extender bill, as I understand it, is a bill that can be very, very large--as large as $800 billion in unpaid tax cuts--which, from our perspective on our side in the House of Representatives, will substantially exacerbate our deficit, and that will undermine the viability of getting tax reform done in the next session or in the years to come. We think, therefore, that it would be far preferable to have pending getting tax reform done--hopefully, next year if we can do so in a bipartisan fashion--and to have a shorter term. The Senate passed a 2- year bill, which is really a 1-year lookback to 2015 and a year forward to 2016. We need to certainly do that. I think we could get a bipartisan vote for that. I don't know where the negotiations are on that bill. I would like to inform the majority leader, as he probably knows privately, that we have great concerns on this side of the aisle about a bill of the magnitude that is being discussed and the impact it will have on our deficit, on discretionary spending, and on our opportunity to pass major needed--and a bipartisan expectation of doing--tax reform so our tax system is simpler, fairer, is producing the revenue that we need, but it is also making sure the American people understand and can be provided a much simpler system for them to have to respond to. If the majority leader wants to make any remarks on that, I yield to the gentleman. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise in support of H.R. 2795, the First Responders Identification of Emergency Needs in Disaster Situations (FRIENDS) Act, which was introduced by my friend Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas. That her bill is expected to be approved with overwhelming bipartisan support, including from Chairman Mike McCaul of the Homeland Security Committee, ought to surprise no one, because Rep. Jackson Lee has worked tirelessly on behalf of America's first responders to move this legislation through the House. Her legislation would launch a study of best practices and state of preparedness of state and local response agencies with the aim of improving safety and access to lifesaving resources. This bill recognizes the important role first responders play in communities throughout our country. We must ensure that these men and women have the resources they need to perform their jobs safely and effectively. We've witnessed the courage of first responders, from the September 11 attacks to the Boston Marathon bombings and at last week's deadly shooting in San Bernardino, California. We see it every day all over our nation. I've been incredibly proud to support first responders as Co-Chair of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, and I want to thank Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee for her work to bring the FRIENDS Act to the Floor. I also want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their support for this legislation in committee and in the full House.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. On Monday, would your expectation be that, if there were votes, no votes would occur prior to 6:30?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. No one more than Congresswoman Barbara Lee in this House has been focused on how we lift those in poverty out of poverty and into the middle class. Of course, as she so well says, it will be good for those in poverty, but it will also be good for all the rest of us. They will help build a better economy. They will help grow jobs, and they will help America be stronger. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to join my friend, Chairwoman Barbara Lee of the Democratic Whip's Task Force on Poverty, Income Inequality, and Opportunity, for this Special Order. I also want to thank Chairman Cleaver of the CBC's Poverty and Economy Task Force for the work that it has done in this area. Mr. Speaker, poverty is bad for your health. Poverty is bad for your mental health. Poverty is bad for children. Poverty is bad for families. More than 50 years after President Johnson declared unconditional War on Poverty, 46 million Americans are still struggling in poverty. That is not to say we haven't made some progress. There are programs we have adopted. Frankly, Medicare is a tremendous poverty program. Our seniors are better off, and far less of them are in poverty because of Medicare. Medicaid is a critical program to make sure that those who cannot afford it are, nevertheless, given health care, which is important for all of us to have healthy citizens with whom we deal on a daily basis. Ours, Mr. Speaker, may be the wealthiest nation on Earth, but we can best measure America's economic success not by how many are at the very top, but how few are stuck at the bottom of the economic ladder. By that measure, we have a long way to go to fulfill America's promise as a land of equal opportunity and of success. Even in 2015, the lines between rich and poor trace the old divides of race and background, with 29 percent of Native Americans, 26 percent of African Americans, and 23 percent of Latinos living in poverty. Poverty also strikes, of course, our rural communities. In fact, in many respects, there is more poverty in our rural communities than in our cities and urban communities. It is more visible in our cities because they are aggregated; although, we ought not to forget that literally--as I just mentioned about minorities--millions and millions of nonminorities struggle in poverty every day. Poverty strikes children at a higher rate, unfortunately, one in five children in America, as our leader says. The task force we launched and which Barbara Lee chairs has been working hard to raise awareness in Congress of these very real and very difficult challenges of poverty in America and to provoke policies that help alleviate suffering in the short term while working to eradicate poverty over the long term. Speaker Ryan has raised poverty as an issue on which he is focused, and he has visited areas of poverty in our country. We could recognize poverty. We can visit those in poverty. But what it is important to do, Mr. Speaker, and what Barbara Lee is leading us to do, is to adopt policies that almost eliminate, reduce, and empower those in poverty. The number one rule on the War on Poverty, of course, ought to be first, do no harm. This means making sure that we refrain from disinvesting in the critical programs that serve the poor and help millions stave off hunger, homelessness, and disease. Mr. Speaker, we ought to have those criteria in mind when we consider the appropriations bills, tax bills, and other policies that affect our people. Thankfully, the recent bipartisan budget deal prevented the return of sequestration's severe and painful automatic cuts, which would have disproportionately harmed the most vulnerable in our economy. Now Congress has a responsibility to follow that up by passing an omnibus and avert a shutdown. However, not doing further harm is not enough. Congress has a responsibility first and foremost to help create jobs that put Americans back to work and enable them to rise out of poverty and, as Congressman Coleman Watson indicated, to make sure that, when we ask people and give people the opportunity to work, we value that work and pay them a living wage. We cannot enable people to rise out of poverty if it keeps lurching from one manufactured crisis--when I say ``it,'' our policies here in Congress on budgets, on debt, on investment, and on taxes--to the next. If we lurch from one crisis to another, we will not be able to succeed in enabling and empowering those currently in poverty. We need to work together to invest in education, workforce training, and innovation to make our workforce more competitive and open doors of opportunity for those looking to get hired. We also, Mr. Speaker, need to expand assistance for housing and nutrition as well as access to health care, especially for children. Poverty need not be a cycle and should not be a cycle from generation to generation. That is debilitating certainly for them, but we ought to all recognize it is debilitating for us, our communities, and our country. The promise of America has always been that this cycle can be broken. That is what we think about America. Even if you are born in circumstances that are tough, if you work hard and play by the rules, you can rise above it. We need to make sure that we give them that opportunity. We need to take steps to make sure that hard work pays off, that those who have jobs can earn enough not only to get by, but to get ahead. This means making child care more affordable for working parents, enacting paid leave to care for sick loved ones, and raising the minimum wage. The new Speaker, Mr. Ryan, has indicated he takes very seriously the issue of poverty, as I said. I hope we can work together to address that problem in a serious, responsible, and effective manner. Not to do so would be a grave disservice to the future of our country and its people. One area he has suggested we might find agreement is in expanding the earned income tax credit to childless adults, which could lift an additional half a million Americans out of poverty. In addition to that, we ought to index the ITC, we ought to index the child tax credit, and we ought to index the opportunity tax credit so that we can empower and enable those who are working, those who have children that we want well-cared for and safe to be more productive citizens. I thank, again, Chairwoman Barbara Lee and all of the members on the Democratic Whip's Task Force on Poverty, Income Equality, and Opportunity and the CBC's Poverty and Economy Task Force, led by my good friend Representative Cleaver, for all the work they are doing to wage this War on Poverty with the determination and purpose this challenge requires. I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope she is correct, and I believe she is absolutely correct that we can work in a bipartisan fashion. There is nobody in this House who wants to see people in poverty. We may have different views of how to achieve the objective of empowering all of our people to seize the opportunity and to be paid a living wage and to support themselves and their family in a way we want them supported. We can work together--I agree with the gentlewoman--in a bipartisan fashion on that issue. I thank her for her leadership in achieving that objective.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. I want to thank Ranking Member Bennie Thompson, Ms. Lofgren, who worked very hard on this, and Democrats on the Homeland Security Committee and on the immigration policy and enforcement Judiciary subcommittee for their hard work to ensure that this bill will protect Americans from the threat of terror while we remain true to our highest principles and ideals. House Democrats and House Republicans have no greater priority than keeping Americans safe. That is neither a partisan issue nor is it a partisan difference. Many Americans are frustrated with the pace of progress against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. I want to see the administration and Congress working together to protect our Nation. The reforms in this bill are an excellent start. What we have before us today, Mr. Speaker, is an example of what we can achieve when both sides work together to craft responsible reforms in a spirit of unity and common purpose, which is: in the face of the threats we challenge, we ought to summons. I want to thank the majority leader, Mr. McCarthy, for working with me and our side of the aisle, and I want to thank those on the Republican side of the aisle for working together to get this bill done. The Visa Waiver Program has long been a tool to promote business ties and tourism, both of which are vital to our economy. We cannot--nor should we--simply shut our doors to the world if we want to continue to lead the world. This legislation will make it easier for law enforcement to vet those visitors who are coming from Visa Waiver countries, such as in Europe, to ensure that we are not admitting those who have traveled to places like Iraq and Syria and link up with ISIS. This is now the third major bipartisan piece of legislation to come to the floor in the past 2 weeks after the highway bill, which included a provision to reopen the Export-Import Bank, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization Act. I hope--and I think the American people would expect--again, in light of the challenges that confront us, that we can build on this progress and complete a bipartisan agreement to keep government open before the week is done. I want to thank, once more, Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren, who knows so much about this issue and who has been so faithful in her attention to both our values and the protection of the American people. I thank Bennie Thompson as well, the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, on our side of the aisle. I also want to thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his leadership on this issue as well as all of those who have worked on a number of issues. This will not be the last word, but it is a good word, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I also want to thank, who showed great courage and great leadership, Stephen Fincher of Tennessee and Frank Lucas of Oklahoma, my Republican colleagues, without whom this Export-Import Bank provision would not be in this bill. I congratulate them for their courage and their leadership. I thank again Peter DeFazio and Bill Shuster. This is a good day for our country. This is a bipartisan day for this Congress. And I urge my colleagues to support this product.

Mr. HOYER. I want to congratulate both Mr. Shuster and Mr. DeFazio for their work on this bill. I want to thank the Senate, as well, for their work and their leadership. This is a good week, in many respects. We passed yesterday, on an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, a bill to make sure that our education system works better. Today, we will pass, by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, a bill to give more stability and investment to our infrastructure in America. Those are good things. I lament the fact that, although the previous speaker talked about a sound, long-term fiscal path for infrastructure investment, my own view is we don't do that. We do better than what is but not what we ought to do. My own view is that we need to dedicate the user fee we call the gasoline tax at a level which has not been raised since 1993 to a level that will in fact put us on a path to fiscal stability and certainty for our infrastructure package. But this is a good package, and I want to thank my friend Bill Shuster for his leadership. Very frankly, that was critical to getting us to this point, not only on his side on the aisle but on our side of the aisle as well. And I want to thank Mr. DeFazio. As has been said, this is not a perfect reauthorization. We ought to stop saying that because nothing we pass is perfect. What we hope for is the good, and this is good. It is a compromise. All these efforts are critical to creating the kind of environment that encourage private-sector development and job growth. At the same time, I am very pleased that a wide majority of Members, nearly every Democrat and most Republicans, worked together to ensure that this conference report includes a multiyear reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, supported by a majority of Republicans and all but one Democrat. It is unfortunate that Congress, through inaction by the Congress, allowed the Ex-Im Bank to shut down in July. Now, it didn't actually shut down, but it had no authority to guarantee loans, which cost us jobs. We are changing that policy in this bill. Today, we are coming together to reopen it so that it can help American businesses and workers compete on a level playing field in overseas markets. During the time the Bank was shut down, businesses began shifting jobs overseas and others refrained from investing here because of the uncertainty over whether it would reopen. Today, that certainty will be restored. To that extent, the Export-Import Bank is in the same position that Governors and mayors and county executives all over this country will be put in by this bill, giving them some degree of certainty that there will be a cash flow for infrastructure projects, bridges, roads, and other transportation items. I want to thank again Ranking Member Maxine Waters for her work on the Export-Import Bank and Denny Heck and Gwen Moore for their work that led to this provision in the transportation bill.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I understand that we are here until the 18th. Does the gentleman contemplate the possibility of a short-term CR from the 11th to the 18th at any point in time?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy) for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule of the week to come.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman, and I certainly share his view on that. It will be better for the country and better for the House if we do that. The gentleman also referenced tax extenders. Obviously, we have tax extenders that expired in December of 2014, which have not been extended. Does the gentleman have any knowledge as to whether or not we have reached an agreement on a tax extender bill and, if so, the substance of that and when it might be scheduled? I yield to my friend.