[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 25604-25608]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1100
                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. CANTOR asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'd like to yield to my 
friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) the majority leader, 
for the purposes of finding out about next week's schedule. And I 
yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. 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 10:30 a.m. for 
morning-hour debate and noon 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'll 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, Mr. Speaker, we will consider H.R. 3854, 
the Small Business Financing and Investment Act of 2009. We also will 
consider the conference report, H.R. 2996, on the Department of the 
Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, and also 
a House joint resolution making further appropriations for fiscal year 
2010, and for other purposes, otherwise known as a CR. The CR, as the 
gentleman from

[[Page 25605]]

Virginia knows, will run out on the 31st of this month.
  I yield back.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the 
gentleman about some reports that we've been hearing about other bills 
that could perhaps come to the floor next week, and I wonder if he 
could add some clarity to that. There have been reports that perhaps an 
estate tax bill would be coming to the floor next week. And I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. We're working with the Ways and 
Means Committee and would like to bring to this floor in the next few 
weeks, at least, if not next week, a bill to deal with the estate tax 
issue.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman and, Mr. Speaker, would ask further 
whether we can expect that bill to include the statutory PAYGO 
provisions and whether that bill would be compliant with those 
provisions. And I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. Yes on both questions. We will probably have, either in 
the bill or by rule, we'll adopt statutory PAYGO, which we pledged to 
do in our budget, as you know, and it will be compliant.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, and I just wanted to 
reiterate so, in my understanding, that would mean that the estate tax 
bill would be paid for if it came to the floor of the House. I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. As the gentleman will 
recall, I would remind the House, Mr. Speaker, the budget that we 
passed provided for baseline spending for four items, that is to say, 
that the baseline which is, essentially, the premise that I think your 
party has adopted with respect to tax legislation, that the estate tax, 
the alternative minimum tax, the middle income tax cuts and the so-
called ``doc fix,'' the sustainable growth rates, would be scored at 
baseline, which means effectively you would not pay for them.
  And I would expect us to comply with that budget provision, giving 
those four exceptions of which the estate tax is one.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. And I believe, Mr. Speaker, what 
I'm hearing is that neither the estate tax bill nor the other items 
included in the budget resolution passed would be paid for, and that 
there would be an assumption somehow that that money would just be 
taken care of. And I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. It's sort of like your 
assumptions when we have tax bills on the floor, yes.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that observation. 
Again, I just wanted to make the point that, again, as we are in 
unprecedented times incurring debt unlike we have ever in this country, 
that these obviously very important bills that need consideration are 
coming to the floor without being paid for contributing to the 
exacerbation of the debt situation on our children and their children. 
I would ask, Mr. Speaker, further--
  Mr. HOYER. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CANTOR. I would yield to the gentleman, sure.
  Mr. HOYER. The gentleman, of course, knows that if we don't act on 
the estate tax that there will be a great cost next year. The 
gentleman's aware of that which will itself exacerbate the budget.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I'd respond to the gentleman, he and I both 
know that we actually have shared position on the fact that we need to 
address the uncertainty surrounding the cliff, if you will, in the 
estate tax expiration of the repeal.
  But, again, if we are in the age of being very concerned about the 
deficit, the Members, I believe, on our side need to know that the 
bills coming to the floor are not paid for. They may be compliant with 
provisions in the budget resolution, but simply are not paid for. And 
the assumptions made about baseline are just those.
  Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield again?
  Mr. CANTOR. I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. Given my friend's concern, would the gentleman join me in 
supporting and getting the votes for a statutory PAYGO on its own? I 
yield back.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker----
  Mr. HOYER. Because of our concern about the deficit, which I share.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would say, that I, as well as other 
Members of our leadership and our conference certainly would be willing 
to engage in crafting solutions as to how we go about implementing 
PAYGO provisions without raising taxes because, as we know now, 
families across this country are hurting, small businesses are having 
difficulty keeping lights on. And now, certainly is not the time for us 
to see increased taxes on the working families or small businesses of 
this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman further about what we could 
expect in terms of the reports surrounding the so-called ``doc fix'' on 
the sustainable growth rate formula and whether we can expect such a 
bill to come to the floor next week and whether that bill would be paid 
for. And I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. As you know, when the 
former administration was in office, we regularly passed the doc fix 
which, as you know, wasn't paid for. We think that's not appropriate. 
But we agree with you that now is not the time to raise taxes. However, 
we also understand that if we do not address the sustainable growth 
rate for doctors, that Medicare recipients won't have doctors to go to. 
We want to ensure that Medicare recipients do in fact have providers 
who can meet their medical needs.
  As a result, Senator Reid, as you know, tried to pass the sustainable 
growth rate modification so there wouldn't be a 21 percent cut in 
January to doctors. Unfortunately, all of your party voted against that 
and 13 of my party voted against that, so it lost 47-53. But we believe 
that that's going to be addressed one way or another so that we assure 
and we intend to do that, to assure our Medicare recipients that they 
will not lose the services of their doctors.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the gentleman again, might we expect 
that bill to come to the floor next week? And if not, when could we 
expect such a bill to come to the floor? And I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I'm not sure that 
we're going to have it next week, but I can assure the gentleman that 
we do intend to address the issue so that doctors do not confront a 21 
percent cut in their Medicare reimbursements for Medicare patients, 
yes.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. And if I could, Mr. Speaker, turn 
the gentleman's attention to the question of the bill that Ranking 
Member Ros-Lehtinen and Chairman Berman are working on in terms of the 
Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act. This is a bill, Mr. Speaker, that 
the gentleman has indicated to me, as well as to the chief deputy whip, 
Mr. McCarthy, last week that that bill would be coming to the floor 
within the next few weeks, and would ask the gentleman, does he expect 
the bill on the floor next week or the week following? And I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for the question. As I have said, 
Mr. Berman expected to mark up the bill, as is my expectation, and Mr. 
Berman will be marking up the bill. As the gentleman probably knows, 
that bill is subject to joint jurisdiction or co-jurisdiction by three 
other committees, the Oversight Committee, the Financial Services 
Committee and the Ways and Means Committee, so they will have to do 
their work on that bill as well.
  But I do look forward to moving that bill, as the gentleman, as I've 
indicated in the past, and not only that, I want to say to the 
gentleman, I look forward to discussing it with him in the next couple 
of days.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for that, and appreciate his 
efforts to try and bring that bill to the floor. I know he and I share 
a commitment to try and make that happen as quickly as possible.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman where we stand as far as the 
schedule for November and December.

[[Page 25606]]

As we know now, we are within a week or so of the October 30 targeted 
adjournment. I guess all of us understand that that is not going to be 
met. But we've not been given a schedule; and as the gentleman knows, 
Members on his side as well as ours are used to having some advance 
notice about scheduling their lives and when they can be home with 
their families, their constituents, when they will be asked to be here 
in Washington performing their duties. And I don't recall that we've 
ever been in a situation where there's not been an official schedule 
issued this far or this close up to an adjournment.
  So I'm asking the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, if he could tell us, 
officially, what the schedule could be for the next month and the month 
succeeding that. And I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have, for at least 3 
weeks now, been indicating what I thought the schedule was going to be 
in November. As you know, a little earlier this week I modified that. 
As I caveated when I announced that we would be meeting the first and 
third weeks of November, and not the second week of November--because 
Veterans Day, which all of our Members want to be home with those 
memorializing those we have lost in the defense of freedom and 
celebrating those who have served in defending freedom and democracy. 
Our Members want to be with their fellow citizens at home accomplishing 
that objective, including myself and, I'm sure, yourself.
  The fact is, however, I also caveated that with, if we could pass 
health care we may use a portion of that week. Therefore, let me make 
it very clear officially, if you will, that I do not expect and do not 
plan that we'll be here Thanksgiving week. I expect us to be here the 
first and third weeks, from Monday through Friday of November.
  On the second week of November, which starts with the 9th of 
November, I want Members to make available and ask their schedulers now 
for Saturday the 7th, Monday the 9th and Tuesday the 10th as possible 
dates, possible on which we would meet. The contingency will be whether 
or not we can move the health care bill, which we believe is the most 
important piece of legislation that we'll consider, and probably both 
sides believe that, whatever their view of what they're going to do on 
that legislation, that we will consider.
  And if, in fact, it's possible to pass it prior to Tuesday the 10th, 
then we will possibly be in on Saturday the 7th, Monday the 9th and 
Tuesday the 10th. On Tuesday the 10th we would meet no later than 3 
p.m.
  In December--I've had discussions with the majority leader in the 
Senate. We are of the opinion that we certainly ought to make every 
effort and will make every effort to be out of this session, the first 
session of this Congress, by Friday the 18th of December. The following 
week is Christmas week and we certainly, my view is, want to have 
people home on Christmas week. And I have no intention of meeting the 
following week either. We are in discussions about the first, the month 
of January, not just the first 2 weeks, but the month of January. I'm 
hopeful that fairly soon I'll be able to announce what we want to do on 
that.

                              {time}  1115

  As a matter of fact, I would be glad to have discussions with the 
gentleman from Virginia on that issue.
  Mr. CANTOR. I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, and I would just 
reiterate the custom, which is to release an official schedule so that, 
as he knows, Members can do their planning.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CANTOR. Yes.
  Mr. HOYER. We all want that. But I think anyone who has served any 
time in the House or the Senate knows that as you begin to wind down a 
session--in this case the first session of this Congress--legislation 
passing between the two bodies dictates your schedule more than simply 
arbitrarily saying we'd like to be out on this day. And as a result, we 
will have to see where we are as we move along.
  The Interior bill I was hopeful that we would consider 2 weeks ago, 
it's on the schedule for this coming week. As you know, we were unable 
to get to agreement. We now appear to have got an agreement in the 
conference, and we're ready to move forward.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Again, whether we are in or whether we are out, I don't think we're 
advocating a position of being out and certainly not completing work.
  But, again, it is rather unprecedented where we are without the 
ability for us to have an official schedule, which is why I continue, 
Mr. Speaker, to prod on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, if I could then turn to the question of the piece of 
legislation that the gentleman referred to, health care reform, and 
about its timing and, frankly, the inclusion of a public option.
  We've been hearing a tremendous number of reports--many of them 
conflicting--about what will be the timing of the health care bill 
coming on the floor of this House, what may be included. Again, we are 
in a position being kept in the dark, which is rather odd given the 
repeated insistence by this White House and the President--both as he 
is our President now and when he was a candidate for President, when he 
proclaimed that negotiations over important bills--and, of course, this 
would be one of them--would occur in the light of day and even appear 
on C-SPAN. That's obviously not been the case.
  We've heard yesterday from the Speaker quoted in the press that she 
had the votes for a public option. We then have heard today reports 
indicating that there isn't the support on your side for a robust 
public option.
  Again, this just underscores the fact that there is so much movement 
on one side of the aisle without any participation by the other.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman to clarify and 
give us some clarity on this notion and whether he could define for us 
what is included in a robust public option, what is the difference 
between a robust public option or something else which seems to have 
now captured the interest of everybody in this body and certainly those 
in the press.
  And I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I don't know that I am going to get into a long, extended 
discussion about the substance of this bill or we could be here until 
late tonight.
  I will tell the gentleman, however, that no one ought to be 
surprised, having watched this bill being considered over the last 6 to 
7 months, some 70-plus hearings that have been held over the last 2 
years, to know this is a very difficult subject of great magnitude of 
impact on the American public and the American economy. One-sixth of 
our economy is health care expenditures.
  No one should be surprised that it's receiving a lot of discussion 
and attention. No one should be surprised that there are differences as 
to how to get from where we are--which is a system that is escalating 
at a very rapid rate. Family costs are increasing by probably $1,800 a 
year, families are being forced out of the market, and the uninsured 
grow. So we are trying to deal with that issue.
  The fact is that in terms of the public option as has been discussed, 
there are a number of ways to provide an alternative assurance of 
coverage to individuals other than simply an exchange, which would be 
like the Office of Personnel Management's Federal employee health 
benefit exchange--which is private sector--folks competing for our 
business and the business of those that are employed by the Federal 
Government. There is a lot of discussion about that.
  That discussion continues, and I will tell the gentleman that as the 
Speaker said and I've said, we will bring the bill to the floor when we 
think it's ready to come to the floor. And I've further asserted 
emphatically that we will give the 72-hours notice that we had 
indicated we would give.
  I would tell you further that until such time as we've resolved what 
the bill is going to look like, it is impossible for CBO to give a 
final score.
  We had pledged that we're going to be deficit free, that is to say 
the bill will be paid for, will not add to the deficit. The President 
indicated that in

[[Page 25607]]

his speech to the joint session, and we intend to do that.
  So I tell the gentleman we're having continuing discussions on not 
just the public option, to which the gentleman refers, and to how that 
will be configured, but there are other matters as well of concern to 
the public and to all of us.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  I think the gentleman makes one of the points I am trying to convey, 
and that is these discussions, these continuing negotiations are 
occurring behind closed doors, they're occurring just on one side of 
the aisle in and around issues of health care that affect every 
American--young, old, Republican, Democrat, male, female. It is 
universal in its application, the issue of health care.
  So it is troubling, at the very least, for us to sit here and witness 
these ongoing negotiations behind closed doors when we on our side, I 
think, have posited alternatives. The gentleman and I have met on 
discussions surrounding some points that we can agree upon.
  But what's troubling right now is the insistence that we continue to 
read about that there be a public option. My office has received 
reports about their being three different public options that your side 
is considering.
  Now, we've heard reports that you have whipped those three distinct 
public options. My question, Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman is, what are 
those three public options? I think the public deserves the right to 
know. The public has rejected the notion of a public option replacing 
their health care. That is really the impetus, I believe, that the 
gentleman would want to put on display about this discussion about the 
so-called public option and the three versions that are discussed.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CANTOR. I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I reject the gentleman's conclusion, which I think is 
incorrect, the premise that the public has rejected. In fact, as the 
gentleman probably knows, hopefully, the polling data indicates that 
the support for the public option has risen since August--has risen, I 
tell my friend. And there are a number of different ways to get there.
  The Senate has one that's on public display, has been on the 
Internet. The House Education and Labor Committee has one option with 
Ways and Means that has been on the Internet. It's been on the Internet 
since July. Energy and Commerce has one--a different correlation of 
that--and it's been on the Internet since July. There have been a lot 
of discussions, and I would refer my friend to the Internet, and I am 
sure he has copies of all of those bills.
  Nothing is secret, nothing is behind closed doors.
  Now, are we having discussions with ourselves about how we want to 
get there and with people who will vote for the bill?
  The gentleman has made it very clear, I don't think your side is for 
a public option. We disagree on that. That is a fair disagreement. 
You're not for a public option, and I haven't talked to anybody on your 
side that's for a public option.
  We disagree. We believe that the public option is an option that the 
public ought to have and not simply be in the sights of insurance 
companies who may or may not give them the price or the coverage that 
they could either afford or need. That's the difference. But I haven't 
talked to anybody on your side who wants a public option no matter how 
it is configured.
  So very frankly, I will tell my friend that discussions with your 
side on a public option seem somewhat pointless.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I'm a little taken aback by the gentleman's 
statement saying it's pointless for him to have discussions with 
Republicans regarding health care.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CANTOR. I will.
  Mr. HOYER. I didn't say that.
  The gentleman, as he cited, we had a meeting. Am I incorrect in 
saying that the gentleman indicated to me he was not for a public 
option? Is that an accurate statement?
  Mr. CANTOR. The gentleman is not incorrect because Republicans 
believe that a public option doesn't bring about competition. I think 
both of us, Mr. Speaker, agree that competition is what is needed to 
bring down prices to increase access.
  We believe that real competition comes from the ability for 
individuals to choose not just from two or three insurance companies 
that may have 50 percent of market share; we believe real competition 
comes from the ability for an individual to choose from a thousand 
different insurance plans for that individual and his or her family. 
That's where we begin to--that's what we can agree on. The competition 
brings down prices. We don't believe public option brings competition.
  And that is the essence. The end shouldn't be public option.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CANTOR. I will yield when I finish.
  And I would further say again to the gentleman's representation about 
where the American public is because of a poll that was taken this 
week, I think there have been numerous articles written on debunking 
the methodology behind that poll. In fact, the question when posed, do 
you support a public option to compete with private insurance, is and 
would yield a different response than if you were to ask, would you 
support a public option that replaces the current health care coverage 
that you have.
  And, Mr. Speaker, this is our position. We believe that if you 
introduce a government that also makes the rules as a competitor, that 
there will no longer be an even playing field for competition, that you 
are on a path to single-payer health care in this country. That is the 
difference, Mr. Speaker. But I don't think that the gentleman is 
correct in his saying it is fruitless to have discussions surrounding 
health care because we have a difference of opinion.
  And I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The gentleman misstates what I said. I said discussion regarding a 
public option when I had talked to nobody on your side who was for a 
public option.
  It seems pointless, from my perspective, to talk to somebody about 
how a public option ought to be configured if, as you have just stated, 
you're not for a public option. Therefore, a discussion about a public 
option does in fact to me seem pointless.
  Furthermore, let me say this: The gentleman was here when we--I 
believe you were here--when we adopted the current part D of the 
Medicare program. The gentleman will recall in that bill you provided 
for a public option. You provided for a public option to provide 
competition and availability of a health care prescription-drug 
coverage. Now, you provided it in the event that there was no private 
sector, or at least not more than one, available in any one segment of 
our society.
  So I tell the gentleman, in your own bill--that I think you 
supported; I don't know that off the top of my head--but my presumption 
is you supported it or certainly the overwhelming majority of your 
party supported with very few Democratic votes, and that provided for 
an option of a public option.
  Mr. CANTOR. I would say to the gentleman there are a lot of 
differences to the construct of the MMA, the legislation passed that 
created part D than what is being discussed today.
  Mr. HOYER. I agree with that. But it did provide for an option of a 
public option.
  Mr. CANTOR. Reclaiming my time.
  So I would say if the gentleman is of that opinion that there is an 
ability to discuss things surrounding health care, then why is it that 
we continue to see closed door negotiations?
  So the gentleman points to the different options, public options or 
versions thereof, being discussed in the three different committees in 
the House. Are those the public options that the gentleman and his side 
have whipped and are being discussed now behind closed doors?

                              {time}  1130

  Frankly, any imposition of a public plan is going to cost taxpayers 
and

[[Page 25608]]

small businesses money. I would certainly think the gentleman would 
share the notion that Republicans should be involved, and it would be 
of concern to both Republicans and Democrats throughout this country 
that the American people would want their right to know being realized 
in these discussions, which is my point as to why is it that we can't 
hear what these three different public options are and what the 
differences are therein.
  Mr. HOYER. I would repeat, you know exactly what the options are. As 
I just told you, they are online. They have been discussed. They were 
discussed extensively in the committee on television. Surely the 
gentleman would not want the Speaker or anybody else to be 
misunderstood as the fact that your party doesn't have discussions 
among yourselves as to what options you want to pursue.
  If that's your representation, frankly, I tell my friend, I don't 
think many people are going to believe that. Are we having discussions? 
We are. I don't believe either you individually or anybody that I have 
talked to on your side of the aisle is for a public option.
  We are discussing how public option ought to be configured. You don't 
believe there ought to be a public option, period, for the reasons you 
have stated. We understand that. We have a difference of opinion on 
that.
  Now, if you are for public option on some configuration, then if you 
will submit that to me, I would be glad to talk to you about it.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, we have always and continue to represent that we are 
ready to work with him, his leadership and the other side in crafting 
and affecting positive health care reform. Again, shutting down 
discussions is not a route to achieve that that could fairly produce 
what the American people want.
  I don't think it could produce fairly or unfairly what the American 
people want if it is going to be about my way or the highway as far as 
health care discussions and a bill that passes on this floor.
  I thank the gentleman.

                          ____________________