Why can't people see the bill now?

[biblethumper]

Whether it's Republicans, or Democrats they need to stop playing games.

Why the Health Care Bill Will Pass in the Senate
Wednesday, November 18, 2009


Print ShareThis
FNC


Sen. Judd Gregg
This is a rush transcript from "On the Record," November 17, 2009. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Senate Majority Leader Reid is anxiously awaiting the CBO estimate on his Senate health care bill as to how much it costs. But you shouldn't be waiting because even though you paid for the CBO estimate of the cost, you will be the last to see it.

We spoke to Senator Judd Gregg about what's going on with the health care bill.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

VAN SUSTEREN: Senator, nice to see you.

SEN. JUDD GREGG, R - N.H.: Oh, thank you, Greta. Thanks for seeing me.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right...

GREGG: Thank you for having me on.

VAN SUSTEREN: You're welcome. Senator, since the last we spoke, have you thought about whether or not you thought that a health reform -- health care reform bill is going to get passed by the end of the year?

GREGG: By the end of the year? I don't think they can do it by the end of the year. But you know, they've got supermajorities here in the Senate and the House, so then logically, you have to presume that they're going to be able to pass something. And the president's invested his whole, basically, domestic political agenda on this issue, so you have to presume they'll be able to pass something, and I'm afraid it's going to be a very large bill. It's going to spend a lot of money we don't have, drive up our debt and make it very difficult for people to keep the insurance they have today.

VAN SUSTEREN: OK, "something." How does the -- how does Senator Reid pass that something? I mean, what are sort of the procedural hurdles that your party faces in trying to stop that and hurdles that he faces in trying to get it passed? And where do they put in public option, if they want it?

Column ArchiveWhy the Health Care Bill Will Pass in the Senate
Congress Gets the 'Pink Slip'
Mike Huckabee's 'Simple Christmas'
Olivia Newton-John Goes 'On the Record' and on a 'Kaleidoscope'
Why Everyone Is Just Wild About Sarah
Full-page Interview Archive

VideoWatch the video
Show InfoAirs Weekdays at 10 p.m. ET
E-mail the Show: ontherecord@foxnews.com
Greta Van Susteren's Bio
Read the GretaWire
Interview Archive
Greta's Pod Cast
GREGG: Well, he has to take a bill across the floor of the Senate, unless he uses something called "reconciliation," which I don't think he'll use.

VAN SUSTEREN: That's the nuclear option, what...

(CROSSTALK)

GREGG: It would be -- it would create a bill that would look like Swiss cheese when it was finished because so many procedural attacks would be viable against it. So he has to take a bill across the floor, which means he has to have 60 votes to pass the bill. And there are all sorts of amendments which would be subject to 60 votes points of order. So he has to keep the bill on the floor fairly benign. But once he gets it across the floor and sends it to conference, then...

VAN SUSTEREN: Which means where they meet with the House.

GREGG: Where they meet with the House. Then they can load it up with, basically, whatever they want. And you'll see it move very hard to the left. It'll follow the Pelosi model very strong. I would suspect public plan, which leads to single-payer system. Very expansive, very expensive, a lot of activity in it that empowers the trial lawyers, for example, as the House bill did.

And then it comes back from the conference. And unlike when it first comes across the floor, when it comes back from the conference, it only requires one -- there's only one 60-vote point of order, and final passage is a 51-vote event (ph).

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, how do you know that it won't get hit -- it could hit a 60-vote hurdle at that point?

GREGG: Well, I would hope that it would. If it ever got to -- I hope it doesn't get to conference, but if it gets to conference and comes back from conference, I would hope that it would be stopped at that 60-vote point of order. But as a very practical matter, at that point, you got a huge amount invested by the president and by leaders of the Congress on the Democratic side of the aisle. So there's a -- there's a real risk if they were to lose that vote for them.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, here's...

GREGG: It'd be a benefit for the country.

VAN SUSTEREN: Here's the thing that I don't get. Senator Reid is working on this bill. The Congressional Budget Office either has a number on his bill or they're about to deliver it to him at some point. We don't -- we don't get to see that.

GREGG: No.

VAN SUSTEREN: When -- I mean, when -- why don't we get to see that if -- we pay for the CBO, we pay for the work, and we have -- we're supposed to have transparency. Can't we see this number now?

GREGG: Well, that's a super question! Why are they hiding this bill? I mean, why are they writing it behind closed doors, four or five people writing it? I mean, this is the most important piece of legislation I'm ever going to see in my career in the Congress. It affects 20 percent of our economy, everybody's life. And yet we're not going to be age to see this bill until it is put out on a desk with probably 72 hours of notice. And then it goes to a vote as to whether or not we should take it up.

VAN SUSTEREN: But the CBO says they, quote, "honor confidentiality, if asked." I mean, I don't understand why anyone would want to ask that because we really do want to know these numbers so that we can make reasoned judgment as citizens, as taxpayers. And I assume as a member of the U.S. Senate, you'd like to see it sooner, rather than after the fact.

GREGG: Well, I think the American people have a right to know what's going to happen to them, and they're not going to know.

VAN SUSTEREN: But how about now, before it even gets any further? As long as you guys have the numbers, or the Democratic senators have the numbers, how about showing them now so (INAUDIBLE)

GREGG: Well, they have a bill now somewhere. I mean, there is a bill somewhere that's being scored by CBO that you haven't seen, that I haven't seen, that almost every member of the Senate hasn't seen and that no members of the press have seen.

VAN SUSTEREN: Are there any sort of side bills, like payments to doctors or anybody else, that are sort of being carved out of this so that they can meet the threshold of $900 billion? Can there be side bills sometimes?

GREGG: Well, let's use the House bill as an example here. That was alleged to be a trillion-dollar bill. It wasn't a trillion-dollar bill because what they did was they took out the doctor payments and didn't pay for those. That's $300 billion right there.

VAN SUSTEREN: So that wasn't considered in the bill cost.

GREGG: And they put the income from that bill, the new taxes and the cuts to Medicare -- they started those on day one, but they didn't start the expenditures in that bill until the fourth year. So they matched six years of expenditures against ten years of income. So that's how they got to a trillion-dollar cost.

VAN SUSTEREN: So we're being slicked on the numbers.

GREGG: Oh, yes. It is a three -- the House bill is, if it's fully implemented, a $3 trillion growth in the size of federal spending.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, you may not be the right guy to ask on this, but how do you get away with playing those numbers games on us?

GREGG: Well, you know, obviously, they haven't with you. I mean, Greta, you're on top of it. I mean, you ask the right question. Where is -- where is the money -- where are the shells that we're looking -- we should be looking under? And one is the doctors' fix. The other is the first 10-year number is a fallacious number.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, I guess (INAUDIBLE) people. I think they just want to know what's the real number and not what's the number that everyone's sort of hiding and playing with. I think, you know...

GREGG: The real number in the House bill is not a trillion dollars. It spends $3 trillion. The real number in the House bill isn't that it cuts Medicare by $500 billion, it cuts Medicare by a trillion dollars in the second 10-year tranche. And it raises taxes by well over a trillion dollars.

VAN SUSTEREN: Senator, thank you. Of course, we will be watching this as the bill travels Capitol Hill. Thank you, sir.

GREGG: Thank you, Greta.

Of course the will hide it because the American people will not like it.

[Uplifter]

VAN SUSTEREN: When -- I mean, when -- why don't we get to see that if -- we pay for the CBO, we pay for the work, and we have -- we're supposed to have transparency. Can't we see this number now?

GREGG: Well, that's a super question! Why are they hiding this bill? I mean, why are they writing it behind closed doors, four or five people writing it? I mean, this is the most important piece of legislation I'm ever going to see in my career in the Congress. It affects 20 percent of our economy, everybody's life. And yet we're not going to be age to see this bill until it is put out on a desk with probably 72 hours of notice. And then it goes to a vote as to whether or not we should take it up.

VAN SUSTEREN: But the CBO says they, quote, "honor confidentiality, if asked." I mean, I don't understand why anyone would want to ask that because we really do want to know these numbers so that we can make reasoned judgment as citizens, as taxpayers. And I assume as a member of the U.S. Senate, you'd like to see it sooner, rather than after the fact.GREGG: Well, I think the American people have a right to know what's going to happen to them, and they're not going to know.

VAN SUSTEREN: But how about now, before it even gets any further? As long as you guys have the numbers, or the Democratic senators have the numbers, how about showing them now so (INAUDIBLE)

GREGG: Well, they have a bill now somewhere. I mean, there is a bill somewhere that's being scored by CBO that you haven't seen, that I haven't seen, that almost every member of the Senate hasn't seen and that no members of the press have seen.

OK so no one has seen the bill....... WTF are they talking about then? Neither of them know what is in the bill, only what they think is in the bill.

More scare-mongering bullshit from Faux.

[biblethumper]

Originally Posted by Uplifter

OK so no one has seen the bill....... WTF are they talking about then? Neither of them know what is in the bill, only what they think is in the bill.

More scare-mongering bullshit from Faux.

The people who wrote the bill have seen it and they know what is in it and they don't want the American people to see it because they know how the people will react, so hide it, then vote on it, before the American people can lynch them for ruining 20% of the nations economy, simply for political power. Power given them by the people who will not even have to share the tax burden this will create, thats the dirty little secret.

[Underhill]

Originally Posted by biblethumper

The people who wrote the bill have seen it and they know what is in it and they don't want the American people to see it because they know how the people will react, so hide it, then vote on it, before the American people can lynch them for ruining 20% of the nations economy, simply for political power. Power given them by the people who will not even have to share the tax burden this will create, thats the dirty little secret.

I'm sure that's it exactly.

Or maybe it's that they are in the middle of negotiating the bill and are constantly making changes and new drafts to the bill.

The dirty little secret is, it doesn't matter what is in the bill, you will be against it thumper. So why does it matter if you see it? Now that I think about it, you should be glad you can't see it. It's much easier to make shit up about a bill nobody has seen...

[Fredfredson]

Nothing unusual about this.

Think of how many odd little bits of legislation got tacked on to the end of Bills during Dubya's little run.

The US Government is not exactly "transparent" when it comes to the final versions being voted on.

At least it doesn't look like Obama is adding those little presidential disclaimers at the end of nearly every one.

F

[Uplifter]

Originally Posted by biblethumper

The people who wrote the bill have seen it and they know what is in it and they don't want the American people to see it because they know how the people will react, so hide it, then vote on it, before the American people can lynch them for ruining 20% of the nations economy, simply for political power. Power given them by the people who will not even have to share the tax burden this will create, thats the dirty little secret.

But the people who wrote the bill are not talking about it.
The only people that are have no idea what it says. That is bullshit reporting.

I notice you didn't say any of this about the Patriot act.

[biblethumper]

Originally Posted by Fredfredson

Nothing unusual about this.

Think of how many odd little bits of legislation got tacked on to the end of Bills during Dubya's little run.

The US Government is not exactly "transparent" when it comes to the final versions being voted on.

At least it doesn't look like Obama is adding those little presidential disclaimers at the end of nearly every one.

F

Bull poop, even if it were true the American people elected these people, they need to held accountable for what they are voting on, the American people should be able to hold their feet to the fire come election time.

[biblethumper]

Originally Posted by Uplifter

But the people who wrote the bill are not talking about it.
The only people that are have no idea what it says. That is bullshit reporting.

I notice you didn't say any of this about the Patriot act.

Did the Patriot act take over this much of the economy? no, did it help keep us safe? yes will this make things better for all Americans? nope

[biblethumper]

Originally Posted by Underhill

I'm sure that's it exactly.

Or maybe it's that they are in the middle of negotiating the bill and are constantly making changes and new drafts to the bill.

The dirty little secret is, it doesn't matter what is in the bill, you will be against it thumper. So why does it matter if you see it? Now that I think about it, you should be glad you can't see it. It's much easier to make shit up about a bill nobody has seen...

Who are they negotiating with? new drafts? The American people deserve to see what in the world is going to ruin this countries medical services.

[clownboy]

Originally Posted by Fredfredson

The US Government is not exactly "transparent" when it comes to the final versions being voted on.

One of the reasons I voted for Obama was supposedly to end that. Wasn't that a democratic slogan? Transparency in Government.

Someone isn't getting the message. I agree with BT on this, there is NO reason the public can't view those daily revisions on the net. There's no reason not to have cameras and mikes on them through the entire process. The days of backroom government were supposed to be long gone, and now I see Reid and Pelosi ressurrecting the practice.

[R Lance]

Didn't Pelosi promise to post the bill on line 72 or 48 hrs before bringing it to a vote in house?

Wonder why she broke promise.

[jfuh]

Originally Posted by biblethumper

Bull poop, even if it were true the American people elected these people, they need to held accountable for what they are voting on, the American people should be able to hold their feet to the fire come election time.

The American people do hold the feet of politicians to the fire come election time. Which is exactly how Republicans lost big time in 2006 and 2008.

[jfuh]

Originally Posted by biblethumper

Who are they negotiating with? new drafts? The American people deserve to see what in the world is going to ruin this countries medical services.

What medical service?

[jfuh]

Originally Posted by biblethumper

Did the Patriot act take over this much of the economy? no, did it help keep us safe? yes will this make things better for all Americans? nope

It did? Proof?

[VanishingPoint]

Originally Posted by jfuh

What medical service?

Ain't dat the truth!

[clownboy]

Doesn't change the central issue at hand here - we were promised transparency and what we get is the same ole, maybe even a little more towards the obscured.

[jfuh]

Originally Posted by clownboy

Doesn't change the central issue at hand here - we were promised transparency and what we get is the same ole, maybe even a little more towards the obscured.

To claim that what we have now is the same ole I would say is a bit disingenuous.
What we have now is a massive improvement over the secretive dealings over legislation of the last 8 years.
Am I happy that we are just simply better than the bottom dwellers? No, I'm not at all pleased, I'd rather see real transparency, but more than simply transparency I want to see accountability.

Given the simple fact that it took us 8 years to get to where we are now, I'm willing to be more patient and give this new government longer than just under 11 months. Hell I gave Bush 2 years before solidifying my displeasurable stance against.

[biblethumper]

Originally Posted by jfuh

It did? Proof?

No new attacks on American soil since 911, well until the jihad at fort hood.

[biblethumper]

Originally Posted by jfuh

What medical service?

your right, I am sorry, since this will simply be more welfare for those who already don't pay taxes and get a free pay check

[biblethumper]

Originally Posted by jfuh

The American people do hold the feet of politicians to the fire come election time. Which is exactly how Republicans lost big time in 2006 and 2008.

and dems will lose huge in 2010