Eric Cantor

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. I yield.

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. 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. CANTOR. I yield.

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.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in the midst of the increasing momentum we detect on the other side to push through a government takeover of health care in our country. To me, it is about four distinct questions. One, does anyone believe that the passage of a $1 trillion bill, does anyone believe that won't aggravate the deficit? I think the answer is resoundingly ``no.'' Secondly, if it is going to be $1 trillion, who is going to pay for that? Well, we know that the majority is talking about small businesses and seniors paying for that. Third, does anyone really think that the health care overhaul being proposed is going to make your health care better? I don't think so. And lastly, is there any guarantee that this government is not going to get in between you and your doctor? Mr. Speaker, I say to that, the answer is ``no.'' We Republicans have a better way. We believe we can accomplish reform aimed at the discrete problems that exist, to fix those, and then expand health care opportunities for those who do not currently have it.

Mr. CANTOR

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. CANTOR. I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker----

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

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. CANTOR. Yes

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. 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. 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. CANTOR. I yield.

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. CANTOR. I would yield to the gentleman, sure.