Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
WOULD ASK THE MEMBERS OF THIS
CHAMBER SIMPLY TO UPHOLD THEIR
COMMITMENT TO AMERICA'S SENIORS
FROM MY LISTENING -- AMERICA'S
SENIORS.
FROM MY SESSIONS, I KNOW THAT
MR. SPEAKER, THE HOUSE IS
NOT IN ORDER.
GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.
THE HOUSE WILL COME TO ORDER.
THEY DON'T WANT
HIGHER COSTS AND DON'T WANT
REDUCED BENEFITS AND DON'T WANT
NEW PROGRAM.
THEY WANT TO KEEP MEDICARE THE
WAY IT IS, A GUARANTEED BENEFIT
THEY CAN COUNT ON WHEN THEY
NEED IT.
SENIORS IN MY DISTRICT AND
ACROSS THE COUNTRY KNOW WE HAVE
BIG PROBLEMS, BUT WE CAN
STRENGTHEN AND PRESERVE
MEDICARE WITHOUT ENDING THE
GUARANTEE, A GUARANTEE, BY THE
WAY, THAT IS NEITHER REPUBLICAN
NOR DEMOCRATIC, BUT IT'S AN
AMERICAN GUARANTEE, AND I THINK
WE ALL NEED TO KEEP THAT IN
MIND AND REMEMBER THAT.
MR. SPEAKER, I URGE ALL OF MY
COLLEAGUES IN THE HOUSE TO JOIN
ME IN VOTING FOR THIS FINAL
AMENDMENT, TO PRESERVE AND TO
STRENGTHEN THE MOST SUCCESSFUL
HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM OUR
NATION HAS EVER CREATED, NAMELY
OUR GRANDPARENTS HAVE STOOD BY
US, FOLKS.
I THINK IT'S TIME THAT WE STAND
AND I YIELD BACK.
THANK YOU.
THE
GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
GENTLEMAN FROM TENNESSEE SEEK
RECOGNITION?
SPEAKER.
I RISE IN OPPOSITION TO THE
MOTION TO RECOMMIT AND STRONGLY
SUPPORT H.R. 5.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR
FIVE MINUTES.
I THANK THE SPEAKER.
MR. SPEAKER, 2 1/2 YEARS AGO IN
THIS BODY WE DEBATED THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, AND I
REMEMBER BEING PART OF THAT
DEBATE HERE ON THE HOUSE FLOOR,
AND PART OF THAT DEBATE WAS TO
INCREASE ACCESS TO AMERICAN
CITIZENS AND TO MAINTAIN THE
PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP.
I HAVE A LETTER HERE THAT WAS
SIGNED BY 75 OF US, BOTH
DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS,
OPPOSING A PART BECAUSE IN THE
HOUSE VERSION OF THE AFFORDABLE
THERE.
AND THIS BILL IS VERY SIMPLE.
H.R. 5 IS TO REPEAL THE
INDEPENDENT PAYMENT ADVISORY
BOARD AND TO VOTE FOR
MALPRACTICE REFORM, A VERY
SIMPLE BILL, ONE THAT SHOULD BE
EASY TO SUPPORT.
LET'S JUST DISCUSS AND SEE WHAT
OCCURRED.
INDEPENDENT PAYMENT ADVISORY
BOARD, MOST SENIORS DON'T KNOW
AFTER $500 BILLION
HAS BEEN TAKEN OUT TO PAY FOR A
NEW BENEFIT, THE INDEPENDENT
PAYMENT ADVISORY BOARD IS 15
UNELECTED BUREAUCRATS APPOINTED
BY THE PRESIDENT AND APPROVED
MEDICINE.
I PRACTICED FOR OVER 31 YEARS
IN TENNESSEE AND MY KERP IS
I'VE ALREADY SEEN TWO --
CONCERNS IS I'VE ALREADY SEEN
TWO EXAMPLES OF THIS.
THE FIRST IS THE SUSTAINABLE
GROWTH RATE, A FORMULA BASED ON
HOW TO PAY DOCTORS IN MEDICARE.
THIS WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1997,
AND EACH YEAR, ALMOST EVERY
YEAR SINCE THEN, THE CONGRESS
HAS HAD THE ABILITY TO CHANGE
THIS BECAUSE, WHY?
WE WERE AFRAID IF
REIMBURSEMENTS TO PHYSICIANS
WERE CUT, ACCESS TO OUR
PATIENTS WOULD BE DENIED.
AND LET'S LOOK AT WHAT'S GOING
ON RIGHT NOW.
TWO WEEKS AGO IN THIS BODY WE
EXTENDED THE S.G.R. FOR 10
PHYSICIANS.
AS A DOCTOR WHAT WOULD MEAN IN
PROVIDING CARE TO MY PATIENTS?
WELL, WHAT THIS WOULD MEAN IS
YOU COULDN'T AFFORD TO SEE THE
AND WITH PBA, A FORMULA -- AND
WITH IPAB, A FORMULA BASED ON
SPENDING, NOT QUALITY OR
ACCESS, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN, I
BELIEVE, IS THIS WOULD OCCUR,
THIS 27%, AT THE END OF THIS
YEAR A 31% CUT WHICH WOULD BE
CATASTROPHIC TO OUR MEDICARE
PATIENTS.
SO IT'S A VERY SIMPLE BILL.
WE DON'T WANT WASHINGTON-BASED
BUREAUCRATS GETING IN BETWEEN
THE DOCTOR-PATIENT
DECISIONS SHOULD NOT BE MADE BY
HEALTH INSURANCE AND NOT 15
BUREAUCRATS IN WASHINGTON.
IT SHOULD BE MADE BETWEEN A
DOCTOR AND THEIR FAMILY.
THE SECOND PART OF THIS BILL IS
VERY SIMPLY MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
WHEN I BEGAN MY MEDICAL
MALPRACTICE IN TENNESSEE, MY
PREMIUMS WAS $5,000.
WHEN I LEFT, $74,000 A YEAR.
AND DURING THAT TIME FROM 1975
UNTIL I LEFT TO COME HERE
ONE INSURANCE
COMPANY IN TENNESSEE AND OVER
HALF THE PREMIUM DOLLARS THAT
WERE PAID DURING THAT TIME WENT
TO ATTORNEYS, NOT TO THE
INJURED PARTY.
LESS THAN 40 CENTS OF THE
MALPRACTICE PREMIUM DOLLAR IN
THAT STATE HAVE GONE TO PEOPLE
WHO'VE ACTUALLY BEEN INJURED.
IT'S A VERY BAD SYSTEM.
THE TORT SYSTEM WE HAVE FOR
MEDICAL LIABILITY NOW IS A VERY
BAD SYSTEM.
IT NEEDS TO BE REFORMED.
NO ONE'S EVER ARGUED ABOUT
PAYING ACTUAL DAMAGES.
NO ONE'S EVER ARGUED ABOUT
PAYING MEDICAL BILLS.
IT'S THE UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES OF THIS BILL THAT
HAVE RUN THE COSTS UP AT NO
VALUE TO PATIENTS.
I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE MY
COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT THIS
BIPARTISAN BILL, AND I YIELD
BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
WITHOUT OBJECTION THE PREVIOUS
QUESTION IS ORDERED ON THE
THE QUESTION IS ON THE MOTION
TO RECOMMIT.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
THE NOES HAVE IT.
THE MOTION IS --
RECORDED VOTE.
A
RECORDED VOTE IS REQUESTED.
THOSE FAVORING A RECORDED VOTE
WILL RISE.
A SUFFICIENT NUMBER HAVING
ORDERED.
MEMBERS WILL RECORD THEIR VOTES
BY ELECTRONIC DEVICE.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 8 AND CLAUSE
9 OF RULE 20, THIS 15-MINUTE
VOTE ON THE MOTION TO RECOMMIT
WILL BE FOLLOWED BY FIVE-MINUTE
VOTES ON PASSAGE OF THE BILL,
IF ORDERED, AND APPROVAL OF THE
JOURNAL, IF ORDERED.
THIS IS A 15-MINUTE VOTE.
[CAPTIONING MADE POSSIBLE BY
THE NATIONAL CAPTIONING
INSTITUTE, INC., IN COOPERATION
WITH THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
ANY USE OF THE CLOSED-CAPTIONED
COVERAGE OF THE HOUSE
PROCEEDINGS FOR POLITICAL OR
COMMERCIAL PURPOSES IS
EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED BY THE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.]
ON THIS
VOTE THE YEAS ARE 180, THE NAYS
ARE 229 WITH TWO VOTING PRESENT.
THE MOTION IS NOT ADOPTED.
THE SQUE ON PASSAGE OF THE BILL.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
THE BILL.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
THE BILL IS PASSED.
MR. SPEAKER, ON THAT I
REQUEST A RECORDED VOTE.
A
RECORDED VOTE IS REQUESTED.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF TAKING
THIS VOTE BY THE YEAS AND NAYS
WILL RISE AND REMAIN STANDING
A SUFFICIENT NUMBER HAVING
ORDERED.
MEMBERS WILL RECORD THEIR VOTES
BY ELECTRONIC DEVICE.
THIS WILL BE A FIVE-MINUTE VOTE.
[CAPTIONING MADE POSSIBLE BY THE
NATIONAL CAPTIONING INSTITUTE,
INC., IN COOPERATION WITH THE
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
ANY USE OF THE CLOSED-CAPTIONED
COVERAGE OF THE HOUSE
PROCEEDINGS FOR POLITICAL OR
COMMERCIAL PURPOSES IS EXPRESSLY
PROHIBITED BY THE U.S. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.]
THIS VOTE THE YEAS ARE 223.
THE NAYS ARE 181 WITH FOUR
VOTING PRESENT.
THE BILL IS PASSED.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE MOTION
TO RECONSIDER IS LAID ON THE
TABLE.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 8 OF RULE
20, THE UNFINISHED BUSINESS IS
THE QUESTION ON AGREEING TO THE
SPEAKER'S APPROVAL OF THE
JOURNAL WHICH THE CHAIR WILL
PUT DE NOVO.
THE QUESTION IS ON AGREEING TO
THE SPEAKER'S APPROVAL OF THE
JOURNAL.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
THE AYES HAVE IT.
APPROVED.
FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM MARYLAND RISE?
MR. SPEAKER, I ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO SPEAK OUT
OF ORDER FOR ONE MINUTE FOR THE
PURPOSE OF INQUIRING OF THE
MAJORITY LEADER THE SCHEDULE OF
THE WEEK TO COME.
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
I THANK THE SPEAKER
AND I'M PLEASED TO YIELD TO MY
FRIEND, THE MAJORITY LEADER,
MR. CANTOR.
THANK YOU.
I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MARYLAND, THE DEMOCRATIC WHIP,
FOR YIELDING.
MR. SPEAKER, ON MONDAY THE
HOUSE WILL MEET AT NOON FOR
MORNING HOUR AND 2:00 P.M. FOR
LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS.
VOTES WILL BE POSTPONED UNTIL
6:30 P.M.
ON TUESDAY AND WEDNESDAY THE
HOUSE WILL MEET AT 10:00 A.M.
FOR MORNING HOUR AND NOON FOR
LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS.
THURSDAY, THE HOUSE WILL
MEET AT 9:00 A.M. FOR
LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS, AND LAST
VOTES OF THE WEEK ARE EXPECTED
NO LATER THAN 3:00 P.M.
NO VOTES ARE EXPECTED IN THE
HOUSE ON FRIDAY.
MR. SPEAKER, THE HOUSE WILL
CONSIDER A FEW BILLS UNDER
SUSPENSION OF THE RULES WHICH
WILL BE ANNOUNCED BY CLOSE OF
BUSINESS TOMORROW.
THE HOUSE WILL ALSO CONSIDER
H.R. 3309, FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
PROCESS REFORM ACT, AUTHORED BY
OREGON.
AND THE HOUSE WILL CONSIDER AND
PASS A BUDGET RESOLUTION.
MR. SPEAKER, WE ALSO EXPECT TO
TAKE FURTHER ACTION ON OUR
NATION'S INFRASTRUCTURE WITH
AUTHORITY EXPIRING AT THE END
OF NEXT WEEK.
FINALLY, I'M HOPEFUL THAT THE
SENATE WILL CLEAR THE HOUSE'S
BIPARTISAN JOBS ACT BILL TODAY.
I LOOK FORWARD TO THE PRESIDENT
SIGNING INTO LAW.
I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MARYLAND AND I YIELD BACK.
I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN FOR THE INFORMATION
WITH RESPECT TO THE LEGISLATION
THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED NEXT
WEEK.
HE TALKS ABOUT THE
HIGHWAY BILL, THE
INFRASTRUCTURE BILL THAT THE --
THAT IS PENDING.
OBVIOUSLY WE HAD EXPECTED TO
CONSIDER THAT BILL ON THE HOUSE
FLOOR ON OUR SIDE, AT LEAST, WE
ARE -- OUR EXPECTATION IS THAT
WEEKS AGO.
IT HAS NOT COME HERE.
AS I EXPECT WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT AN EXTENSION OF SOME
PERIOD OF TIME.
WE ARE CONCERNED THAT YOU
RIGHTFULLY, PERSONALLY AND AS A
PARTY MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT
CERTAINTY WAS AN IMPORTANT
ASPECT OF GROWING OUR ECONOMY.
THAT'S A PROPOSITION ON WHICH I
AGREE.
I THINK YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY
RIGHT.
I THINK THAT WE NEED TO CREATE
CERTAINTY AND CLEARLY WE NEED
TO CREATE JOBS.
I SAID THIS MORNING, MR.
LEADER, TO THE PRESS THAT I'M
SURE YOU GET IT AS WELL THAT
SAYS TO ME, WHEN ARE
YOU GUYS GOING TO START WORKING
TOGETHER, WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO
GET SOMETHING DONE IN A
BIPARTISAN WAY.
THE SENATE HAS DONE THAT, I SAY
TO MY FRIEND.
THE SENATE HAS DONE IT IN AN
OVERWHELMING FASHION.
THEY HAD 74, THERE WOULD HAVE
BEEN 75, BUT MR. LAUTENBERG WAS
ABSENT, WAS FOR THE BILL.
3/4 OF THE SENATE VOTED FOR
WHAT WAS A VERY BIPARTISAN BILL
AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, HALF
THE SENATE REPUBLICANS
ESSENTIALLY VOTED FOR THAT
IT HAD, AS YOU KNOW, A
TECHNICAL FLAW IN THE BILL AND
THAT IT HAD REVENUES WHICH NEED
TO BE INITIATED IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.
REPRESENTATIVE TIM BISHOP OF
NEW YORK HAS INTRODUCED THE
SENATE BILL WHICH HAS
OVERWHELMING SUPPORT IN THE
UNITED STATES SENATE AND VERY
MY VIEW WOULD HAVE
AT LEAST 218 VOTES IN THIS
HOUSE, AT LEAST 218 VOTES IN
THIS HOUSE IF IT WERE PUT ON
THE FLOOR.
THE SPEAKER HAS SAID IN THE
PAST THAT HE IS COMMITTED TO
LETTING THE HOUSE WORK ITS
WILL.
OBVIOUSLY REFERRING TO OPEN
AMENDMENTS PROCESS.
BUT OBVIOUSLY IF A BILL DOESN'T
COME TO THE FLOOR, WE HAVE NO
OPPORTUNITY EITHER TO AMEND OR
TO VOTE.
THAT'S BEEN ONE OF OUR PROBLEMS,
OF COURSE, WITH THE JOBS BILL
THAT WE HOPE WOULD HAVE BEEN
BROUGHT TO THE FLOOR THAT THE
PRESIDENT PROPOSED.
THAT HAS NOT BEEN TO THE FLOOR.
I ASK MY FRIEND, RATHER THAN
CONTINUE TO DELAY, AND BOTH
SIDES HAVE DONE THAT ON THE
HIGHWAY BILL, TO GIVE THAT
COMPETENCE OF WHICH YOU HAVE
SPOKEN AND OTHERS ON YOUR SIDE
OF THE AISLE HAVE SPOKEN I THINK
ABSOLUTELY CORRECTLY, IN ORDER
TO GIVE THE CONFIDENCE THAT WE
CAN IN FACT ACT, THAT WE CAN
WORK IN A BIPARTISAN FASHION, I
WOULD ASK MY FRIEND WHETHER OR
NOT HE WOULD BE PREPARED TO
BRING, AS THE MAJORITY LEADER,
TO BRING THE BISHOP BILL TO THE
FLOOR WHICH AGAIN IS THE SENATE
BILL, SUPPORTED BY 75 MEMBERS OF
THE UNITED STATES SENATE, HALF
OF THE REPUBLICAN CAUCUS IN THE
SENATE, AND WHICH WILL GIVE SOME
DEGREE OF CERTAINTY FOR A
HIGHWAY PROGRAM THAT CLEARLY IS
ALSO A JOBS BILL.
WHICH WILL HAVE AN IMPACT ON
ALMOST TWO MILLION JOBS AND
MAYBE ANOTHER MILLION JOBS ALONG
THE WAY.
WE THINK THAT'S THE WAY THAT
WOULD BE GOOD FOR OUR COUNTRY TO
PROCEED AND IT WOULD SEND A
MESSAGE BECAUSE I THINK IT WOULD
GET BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IF WE --
IF YOU BROUGHT IT TO THE FLOOR.
THAT IT WOULD SEND A GOOD PLEANL
TO THE COUNTRY, THAT -- MESSAGE
TO THE COUNTRY, THAT, YES, FROM
TOGETHER.
VERY FRANKLY, MR. LEADER, IF WE
DID THAT IT WOULD BE CONSISTENT
WITH EVERY TRANSPORTATION BILL
THAT WE'VE PASSED SINCE 1956
UNDER DWIGHT EISENHOWER WHERE WE
WORKED TOGETHER IN A BIPARTISAN
FASHION.
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT I'VE
EXPERIENCED A PARTISAN DIVIDE.
I MEAN, PEOPLE HAVE HAD
DIFFERENCES OF OPINION.
BILL.
AS YOU KNOW, SENATOR BOXER AND
SENATOR INHALF CAME TOGETHER AND
THAT'S A PRETTY BROAD
UNITED STATES SENATE.
THEY CAME TOGETHER, THEY AGREED
AND THEY LED THE EFFORT TO PASS
THAT BIPARTISAN BILL.
I WOULD VERY MUCH HOPE THAT, MR.
MAJORITY LEADER, THAT YOU COULD
BRING THAT BILL TO THE FLOOR AND
SEE WHETHER OR NOT IN FACT IT
COULD PASS.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE GOOD FOR
THE COUNTRY AND I YIELD TO MY
FRIEND FOR HIS COMMENTS.
MR. SPEAKER, I THANK
THE GENTLEMAN AND I WOULD
RESPOND BY SAYING TO HIM THAT,
NO, I'M NOT PREPARED TO BRING
TO THE FLOOR BECAUSE I
DIFFER WITH HIM IN HIS
ASSUMPTION THAT THERE WOULD BE
ENOUGH BIPARTISAN SUPPORT TO
PASS THAT BILL IN THE HOUSE.
AND FROM ALL THAT I KNOW ABOUT
WHAT'S IN THE SENATE BILL, THERE
IS A LOT OF DISAGREEMENT OVER
HOW THAT BILL WAS CONSTRUCTED AS
FAR AS HOUSE MEMBERS ARE
CONCERNED AND I WOULD SAY TO THE
GENTLEMAN, OUR PLAN IS VERY
CLEAR.
WE HAVE BEEN OUTSPOKEN ON THIS,
WE DO NOT WANT TO DISRUPT THE
FLOW OF FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION
DOLLARS WHICH IS WHY WE'LL BE
BRINGING TO THE FLOOR NEXT WEEK
A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR AN
EXTENSION OF 90 DAYS SO THAT
PERHAPS, AS THE GENTLEMAN WOULD
LIKE, AS WOULD I, WE COULD COME
TOGETHER AS TWO BODIES AND TWO
PARTIES ON AN AGREEMENT TO
PROVIDE MORE CERTAINTY.
BUT AS TO THE GENTLEMAN'S
SUGGESTION THAT WE NEED TO BE
DOING THIS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH
WHAT HAS BEEN DONE HISTORICALLY,
I WOULD SAY TO THE GENTLEMAN, HE
KNOWS AS WELL AS I THAT WE ARE
IN VERY, VERY DIFFICULT ECONOMIC
TIMES.
WE HAVE NEVER FACED THE KIND OF
PROBLEMS THAT WE FACE TODAY AS A
STANDPOINT.
AND UNFORTUNATELY TRANSPORTATION
FUNDING IS NO DIFFERENT.
WE'RE JUST OUT OF MONEY.
AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO TAKE THE
APPROACH THAT MOST AMERICAN
FAMILIES AND BUSINESSES WOULD
TAKE AND THAT IS TO TRY AND
SPEND WITHIN OUR MEANS, TO COME
UP WITH SOME INNOVATIVE WAYS TO
LOOK AT TRANSPORTATION NEEDS AND
DEMANDS IN THE FUTURE AND OUR
BEING ABLE TO MEET THEM.
AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING
WITH THE GENTLEMAN, MR. SPEAKER,
IN A BIPARTISAN FASHION TO TRY
AND AFFECT THAT END.
I YIELD BACK.
I THANK THE GENTLEMAN
FOR HIS COMMENTS.
BUT I WILL SAY AGAIN TO THE
GENTLEMAN, YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN
DOWN THIS PATH BEFORE.
WE'VE BEEN DOWN THIS PATH BEFORE
WHERE THE SENATE WAS ABLE TO
REACH A BIPARTISAN AGREEMENT ON
LEGISLATION VERY IMPORTANT TO
JOBS, THE ECONOMY AND TO THE
CONFIDENCE OF AMERICA.
AND THAT BIPARTISAN PIECE OF
LEGISLATION WOULD HAVE ENJOYED
THE SUPPORT I THINK CERTAINLY
THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY,
ALMOST UNANIMOUS SUPPORT ON OUR
SIDE AND A BIPARTISAN AGREEMENT.
I DON'T MEAN A DEMOCRATIC
PROPOSAL FROM THE SENATE BUT A
BIPARTISAN AGREEMENT THAT CAME
FROM THE SENATE.
AND THAT DEALT OF COURSE WITH
PAYROLL TAXES, EXTENDING THOSE.
AND ULTIMATELY WE DID THAT.
WE TOOK THAT BILL.
BUT I WOULD SAY TO MY FRIEND
THAT THE SPEAKER INDICATED HE
WANTED A BILL ON THIS FLOOR.
I'VE BEEN ASKING YOU FOR A
NUMBER OF WEEKS IF IT WAS GOING
TO COME TO THE FLOOR, FOR
APPROXIMATELY A MONTH NOW.
THAT BILL HASN'T COME TO THE
WE ALL KNOW IT HAS TO COME TO
THE FLOOR BECAUSE THERE'S VERY
SUBSTANTIAL DISI AGREEMENT
WITHIN YOUR PARTY --
DISAGREEMENT WITHIN YOUR PARTY
ABOUT THAT BILL.
EVERYBODY TALKS ABOUT IT.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT.
I SAY TO MY FRIEND THAT HE AND I
DO HAVE A DISAGREEMENT, I THINK
IT WOULD ENJOY BIPARTISAN
SUPPORT ON THIS FLOOR IF YOU
BROUGHT THE BISHOP BILL, THE
SENATE BIPARTISAN BILL TO THE
FLOOR.
BUT THE ONLY WAY WE'RE REALLY
GOING TO BE ABLE TO FIND THAT
OUT, NOT BY ME SAYING I THINK --
YOU SAYING, I THINK IT WOULDN'T,
THERE'S A VERY EASY WAY TO SEE
WHETHER IT WOULD AND THAT IS TO
BRING IT TO THE FLOOR NEXT WEEK.
THE GENTLEMAN IS ABSOLUTELY
CORRECT, I DON'T THINK THERE'S
ANYBODY HOPEFULLY THAT WANTS TO
DISRUPT AND HAVE LITERALLY
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE
THROWN OUT OF WORK OR NOT HAVE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR WORK.
WE KNOW THE CONSTRUCTION TRADES
IN PARTICULAR HAVE BEEN VERY
BADLY HIT BY THE LACK OF
CONSTRUCTION THAT'S GOING ON.
SO YOU CAN HAVE YOUR OPINION, I
CAN HAVE MY OPINION, BUT THERE
IS A WAY TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR
NOT IN FACT WE CAN GET
BIPARTISAN AGREEMENT AND THAT
IS, AS I SAID, THE SPEAKER HAS
ITS WILL.
THE ONLY WAY THE HOUSE CAN WORK
ITS WILL, HAVING BEEN MAJORITY
LEADER, IS FOR THE MAJORITY
LEADER TO BRING THE LEGISLATION
TO THE FLOOR FOR A VOTE, THEN
YOU MAY BE RIGHT, I MAY BE RIGHT
, BUT WE WILL KNOW, IT WON'T
HAVE TO BE SPECULATION, WE WILL
KNOW, AND IF I'M RIGHT AND WE DO
PASS THAT BILL, THEN NEXT WEEK
BEFORE MARCH 31, BEFORE THE
EXPIRATION OF THE CURRENT
HIGHWAY AUTHORIZATION, WE CAN
SEND A BILL TO THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES AND HE WILL
SIGN THE SENATE BILL.
WE DON'T KNOW THAT HE WILL SIGN
A BILL THAT, YOU KNOW, IS STILL
LANGUISHING IN YOUR COMMITTEE,
BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE
FINAL PARAMETERS OF THAT BILL,
BECAUSE IT'S OBVIOUSLY PRETTY
CONTROVERSIAL ON YOUR SIDE OF
THE AISLE.
SO I WOULD HOPE AGAIN, IF YOU
WANT CERTAINTY, WE HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR CERTAINTY.
WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY WITH A
BIPARTISAN BILL THAT THE
SENATE'S PASSED.
I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE REJECTING
THAT BIPARTISANSHIP.
WE HAVE, AS A MATTER OF
FACT, THE GENTLEMAN SAYS, WELL,
THIS IS A UNIQUE ECONOMIC TIME.
HE'S RIGHT.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT'S A GREATER
ARGUMENT FOR TRYING TO EMBRACE
BIPARTISAN AGREEMENT AND MOVE
FORWARD WITH GIVING CERTAINTY TO
THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY, TO
STATES, TO MUNICIPALITIES, TO
COUNTIES ON WHAT IS GOING TO BE
AVAILABLE TO THEM TO PLAN AND TO
PURSUE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
CRITICAL TO COMMERCE AND TO
THEIR COMMUNITIES.
SO, I REGRET THAT THE GENTLEMAN
HAS INDICATED THAT THAT'S NOT OF
AN OPTION THAT HE WILL CONSIDER,
BUT A SHORT-TERM EXTENSION SEEMS
TO BE THE CONTINUATION OF
UNCERTAINTY, NOT THE ALAYING OF
UNCERTAINTY.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE
GENTLEMAN WANTS TO MAKE ANOTHER
COMMENT OR NOT.
MR. SPEAKER, I WOULD
JUST SAY TO THE GENTLEMAN, I
GUESS WE'RE GOING TO AGREE TO
DISAGREE.
WE'RE DEALING WITH THE REALITY
THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY AND
WE'RE TRYING TO FASHION A PATH
FORWARD THAT BOTH SIDES CAN
AGREE UPON.
OBVIOUSLY WE CANNOT AGREE UPON
THAT NEXT WEEK WITH ALL THE
DIFFERENCES THAT STILL EXIST.
WHICH IS WHY WE ARE CREATING THE
CONSTRUCT OF A 90-DAY EXTENSION,
THEN GIVING US THE POSSIBILITY
TO GET INTO CONFERENCE WITH THE
SENATE TO TRY AND PRODUCE A
LONGER TERM TRANSPORTATION
FUNDING BILL.
I YIELD BACK.
I WON'T PURSUE IT ANY
FURTHER, MR. LEADER, BUT YOU'VE
BEEN UNABLE TO GET AGREEMENT
WITHIN YOUR PARTY ON THIS SIDE
OF THE HOUSE -- OF THE CAPITOL
FOR WELL OVER A MONTH.
I HOPE YOU CAN GET THERE, I HOPE
-- I WOULD HOPE YOU WOULD GET
THERE IN A BIPARTISAN FASHION SO
THAT MR. RAHALL AND MR. MICA
COULD AGREE ON A BILL, WHICH HAS
BEEN MY EXPERIENCE IN THE 31
YEARS I'VE BEEN HERE.
IT'S NOT MY EXPERIENCE THIS
YEAR, THAT HASN'T HAPPENED.
BUT ALMOST INVARIABLEY AND I
THINK FOR THE YEARS YOU'VE BEEN
HERE YOU'VE EXPERIENCED THAT AS
WELL.
LET ME ASK YOU NOW WITH RESPECT
TO THE BUDGET, DO YOU EXPECT THE
BUDGET TO COME TO THE FLOOR YOU?
INDICATED THAT AND IF SO WOULD
THAT BE WEDNESDAY?
MR. SPEAKER, THE
GENTLEMAN IS CORRECT.
WE WILL BE BEGINNING DEBATE ON
THE BUDGET WEDNESDAY AND LIKELY
CONCLUDING THAT DEBATE AND VOTE
ON THURSDAY.
NORMALLY AS YOU KNOW,
WE'VE HAD ALTERNATIVES MADE IN
ORDER.
WE OF COURSE WANT TO MAKE IN
ORDER AN AMENDMENT WHICH WILL
GUARANTEE THAT MEDICARE WILL BE
AVAILABLE TO OUR SENIORS AND
THAT WE WILL NOT DECIMATE
MEDICAID WHICH WE THINK IS
APPROPRIATE FOR OUR SENIORS AND
WE ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE HAVE REVENUES THAT CAN
SUSTAIN HEALTH CARE FOR SEENOS
-- SENIORS, EDUCATION FOR KIDS,
OUR COMMUNITIES.
WILL THE GENTLEMAN BE ABLE TO
TELL ME WHETHER OR NOT IN FACT
ALTERNATIVES WILL BE MADE IN
ORDER BY THE RULES COMMITTEE
THAT WOULD BE OFFERED EITHER BY
THE MINORITY RANKING MEMBER OF
THE COMMITTEE AND/OR OTHERS AS
HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN THE CASE?
MR. SPEAKER, I'D SAY
TO THE GENTLEMAN, YES, WE EXPECT
THAT TO BE THE CASE.
OBVIOUSLY I DISAGREE WITH HIS
CHARACTERIZATION OF OUR BUDGET.
WE ARE IN FACT SAVING THE
MEDICARE PROGRAM IN A BIPARTISAN
FASHION.
I YIELD BACK.
WAS THERE A
BIPARTISAN VOTE IN THE COMMITTEE
ON THAT?
I THOUGHT IT WAS A TOTALLY
PARTISAN VOTE IN THE COMMITTEE.
WAS I INCORRECT ON THAT?
WILL THE GENTLEMAN
YIELD?
THE GENTLEMAN KNOWS
VERY WELL OF WHAT I REFER TO,
THAT THE DISPROPORTION AT CAUSE
OF OUR -- DISPROPORTIONATE CAUSE
OF OUR DEFICIT HAS TO DO WITH
AND WE
ACTUALLY, AS THE GENTLEMAN
KNOWS, LAST YEAR AND THIS YEAR
ARE PROPOSING A SOLUTION, A
PLAN, THAT DOES NOT RESOLVE THE
ISSUE OVERNIGHT.
BUT IT PUTS US ON A POOTH
TOWARDS BALANCING THE BUDGET --
PATH TOWARD BALANCING THE BUDGET
AND THIS YEAR OUR BUDGET
CHAIRMAN HAS WORKED TOGETHER
WITH THE SENATOR FROM OREGON ON
THE GENTLEMAN'S SIDE OF THE
AISLE IN THE SENATE TO PROPOSE A
SOLUTION THAT RESPONDS TO SOME
OF THE COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE PATH
THAT WAS TAKEN BEFORE.
AND AGAIN IT IS A BIPARTISAN
SOLUTION, IT IS A PLAN TO SAVE
MEDICARE AND UNLIKE THE
GENTLEMAN'S PARTY, NOR HIS
PRESIDENT, OR HIS PRESIDENT, WE
ARE ACTUALLY PROPOSING A
SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM AND
SAVING THE PROGRAM FOR THIS
GENERATION AND THE NEXT.
SO AGAIN I AM SURE THE GENTLEMAN
DISAGREES WITH MY
CHARACTERIZATION, I WITH HIS,
BUT TO ANSWER HIS QUESTION, TO
AS FAR AS THE
SCHEDULE AND THE FASHION IN
WHICH THESE BILLS ARE GOING TO
BE BROUGHT TO THE FLOOR, YES,
CONSISTENT WITH PRECEDENT, WE
WILL BE ALLOWING FULL
SUBSTITUTES TO BE OFFERED ON
BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE.
I THANK THE GENTLEMAN
FOR HIS COMMENT.
LAST THING I WOULD ASK THE
GENTLEMAN, AM I CORRECT THAT THE
AGREEMENT THAT WAS REACHED
BETWEEN OUR PARTIES, WHICH LED
TO THE PASSAGE OF THE BUDGET
CONTROL ACT IN A BIPARTISAN
FASHION, DOES NOT REFLECT THE
SUBS -- SUBSTANCE THAT HAVE
AGREEMENT AS IT RELATES TO THE
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING NUMBER
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013?
SENATOR MCCONNELL IS QUOTED AS
YOU KNOW AS SAYING THAT WAS AN
AGREEMENT THAT WAS REACHED AND
THAT HE EXPECTED TO BE PURSUED.
HE WAS NOT REFERRING TO THE
ACTION OF THE BUDGET COMMITTEE,
BUT HE WAS REFERRING TO THE
AGREEMENT ON THE DISCRETIONARY
NUMBER.
AM I CORRECT -- AM I CORRECT
NUMBER IS NOT BEING
DISTRIBUTE AGREEMENT THAT WAS
REACHED IN ORDER TO GET A
BIPARTISAN VOTE ON THE BUDGET
CONTROL ACT, WHICH WE PASSED,
WHICH MADE SURE THAT THIS
COUNTRY DID NOT DEFAULT ON ITS
DEBTS FOR THE FIRST TIME IN
HISTORY, AM I CORRECT THAT THAT
NUMBER IS NOT THE NUMBER THAT IS
REFLECTED IN THE BUDGET?
I YIELD TO MY FRIEND.
MR. SPEAKER, I
RESPOND TO THE GENTLEMAN BY
SAYING IT IS OUR VIEW THAT THE
AGREEMENT REACHED IN AUGUST AT
THE TOP LINE WAS THAT, A CAP.
AND WE ALL KNOW WE'VE GOT TO DO
SOMETHING ABOUT SPENDING IN THIS
COUNTRY AND THE TOP LINE OR
302-A WITHIN OUR BUDGET
RESOLUTION WILL REFLECT THAT TOP
LINE PROVIDED IN THE BUDGET
RESOLUTION FOR THE SECOND YEAR
OF THE BUDGET THAT WE POSED LAST
YEAR.
AGAIN, WE VIEW IT VERY MUCH THAT
WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO TRY, AT
LEAST TRY TO SAVE TAXPAYER
DOLLARS WHEN WE'RE GENERATING
TRILLION OF DEFICITS
AND I THINK THE TAXPAYERS EXPECT
NO LESS.
I YIELD BACK.
I THANK THE GENTLEMAN
FOR HIS COMMENTS BUT I WILL TELL
THE GENTLEMAN, IF WE'RE GOING TO
HAVE NEGOTIATIONS AND WE HAVE
ONE NUMBER AND YOU HAVE ANOTHER
NUMBER AND WE AGREE ON A NUMBER
AND THEN WE PASS A BILL WHICH
REFLECTS THAT NUMBER, PUT IT IN
LAW, IT DOESN'T SAY IT'S A CAP,
IT SAYS THAT WILL BE THE NUMBER.
AS WE PASS A BUDGET WE SAY THAT
WILL BE THE NUMBER.
THIS IS THE LAW.
AS WAS OBSERVED BY OTHERS ON THE
OTHER SIDE OF THE CAPITOL, BUT I
OBSERVE IT HERE AS WELL, IF WE
ARE GOING TO HAVE THOSE KINDS OF
NEGOTIATIONS, IT'S SORT OF LIKE
THE GUY COMES UP TO YOU AND
SELL YOU.
YOU WANT TO BUY IT?
AND THE GUY SAYS, YEAH, LET'S
NEGOTIATE ON PRICE.
YOU COME TO A PRICE OF $100, AND
THEN YOU COME TO SETTLE AND THE
GUY SAYS, WELL, THAT WAS MY TOP
NUMBER.
I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU $92 FOR
THAT ITEM.
DON'T HAVE A MOOTING OF THE
MINDS -- MEETING OF THE MINDS AS
THE CONTRACT REQUIRES.
VERY FRANKLY, NOBODY ON OUR SIDE
AND FRANKLY I DON'T THINK
ANYBODY ON YOUR SIDE THAT
NEGOTIATED THE DEAL, I DON'T
MEAN THAT DIDN'T VOTE FOR IT,
AND AS A MATTER OF FACT I KNOW
FOR A FACT THE SPEAKERER, AND I
BELIEVE YOURSELF, WERE QUOTED
THAT WAS THE NUMBER, WE OUGHT TO
CLEARLY MR. ROGERS BELIEVES THAT
WAS THE NUMBER THAT WAS AGREED
WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO
AGREE ON THINGS IF ALL OF A
SUDDEN IT COMES -- THAT WAS A
NOTIONAL THING WE DID.
NOT AN AGREEMENT.
A LOT OF OUR PEOPLE VOTED ON
THAT TO MAKE SURE, A, WE DIDN'T
GO INTO DEFAULT AS A COUNTRY,
WE WANTED.
IT CLEARLY WAS NOT THE NUMBER
YOUR SIDE WANTED, BUT IT WAS A
NUMBER WE AGREED UPON.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF WE ARE
GOING TO TRY TO KEEP FAITH WITH
ONE ANOTHER AND WITH THE LAW
THAT WE PASSED, THAT WE SHOULD
STICK WITH WHAT WE AGREED TO.
I UNDERSTAND THAT WE WANT TO
BRING THE BUDGET DEFICIT DOWN.
AS A MATTER OF FACT ON THIS SIDE
OF THE AISLE I HAVE MADE THOSE
COMMENTS AND I HAVE BEEN
CRITICIZED BY SOME ON MY SIDE AS
YOU WELL KNOW.
YES, WE DO NEED TO GET A HANDLE
ON THE BUDGET.
WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A REAL
DEBATE ON THE DEFICIT AND DEBT.
AND I HAVE BEEN WORKING VERY
*** THAT.
WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A DEBATE ON
WHETHER OR NOT YOUR BUDGET DOES
THAT.
WE HAVE HAD DISAGREEMENTS ALL
THE YEARS I HAVE BEEN HERE ON
THAT, AND PERFORMANCE HAS NOT
REFLECTED FROM MY STANDPOINT
THAT THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE
HAVE ALWAYS WORKED OUT.
PERHAPS ON EITHER SIDE.
BUT I REGRET, I REGRET DEEPLY,
MR. MAJORITY LEADER, THAT WE
HAVE REACHED AN AGREEMENT, BASED
UPON THAT AGREEMENT THIS HOUSE
TOOK AN ACTION T TOOK A
BIPARTISAN ACTION, AND IT PASSED
A PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT WAS
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT AMERICA DID NOT GO
INTO DEFAULT.
AND NOW WE SEE SEVEN MONTHS
LATER, CROSS FINGERS, WE REALLY
DIDN'T MEAN THAT, IT WAS A CAP.
NOBODY ON OUR SIDE, AND THERE
WAS NO MENTION IN THE LAW, NOR
WAS THERE ANY MENTION IN THE
NEGOTIATIONS, THAT THAT WAS A
CAP NOT A NUMBER.
UNLESS THE GENTLEMAN WANTS TO
SAY SOMETHING FURTHER, I YIELD
I YIELD TO MY FRIEND.
THANK YOU.
I JUST SAY TO THE GENTLEMAN THIS
IS SOMEWHAT OF AN ACADEMIC
DISCUSSION GIVEN THE SENATE IS
NOT GOING TO PASS A BUDGET.
I REMIND THE GENTLEMAN AGAIN, IT
TAKES TWO HOUSES TO GO AND
RECONCILE A BUDGET, AND IT TAKES
TWO HOUSES, TO PARTIES, TO GO
FORWARD.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH
THE GENTLEMAN.
I TOLD HIM IT IS OUR BELIEF THAT
WE NEED TO RESPOND TO THE
URGENCY OF THE FISCAL CRISIS AND
DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO BRING
DOWN THE LEVEL OF SPENDING IN
THIS TOWN AND LOOK FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH THE GENTLEMAN
TOWARDS THAT END.
I YIELD BACK.
I LOOK FORWARD TO
NEXT WEEK DEBATING HOW WE BRING
THAT DEFICIT DOWN.
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.