I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam 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…
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam 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 8 a.m. for morning-hour debate. The House will then meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business and recess immediately. The House will reconvene at approximately 10 a.m. in a joint meeting with the Senate to receive Her Excellency, Dr. Angela Merkel, Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany.
On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business.
On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.
We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow.
In addition, Madam Speaker, we will consider the Expedited Card Reform for Consumer Act of 2009; H.R. 2868, the Chemical Facility Antiterrorism Act of 2009; and H.R. 3962, Affordable Health Care for America Act.
I would expect the credit card bill to be considered as early as Wednesday; the Chemical Facility Antiterrorism Act to be considered as early as Wednesday or Thursday; and the Affordable Health Care Act as early as Thursday.
Will the gentleman yield before we get to next week?
I am informed that Fox News is talking a lot about this, but the fact of the matter is it was open to the public. There were public there, as a matter of fact. If the gentleman's contention is somehow this was walled off or there were people who were prohibiting people from being there in attendance at the rollout of America's health care bill, I was there. I saw nobody turned away. I saw nobody precluded from attending.
If the gentleman's contention is that every time he has a press conference he calls me up or somebody else up and says, By the way, I'm having a press conference, if you want to come by, come by, I will check my phone records and my e-mail and any other messages that I have, but the gentleman and I both know that doesn't happen.
We have been considering this bill for some period of time. I will go into that a little later. But I think the gentleman's contention that somehow he or any other Republican was precluded from being on the site at the foot of the Capitol steps is incorrect, and I reject it.
I believe, so we accurately express it, that it was open.
There are certainly, as I think I indicated in the press, three committees worked off that base. The three committees, as you know, reported somewhat different bills. Those bills have been put together and there are additions and subtractions from that bill.
But I would say to the gentleman that the overwhelming part of that bill, as I have indicated, has been online for over 3 months. There have been literally thousands of town meetings with reference to the substance of the bill--not the specific bill that was just put on the line at 10 a.m. this morning. And now there are 8 million hits on the Rules Committee Web site, downloads. So Americans are doing what we indicated we'd give them the opportunity to do--and we wanted them to do.
I'm sure you have, I don't know whether you personally have, but I'm sure your side has downloaded it as well. From that standpoint, the notice that we promised to give is being given. It is a massive bill. It is a very consequential bill. We believe it's a very important bill for every American, every American family, every American business, and for our country.
That bill is going to get and has been getting, over the last, frankly, 8 months, where we have had a large number of hearings, from 2007 to this date, somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 hearings. I'm not sure of that specific number. I had it, but I can't recall it right now. There were markups on the bills, over 100 amendments presented in each committee and considered and voted upon.
So that this bill, as I said before in the colloquy last week, has had more discussion, more town meetings, has been read more extensively than any bill in the 29 years that I have been here in the House of Representatives.
So again, I would reiterate to the gentleman that this bill has received extraordinary oversight, extraordinary review, and extraordinary input from the citizens of this country and, indeed, in the markups of three committees, input from the members of the three committees.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Let me again express the fact that I believe this bill has received the most extensive consideration of any bill since I have been in Congress, and that hasn't always happened.
The gentleman has been here for a number of years, and he was here, I believe, on June 25, 2003. He recalls that that was a bill which was the most massive change in Medicare in over a quarter of a century. The gentleman probably recalls that bill; the prescription drug bill, referred to affectionately. I know the gentleman must clearly remember how we considered that bill. But just on the off chance he doesn't, let me remind him.
On June 25, 2003, a new version was introduced and referred to committee. Hear me. New bill, introduced, referred to committee on June 25. On June 26, at 6:20 a.m. in the morning, a rule for martial law was considered by the Rules Committee, with 3 hours of debate and a Rangel substitute permitted with 1 hour of debate. On June 26 at 6:55 p.m., debate began pursuant to House Resolution 299. Then the House proceeded with 3 hours of general debate. On 6/27--6/27--at 2:32 a.m., there was a 50-minute vote, and the bill passed 216-215 after all of about 36 hours of exposure from introduction to passage.
Now, that bill, of course, went to conference, and it came back from conference. Let me remind my friend about the timing on the conference report.
On 11/21/2003 at 1:17 a.m., the conference report was filed. At 11/ 21/2003 at 3:41 a.m., 2 hours and approximately 20 minutes later, martial-law consideration of conference report by the Rules Committee. At 11/21, the same day, 2003, at 11:26 p.m.--now this started at 1:17 a.m. in the morning--at 11:26 p.m., it passed the House, the rule. Now, at 11:36 p.m., 10 minutes later--10 minutes later--Mr. Thomas brought up the conference report for consideration. At 11/22, at 2:39 a.m., we began to vote. I am sure you remember that vote. It took 3 hours.
Now, of course, we had had this under consideration from the day before at 1:17 a.m. when the conference report was reported back. This side of the aisle won for 2 hours and 45 minutes while you spent time changing votes on your side of the aisle. You were ultimately successful.
About 2 hours and 55 minutes into that particular vote, the longest vote which I have considered, and, frankly, the longest time this was considered as a piece of legislation, you changed the votes. And it won, 211-222, at 11/22 at 5:50 a.m.
In other words, consideration of the conference report was laid on the table at 11/21/2003 for the Rules Committee consideration, and by 11/22 at 5:50 a.m., about 30 hours later, it was passed.
I tell my friend in reviewing this, this was an 800-page bill, by the way, no extensive hearings on that bill. By the way, when you had press conferences regarding that bill, none of us were invited. You know that and I know that.
I would tell me friend with all due respect, this saying that the Democrats have rolled out a bill, we rolled out a bill 4 months ago. We rolled out a bill 6 months ago. We rolled out hearings 8, 9 and 10 months ago.
Your major piece of legislation, in 25 years the most significant amendment to the Medicare Act that had passed to that period of time, you passed with less than 48 hours' notice from the Rules Committee consideration to the passage. We have said we have had months of consideration, months of debate, months of transparency on the Web. Now on the Web we are going to give you, as I promised we would, at least 72 hours notice to read that bill and to have it considered on this floor.
I knew you would be interested. That's why I wanted to do it.
I would respond to him, more time than we had to consider the prescription drug bill, the major amendment to the Medicare bill, and by a factor of months and months and months, more time to consider the substance of this bill.
I tell my friend again, and he knows this well, we have had hearings on health care reform from 2007 to this day. We have had 81 hours of committee markup. We have had over 86 hours of hearings. We had over 203 hours of caucuses on our side. I presume you have had a similar time, I am sure, paying attention to this bill that has been available to you. It's been 80 days from the time the House bill was first introduced, of which this is obviously an offshoot.
The public has been able to view the bill and extensive information about it is online the entire time. It's been 126 days since, as I said, the House discussion draft was first made available online. I think every one of us has had ample opportunity to debate the bill and offer amendments.
During the markup, 129 amendments were offered by Republicans. You act as if all of a sudden this is a brand-new day. It may be a brand- new day tomorrow, but the legislation has been under consideration for a long time.
Have we made changes? We have. Are those changes so major that your side can't consider them and analyze them
over the next 72-plus hours? Because it would be longer than 72 hours. I think the answer to that is no. You certainly have that capability and have been focusing on this very carefully. We promised the 72 hours on the bill and on any manager's amendment that might be offered subsequently, and we are going to do that.
So I tell my friend, I just don't believe that it's a fair criticism to say that a bill that has been discussed, analyzed, more public hearings than any other bill, perhaps, certainly in my career in this House, has somehow all of a sudden come as a surprise to your side of the aisle.
And what I said was that the Rules Committee has not met yet. But I think clearly there will be more debate, as there has been an extraordinary amount of debate on this bill up to this time. There will be more debate than we had available to us with respect the massive amendment and legislation that you offered with reference to Medicare. I believe that there will be sufficient time made available over the consideration of this bill for both sides to make their case.
I know the gentleman wants to somehow diminish that little tiny bill of some 800 or 900 pages that amended Medicare and created prescription drug, and I don't know whether he recalls how many amendments our side was given. I would yield to him if he recalls, but if he doesn't recall, the answer is zero.
Why? Because you had considered that bill a long time; your proposition was that we had all had an opportunity to discuss it, albeit one-tenth of one one-hundredth of the time that this piece of legislation has been under consideration, but there were no amendments from this side allowed.
But what we did have allowed was a substitute. Now, I will tell my friend, and I have said before, that your side has told me you have a bill. Somebody waved it around, as a matter of fact, on national television. I presume that hopefully you're going to get that scored. Hopefully you will give us 72 hours' notice of that. And once we get the score and the 72 hours' notice of your substitute, we will be glad to consider it.
But I will tell the gentleman that we expect the same 72 hours' notice and we expect it to be scored. And I will help the gentleman facilitate the scoring of your substitute.
Well, there is no amendment deadline. The committee has not requested amendments at this point in time.
I just indicated to you that you will recall that after you brought this massive bill, I suggest, you wanted to diminish 900 pages. Ours is longer because it deals with a broader subject, you're correct, in giving every American health care and including, by the way, expanding protections to senior citizens on the doughnut hole that was incorporated in that bill. There were no amendments offered, and my presumption is your theory was that it had been so carefully constructed that you didn't want to have amendments to that bill, but you did, in fact, allow us a substitute and we offered that substitute.
I would say to the gentleman, as I have said before, that certainly I believe you ought to have, and we are going to invite you to have, a substitute and introduce your alternative that you have been talking about now for some months. I hope that you have submitted it to CBO for scoring, and we would expect 72 hours' notice of that substitute before it's brought to the floor, as you expect us to give you 72 hours' notice of our bill and of our manager's amendment.
I think that question will be addressed.
I think that question will be addressed. The answer is yes.
As the previous issue, I think that will be addressed. As a matter of fact, there is some reference to it, as you know, in existing legislation and existing law. We have not changed that. And the answer is my presumption is that will be considered--will be addressed.
I have not discussed specifically the Rules Committee's plan on that. I would repeat that it will be addressed. Now, how it will be addressed, I don't have an answer for you specifically.
If the gentleman would yield.
As you know, that concern is shared on both sides of the aisle.
I think you sort of asked the question and then I didn't respond to it as to when we may first consider the bill itself; so let me back up from there.
I expect the manager's amendment to be available on Monday, and I expect there to be 72 hours for the body to have notice of that as well as the general public. I would expect, therefore, the earliest votes to be no earlier than Thursday, 72 hours after the manager's amendment is put online. So that may be Thursday at some point in time, but we will meet that 72-hour pledge that we have made.
As the gentleman knows, the so-called sustainable growth rate, which as you referred correctly, as we all sort of refer to it as the doc fix or compensation, as the gentleman knows, the Senate tried to pass a freestanding bill on the sustainable growth rate so that doctors do not receive a 21 percent decrease on January 1 in their Medicare reimbursement rates.
On our side of the aisle, we are strongly in favor of making sure that that cut does not occur. We think that will not serve seniors in particular, because medical personnel will be unable to serve with those compensation levels. As a result, we very much expect to have a sustainable growth rate bill pass this House.
As the gentleman knows, we have done that in years past, not related necessarily to any other health reform bill. It is an issue in and of itself that relates to existing Medicare. The health care reform bill deals with the reform and the creation of a system of affordable, accessible, quality health care for all Americans. The sustainable growth rate deals with the present system. We have got to deal with it, and I will tell the gentleman it's my intention that we make sure that we bring to the floor a sustainable growth rate. We've been discussing it with the Senate because the Senate tried to do it and was not successful in passing that. We want to see success. It is absolutely essential that we do that. Whether we do health care reform or not, we will do that. So I tell my friend that we are going to have that probably, probably, as a freestanding piece of legislation.
Will my friend yield on that point?
I thank my friend for yielding, because I did not mention that. We are and, as the gentleman knows, I am very concerned about the looming deficits that have been caused by the very substantial economic downturn and our necessity to respond to that under the previous administration and under this administration. We need to get a handle on that.
One of the things that we have pledged in our budget to do is to make sure that statutory PAYGO is put in place which will be an extrinsic constraint, if you will, a statutory constraint on the spending, whether it's spending in terms of entitlement spending, whether it's in terms of revenues or in terms of spending. Both have an adverse impact on deficit. So it is my expectation that when we deal with either the sustainable growth rate, the doc fix, or the estate tax or the AMT or middle class income tax reduction, we will include provisions for statutory PAYGO to be sent with that legislation to the Senate, as is consistent with the budget that we passed and that the Senate passed.
Will my friend yield?
Let me ask my friend, just so I know as we move forward, if we do not consider the health reform bill, is the gentleman in favor of moving a reimbursement for doctors provision notwithstanding that?
I thank the gentleman and look forward to his help.
Before you close, will you yield on that issue?
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Those were interesting polls. Did the gentleman miss the portion of the poll that reflected which party the American public trusted more to deal with either one of those issues? I didn't hear you say it. I happened to have seen those polls and happened to have seen those numbers, and I just wondered if the gentleman had seen those numbers.
