[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 26 (Friday, February 26, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H952-H954]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  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 Republican whip for yielding.
  On Monday, the House is not in session. On Tuesday 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 Wednesday and 
Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On 
Friday, no votes are expected in the House.
  We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The 
complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of 
business today. In addition, we will consider H.R. 4247, Keeping All 
Students Safe Act, and further action on the jobs agenda.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, we have 4 weeks before our next district work period, 
and I would like to inquire from the gentleman about the upcoming 
legislative schedule during the next 4 weeks and what bills does he 
expect the House to consider prior to the Easter recess.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CANTOR. I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would expect a number of items, certainly the jobs agenda, which 
will be fulsome and we will be pursuing over the next months. Small 
business growth, tax cuts to spur growth and jobs will certainly be on 
the agenda in the coming weeks, in addition to addressing health care 
and the 2011 budget.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for that.
  So, from my understanding, we can expect to have a vote on a health 
care bill between now and the Easter recess. If that is the case, I ask 
the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, what is the thought about what that bill 
would look like? And I would ask the gentleman does he expect this bill 
to be the President's bill or will there be actually a chance for the 
minority to participate in crafting a health care bill?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Well, the gentleman and I had the opportunity, a historic 
opportunity, I might say, to participate in an extraordinary event in 
the history, perhaps, of our country. I'm not sure that I can cite 
another instance certainly in my career when a President has spent a 
whole day sitting with the legislative branch, the leadership both of 
the Republican and Democratic Parties in the Senate and the House and 
also of the committee Chairs. I think that was an unprecedented 
meeting. I thought it was an extraordinarily good meeting for the 
American public as I thought it was a good meeting for all of us who 
participated.
  I think what the public saw was each side thoughtfully and clearly, 
from an informed basis, expressing their view as to what was needed and 
how to get to where we wanted to go. It also indicated, I think, to the 
American public legitimate differences of opinion on the ways and 
means, if you will, of effecting health care reform, which obviously 
the overwhelming numbers of the American public believe is necessary. 
As I quoted, as you recall, both President Obama and Presidential 
candidate McCain in the debate in October of 2008 both said that health 
care reform was necessary, and Presidential candidate McCain indicated 
that he thought we needed a program that covered all Americans with 
affordable health care.
  Now, that's the context in which we're going to move forward. I 
thought it was a productive, positive opportunity for us and, as I 
said, the American public. We are moving forward. The President 
indicated we'd be moving forward. The President, as you point out, I 
don't think he has a bill yet, but he's put language of the 11-page 
document you've seen and that was referenced at the meeting--he's put 
that on the table. It is obviously an attempt to reach agreement 
between the Senate-passed bill and the House-passed bill, which, 
although this was not a conference in the classic sense of a 
conference, in many ways it was, I suppose, a superconference in that 
rarely is the President in the room, but obviously Republicans and 
Democrats were in the room and had their time to discuss the 
President's proposals, trying to resolve differences between the two 
Houses. Certainly it's going to be taken into consideration over the 
next few days, I would think, to see whether or not there can be a 
resolution.
  In addition to that, I tell my friend honestly that we went through a 
number of aspects of the health care bill in which I think we found 
common ground, and many of us said that. I think some of us were 
surprised that some Members were as focused as we think we are on 
certain items.
  First of all, I think there was agreement on principle, if not on 
application of that principle, and that was that the solution is to be 
found in the delivery of health care through the private sector. And, 
in fact, both bills in the Senate and the House provide for private 
sector insurance companies to be involved and to be the insurers and to 
be the agents for financing health care insurance for Americans.
  In addition, Dr. Coburn was very clear that he thought we needed to 
focus on wellness, on prevention. There are, in both bills, substantial 
provisions which deal with that, with wellness and prevention, best 
practices, with innovation, with efficiencies in the delivery of health 
care, health information technology, other issues.
  In addition, he spoke of eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse. As you 
recall,

[[Page H953]]

and both of us listened to him, he made the point that he thought 1 in 
3 health care dollars were not spent on the delivery of health care. 
Now, they weren't all waste, fraud, and abuse. We know that there are 
very substantial administrative costs in health care. And as I 
responded to Senator Coburn, there are very substantial provisions 
related to waste, fraud, and abuse in both bills and in the President's 
suggestion.
  In addition, the purchasing of policies of insurance across State 
lines was discussed by both sides. I think the President indicated, I 
think, we can reach agreement on that. I hope we do. And insurance 
pooling to acquire health insurance at lower prices was also discussed, 
not only with respect to small business, but, obviously, we discussed 
it with individuals who do not have availability to group policies.
  The answer, therefore, to your question is we certainly hope we can 
move forward. We hope we can reach some areas of agreement.
  I want to tell you very frankly, I don't think we have any intention 
of starting over with a clean slate, as you requested. I want to be 
honest with the gentleman. Literally thousands and thousands of hours 
have gone into countless hearings participated in by both of our 
parties, countless markups, public markups with amendments offered both 
in the House and the Senate. But that does not mean that these are set 
in stone. Therefore, the answer to your question is I continue to be 
interested in your thoughts, but if the thoughts are simply to, as Mr. 
Boehner indicated, scrap it, and Mr. Alexander said that as well, I 
frankly don't think that's a very productive direction to go in given 
the complexity and challenge that confronts us.
  There was a lot of discussion about polling data in yesterday's 
meeting. In point of fact, we believe that the polling data does 
indicate that Americans are not happy with this bill. In my view, in 
part they're not happy because they've seen it be the center point of 
confrontation, controversy, and, from my perspective, a lot of 
misinformation.
  But having said that, I think every poll seems to reflect that when 
you ask them about component parts, do they believe that preexisting 
conditions ought not to be a disabling factor in the receipt of 
insurance, a very high percentage of the American public says, yes, 
they think that ought to be not a factor. Do they think that there 
ought to be lifetime caps? They think no. If they have insurance, they 
want to keep it, and if they get really sick, they want to make sure 
their insurance compensates them for that. They also want to make sure 
that they are not bankrupted in a year that they have a very serious 
illness because the insurance company has capped what they can get in 
any one year.
  So there seems to be, on the individual items, pretty high support--
and when I say ``pretty high,'' high 50s, 60s, and sometimes in the low 
70s--of various component parts of the bill. I think if we can respond 
to that which the public is for and listen to the public, I think we 
can have some success. And we look forward to working with you over the 
next few weeks to see if we can come to agreement. The President made 
it very clear that he wants to do that. I reiterate we want to do it.
  But the President also made it clear, if we can't do it, then we're 
going to proceed, and that's what he told the American people he was 
going to do. And, very frankly, he was elected handily just a little 
over a year ago, and he said what he wanted to do was a health care 
plan which would provide access for Americans to affordable quality 
health care. And, in fact, that's what John McCain said in that debate 
in October of 2008 when they were both debating each other. That was 
not a contentious issue. They had differences of how to get there, but 
covering all Americans with affordable, quality health care was not one 
of the contentious issues.
  I know that was a long answer, but I wanted to place it in context 
for my friend so that productively we can work on what has passed the 
House, passed the Senate, and if we can make changes that would lead 
you or members of your party to support legislation, then I think we 
can have a productive discussion about that. On the other hand, 
frankly, if it's simply scrap all the work you've done or we're not 
going to play, then I think we won't have much progress.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for that in-depth explanation of 
where he and his side is on this debate.
  Without prolonging this colloquy, I would just say to the gentleman, 
on display yesterday were clearly two different visions for how we want 
to address health care in this country. Clearly, the Republicans, by 
our attendance there and the engagement in that discussion, indicated 
that we too care about people's health care and want to do something to 
increase the quality, access, and affordability. We just have a very 
different way of trying to go about it.
  There are some areas in concept where we do have agreement. We just 
don't care for the bill. And the reason is, Mr. Speaker, the bill, from 
our opinion, is very much a bill which imposes on people in this 
country a preferred way of going about providing health care and 
covering people in terms of their illnesses. And we believe that on 
balance, it is better to err on the side of people and their individual 
choices and the way they think their health care should be delivered 
and in what form.
  So I look forward to perhaps the gentleman working with us to see if 
we could, if he doesn't like the word ``scrap,'' move away from the 
construct of the bill which, as the gentleman indicates, the public has 
rejected, as well as a significant portion of his caucus has rejected, 
and perhaps moving away from that construct and to try and address some 
of the issues that we discussed in a different context would be a way 
forward.
  But if, as the gentleman indicates, the majority is unwilling to set 
aside the Senate bill, will the gentleman indicate whether we would 
then proceed with reconciliation? And is it his position that he will 
not take reconciliation off the table?
  Mr. HOYER. It is my position, in the Republican tradition of using 
reconciliation for very major pieces of legislation, all of your tax 
bills in 2001 and 2003; as a matter of fact, reconciliation has been 
used 22 times since 1980. Sixteen of those times it was used by the 
Republican Party when you were in charge. Apparently you thought that 
was a procedure that was appropriate to pass. As a matter of fact, Judd 
Gregg, when he was criticizing us for criticizing reconciliation, said, 
``What is wrong with a majority vote?'' We think there is nothing wrong 
with a majority vote.
  There is a filibuster in the Senate. That is under their rules. I 
think those rules are impeding the work of the American people. But be 
that as it may, they are the rules. There is also a rule that provides 
for consideration of legislation through a process that is called 
reconciliation, a fancy name for simply saying there are things that 
are important, you can put them on the table, you can pass them in a 
time frame. But, as Americans would expect, a majority of the 
representatives of the American people have to vote for it. So I am not 
going to take that off the table.
  But it has been the President's expression, my expression, the 
Speaker's expression, the Majority Leader of the Senate's expression we 
would prefer not to use that, not because we think it is a wrong 
procedure, but because we would like to create a broader consensus if 
we can.
  But I will tell my friend, I think he to some degree misquoted me, I 
think you could draw that inference, the American people don't like the 
bill because of what surrounds it. When you ask them about the 
internals of the legislation, as I said, they respond positively to it.
  And I will tell my friend about polls. A lot of expression about 
polls yesterday in our meeting. My friend will recall that we 
considered expanding the Children's Health Insurance Program. You will 
recall President Bush vetoed that program. You will recall that I stood 
on this floor and said, ``Do you understand 72 percent of Americans are 
for expanding SCHIP?'' Notwithstanding that, we couldn't get sufficient 
votes from your side of the aisle to override the President's veto, 
notwithstanding the fact that 72 percent of the American people thought 
children in the richest country on the face

[[Page H954]]

of the earth ought to be covered, ought to be healthy, ought to be 
included in our health care system. So you saw it differently. I 
understand that. You used your judgment.
  I frankly think that the American people want us to do what we are 
trying to do. They want to make sure we do it right and don't undermine 
the security they now have. And that is our intent as well.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for those remarks.
  I would ask the gentleman if we could turn, Mr. Speaker, to the 
question of jobs. As he indicated, that will be a focus of the next 4 
weeks. The gentleman said earlier in this colloquy that we just 
participated in an historic event yesterday, that he in his career here 
has not seen an opportunity like that where both sides sat down with 
the President for 7 hours and the President spent the time on the issue 
of health care.
  In that vein, in terms of trying to open up dialogue and discussion, 
it would be very appropriate, I believe, Mr. Speaker, for us to give 
equal or more time to the pressing issue of jobs in this economy.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, Leader Boehner and I have forwarded to the 
gentleman as well as Speaker Pelosi a letter indicating that we would 
like to have a bipartisan jobs summit akin to what we had yesterday 
with the President, but perhaps just in this body. The Speaker's press 
reports have indicated that the Speaker is willing to engage in such a 
jobs summit. And I would just like to ask the gentleman if he intends 
to respond to the Leader and my letter. And if not, certainly 
responding here is just as well as to perhaps a scheduled time for such 
a summit to occur.
  Mr. HOYER. I think the same letter was sent to both of us, and I was 
yielding to the Speaker to respond. But I will respond here. I think 
that is a good idea.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for that. Does he have any sense of 
when we could expect the acceptance and the scheduling of such an 
event?
  Mr. HOYER. Let me talk to the Speaker about it and see what schedule, 
and we will talk to you about it. But I think certainly jobs is an 
absolutely critical objective of ours this year, as you know, as it was 
last year.
  The good news, as you know, is that CBO says that over a million jobs 
were created in the last quarter, or retained in the last quarter as a 
result of the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. As the gentleman also 
knows, in the last quarter, the last 3 months of the Bush 
administration, we lost on average per month 726,000 jobs. As the 
gentleman also knows, on average over the last 3 months we have lost 
35,000 jobs. That is extraordinary. That is 5 percent of what we lost 
the last 3 months just a year ago. So that is progress. We are moving 
forward, but that is not success. Success will be, as you and I both 
know, when we are adding jobs, when we are creating jobs.
  Unfortunately, over the last 8 years we have had the lowest job 
production in this country than we have had since Herbert Hoover. As a 
result, we are very much down in terms of supply of jobs for people who 
are out of jobs and need jobs to support themselves and their family.
  I want to also say, I want to thank the gentleman and his colleagues 
on his side of the aisle for their positive participation yesterday, 
positive in the sense that yes, we didn't agree, but nobody expected 
there to be agreement down there, that everybody was all of a sudden 
going to change their perspective of how you get to where we all want 
to get. But I thought the American people, as I said, had an 
opportunity to see some serious people who had differences of opinion 
discuss them in a civil and, I thought, productive manner. I think that 
is a good civics opportunity for the American people.

  Very frankly, we ought to do more of that. Because, unfortunately, 
all too often they see us on the floor not on the uncontentious, which 
we do pretty much working together, but they see us on the contentious, 
where tempers can get pretty hot, and the American public draws the 
inference that that's all we do. They don't like it, and I don't blame 
them. I know you and I don't like it either.
  I want to thank you and your colleagues for your participation.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for that.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I look forward, along with the Leader and 
the rest of my colleagues, to begin working with the gentleman and the 
majority to start on an earnest attempt to create an environment for 
job creation so that people in this country can get back to work.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________