[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 30 (Thursday, March 4, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H1148-H1151]
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 Republican whip for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, 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. 
And on Friday, if needed, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative 
business. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. 
A complete list of suspension bills will be announced by close of 
business tomorrow, as is the custom.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, we will consider H. Con. Res. 248, the 
Afghanistan war powers resolution introduced by Mr. Kucinich, and we 
will also consider H. Res. 1031, impeaching G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., 
judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 
Louisiana, for high crimes and misdemeanors. It is also possible there 
will be further action on the jobs agenda, which depends on what the 
Senate or the House has coming out of committee or out of the Senate.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I want to ask the 
gentleman if he can give us some better indication of what he means by 
the jobs agenda.
  Mr. HOYER. We believe that the number one priority for us is to 
continue to grow the economy so that we will create jobs in this 
economy. As the gentleman knows, my perception is we have gone from 
losing an average of 726,000 jobs in the last 3 months of the Bush 
administration, to the last 3 months of losing, on average, 35,000 
jobs. That is 95 percent in the right direction, but we need to 
continue to create jobs.
  As you know in the bill that was just passed, which was passed in a 
bipartisan fashion in the Senate and to some degree here, we are trying 
to encourage the hiring of those who are unemployed through giving tax 
credits, and also tried to spur investment by giving businesses the 
right to write off items. We also ensure the continuation of the 
Highway Act; and in addition to that, as you know, we provided for a 
less expensive way for communities to expand public works and hire 
people to do that, public buildings and construction of public 
facilities.
  So when I say the agenda, that was obviously a part of the agenda. We 
still are very concerned about lending, capital being available to 
small, particularly, but medium-sized businesses as well. The Senate is 
considering a jobs bill now, as you know, with a number of component 
parts. So when I talk about the jobs agenda, I am talking about ways 
and means and efforts to grow the economy and create jobs.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  The gentleman refers to some areas that I hope he and the majority 
would work with the minority on in trying to do exactly as he stated, 
which is to create an environment for small businesses to create jobs. 
As the gentleman just saw in the vote taking place on the floor today, 
there were 35 members of his caucus who voted against the so-called 
jobs bill that was on the floor today, perhaps indicating that the 
gentleman may want to work with us as we have been continuing to 
propose tax cuts for small businesses, not necessarily connected with 
what kind of hires that the businesses should do, and not necessarily 
connected with some type of targeted credit that may or may not fit 
with the business model of any particular small business, but in 
general, I think the gentleman would agree, making it easier for small 
businesses to keep the lights on right now so they can return to a mode 
in which they could increase payroll.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman if he could speak to his 
mention of the resolution dealing with the Afghanistan war powers. As 
the gentleman knows, the Republicans view a withdrawal from Afghanistan 
within 30 days as incredibly irresponsible.

[[Page H1149]]

  Mr. HOYER. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CANTOR. I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. Just for accuracy, it's my understanding that the 
resolution that the gentleman from Ohio has introduced is by December 
31, I believe, not 30 days. And I yield back.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for that.
  Still I would say that the Republican view is we have consistently 
supported this President in his efforts in Afghanistan as he has 
listened to the commanders on the ground to determine the focus and 
future of our presence there in terms of protecting our troops and the 
U.S. interests there. So I imagine my friend from Maryland, knowing his 
position on these things, agrees with that.
  I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, whether there will be an all-out 
push to make this some type of partisan issue. Perhaps the gentleman 
could shed some light on his position on this bill that is being 
brought forward next week. And I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As the gentleman knows, I've expressed support for the policy being 
pursued by President Obama, and I certainly intend to continue to 
support that policy. The resolution is not consistent with that. So I 
think the gentleman is not going to be surprised at my expectation that 
this will be a bipartisan vote--perhaps on both sides of the 
proposition, yea and nay, but I certainly think it's going to be a 
bipartisan vote.
  I believe the President's policy that he has articulated is a 
thoughtful, measured policy. And very frankly, I think he has done what 
perhaps we should have been doing for some period of time, focused on 
where terrorism was organized against the United States to ensure that 
we eliminate al Qaeda and prevent the Taliban from resurgence and 
reestablishing a base wherefrom terrorists might attack us. I think 
that is an appropriate policy that the President is pursuing, and I 
would hope that the House would support that policy on both sides of 
the aisle.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I look forward to 
joining him in opposition to the resolution he is bringing to the 
floor.
  Mr. Speaker, if I could ask the gentleman to give us, in the House, 
an update on when he expects the budget resolution to come to the 
floor. And I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. We hope that the budget resolution will come to the 
floor--and we're working on that--by the end of the month before we 
leave for the Easter break.
  As you can well imagine, given the fiscal situation that confronts 
us, that's a very difficult document to put together. But Mr. Spratt is 
working very hard at that with the committee. I know Mr. Ryan, I'm 
sure, the ranking member, is also working hard on that. I am hopeful 
that we will be in a position to bring that to the floor before the 
Easter break.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for that.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman, in view of the short 
period of time until Easter break, is it his expectation that the House 
will take up health care legislation within that time period? And I 
yield.
  Mr. HOYER. It is the President's hope and our hope that that will be 
the case. As you know, the President has expressed that objective, and 
we have said that would be our objective as well.
  As you know, we have been working on this issue for well over a year. 
We passed a bill many months ago; the Senate passed a bill over 2 
months ago. Many of us have been working on that bill. As you know, we 
had a very substantial--historic, really, in many respects--discussion 
with the President at Blair House last week. I understand the President 
has incorporated a number of ideas that he felt were good ideas that 
Republicans put on the table at that meeting.
  My expectation is we will be moving on this bill in the near future. 
And what I mean by that is, again, hopefully, that we would be able to 
consider this prior to the April break, the Easter break.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, the President has asked Congress--in fact yesterday--
that the majority here consider using the reconciliation process to 
pass this health care bill. I would like to ask the gentleman, Mr. 
Speaker, is it his intention and the Speaker's intention to adhere to 
the President's request and actually use the reconciliation process? 
And I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As the gentleman knows, we provided for reconciliation in the budget 
resolution that was adopted last year, so that is available to us. That 
has been used 22 times, as the gentleman knows, since 1980; 16 of those 
times it was used when your party was in the majority. You utilized 
that to do what the American people think is usually the case: we pass 
things by majority vote, up or down, and the majority rules. Now, here, 
of course, when the majority rules, it really does represent a majority 
of the country. In the Senate, of course, even when a majority votes, 
it doesn't necessarily represent a majority of the people of the 
country because obviously every State, no matter how large or small, is 
represented.
  But having said that, we believe that the Republicans, when you used 
it for a tax bill or welfare or other very important pieces of 
legislation--the tax bill obviously having trillions of dollars of 
economic impact on the economy--you felt that that process of passing 
it by a majority vote in the United States Senate made sense. We share 
your view.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that and would say 
that nothing compares to the use of or suggested use of reconciliation 
then as to now with this bill. I would say that there was, in the main, 
bipartisan support and, frankly, support on the part of the people of 
this country for what was being done through reconciliation in those 
instances.
  I would like to turn the gentleman's attention, Mr. Speaker, to a 
question that I have regarding statements that were made as late as 
September of 2007 when then-Candidate Obama said, ``This is an area 
where we're going to have to have a 60 percent majority in the Senate 
and in the House in order to actually get a bill to my desk. We're 
going to have to have a majority to get a bill to my desk that is not 
just a 50-plus-1 majority'' said then-Senator Obama. ``You've got to 
break out of what I call the sort of 50-plus-1 pattern of Presidential 
politics. Maybe you eke out a victory with 50 plus 1, but you can't 
govern. You know, you get Air Force One and a lot of nice perks as 
President, but you can't, you can't deliver on health. We're not going 
to pass universal health care with a 50-plus-1 strategy.'' That later 
quote, again, was the next month in October.
  So I'm having difficulty understanding, Mr. Speaker, why now the 
President and the majority seem to have done a 180 when it comes to 
using reconciliation with a $1 trillion bill that could very well alter 
one-sixth of our economy. And I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Let me repeat, his 180 was incorporated as a way to go forward last 
year when we adopted the budget almost 1 year ago. So this is nothing 
new for the gentleman.
  I told the gentleman his party has used this procedure 16 times out 
of 22 times that it has been used, which means your party has used it 
two-thirds of the time--over two-thirds of the time--that it's been 
employed. As a matter of fact, Judd Gregg, a Member of your party, a 
leader of the Budget Committee on your side, was chairman of the Budget 
Committee, now ranking member, when an objection was raised on that--
we're using quotes--when an objection was raised to that said, as he 
turned to the Democratic side, ``What's wrong with a majority vote? I 
thought a majority vote was what should prevail.'' That was Judd Gregg 
of your party. I think it's ironic when we're saying, okay, you think a 
majority vote is good, we'll take a majority vote.
  Now, the President's quote is a demonstration that we all say things 
that, unfortunately, then don't become reality. Well, I will tell you 
the reason they don't become reality is because, as Jim DeMint said, I 
think many of your party hope this is President Obama's Waterloo. 
That's a direct quote--you used quotes--from Mr. DeMint.

[[Page H1150]]

  Your belief is, in my view--I do not attribute it to you--but my 
belief is, as Mr. Gingrich pointed out over and over again, if we fail, 
you win. The problem is if we fail, we believe the American people 
lose, and we think that is not fair.
  I want to use one more quote and then I will cease and yield back to 
you. October of 2008, Presidential campaign debate, national 
television, John McCain, your candidate, said, ``I want to see a plan 
that gives all Americans, all families availability of affordable 
health care.'' That was a quote that Senator McCain, your candidate for 
President, made just a few months ago. It was almost exactly what Mr. 
Obama said. So, from my perception, there was a consensus with respect 
to where we needed to go.
  As a matter of fact, I think almost every Member on this floor 
believes that we need to reform the health care system. We've had a 
very vigorous debate, a very open debate, a very transparent debate 
over 1 year now on how this ought to be done. We have disagreement, and 
that is the nature of democracy. But if a majority of the 
representatives in this body and the majority of the representatives in 
the other body believe a policy ought to be adopted, then, frankly, 
that is the way our system should work.
  There is nothing in the Constitution, as the gentleman well knows, 
about having--except for some rare instances--a supermajority, and 
certainly none on policy. There are on confirmations and overriding a 
President's veto, but other than that, the perception is the majority 
vote rules.
  So it's a procedure that you used, and it's a procedure that we 
anticipated last March. We hoped that wouldn't be the case. Very 
frankly, we would hope that we could work in a bipartisan way to effect 
this end that at this point hasn't been possible, and Senator McConnell 
has made it pretty clear that he has no intention of participating in 
that kind of effort.
  I yield back to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  I don't know if the gentleman is saying, Mr. Speaker, that maybe the 
President was wrong when he spoke about not using this process; but I 
do know, Mr. Speaker, that 70-something percent of the American people 
don't like this health care bill.
  I think the gentleman is correct, Mr. Speaker, that all of us care 
about doing something positive for health care. Republicans care about 
health care. We went to that forum with our ideas. The public began to 
see for 7 hours that there were very different approaches to how we are 
going to deal with health care. We said if we can stop the overhaul, 
stop the $1 trillion attempt to lead us to a path from government 
getting in the way of decision-making between patients and their 
doctors, if we can set that aside, there could be some things that we 
could work on much more modest and focused in terms of cost control. 
Once we reduce cost, people can have access. More people can have 
insurance. We could also do some things together to address the 
problems of preexisting condition exceptions in coverage. All of us 
want to do something about that.
  So I would say to the gentleman, I am disappointed--as I know he 
knows that we are--that his side has decided to defy the protests that 
came from the President and others on his side of the aisle about the 
use of reconciliation for health care. But I would ask the gentleman, 
will the House move next on health care or will it be the Senate? And I 
yield.
  Mr. HOYER. Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  We are still discussing exactly what procedure will be employed to 
effect a majority vote in both Houses and send something to the 
President in the same form, so I can't specifically answer that 
question at this particular time.
  But let me say to the gentleman, he mentioned the forum we went to, 
and Republicans did put ideas on the table. We thought they were 
constructive. As a matter of fact, as you may recall, I responded to 
Senator Coburn, who is also a medical doctor, when we mentioned about 
fraud, waste and abuse. As you know, there is substantial investment in 
both the House bill and the Senate bill to eliminating fraud, waste and 
abuse. Senator Coburn observed he thought there was a lot of money that 
could be saved there. We think that is the case as well, so we have 
provided to go after that.
  We also, I think, agree that reform ought to be based on a private, 
market-based system. As the gentleman knows, the exchanges that are set 
up both in the House bill and the Senate bill, they differ; but they 
are both based on private sector competition by private insurance 
companies.

                              {time}  1600

  We talked about wellness programs. Dr. Coburn also talked about that 
as did others. I think Dr. Boustany, Congressman Boustany, also talked 
about that.
  We have a very substantial investment in wellness and, as Dr. Coburn 
pointed out, in practices that give cooperative care and are not 
reimbursed piecemeal but are reimbursed by the quality of care that is 
given, by the outcomes that are given as opposed to simply being 
process-oriented.
  We also agree, I think, Mr. Cantor, on mechanisms to have competition 
across State lines. We believe the exchanges do that, but we also 
believe there is room for discussion in looking at how we might do that 
in other ways as well. So we think that that's an idea, and the pooling 
with respect to small businesses so they can create large groups so 
that they can have better competitive advantages. We believe that, when 
we put small businesses into the exchange, that's exactly what we give 
them.
  For instance, in a large group, as all of us know and as we have in 
the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan, we don't have preexisting 
conditions, because we are a large group. Most large groups don't. In 
the legislation you offered as a substitute to ours, of course, you did 
not cover preexisting conditions. Your legislation provided for about 3 
million people having greater access to the system; ours for about 30 
million. So, while we agree that we ought to have people have access, 
frankly, we believe that what we have proposed provides greater access.
  Insurance pooling to acquire health insurance at lower prices, it 
seems to me we agreed on that as an objective. You disagree with the 
way we have done it in terms of our exchanges, which is, of course, 
what the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan is that you and I 
participate in. It's a large exchange with many different insurers. In 
our area, we have about 25 or 26 different options that we can choose 
from. For the most part, they're private sector. As a matter of fact, 
for all parts, they're private sector to choose from.
  So, yes, we have differences, but as I've told you before, I'm still 
prepared to discuss with you and to work with you on suggestions you 
have that get us to an objective that we think is appropriate.
  Let me just lastly, in closing, say a recent polling shows a majority 
wants to keep working. You indicate, as you do on a regular basis, that 
there are polls that show people are against this bill. My view is what 
they are really against is this confrontation and contention regarding 
these bills, which is, of course, why the President said he thought 
having 60 percent would give a greater level of confidence. I agree 
with that. I would hope that we would have created that kind of 
consensus.
  I want to read to you: 63 percent in a Washington poll said that we 
ought to pass comprehensive health reform; 57 percent in a Kaiser 
Family Foundation poll. February 22, 2010, Kaiser poll also finds 
overwhelming support for key elements of the reforms in our bill; 76 
percent support reforming the way health insurance works in our bill; 
71 percent support creating a health insurance exchange, which is in 
our bill; and 70 percent support expanding high-risk insurance pools.
  So, when you go to the individual elements of our bill, we find very 
significant support for those individual elements, I tell my friend. I 
continue to look forward to working with my friend to reach common 
ground.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, from the summation of his remarks, I gather that there 
has been no willingness to listen to the American people on the part of 
the majority here in the House.
  The gentleman does know that all polls indicate that the American 
people want us to set the bill aside, to stop this construct that 
Washington is going to tell everyone how to design

[[Page H1151]]

health care, and to really start over. In a CNN poll last week, 73 
percent of the public said, Shelve the bill. Start over.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's time, and I look forward to 
working together with him in whatever way we can, frankly, focusing on 
the issue of getting America back to work.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________