[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 229-232]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Virginia 
on his election as majority leader of his party. He and I have had the 
opportunity to work together over the recent years. It's been a 
positive relationship, and I look forward to continuing that positive 
relationship, albeit in my diminished status.
  I yield to my friend to inquire about the schedule for the coming 
week.
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for 
those kind remarks. I want to also reiterate my pleasure of being able 
to develop a positive working relationship with him, understanding full 
well there will be disagreements, but there is probably a lot more that 
we can agree on, and I look forward to exploring those avenues. I want 
to congratulate him on his election to the position of Democratic whip, 
and I look forward to working in this relationship. I know that these 
roles have been reversed now in these colloquies, so I look forward to 
that as well.
  Madam Speaker, on Monday, the House is not in session. On Tuesday, 
the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for 
legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On 
Wednesday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. On 
Thursday and Friday, the House will not be in session to accommodate 
the Republican retreat.
  On Tuesday, we will consider at least one bill under suspension of 
the rules, which will be announced later today. We will also begin 
consideration of H.R. 2, the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law 
Act. I expect the House to complete debate on H.R. 2 Wednesday 
afternoon.
  Also, on Wednesday, Madam Speaker, the House will consider H. Res. 9, 
instructing certain committees to report legislation replacing the job-
killing health care law.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for outlining the schedule. There 
was an interesting article in The Washington Post today about your job-
killing comments always being attached to the health care bill. There 
are obviously some of us who know full well that was not part of the 
title, as I'm sure the gentleman would admit, and that in fact it does 
not do that at all. In fact, we think it creates jobs. But, in any 
event, I thank the gentleman for announcing the schedule.
  I want to say we're disappointed, however, as he was when he was in 
my position, that we don't have a committee process for this very 
important piece of legislation. I think it's important from your 
perspective and it's important from our perspective, although we may 
have different perspectives on whether it should pass or fail. But it 
is an important piece of legislation. There was no committee process 
and no hearings; no opportunity for the public to be heard on the bill; 
no opportunity for the Members to testify with respect to that bill; no 
witnesses were

[[Page 230]]

heard. Furthermore, under the rule, of course we have been given no 
opportunity to amend.
  The gentleman, when he was in my position, repeatedly indicated how 
disappointed he was that there were no amendments allowed on certain 
bills. I want to reiterate that concern. And given the lack of 
amendments, I want to clarify when he believes will be the finishing of 
votes on Wednesday. I understand debate will begin on Tuesday and it 
will conclude on Wednesday.
  Mr. CANTOR. I would ask the gentleman to repeat the question.
  Mr. HOYER. What time do you expect to conclude business on Wednesday?
  Mr. CANTOR. I would say to the gentleman, Madam Speaker, that it is 
our intention to conclude by 7 p.m. on Wednesday.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that response.
  In light of the fact that your side has made a pledge to allow ample 
time for Members to read and consider it, and notwithstanding that they 
have already not pursued that as vigorously as I think you would have 
hoped and perhaps we would have hoped as well in the 112th Congress, I 
was wondering if the gentleman can enlighten us on what he expects to 
consider the rest of January, after next week, so that Members might 
have opportunities to anticipate issues that you're going to be 
bringing forward.
  Mr. CANTOR. As to the inquiry about openness and the ability for 
Members to have time to read the bills as well as for the public to 
realize its right to know, we on our side believe in making sure there 
is that adequate time, and we posted on Monday legislation coming to 
the floor for this week and next. So I would say to the gentleman from 
Maryland, Madam Speaker, that it is our intention to uphold our 
commitment to the 3-day rule to allow for the public's right to know, 
as well as Members themselves to understand, what it is we're voting 
for.
  As to the gentleman's comments regarding the up-or-down vote on 
ObamaCare repeal, if the gentleman has looked at the postings online, 
he will know that the repeal resolution is a page and a half. This is a 
repeal of a bill that was the subject of significant legislative time 
and other over the course of the last 2 years. It is clear that the 
public has litigated and, in essence, has decided its position on that 
bill, given the results of November's election.

                              {time}  1140

  It comes down to whether you are for ObamaCare or you are against it. 
That is what the vote is.
  Again, a page and a half is what the bill is, so we have committed to 
continuing in the vein of an open process when it comes to trying to 
get it right as far as replacing the health care status quo. We have 
committed and the Speaker has committed to making sure that our 
committees will go through regular order. Members of the minority and 
majority will have ample time to engage and participate in the 
discussions around what type of health care Americans deserve and what 
type of health care they want, which is how we will proceed when it 
comes to the so-called ``replacement'' resolution and its 
implementation.
  I would also point out to the gentleman from Maryland that the Rules 
Committee has accepted the amendment proposed by the gentleman from 
Utah as far as a suggestion that he had regarding the SGR formula and 
the reimbursements for physicians under the Medicare program.
  Again, we are trying to work in a fashion that is as open and as 
inclusive as we can. As the Speaker said in his remarks--and he was 
correct--we had no open rules under the last Congress. We intend for 
that not to be the case here. I know that the gentleman joins me in the 
desire for us to be able to work together, and we believe that that 
will provide the best way forward for that.
  As to the gentleman's question about the remainder of January, Madam 
Speaker, we intend to focus on the theme of this Congress, which is 
``cut and grow.'' We are going to be talking about ways to cut 
spending. We are going to live up to our commitment to bring a spending 
cut bill to the floor each and every week, Madam Speaker.
  We also intend to focus on what it is that is impeding job growth in 
the economy, and we will be asking our committees to begin focusing on 
regulations that are being promulgated and pursued throughout the 
administration and its agencies that are precluding job growth. It is 
our hope, though, Madam Speaker, that these committees--our 
committees--will be fully organized by the end of the month so we can 
begin a process of regular order.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Obviously, the health care bill that he and his party seek to repeal 
had probably more consideration, more open debate, more transparency, 
more amendments, and more hearings than almost any bill that I have 
considered as a Member of this Congress over the last three decades--
full and open consideration, amendments offered from both sides in 
committee on a very ample basis; but I am glad to hear that you agree 
that there has been ample debate time for that. There has not been any 
debate time in committees--or amendments--on the repeal of that law.
  I am certainly hopeful that the gentleman does not mean to say that 
if the majority party concludes that the American people have already 
decided on the issue that that will be the exception to the rule that 
you have put forth in terms of full and ample notice, debate, the 
amendment process, and transparency. I would certainly hope that that 
would not be the case. I don't expect it will be the case, and I hope 
it won't be.
  Let me say in addition that I am very pleased that the majority party 
allowed in order the amendment by Mr. Matheson. As you know, we tried 
to have a permanent fix to the reimbursement of doctors who took 
Medicare patients. Unfortunately, the minority party in the Senate, 
which had the opportunity to do that, precluded us from accomplishing 
that objective. So I am pleased. That needs to be done. We need to have 
a stable funding expectation by doctors when they provide services to 
Medicare patients--to seniors--as we want them to do and as we want 
them to continue to do. So I am pleased that you allowed that 
amendment, and I would hope Members on your side will be supporting 
that amendment as we will on this side.
  Let me ask you now, Mr. Majority Leader, as I am very concerned, and 
I expressed this on the floor. Your rules, in my view, provide for some 
$5 trillion to be incurred in additional deficits. They allow that 
because you have exempted almost all of the possible reductions in 
revenues--tax cuts, reductions in revenues--notwithstanding no 
reduction in spending. Well, if you reduce revenues and you don't 
reduce spending commensurately, inevitably, you will create large 
deficits, which inevitably will be paid by future generations.
  That has been the experience that, again, I have had when we had 
significant tax cuts in the 1980s and in the last decade of 2000--2001 
to 2003--when we created very large deficits.
  My presumption is that you will be finding commensurate reductions in 
spending to your tax cuts that you will want to continue. If you don't 
do that, deficits will inevitably follow. The majority party has not 
done that in years past. Is it your expectation that that will occur in 
the future?
  The question I want to ask you as well is that you have provided in 
your rules for essentially ignoring CBO scores--the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office, which has issued a preliminary score for 
the Republican Patients' Bill of Rights. They believe it will increase 
the deficit by $230 billion in the first 10 years by repeal and $1.2 
trillion in the second 10 years.
  My question is: Having deemed in the rule today a provision allowing 
the chair of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan, to ignore the CBO score, 
will the majority continue to ignore CBO scores on legislation for the 
rest of Congress or will we be fiscally responsible, in my view, and 
adhere to the advice and counsel we receive from CBO?

[[Page 231]]

  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the Democratic whip.
  Madam Speaker, I respond to his first question by saying that 
Washington doesn't have a revenue problem; it has a spending problem. 
We believe that it is better to allow folks to keep more of their hard-
earned money so we can see a return to growth in our economy, and we 
are dedicated to making sure we deal with the spending problem here in 
Washington.
  As I said before to the gentleman, we are intending and will bring to 
the floor each and every week a bill to cut spending. We are very 
focused, as you know, on bringing spending down to 2008 levels to make 
sure that we are abiding by our commitment to live according to the 
same rules that everyone else does. While businesses and families are 
living within their means and tightening their belts, there is no 
reason in the world that Washington can't as well. I am sure the 
gentleman agrees with me on that.
  As for the issue surrounding the CBO, the issue that we have and the 
dispute we have is not with the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO 
score is what is put in front of them, and the reality is the ObamaCare 
bill, Madam Speaker, relied on smoke and mirrors and budgetary shell 
games in order to present the picture that it presents or alleges to 
represent.
  Madam Speaker, there is nothing that has changed about the flawed 
assumptions underlying the old score of the ObamaCare bill. Only the 
dates have changed. These are the same gimmicks, producing more false 
deficit reduction and, in fact, real spending increases. In fact, as 
the gentleman knows, Medicare's chief actuary says that the ObamaCare 
bill represents a maze of mandates, tax hikes, and subsidies that will 
push costs up. The bottom line, Madam Speaker, is we need to stop 
arguing about ``inside baseball'' budget gimmicks.

                              {time}  1150

  There's no question that a new, open-ended entitlement program will 
grow unsustainably fast, will drive costs up, and could potentially 
bankrupt this Federal Government, as well as our States.
  Mr. HOYER. I want to say to my friend, the continuing rhetoric is 
Washington doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. 
Americans in every family that I know understand that their revenues 
directly impact on their spending and vice versa, and if they don't, 
they have a real problem. If they don't have enough revenue to meet 
their expenditures, they've got a problem, and if their spending 
exceeds their revenue, they have a problem.
  I tell my friend, I understand what you're saying, and I've heard 
this rhetoric all of my career here in the Congress. When President 
Reagan was President, we never overrode a Presidential veto of an 
appropriation bill because it spent too much. If he vetoed it, it spent 
too much, he never had a veto overridden. Nevertheless, we incurred an 
additional $1.5 trillion in deficits. Under President George H.W. Bush, 
we didn't override any veto of his, and we incurred an additional $1 
trillion. That was $2.5 trillion plus.
  Under the Clinton administration, of course, in the economic program 
as you and I both know that your party universally opposed, we had a 
surplus, the only President in your lifetime and I think in mine, which 
is substantially longer, that's had 4 years of surplus. Now, I know you 
say, the response that Mr. Dreier gave to me, is that, well, yes, we 
took over the Congress in 1995. That's correct. And of course not only 
did you take over the Congress in 1995, but in 2000, you took over the 
Presidency as well and controlled the House and the Senate and the 
Presidency.
  And during that period of time, we didn't pass any appropriation 
bills on our side. You were in full charge during the Bush 
administration's first six years, and $3.5 trillion of deficit spending 
was incurred, making a total of over $5 trillion of deficit spending 
during the time that your party took the position that we didn't have a 
revenue problem, we had a spending problem.
  Well, it ended up being a $5 trillion deficit problem, adding to the 
deficit for our children and for my grandchildren and for my great-
granddaughter, and I'm concerned about that. And that is why I'm so 
concerned about statutory PAYGO, sticking with CBO scores, and 
accommodating our spending and revenue. They are both related, 
obviously, and to ignore that eliminating revenue without eliminating 
spending does cause deficits I think is to ignore reality.
  So I would hope my friend would talk to Mr. Ryan of the Budget 
Committee and bring us legislation which would, in fact, do what you 
and I want to do; that is, eliminate the deficit. If we've got two 
messages during this past election, in my view, it was, A, focus on 
creating jobs. We've got to get to work. Americans are hurting. We had 
some good job numbers this month. We've created over 1.3 million jobs 
this past year as opposed to losing almost 4 million jobs in the last 
year of the Bush administration. That's progress. But as I've said so 
often, it's not success. Success will be when every American who wants 
a job, willing to work, can find a job, and they can support him or her 
and their families.
  But we need to not pretend that revenues and spending are not 
inextricably related, and that if we give up revenues before we do the 
difficult thing, the tough thing, the adult thing, as Mr. Boehner said, 
and cut the spending, then cut the revenues if Americans are buying it, 
then we ought to be paying for it and not passing along the bill to our 
grandchildren, and I would hope the gentleman would pursue that.
  If the gentleman wants to respond to that, I want to say something 
about health care briefly.
  Mr. CANTOR. You know, Madam Speaker, the gentleman and I have gone 
through these discussions for the last 2 years, and when we get into 
discussing the past, I normally posit a quote from Winston Churchill 
when he said, If we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we 
shall find we have lost the future.
  And what my response is, Madam Speaker, we are looking to see that we 
do take the tough steps and cut spending. So I'm hopeful with all the 
renewed enthusiasm that all of us have gained after the election 
towards fiscal sanity that the gentleman and his caucus can join us and 
vote with us in terms of the spending cuts that we'll be bringing to 
the floor every week.
  The gentleman speaks about revenues, and absolutely, as an ongoing 
concern, this government has to be concerned with that. But we first 
and foremost must understand--and I think both of us realize, Madam 
Speaker, that in order to have revenues, we've got to have a growing 
economy--and so there is balance, and that is where perhaps our two 
visions diverge, but it is my hope that we can work together by putting 
priorities in place, cutting spending, growing the economy. And that's 
the formula by which we will be operating, and I'm hopeful we can 
operate in that formula together.
  Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the gentleman's comment, and briefly in 
closing, Madam Speaker, let me say this. I hope we can cooperate, but 
we do have a divergence, as my friend pointed out, and that's of course 
the nature of what the House of Representatives does, debates different 
points of view. Frankly, my experience, as I have said, is that when we 
diverged in a point of view in 1993, when my Republican friends took 
the position that accommodating revenues to spending would, in fact, 
from their perspective, be a job killer--they talk a lot about job-
killing legislation. They all voted against that legislation in 1993, 
and in fact, some of my colleagues on my side of the aisle lost their 
election because of voting for that piece of legislation. In fact, 
however, it helped create the most robust economy anybody in this 
Chamber has experienced in their lifetime. It created over 22 million 
jobs, as opposed to losing 8 million jobs in the last administration 
under President Bush, so that there was a substantial difference which 
you can see, touch, and feel and read about and know about.
  So I tell my friend, yes, there's a difference of opinion, but 
there's no difference of opinion on what happened, and when Winston 
Churchill, who you

[[Page 232]]

quoted before and of whom I'm a great fan, one of the things that 
Winston Churchill was most known for was trying to remind his British 
friends: don't forget what dictators and despots do--and I make no 
aspersions, I want to make that clear. I'm simply saying he believed 
strongly in learning from the past and not continuing to make mistakes 
and not continue to do what failed in years before.
  So I agree with the gentleman in looking at the past for instruction 
on how to make the future better and to create those jobs that both he 
and I want to create and that America certainly is looking for us to 
create.
  I thank the gentleman for this colloquy.

                          ____________________