Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1203, I call up the bill (H.R. 4872) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 202 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, is the motion going to be read?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding. Today is March 21, 2010. On March 21, 1965, Martin Luther King, Jr., led a march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge. It was a march across that bridge for the vote in this democracy. It was a march towards a greater freedom for many Americans. It was a march for a better quality of life for many Americans. Indeed, it was a march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge for freedom and a better realization of the promise of our democracy. Today, March 21, 2010, we will cross another bridge. It is not a physical bridge, but it is a bridge that too many Americans find that they cannot cross; a river that separates them from the security of having available the best health care that is available in the world available to them. We are here to conclude a day of debate, which concludes months of debate, in a national conversation that began more than a century ago. But this much is beyond debate. American health care is on an unsustainable course. By the end of this debate, another family will have fallen into bankruptcy because someone had the bad fortune simply to be sick. More families will have joined them in paying more and more for less and less health coverage. More businesses will have weighted bankruptcy against cutting their workers' care and their workers will have lost. We have before us a bill to change an unsustainable course. That is our choice this evening. It is a historic choice. It's a choice that all of us volunteered to be put in the position to make. It is a choice that we will be honored to make this evening. We stood in this Chamber tonight with John Dingell, John Dingell, who stood at that rostrum with the gavel that the Speaker will use tonight to gavel through Medicare, that ensured that millions and millions and millions of seniors would not be crushed by poverty and put into bankruptcy by the cost of health care. Indeed, they will have been given the opportunity for a longer, better quality of life in America when John Dingell brought that gavel down on that desk and noted the passage of Medicare in 1965. For more than 3,000 district events, more than 100 hearings, and almost 2 years of public debate, health insurance reform has stood up to the scrutiny, to criticism, indeed, to falsehoods. But this purpose is older than that. Before we were born, the task of bringing affordable health care to every American was on our Nation's agenda, waiting for this day. At the beginning of this decade in 2002, George W. Bush said, ``All Americans should be able to choose a health care plan that meets their needs at affordable prices.'' George Bush was right. In 1976, Gerald Ford spoke of ``our effort to upgrade and perpetuate our total health care system so no individual in this country will lack help whenever or wherever he needs it.'' Gerald Ford was right. And Richard Nixon said this, ``Let us act now.'' That was in 1974, when there were far fewer Americans who did not have health insurance and where health care was less costly. Richard Nixon was right in 1974 on this issue. Let us in 2010, in a bipartisan way, perhaps not a bipartisan vote, but recognizing that this has been a bipartisan objective, a bipartisan vision, for those Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents whom I have not quoted but whom, as all of you know, were equally committed to that vision and that objective, affordable health care for all, for all Americans. It was embraced by both parties' nominees in the last campaign, Senator Obama and Senator McCain. But what a campaign of fear this bill has faced this last year. Its critics call it, without justification, and we will hear it tonight, a ``government takeover.'' That's not true, but if you believe it's true, perhaps you think we ought to repeal veterans health care, which is clearly government-run health care. Perhaps we ought to repeal Medicare, government participated but private sector providers. Perhaps you believe Medicare should be repealed. I don't think you do; I hope you don't. It is more control, however, for whom? For consumers, and less for insurance companies. It is the end of discrimination against Americans with preexisting conditions, and the end of medical bankruptcy and caps on benefits. It is coverage you can rely on whether you lose your job or become your own boss, coverage that reaches 95 percent of all Americans. Its critics call it tyranny. There is none. It is a free, competitive, transparent marketplace where individuals and small businesses can pool together to buy private insurance at low rates. It is lower cost for the middle class and an end to the prescription drug doughnut hole that has faced too many struggling seniors. Its critics mock this as ``out-of-control government.'' In truth, it is the biggest definite-reduction bill any of us will have an opportunity to vote on in this Congress and, indeed, in other Congresses as well. Indeed, it's the deepest definite reduction since the Clinton budget of the 1990s that ushered in a budget surplus and historic prosperity. According to the nonpartisan CBO, this bill is $143 billion in savings in the first decade and more than $1 trillion of savings in the second decade. We can add to those deficit savings real cost controls that bring down the price of the world's most expensive health care. Take those into account, says leading health care economist David Cutler, and America saves an additional $600 billion in the first 10 years and even more in the second 10 years. Yet there are some who hope for the bill's defeat. They would see that, I think, as the defeat of one party. One Senator made that observation and said this might be the President's Waterloo. If this bill fails, the Waterloo will be that of the people who are without health care insurance, the people who are struggling to make sure that their children are healthy and well and safe. But it would be a defeat for them and for our country, for a healthy America is a stronger America. They saw the same thing in 1993, my Republican colleagues, when to a person, as I believe will happen tonight, unfortunately, in 1993, to a person they did the same thing. My Republican friends voted without a single exception against the 1993 economic reform plan of the Clinton administration. Congressman Boehner asked, ``Who does this spending stimulate except maybe the liberal faculty at Harvard or Berkeley?'' Congressman Kasich said, ``If it was to work, then I'd have to become a Democrat. `` It did work, and he didn't change. It was a partisan vote, Mr. Speaker, a partisan vote that helped create 22.7 million new jobs, contrary to what so many of my Republican friends said that bill would do, and a record budget surplus of $5.6 trillion, contrary to the assertion of Mr. Armey that it would create deep debt. That bill passed through a gauntlet of slurs, hyperbole, and untruths, and so did Medicare, which Republicans called ``brazen socialism,'' and so did Social Security, which a Republican Congressman called the ``lash of the dictator.'' I don't know whether there are any Republicans in this body tonight that believe that Social Security is the lash of the dictator. I hope not. Those slurs were false in 1935, they were false in 1965, and, ladies and gentlemen of this House, they are false in 2010. Ladies and gentlemen of this House, this bill, this bill will stand in the same company, for the misguided outrage of its opposition and for its lasting accomplishment of the American people. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to honor some of the ``little punk staffers'' who gave so much to help us bring this bill to the floor. I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle who did so much to bring your prescription drug bill to the floor, they need to be honored. They need to be thanked. They need to be respected for the work they do for this House, for each of us but, more importantly, for America. From the Legislative Counsel's Office, Ed Grossman, Jessica Shapiro, Megan Renfrew, Warren Burke, Larry Johnston, Henry Christrup, Wade Ballou and Scott Probst.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I move that we lay the resolution on the table.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the Republican whip for yielding. As previously announced, on Friday the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. On Saturday, Members are advised that the House will meet at 9 a.m., which is the custom, with recorded votes as early as 10 a.m. This is a change from the previously announced schedule. For those Members who said they couldn't hear me, let me tell you a little story Senator Sarbanes used to tell. He was giving a speech once and a man in the back of the room said, ``I can't hear you.'' And immediately somebody in the front of the room jumped up and said, ``I can; and I'll trade places with you.'' Now back to this exciting weekend that we're about to have. On Saturday, as I said, we'll come in at 9 a.m., which is the custom, with recorded votes as early as 10 a.m. This is a change from the previously announced schedule. In addition, on Sunday, the House will meet at 1 p.m. for legislative business. On Monday, Members are advised votes could be earlier than 6:30 p.m. Now, many of you will be here on Sunday and not go home. We're going to try to work that out. I wanted to talk to the minority leadership, the Republican leadership, on this issue. These are also changes that were not previously announced. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. In addition, we will consider H.R. 3644, the Ocean, Coastal, and Watershed Education Act; and H.R. 1612, the Public Lands Service Corps Act. In addition, we will consider the health care legislation, which is now posted on the House Rules Committee Web site. We will consider that with 72 hours notice to all the Members of that posting.

Mr. HOYER. Votes will not begin before 2 o'clock. I don't know exactly. We come in at 1 o'clock. We may have votes at 1 o'clock in terms of procedural votes. But I want to make it clear we will have no vote on the health care bill until 72 hours after the posting that has just occurred.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Go Terps! And they did. I'm a graduate of the University of Maryland. Like so many others, I am very proud of my alma mater. I went there many, many years ago. I have owned a number of homes throughout my life, but one of them was three doors from Gary Williams. I've known Gary Williams for all the time he's been at the University of Maryland, which is now over 20 years. Gary Williams is an extraordinary individual, an extraordinary coach, and has had great success at every school he's coached at throughout this country. He's been at Maryland for, as I said, over two decades. He's the most winning coach in Maryland history. Lefty Driesell was his predecessor--not immediate predecessor, but in terms of holding that record. Lefty did a great job at the University of Maryland. Maryland was picked very low in the ACC standings at the beginning of this season. The expectations were not high. The University of Maryland team had a freshman strong forward. So it was perceived that inside, they wouldn't have the kind of game they needed to compete in a conference like the Atlantic Coast Conference, which we, of course, in the ACC believe is the best conference in the United States, although I want to observe, it may not have been the best conference this year in the United States; but over the years, it certainly has been. But there were some very strong conferences. Not to forget to mention the Big East, it is pretty strong itself. But in any event, we weren't picked very high. The reason Gary Williams has been chosen appropriately for the honor of being Coach of the Year in the ACC, which has some extraordinary coaches, like Coach Krzyzewski, Coach Roy Williams at the University of North Carolina, and other great coaches, is because he took a team that did not have high expectations from the public and took it to a tie with Duke, one of the great teams in this country, to lead the ACC. They both finished 13-3, I believe, in the ACC. Wake Forest, a great team as well. I want to thank the gentlelady from Maryland, Donna Edwards, who shares Prince George's County in which University of Maryland College Park is located, for her gracious congratulations. She gives me a hard time. Wake beat us this year, and I don't know whether we'll meet again this year, probably not. But notwithstanding that, I appreciate her gracious support of this resolution. I want to tell you that we have a young player. He is a senior. His name is Greivis Vasquez. Greivis Vasquez is a real personality on the court. Greivis Vasquez was the high scorer, picked as Player of the Year in the ACC, and was an extraordinary leader of our team on the floor. He was the spark plug of our team. And when our team was down and needed to get up, needed to be inspired, it was Greivis Vasquez who, along with some other extraordinary players--and we had nine or 10 players who could have started at some other teams, frankly, wonderful players. Some, Jordan Williams, our new freshman who is going to be an extraordinary sophomore, and hopefully we may even keep him until his junior year. But that is why we prevailed in the ACC. That's why we're going to prevail in the NCAA. We play Houston, as you've heard. I'm sure I will talk to the Representatives from the Houston area about this game, coming up Friday at 9:50 p.m. We will focus on that game, and we'll talk to you a little bit about what you think and what we think. But it's going to be an excellent year. But notwithstanding that, I was in Atlanta when the University of Maryland won the national championship. We played Indiana that year. I want to personally congratulate my friend Gary Williams on the great coaching job he did this year. I want to congratulate the entire team for the great job they did, and I want to wish them the very best of luck in the NCAA tournament. I thank the gentlelady, and I thank the gentleman for bringing this resolution to the floor to appropriately recognize a great year for a great team, a great coach and a great ACC player of the year.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. The gentleman has had 72 days, I tell the gentleman, to review the bill that he refers to--72 days, not 72 hours--72 days in final form to review the bill. Now, you can keep saying this. You can keep telling the American public that somehow we are ramming something through. You have had, I tell the gentleman, and you know you have had, 72 days, at least, to review the bill as it stands today.

Mr. HOYER. First of all, the 72-hour rule, I didn't say that we were casting aside any rule, nor did I say that we may not have more than 72 hours' notice. You may well have more than 72 hours' notice. What I said to you was I am not going to commit myself and then have 70 hours as opposed to 72 hours and think that I have violated some representation that I made. We want to give as much notice as we possibly can. This has been a very difficult discussion, as you know, and as you well know, the Members on your side of the aisle in the other body have indicated they are going to do everything in their power to stop the passage of this legislation. So we need to get about this business and engage, if you will.

Mr. HOYER. It wasn't a translation. It was an accurate reporting of what I said.

Mr. HOYER. As the gentleman knows, the language in the Senate bill specifically provides for no government funding. I know there is a dispute because there is a contribution towards policies. But, as you know, the Senate drew language very carefully to ensure that no public funds were spent for or participated in purchasing insurance for abortion services. In fact, as the gentleman, I'm sure, well knows, the Senate language specifically provides that if those protections are going to be purchased, they must be purchased by separate payment with none, either subsidy dollars or government dollars, that they must be spent out of an individual's personal pocket.

Mr. HOYER. First, let me say that no matter how often the gentleman and his colleagues want to say so, that we are going to ``ram through'' something, no matter how many times the press and public may be misled by that assertion, we are not ramming through anything, I tell my friend. We are following the rules of the House and following the rules of the Senate that have been decades in existence, which, when they have been used, 72 percent of the time they have been used, 72 percent of the time they have been used, I tell my friend, your party used them. They are the rules, and we are going to follow the rules. Both bills that are pending before the Congress of the United States have been passed with a majority, and, in fact, the Senate bill was passed by a 60 percent majority, I tell my friend, not rammed through, after a full year of debate and discussion, scores of hearings, hundreds of witnesses, and thousands of hours of consideration. I tell my friend that you can say we are ramming something through as much as you want and it will not make it true, no matter how often it is said by your side of the aisle, who, in my opinion, wants simply to stop the legislation in its tracks. I tell my friend that we are going to be in the regular order, as we have been on these bills since they were introduced. We are going to be in the regular order in terms of considering the passage of bills that have received majorities in both Houses. As I say again, the Senate bill has received a 60 percent majority in its House. Now, the American public, frankly, I expect when we vote on bills, they expect things to pass by majority vote. They do here. They unfortunately don't in the other body. So you can have 59 percent, as we had in the House, to give children health care, and children don't get health care. So I say to my friend, as I said, the expectation is we will consider passing health care legislation this coming week. We think it is long overdue. We expect the Budget Committee to mark up a reconciliation bill, as the committee did when the Republicans were in charge on 16 occasions out of the 22 that reconciliation has been used, 72 percent of the time, as I want to reiterate; because I, frankly, get a little impatient with this assertion that somehow a process that you utilized 72 percent of the times it has been utilized, which means we used it 28 percent, that somehow now when we are using it, it is somehow now not consistent with the rules. My friend knows it is consistent with the rules, and we are pursuing that process. The committee, I expect, will mark up on Monday. I expect thereafter the Rules Committee to meet, as is consistent with the rules, to prepare a reconciliation bill and to report it to this floor. I expect them to report a rule to consider that reconciliation bill, and I expect that reconciliation bill to be considered.

Mr. HOYER. That is an interesting letter. I'm glad you brought it up, because you brought it up in juxtaposition to the issue of the Stupak amendment. What the letter essentially said is, even if you send over the Stupak language and we agree with the Stupak language, we will not waive the Byrd rule. So even though they agree with the policy, they won't waive the Byrd rule. Why? They want to defeat the bill. We understand that. That is what that letter said. And I think Americans probably, if they knew enough about the process and could take the time to do what you and I do to follow this very closely, they know what is going on. And, very frankly, it is ironic that 41 Senators will say, notwithstanding the fact that they may agree with the proposition that we put in the bill and sent over to them, that they would not waive the rule to adopt the proposition with which they agree for procedural purposes of defeating the bill.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. As I said, we don't believe that any change in that language--because the gentleman is well aware reconciliation needs to deal with budgetary impact--we don't believe that can be dealt within reconciliation.

Mr. HOYER. I think the gentleman correctly states the Senate Parliamentarian's position, and therefore I think the gentleman is correct on that observation. I might say to him, while I do not know the entire thrust of the reconciliation bill, I can guarantee him this: The reconciliation bill will take out that Nebraska provision which offended him, offended me, and I think offended people across America, not because it advantaged Nebraska, but because it advantaged Nebraska unequally. I think the gentleman is going to be pleased that Nebraska will be treated like every other State; and, in fact, every other State will be advantaged to the same extent that the Senator wanted to make sure that Nebraska was advantaged. But the Nebraska provision to which the gentleman speaks, and which all of us have felt was inappropriate, will be changed.

Mr. HOYER. Of course, as the gentleman knows, the gentleman's party has used that process as well, as I am sure the gentleman knows. But, in any event, we will follow the rules. We will have a vote on the rule, consistent with the rules. I have not talked to the chairwoman of the Rules Committee at this point in time, so that I cannot give you a specific response and have not heard--this is the first I have heard something referred to in the terms you have just referred to it as. But we will provide for a rule for consideration of the Senate bill for reconciliation, and the process of doing so will be consistent with the rules.

Mr. HOYER. I expect the House to have very significant time to consider the proposals that come out of the Budget Committee and/or the Rules Committee. And this bill, of course, either bill, the House bill or the Senate bill, as proposed, have been online for some 2\1/2\ months, otherwise known as about 75 days. So there has been ample time to review the bill, whether it is the Senate bill or the House bill. So my friend is, I am sure, well aware of what is in the Senate bill and what is in the House bill. In addition to that, the President put online his proposed compromises between the Senate and the House, which have been the subject of great discussion, including the bipartisan meeting that the gentleman and I attended at the White House, an extraordinary, historical meeting at which the President invited leaders from both parties and both Houses to come and discuss what he believed to be a historic opportunity to provide health care accessibility to all Americans. So I say to my friend that we will certainly give as much notice as possible, but I am not going to say that 72 hours is going to be the litmus test, per se, because that which we have voted on already in the House and the Senate have given Members months of notice and the American public months of notice on the substance of the propositions that are pending before us.

Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield on that issue?

Mr. HOYER. I tell the gentleman that nothing will pass here without a majority vote.

Mr. HOYER. I don't have knowledge of that at this point in time; so I can't give my friend a definitive answer. But as my friend does know, that language, or any other alternative language, may not qualify for reconciliation.

Mr. HOYER. This is an extraordinarily difficult issue not only for the Congress but for Americans generally and for individuals. There is a dispute on this language, he is correct. As he knows, neither side likes the language in the Senate bill. One side, the pro-choice side if you will, for simplification, believes that the language goes beyond the Hyde language. The Catholic bishops believe it is short of the Hyde language. There is a difference of opinion on that. I think the gentleman understands that well. There are other groups which believe that, in fact, the language that is in the Senate bill does, in fact, as I have projected it does, preclude any public dollars from being spent, which is consistent with the Hyde language. I tell my friend that from our perspective on this side of the aisle, there is no intent nor objective of changing the Hyde language in any health care legislation that is adopted. The President has indicated that is his intent. That is our intent. And that is why we are proceeding in the manner we are.

Mr. HOYER. What the President was referring to, of course, in terms of an up-or-down vote, was a majority vote. One of the problems we have had in the Senate, as the gentleman knows and experienced as well when his party was in the majority, it is difficult to get an up-or-down vote when the majority of the Senate is for something. They have to get an extraordinary majority, some 60 votes, before they can bring a bill to the floor. That process, obviously, thwarts, does not facilitate, a vote by the majority. In fact, a minority in the Senate on a regular basis thwarts the will of the majority. That is what the President was referring to, that he wanted an up-or-down vote on that, and I expect we are going to get an up-or-down vote in the Senate. Why? Because in the Senate they have rules that we are going to follow, as you did in 16 out of the 22 times, that allow for an up-or-down majority vote in the United States Senate. We have to have, as you know, a majority vote in the House, and we consistently do have measures that can fail or succeed, depending upon the will of the majority, as opposed to the thwarting by the minority.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning-hour debate.