[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 113 (Friday, July 24, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H8793-H8795]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. CANTOR asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the 
majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Virginia, the Republican whip, 
for yielding. On Monday the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-
hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed 
until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday the House will meet at 10:30

[[Page H8794]]

a.m. for morning-hour debate and 12 p.m. for legislative business. On 
Wednesday and Thursday the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative 
business, and on Friday the House will meet at 9 a.m.
  We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A 
complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of 
business today.
  In addition, we will consider the 2010 Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act; also H.R. 3269, the Corporate and Financial 
Institution Compensation Fairness Act of 2009; and H.R. 2749, the Food 
Safety Enhancement Act of 2009.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the gentleman speak of the 
prospects of the House considering the health care bill. I would ask 
the gentleman the status of that discussion and whether this House will 
be delivering on the Speaker's commitment that this House was going to 
vote on her health care bill.
  I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The status of the 
health bill, I think as the gentleman probably knows, is it's still in 
the Energy and Commerce Committee. The Energy and Commerce Committee 
has not reported out that bill.
  I don't know the Speaker's commitment, but certainly the Speaker and 
I both had the hope that we would be able to pass the health care bill 
by the time we left here on the 31st of July. My view is at this point 
in time, that may not be possible. However, that does not mean 
necessarily that we won't be here perhaps longer. I hope that's not the 
case; but if it proves to be necessary, we may be here a little longer, 
either on the Saturday or the 3rd or the 4th. I don't want anybody to 
be planning on that at this point in time. But currently the status of 
the bill is it's still in the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman again for some clarification. 
Did I just hear the gentleman say that we will not be considering the 
health care bill this week?
  Mr. HOYER. I didn't say it in so many words. But I have indicated and 
the Speaker has indicated that we're going to do 48 hours' notice, as 
required, or at least as we would hope to do. This is a very important 
bill. It is a bill that is of great consequence to all Americans, and 
we are going to meet those targets of notice.

                              {time}  1500

  So in that context, in light of the fact the bill is still in the 
committee, it may be impossible to meet that commitment and get the 
bill on the floor on the 31st. As a result, my view is the probability 
of doing that bill by the 31st is very small.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  So to reiterate, I will say that I heard the gentleman say the 
probability of taking up the health care bill by the 31st is very 
small, and I suspect that is due to what we have read in the news 
reports for successive days now about the difficulty that your side is 
having in gaining a majority in support of the bill. We have said all 
along, Mr. Speaker, there is a reason that there's a bipartisan 
majority against the health care bill being proposed by the Speaker, 
and that is because people are unsure about the direction a government 
health care plan would take them.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman knows we stand ready and willing to work 
together to try and effect reform for the American people. We on the 
Republican side of the aisle do not accept the status quo. We want to 
see a health care reform bill that works for the American people, 
maintains choice and quality, and reduces costs so more folks can have 
access to coverage, and that is not the bill before us, at least that 
which is being reported.
  So I would ask the gentleman, if there is a very little probability 
that this bill would come up prior to the 31st, and given that he and I 
have had some discussion about the schedule, how long will we be in 
session beyond the 31st?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  We think the bill that is pending--we are not sure that your premise 
is correct. As a matter of fact, we think your premise is probably not 
correct. We think the majority of people on this floor want to vote for 
a health care reform bill. We think a majority of people on this floor 
will vote for the bill that is currently pending as it becomes more 
perfected. So I'm not sure that--I'm not only not sure, I don't accept 
your premise that there aren't a majority of votes for the bill that is 
being considered in this House.
  Having said that, however, my point was that we want to give 
appropriate notice. If we can't give appropriate notice by the 31st of 
July, it is possible, I'm not saying that we're going to be doing this, 
but it is possible that we would move on to either Saturday, the 1st, 
or Monday and Tuesday the 3rd and 4th, if need be, if that was 
appropriate. It may or may not be. I don't want to say at this point in 
time, but I do want to give Members some notice that that is a 
possibility.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Obviously, if the process had worked differently, I would suggest to 
the gentleman that if we were allowed to try and put forward the kinds 
of proposals that we are attempting to do and there was a receptivity 
on your side to allow for some of the ``free-market principles and 
cost-control suggestions'' that have been made, according to a Member 
on your side, Mr. Minnick, back a few days ago, maybe we would be on a 
better course.
  In the same way, I think a colleague from the gentleman's State, Mr. 
Kratovil, said, the bill is not even out of all the committees and 
we're already talking about voting on this. We feel the same way, that 
there has been very little willingness to work together to try and get 
a health care plan right.
  Mr. Speaker, the way that I believe we get it right is to tell the 
people of this country exactly what would be in store for them by the 
insistence that there be a government plan involved in their health 
care.
  So I would tell the gentleman, we obviously stand ready to work with 
him and the Speaker to perfect a plan that could get much larger than 
just probably the small majority that he'll be able to produce, given 
the news reports that we are hearing.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman about his 
anticipation of next week's appropriations bill, the DOD bill. He and 
I, as the gentleman knows, have had a longstanding discussion on the 
rules. We, on this side of the aisle, have been extremely upset, as he 
knows, about the change in precedent in this House that somehow it was 
okay for this Congress to leave the precedent of open rule, to insist 
that we not be able to hold open discussions on issues surrounding the 
constitutional obligation of this body to spend taxpayer funds.
  So I would ask, even after the good faith attempt that we have made 
to open up rules and have been rebuffed at each turn, is it his hope, 
is it his intention, that perhaps on the DOD bill, whether we could see 
that happen? And I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. You're certainly going to have good faith on our side, as 
you've had all along. On the Defense Appropriations bill, it is my 
understanding there are well over 100 amendments that have been filed. 
Clearly, if we did that under an open rule or allowed all 100 
amendments--which, by the way, are by one Member. There are over 100 
amendments by one Member--we would never finish the bill if we stayed 
through August.
  Having said that, I have talked to the chairwoman, and it's my belief 
that Mr. Flake, who has filed over 100 amendments, will be given, 
certainly, ample opportunity to choose which amendments he wants to 
offer at the time that we consider the bill. I don't know the other 
amendments. Notice has been filed. I don't know the other amendments 
and don't know what the Rules Committee is going to do. But I will tell 
the gentleman, as I'm sure he knows, the bill will come under a rule.
  We believe that your side of the aisle has had most of the amendments 
that have been offered, clearly, and Mr. Flake and others, Mr. 
Hensarling were given the opportunity to offer a number of their 
amendments on earmarks, which I know are of great concern to both sides 
of the aisle.
  So I say to the gentleman, we do expect to take the Defense bill up 
under a rule similar to those under which we have operated, which have 
facilitated,

[[Page H8795]]

by the way, as the gentleman knows, all 11 of the 12 appropriations 
bills having passed. And while I was not sure of what was going to 
happen on the health care bill, we will achieve our objective of 
passing all 12 appropriations bills in a timely fashion.
  I yield back.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  I think the gentleman, though, speaks to the point I'm trying to 
make. We are trying to get things right here, and spending billions of 
dollars for spending's sake is not the goal here, and I know he agrees 
with me on that, that we are trying to effect the most prudent 
expenditure of taxpayer dollars in these very difficult economic times.
  As the gentleman knows, we voted on a PAYGO bill this week, and 
frankly, the spirit behind that PAYGO bill was to attempt to restrain 
the type of spending that we've seen this Congress conduct. In fact, 
this week, in one of the reports, one of the authors of an opinion 
column said, frankly, we are spending--the spending PAYGO bill that was 
passed this week was full of loopholes.
  And again, we know that the PAYGO bill that was passed was that. It 
wasn't a holistic PAYGO bill. It wasn't something that, frankly, will 
do much to address the runaway spending. So we still sit here, Mr. 
Speaker, and want to have an open process so we can contribute to 
holding back the runaway spending in this town.

  So I would say to the gentleman, just as he has said to me, we ought 
to be looking to try and open up this process again. We were not 
allowed to do so in the PAYGO debate and address the number one concern 
of this government right now, which is the runaway spending. We have 
not been allowed to do so in any of the appropriations bills, and if we 
are going to be here through the weekend, as the gentleman may suggest, 
why isn't it we couldn't take that time to debate the DOD bill in an 
open and full, transparent manner?
  I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. As I said, I think we'll have a rule similar to the ones 
that we have considered the previous 11 bills under.
  Mr. CANTOR. I didn't hear the gentleman, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. HOYER. I said, as I said, I believe we will be considering the 
defense bill under rules similar to those which have led to the passage 
of the other 11 bills.
  I yield back.
  Mr. CANTOR. I will say to the gentleman, obviously, with much 
disappointment, and I think really reflecting the disappointment on the 
part of the American people, that we should be having a much more 
robust debate on these issues. Certainly, if we are going to be 
addressing the issue of health care, and the gentleman says that his 
side is insistent on rushing back to the floor, insisting on some 
political deadline, then I don't understand why it is we couldn't have 
an open debate on some of the other issues if we are going to be 
waiting around here until next Monday or Tuesday.
  So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I yield back.

                          ____________________