[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 159 (Thursday, October 29, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H12118-H12121]
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. Madam 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 for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, 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 8 a.m. for morning-hour debate. 
The House will then meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business and recess 
immediately. The House will reconvene at approximately 10 a.m. in a 
joint meeting with the Senate to receive Her Excellency, Dr. Angela 
Merkel, Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany.
  On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for 
legislative business.
  On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.
  We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The 
complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of 
business tomorrow.
  In addition, Madam Speaker, we will consider the Expedited Card 
Reform for Consumer Act of 2009; H.R. 2868, the Chemical Facility 
Antiterrorism Act of 2009; and H.R. 3962, Affordable Health Care for 
America Act.
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman if he 
can give us any indication about the days on which we could expect 
these particular bills to be debated and voted upon on the House floor.
  Mr. HOYER. I would expect the credit card bill to be considered as 
early as Wednesday; the Chemical Facility Antiterrorism Act to be 
considered as early as Wednesday or Thursday; and the Affordable Health 
Care Act as early as Thursday.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for that.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to say to the gentleman that I noticed 
that this morning we Republicans, just like the public, were not 
allowed to attend the Speaker's unveiling of the public option bill.
  I know that the gentleman here on this House floor and I have always 
talked about the need for transparency, certainly at this particular 
occasion, and at the press conference the public nor any Republican was 
allowed to attend.
  I would note for the record, Madam Speaker--I know the gentleman 
knows this--that the steps of the Capitol are and should be open to the 
public. I would think, Madam Speaker, that in the spirit of trying to 
work together, when we have such a transformative piece of domestic 
legislation, that if there is a press conference for the public on 
public grounds to discuss public option, it should be open to all.
  Madam Speaker, I just felt that the gentleman would agree with me on 
that. But I would like to at this point turn to what the events of next 
week will be.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield before we get to next week?
  Mr. CANTOR. I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I am informed that Fox News is talking a lot about this, 
but the fact of the matter is it was open to the public. There were 
public there, as a matter of fact. If the gentleman's contention is 
somehow this was walled off or there were people who were prohibiting 
people from being there in attendance at the rollout of America's 
health care bill, I was there. I saw nobody turned away. I saw nobody 
precluded from attending.
  If the gentleman's contention is that every time he has a press 
conference he calls me up or somebody else up and says, By the way, I'm 
having a press conference, if you want to come by, come by, I will 
check my phone records and my e-mail and any other messages that I 
have, but the gentleman and I both know that doesn't happen.
  We have been considering this bill for some period of time. I will go 
into that a little later. But I think the gentleman's contention that 
somehow he or any other Republican was precluded from being on the site 
at the foot of the Capitol steps is incorrect, and I reject it.
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker--and I don't intend to belabor this point 
with the gentleman--but I do know for a fact that individuals were 
precluded from entering. And I'm told that invitations were issued with 
RSVPs, and if you were not on the list of RSVPs, you couldn't enter. 
And I do know for a fact that people were prohibited from doing so.
  Again, Madam Speaker, I would say, this is not just some ordinary 
press conference. This was a press conference held on the front steps 
of the Capitol. This was a press conference, the subject of which was a 
piece of legislation that portends to transform one-sixth of this 
economy of this country and to deal with the most personal issues of 
health care universally applied to all people.
  So I do thank the gentleman for his concern and his belief that it 
should have been open, because I believe as well.
  Mr. HOYER. I believe, so we accurately express it, that it was open.
  Mr. CANTOR. Again, I don't want to belabor the point any further. I 
just politely disagree with the gentleman, having known, and the fact 
is there were people stopped from entering.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I would turn to some inquiries that I have 
about how we are going to proceed in discussing this massive 1,990 
pages of legislation; how it is that if the gentleman believes that we 
are going to be taking it up as early as Thursday, then could he tell 
us if the bill itself, in general, does it resemble H.R. 3200?
  Mr. HOYER. There are certainly, as I think I indicated in the press, 
three committees worked off that base. The three committees, as you 
know, reported somewhat different bills. Those bills have been put 
together and there are additions and subtractions from that bill.
  But I would say to the gentleman that the overwhelming part of that 
bill, as I have indicated, has been online for over 3 months. There 
have been literally thousands of town meetings with reference to the 
substance of the bill--not the specific bill that was just put on the 
line at 10 a.m. this morning. And now there are 8 million hits on the 
Rules Committee Web site, downloads. So Americans are doing what we 
indicated we'd give them the opportunity to do--and we wanted them to 
do.

[[Page H12119]]

                              {time}  1830

  I'm sure you have, I don't know whether you personally have, but I'm 
sure your side has downloaded it as well. From that standpoint, the 
notice that we promised to give is being given. It is a massive bill. 
It is a very consequential bill. We believe it's a very important bill 
for every American, every American family, every American business, and 
for our country.
  That bill is going to get and has been getting, over the last, 
frankly, 8 months, where we have had a large number of hearings, from 
2007 to this date, somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 hearings. I'm 
not sure of that specific number. I had it, but I can't recall it right 
now. There were markups on the bills, over 100 amendments presented in 
each committee and considered and voted upon.
  So that this bill, as I said before in the colloquy last week, has 
had more discussion, more town meetings, has been read more extensively 
than any bill in the 29 years that I have been here in the House of 
Representatives.
  So again, I would reiterate to the gentleman that this bill has 
received extraordinary oversight, extraordinary review, and 
extraordinary input from the citizens of this country and, indeed, in 
the markups of three committees, input from the members of the three 
committees.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  As the gentleman knows, Madam Speaker, not every one of the Members 
in this body serve on those three committees. From what I can gather of 
the gentleman's statement that if the discussion in the committees and 
the discussion in the town halls across this country over the summer 
were indicative of the discussions surrounding this new bill, then 
perhaps I am to conclude that this bill is H.R. 3200, because the 
point, Madam Speaker, is that this is a new bill.
  It was unveiled today, and, again, I pointed out to the gentleman, 
Madam Speaker, very troubling that it was unveiled in a closed press 
conference. Somehow the majority felt and the Speaker felt it necessary 
to block Republicans and the public from that unveiling. Now we have a 
new bill, it is over 1,900, nearly 2,000 pages long. We do have a 
concern that we have adequate time to look at this bill, to understand 
this bill, to debate this bill.
  I would ask the gentleman how much time for debate will be given on 
this House floor of this 1,990-page bill?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Let me again express the fact that I believe this bill has received 
the most extensive consideration of any bill since I have been in 
Congress, and that hasn't always happened.
  The gentleman has been here for a number of years, and he was here, I 
believe, on June 25, 2003. He recalls that that was a bill which was 
the most massive change in Medicare in over a quarter of a century. The 
gentleman probably recalls that bill; the prescription drug bill, 
referred to affectionately. I know the gentleman must clearly remember 
how we considered that bill. But just on the off chance he doesn't, let 
me remind him.
  On June 25, 2003, a new version was introduced and referred to 
committee. Hear me. New bill, introduced, referred to committee on June 
25. On June 26, at 6:20 a.m. in the morning, a rule for martial law was 
considered by the Rules Committee, with 3 hours of debate and a Rangel 
substitute permitted with 1 hour of debate. On June 26 at 6:55 p.m., 
debate began pursuant to House Resolution 299. Then the House proceeded 
with 3 hours of general debate. On 6/27--6/27--at 2:32 a.m., there was 
a 50-minute vote, and the bill passed 216-215 after all of about 36 
hours of exposure from introduction to passage.
  Now, that bill, of course, went to conference, and it came back from 
conference. Let me remind my friend about the timing on the conference 
report.
  On 11/21/2003 at 1:17 a.m., the conference report was filed. At 11/
21/2003 at 3:41 a.m., 2 hours and approximately 20 minutes later, 
martial-law consideration of conference report by the Rules Committee. 
At 11/21, the same day, 2003, at 11:26 p.m.--now this started at 1:17 
a.m. in the morning--at 11:26 p.m., it passed the House, the rule. Now, 
at 11:36 p.m., 10 minutes later--10 minutes later--Mr. Thomas brought 
up the conference report for consideration. At 11/22, at 2:39 a.m., we 
began to vote. I am sure you remember that vote. It took 3 hours.
  Now, of course, we had had this under consideration from the day 
before at 1:17 a.m. when the conference report was reported back. This 
side of the aisle won for 2 hours and 45 minutes while you spent time 
changing votes on your side of the aisle. You were ultimately 
successful.
  About 2 hours and 55 minutes into that particular vote, the longest 
vote which I have considered, and, frankly, the longest time this was 
considered as a piece of legislation, you changed the votes. And it 
won, 211-222, at 11/22 at 5:50 a.m.
  In other words, consideration of the conference report was laid on 
the table at 11/21/2003 for the Rules Committee consideration, and by 
11/22 at 5:50 a.m., about 30 hours later, it was passed.
  I tell my friend in reviewing this, this was an 800-page bill, by the 
way, no extensive hearings on that bill. By the way, when you had press 
conferences regarding that bill, none of us were invited. You know that 
and I know that.
  I would tell me friend with all due respect, this saying that the 
Democrats have rolled out a bill, we rolled out a bill 4 months ago. We 
rolled out a bill 6 months ago. We rolled out hearings 8, 9 and 10 
months ago.
  Your major piece of legislation, in 25 years the most significant 
amendment to the Medicare Act that had passed to that period of time, 
you passed with less than 48 hours' notice from the Rules Committee 
consideration to the passage. We have said we have had months of 
consideration, months of debate, months of transparency on the Web. Now 
on the Web we are going to give you, as I promised we would, at least 
72 hours notice to read that bill and to have it considered on this 
floor.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for that history.
  Mr. HOYER. I knew you would be interested. That's why I wanted to do 
it.
  Mr. CANTOR. And the interpretation of that history.
  I asked a simple question, Madam Speaker, of how long the debate will 
be on this House floor of a bill that has been just introduced, and, 
according to the gentleman, maybe it's not this bill that's just been 
introduced, maybe it is H.R. 3200, because that's what's been the 
discussion across this country up until now. But, Madam Speaker, this 
is a bill that is now being reported to be presented at a cost of $2 
million a word, five times longer than the Torah, longer than the well-
known work of War and Peace. That's how long this bill is.
  It's a new bill. I am simply asking how much time can we expect to 
have for debate on the floor of this transformative piece of 
legislation that will alter one-sixth of the country's economy.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I would respond to him, more time than we had to consider 
the prescription drug bill, the major amendment to the Medicare bill, 
and by a factor of months and months and months, more time to consider 
the substance of this bill.

  I tell my friend again, and he knows this well, we have had hearings 
on health care reform from 2007 to this day. We have had 81 hours of 
committee markup. We have had over 86 hours of hearings. We had over 
203 hours of caucuses on our side. I presume you have had a similar 
time, I am sure, paying attention to this bill that has been available 
to you. It's been 80 days from the time the House bill was first 
introduced, of which this is obviously an offshoot.
  The public has been able to view the bill and extensive information 
about it is online the entire time. It's been 126 days since, as I 
said, the House discussion draft was first made available online. I 
think every one of us has had ample opportunity to debate the bill and 
offer amendments.
  During the markup, 129 amendments were offered by Republicans. You 
act as if all of a sudden this is a brand-new day. It may be a brand-
new day tomorrow, but the legislation has been under consideration for 
a long time.
  Have we made changes? We have. Are those changes so major that your 
side can't consider them and analyze them

[[Page H12120]]

over the next 72-plus hours? Because it would be longer than 72 hours. 
I think the answer to that is no. You certainly have that capability 
and have been focusing on this very carefully. We promised the 72 hours 
on the bill and on any manager's amendment that might be offered 
subsequently, and we are going to do that.
  So I tell my friend, I just don't believe that it's a fair criticism 
to say that a bill that has been discussed, analyzed, more public 
hearings than any other bill, perhaps, certainly in my career in this 
House, has somehow all of a sudden come as a surprise to your side of 
the aisle.
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  I am just asking a simple question. There is no criticism here. There 
is plenty of that I know in this body. I am asking a simple question, 
Madam Speaker. How long are we going to be allowed for debate on this 
floor on this bill?
  Mr. HOYER. And what I said was that the Rules Committee has not met 
yet. But I think clearly there will be more debate, as there has been 
an extraordinary amount of debate on this bill up to this time. There 
will be more debate than we had available to us with respect the 
massive amendment and legislation that you offered with reference to 
Medicare. I believe that there will be sufficient time made available 
over the consideration of this bill for both sides to make their case.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  As I am not, Madam Speaker, being too successful in eliciting a 
response that is definitive, I would ask the gentleman, when we are 
considering this bill that is not affecting one program like Medicare, 
like he referred to in 2003 in part D, while we are considering a bill 
that is dealing with one-sixth of our economy, every aspect of health 
care in America comes under this bill.
  What is it that the majority leader has in mind in terms of the 
ability for all Members of this body to represent their constituents, 
to offer amendments, to have their voices heard on this floor? If the 
gentleman could please enlighten me and our colleagues as to what the 
amendment process will be on this bill.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I know the gentleman wants to somehow diminish that little 
tiny bill of some 800 or 900 pages that amended Medicare and created 
prescription drug, and I don't know whether he recalls how many 
amendments our side was given. I would yield to him if he recalls, but 
if he doesn't recall, the answer is zero.
  Why? Because you had considered that bill a long time; your 
proposition was that we had all had an opportunity to discuss it, 
albeit one-tenth of one one-hundredth of the time that this piece of 
legislation has been under consideration, but there were no amendments 
from this side allowed.

                              {time}  1845

  But what we did have allowed was a substitute. Now, I will tell my 
friend, and I have said before, that your side has told me you have a 
bill. Somebody waved it around, as a matter of fact, on national 
television. I presume that hopefully you're going to get that scored. 
Hopefully you will give us 72 hours' notice of that. And once we get 
the score and the 72 hours' notice of your substitute, we will be glad 
to consider it.
  But I will tell the gentleman that we expect the same 72 hours' 
notice and we expect it to be scored. And I will help the gentleman 
facilitate the scoring of your substitute.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  I would ask the gentleman if he could be a little bit more specific 
about the amendment deadline so our Members can be adequately put on 
notice for that.
  I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. Well, there is no amendment deadline. The committee has 
not requested amendments at this point in time.
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, then, does that 
mean there will be no amendments allowed?
  I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I just indicated to you that you will recall that after 
you brought this massive bill, I suggest, you wanted to diminish 900 
pages. Ours is longer because it deals with a broader subject, you're 
correct, in giving every American health care and including, by the 
way, expanding protections to senior citizens on the doughnut hole that 
was incorporated in that bill. There were no amendments offered, and my 
presumption is your theory was that it had been so carefully 
constructed that you didn't want to have amendments to that bill, but 
you did, in fact, allow us a substitute and we offered that substitute.
  I would say to the gentleman, as I have said before, that certainly I 
believe you ought to have, and we are going to invite you to have, a 
substitute and introduce your alternative that you have been talking 
about now for some months. I hope that you have submitted it to CBO for 
scoring, and we would expect 72 hours' notice of that substitute before 
it's brought to the floor, as you expect us to give you 72 hours' 
notice of our bill and of our manager's amendment.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  I would expect that he would inform us of exactly when that vote will 
take place in order for us to know when that 72-hour period will be 
triggered as far as our substitute, if the gentleman is offering us a 
substitute, would be submitted in order to meet what he imposes as a 
deadline on us.
  Madam Speaker, I would ask, though, I still don't understand about 
the posture of amendments. I know that there are many Members in this 
House, in fact, there may very well be close to a majority if not more 
than a majority of Members in this House, who are interested in 
amendments having to do with the protection of life in this bill on 
health care and the question of prohibiting government funding of 
abortion. And I would ask the gentleman whether we are going to be 
given an opportunity to vote on that issue through the amendment 
process.
  I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I think that question will be addressed.
  Mr. CANTOR. I'm sorry?
  Mr. HOYER. I think that question will be addressed. The answer is 
yes.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank you.
  Madam Speaker, there is also the issue of the conscience clause, as 
to whether that will also be a subject of an amendment to this bill, as 
many of our Members, if not a majority, are interested in that as well.
  I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. As the previous issue, I think that will be addressed. As 
a matter of fact, there is some reference to it, as you know, in 
existing legislation and existing law. We have not changed that. And 
the answer is my presumption is that will be considered--will be 
addressed.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  I would just point out, I'm sure as he knows, the law that perhaps 
he's referring to is riders on appropriations bills, and, as well, I 
think he is well aware that courts have indicated if there is silence 
on the issue of life and government funding of abortion, that 
necessarily goes against those who want to see the prohibition of the 
government funding of abortion, which is why it is so important that 
this House take up that issue.
  I would ask the gentleman, though, if the issues that I raised 
surrounding the government funding of abortion will be addressed, will 
those issues be addressed in the manager's amendment or will we expect 
to be able to address those in an amendment?
  I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I have not discussed specifically the Rules Committee's 
plan on that. I would repeat that it will be addressed. Now, how it 
will be addressed, I don't have an answer for you specifically.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman, and I thank him for taking note of 
our concern on that issue.
  Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman would yield.
  Mr. CANTOR. I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. As you know, that concern is shared on both sides of the 
aisle.
  Mr. CANTOR. That is correct, and I appreciate the gentleman's 
comments there.
  I would ask the gentleman, Madam Speaker, about the question of the 
manager's amendment, when we can expect that to be online and whether 
the public will have 72 hours to view that amendment prior to any vote.
  I yield.

[[Page H12121]]

  Mr. HOYER. I think you sort of asked the question and then I didn't 
respond to it as to when we may first consider the bill itself; so let 
me back up from there.
  I expect the manager's amendment to be available on Monday, and I 
expect there to be 72 hours for the body to have notice of that as well 
as the general public. I would expect, therefore, the earliest votes to 
be no earlier than Thursday, 72 hours after the manager's amendment is 
put online. So that may be Thursday at some point in time, but we will 
meet that 72-hour pledge that we have made.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Finally, on the issue of this massive bill on health care that we are 
about to debate next week, I would ask, Madam Speaker, the gentleman 
whether we can expect the doctor reimbursement bill to be included in 
this bill or whether it will be coming as a separate bill to the floor.
  I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. As the gentleman knows, the so-called sustainable growth 
rate, which as you referred correctly, as we all sort of refer to it as 
the doc fix or compensation, as the gentleman knows, the Senate tried 
to pass a freestanding bill on the sustainable growth rate so that 
doctors do not receive a 21 percent decrease on January 1 in their 
Medicare reimbursement rates.
  On our side of the aisle, we are strongly in favor of making sure 
that that cut does not occur. We think that will not serve seniors in 
particular, because medical personnel will be unable to serve with 
those compensation levels. As a result, we very much expect to have a 
sustainable growth rate bill pass this House.

  As the gentleman knows, we have done that in years past, not related 
necessarily to any other health reform bill. It is an issue in and of 
itself that relates to existing Medicare. The health care reform bill 
deals with the reform and the creation of a system of affordable, 
accessible, quality health care for all Americans. The sustainable 
growth rate deals with the present system. We have got to deal with it, 
and I will tell the gentleman it's my intention that we make sure that 
we bring to the floor a sustainable growth rate. We've been discussing 
it with the Senate because the Senate tried to do it and was not 
successful in passing that. We want to see success. It is absolutely 
essential that we do that. Whether we do health care reform or not, we 
will do that. So I tell my friend that we are going to have that 
probably, probably, as a freestanding piece of legislation.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  I know that, as he discussed the Senate's experience with that bill, 
obviously the question of a deficit is looming large surrounding that 
issue, and I would note that, Madam Speaker.
  But in closing----
  Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield on that point?
  Mr. CANTOR. I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding, because I did not mention 
that. We are and, as the gentleman knows, I am very concerned about the 
looming deficits that have been caused by the very substantial economic 
downturn and our necessity to respond to that under the previous 
administration and under this administration. We need to get a handle 
on that.
  One of the things that we have pledged in our budget to do is to make 
sure that statutory PAYGO is put in place which will be an extrinsic 
constraint, if you will, a statutory constraint on the spending, 
whether it's spending in terms of entitlement spending, whether it's in 
terms of revenues or in terms of spending. Both have an adverse impact 
on deficit. So it is my expectation that when we deal with either the 
sustainable growth rate, the doc fix, or the estate tax or the AMT or 
middle class income tax reduction, we will include provisions for 
statutory PAYGO to be sent with that legislation to the Senate, as is 
consistent with the budget that we passed and that the Senate passed.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  And I know that he knows the reported agreement on all of this 
excludes the doc fix as well as those other items from being paid for, 
which is of concern to him, I know, as well as many of us when we're 
considering this health bill and then choose to leave out a significant 
portion of government expense under Medicare in terms of reimbursing 
providers under the SGR.
  Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield?
  Mr. CANTOR. I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. Let me ask my friend, just so I know as we move forward, 
if we do not consider the health reform bill, is the gentleman in favor 
of moving a reimbursement for doctors provision notwithstanding that?
  Mr. CANTOR. I think the gentleman knows that I, as well as most of my 
colleagues, Madam Speaker, will be supportive of trying to address the 
inequities that exist in the current SGR formula, and he has my 
commitment to want to work to try to fix and right those inequities 
since the payment formulas that have been established are far from 
matching the realities of practice expense for our physicians.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman and look forward to his help.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for that.
  In closing, Madam Speaker, after we have had this discussion and the 
colloquy and the gentleman's words as well as mine for some time now, I 
would just note for the gentleman as well as our colleagues that 41 
percent of the American people, according to a recent Gallup Poll, 
think the economy should be our top priority while only 17 percent 
think that health care should be Congress's top priority.
  In addition to that, Madam Speaker, there was a poll out over the 
last several weeks by a Democratic pollster, Jeff Garin, in which was 
cited that 81 percent of Americans do not think that the majority, do 
not think the Democrats are doing enough to address the disappearing 
jobs in our economy.
  So, Madam Speaker, I close with that. I thank the gentleman very much 
for his time.
  Mr. HOYER. Before you close, will you yield on that issue?
  Mr. CANTOR. I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Those were interesting polls. Did the gentleman miss the portion of 
the poll that reflected which party the American public trusted more to 
deal with either one of those issues? I didn't hear you say it. I 
happened to have seen those polls and happened to have seen those 
numbers, and I just wondered if the gentleman had seen those numbers.
  Mr. CANTOR. In closing, Madam Speaker, I would respond to the 
gentleman just by saying I don't think neither he nor I are proud of 
what the public views as the performance of this body as a whole.

                          ____________________