Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Leader, if the Rules Committee meets, say, at 9 a.m., and you said the earliest vote at 10 a.m., obviously, a lot of our Members are focused on what time they have to be here to make sure they make a vote, and you said the earliest would be 10, but if you have the Rules Committee reporting out, would it be perhaps closer to 10:30? Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, can the gentleman tell us how long you anticipate the debate on the bill itself would be? Obviously, I am asking that in the context of when can Members believe that we may be concluding tomorrow's business? Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this week we will consider the most important bill that this House will consider in this Congress. Every day we are hearing from more and more Republican Members of this House and of the Senate who oppose--who oppose--who oppose--the dangerous healthcare bill on the floor this week. Just yesterday, conservative Republican Representative Justin Amash tweeted the following--a very conservative Republican from the mid-part of our country said this: ``While I've been in Congress, I can't recall a more universally detested piece of legislation than this GOP healthcare bill.'' Or health no care bill. This is just the most recent in a long list of statements by Republicans on the demerits--demerits--of the bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act. It is interesting that they have named it the American Health Care Act. The only thing they struck from our title was ``affordable.'' It should tell you something about the bill. They replace it with a system that requires Americans to pay more and get less. This bill has been rushed through the committees without a single public hearing--not one, no testimony or expert view. And when the committees marked it up, it did not have what we call a CBO score. That is simply Washington-speak for the agency that is nonpartisan, bipartisan, with the Director appointed by the Republicans to give us the advice of the consequences of the enactment of such legislation. They came back and told us that there would be 24 million less Americans insured by 2026. That would total 58 million uninsured Americans as a result of this bill just 9 years from now. Republicans are rushing it to the floor for two reasons. First, they know that if the American people see what this bill would do and what it would cost, it wouldn't pass. As a matter of fact, we have some information on that already because, at town meeting after town meeting after town meeting that Republicans have held and Democrats have held on this bill, the overwhelming number of people that came to those town meetings said: This is a bad bill. It will hurt us. It will hurt our health care. It will hurt our families. It will hurt our children. We are rushing this bill that was introduced just some 2\1/2\ weeks ago. It was introduced on a Monday night, late at night. It was marked up less than 36 hours later in both committees. And they were so intent on getting it marked up and speeding it along that they held a hearing for 26 hours straight. Excuse me. It was not a hearing. No witnesses. They just held a markup for 26 hours straight. Now, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that millions of Americans were awake at 4 a.m. in the morning to see what the committee was doing. Obviously, I am not sure of that at all. Perhaps that was the strategy. Now that the CBO score which I just related to you has been released, we know the harm that this bill will bring. As I said, 24 million Americans kicked off their insurance, including 7 million Americans who are currently covered under plans provided by their employers, premiums for individual policyholders rising 24 to 29 percent. This is not my view. This is the Congressional Budget Office, whose Director was appointed by this Republican Congress. His predecessor, Dr. Elmendorf, testified in a hearing that we held, because Republicans refused to hold a hearing on this bill, and he agreed with the Republican-appointed Director and Congressional Budget Office. So you have a bipartisan agreement that this bill will harm Americans--and not just those 24 million Americans. It will harm all Americans because their premiums and copays and deductibles will go up. States will be forced to drop 14 million Americans from Medicaid--and I understand there is a manager's amendment that is going to make it worse--while cutting benefits and provider payments. A less fiscally sustainable future for Medicare, they shorten the life of Medicare's fiscal sustainability by 3 years, from 2028 down to 2025. The list goes on, Mr. Speaker, of the reasons why this bill would be a disaster for families in our country. The second reason they pushed the bill through so quickly is because they wanted to bring it to the floor this week--not next week, not the week after, not after thorough consideration, not after hearings, not after listening to the American people, but this week. Why this week? Because this week marks the seventh anniversary of the enactment of the law they are seeking to repeal, in other words, optics, spin, propaganda, message. That is what their timeline and their bill are all about: messaging--not results, not reform, political messaging. This is the fulfillment of a campaign pledge based on a premise that is no longer sustainable. Seven years after the law's enactment the facts are clear. It has expanded coverage, improved benefits, banned discrimination against women and people with preexisting conditions and disabilities, and prohibited annual and lifetime limits on coverage. Now, they keep some of those things in their bill because they were so popular they thought they couldn't get rid of them. But they have voted 65 times to repeal all those benefits. Is the Affordable Care Act perfect? Of course not. In the areas where it has fallen short, let's fix it--together. But this bill--this bill repealing the law and making Americans pay more for less--will throw our healthcare system into turmoil and put millions of families and small businesses at risk. That is why doctors oppose it. That is why hospitals oppose it. That is why senior organizations like AARP oppose it. There are literally 1,000 organizations, plus, that have opposed this legislation. We are now hearing reports, Mr. Speaker, that Republican leaders are making secret backroom deals with individual Members in order to win their support, the kind of desperate maneuvering that shows how unpopular this bill is. Republicans, Mr. Speaker, must remember that, as the governing majority, they will be responsible for what happens to our healthcare system under their watch. And I do not just mean this bill. I mean the lack of certainty and the turmoil that they have been creating for the Affordable Care Act market since not only Trump was elected, but since they started attacking this bill some years ago. Mr. Speaker, I urge my Republican friends, for the sake of their constituents, for the sake of the children of this country, for the sake of those who are at risk because of health challenges that confront them, I urge my Republican friends to abandon this dangerous bill and instead work with us to strengthen our healthcare system for all of our citizens.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come, and it is my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I must hasten to add that the gentleman from California added a little comment that ``it is known.'' I don't share that view, Mr. Speaker, that it is known that the Affordable Care Act is failing. In fact, we had a hearing yesterday when the former Director of the Congressional Budget Office appointed by Democrats testified on the Affordable Care Act and testified on the American Health Care Act. Lo and behold, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Elmendorf agreed with the present CBO Director. In other words--and everybody in America ought to be pleased on this because they all are asking for bipartisan--the former Director appointed by Democrats of the CBO agrees with the Republican Director of the CBO, who just came down with his advice and counsel to the Congress just a few days ago. That ought to give pause to those who are pressing to pass a bill, which would result in the loss by 24 million Americans of their insurance and would result in the increased costs to almost every American of their insurance. Now, yes, there are some Americans who would choose not to have health care. Then they would get sick or they would get in an automobile accident or something else would happen where they would require medical care, and they would not be able to pay for it. Guess what? We would all pay for it. That is what was happening before the Affordable Care Act. It is still happening with some who choose either to pay their contribution toward health--some people call it a penalty; I call it a contribution--to meet their personal responsibility, as the Heritage Foundation suggested, of having provisions that, if they get sick, they will be able to pay for it. Now, last week, Mr. Speaker, the majority leader had some quotes from people who did not like the Affordable Care Act. At this hearing that we had, we had a number of people, and I want to quote some of them: I certainly never imagined I would have a child who would rely so much on a government program like Medicaid. This child, Mr. Speaker, suffers from Rett syndrome, which is a neurology disorder that strikes mostly young girls with normal development for the first 18 or 24 months of their life. Then their development is arrested and, in fact, in some respects, there is a retreat in their abilities. She went on to say: Medicaid provides skilled nursing care, which allows us to raise our daughter, Caroline, in our home instead of a hospital or institution. Of course, a hospital or institution would be far more expensive, Mr. Speaker. She went on to say: This allows my husband and me to hold jobs and take care of other family needs. The House Republican plan for Medicaid would put my daughter's life at risk, and my family is terrified. That was Marta Conner, mother of a child with Rett syndrome covered under Medicaid. I titled yesterday's hearing: The hearing that the Republicans refused to have on the American Health Care Act or the Affordable Care Act itself. This quote is by a doctor: In public debate in Congress, the actual people can be obscured by graphs and numbers. But, ladies and gentlemen, every day in clinic, I am one-on-one with the real people, real Americans who could take steps closer to health or suffer more with this Congress' decision. I urge you and your colleagues to reject the American Health Care Act and, instead, strengthen the Affordable Care Act. To that extent, Mr. Speaker, as the majority leader knows, that testimony joined hundreds in the medical field: The American Medical Association, associations of physicians with particular skill sets, of hospitals, of insurance companies, of patients, of providers, of urban hospitals, suburban hospitals, rural hospitals, and literally hundreds of people intimately involved in the healthcare system who are urging us not to pass the American Health Care Act and to leave in place but improve the Affordable Care Act. Mr. Speaker, I have indicated to many on this side of the aisle that we are prepared to work to improve any piece of legislation that has been passed and particularly a piece of legislation which affects so many Americans. Unfortunately, we have not had that opportunity since this bill, the Affordable Care Act, was first considered and passed. This week, the Congressional Budget Office released their estimate and impacts of the House Republicans' bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Mr. Speaker, as the majority leader knows, President Trump, in this body and at that rostrum, promised insurance for everybody that is much less expensive and much better. He has not offered such a bill. The American Health Care Act certainly does not provide that. In fact, the CBO--both Republican and Democratic directors--opined at least 24 million people will lose their insurance and, by 2026, there will be 58 million people in America without health insurance. Mr. Speaker, the majority leader has indicated this bill will be on the floor next week. I hope that everybody takes the opportunity to read the CBO report and the testimony given in yesterday's hearing on the bill. It was the first and only hearing that was held on the bill that will be on the floor. Previous hearings on the Affordable Care Act are not good, and previous hearings that there are alternatives out there don't deal with the bill that is going to be on the floor next Wednesday or Thursday. Senator Susan Collins has said of the bill that is going to be on the floor: It should prompt the House to slow down and reconsider certain provisions of the bill. She was referring, of course, to the CBO report. Senator Bill Cassidy from that liberal leftwing bastion of Louisiana said: Can't sugarcoat it. Doesn't look good. The CBO score was, shall we say, an eyepopper. I also hope it was a thought provoker. And Senator Rob Portman, who served in this body for many years, said: I am concerned about the Medicaid population. That is the biggest part of coverage for Ohio. That is why their Governor, a Republican, and Rob Portman, a Republican who served on the Ways and Means Committee, is urging caution and has great reservations about the bill that has been announced to come to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the majority leader whether or not he can confirm whether changes will be made to the repeal bill, that is the American Health Care Act, that was reported out of the Budget Committee, whether he can confirm whether or not the repeal bill will be changed before it comes to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, just to clarify, Mr. Speaker, that the bill to which he is referring is not the bill to which I was referring. I was referring to the Affordable Care Act and improvement of the Affordable Care Act. He is now referring to the American Health Care Act which, we think, bears no resemblance to the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. HOYER. Of course, with the Affordable Care Act. We think the bill that has been, as I said, Mr. Speaker, offered will devastate many individuals, millions and millions and millions of people in this country. We have said that pretty clearly. But more importantly, the CBO Director, appointed by Republicans, said that in his report, which was, by the way, Mr. Speaker, given after, after it was considered in either one of the committees, either the Energy and Commerce Committee or the Ways and Means Committee. They did not wait for the CBO report. My opinion, Mr. Speaker, they did not wait for the CBO report because they knew how devastatingly negative the CBO report would be to the legislation they were considering. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I certainly will do that.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his information. People, I am sure, listening to this colloquy must get confused because they hear one representation from somebody who sounds pretty reasonable, my friend, Mr. McCarthy, and then they hear exactly the opposite from me. So they will have to make a judgment. The bill that is going to be on this floor next week was introduced a week ago Monday. It was marked up less than 42 hours later. My friend, the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, said: I love to listen to constituents. Not a single constituent on his side of the aisle or my side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, had the opportunity to testify on this bill. Not a single one of my constituents, or the majority leader's constituents, had the opportunity to know what the CBO said was going to happen; that 24 million people would lose their insurance, 14 million next year; that Medicare would be put at risk; and Medicaid would be gutted by 2021. Not a single constituent was listened to because they had no opportunity to come and say: this is what I think. The testimony to which I referred was yesterday. I don't know the dates on the letters that the gentleman just read, but perhaps they were just within the last few days. But I will tell that 63-year-old woman that what this bill does, if you got a 60 percent increase, will up that by 66 percent because you are going to go from a 3-to-1 ratio to a 5-to-1 ratio on which seniors, and 63 years of age, regrettably, from my standpoint, are referred to as seniors. The bill that is going to be considered will allow the insurance company to do a 5-to-1 ratio, rather than a 3-to-1 ratio, so that 60 percent is going to go up by 40, maybe get to 100 percent. Mr. Speaker, the American people know about transparency. That means they can see something. The gentleman says: Well, now it is online. Yes, they had 40 hours, give or take, to see this bill from Monday night to Wednesday, when it was marked up, and it was marked up and passed in the Ways and Means Committee in the dead of night, sort of like they passed the prescription drug bill, at 5:59 in the morning. The majority leader wasn't here. I was here. Perhaps there is a predilection to middle of the night. By the time the Energy and Commerce Committee passed it, they had been in session for over 24 hours and were bleary-eyed. As I told him last week, Mr. Speaker, my folks were not up at 4 a.m. watching the Energy and Commerce Committee. And I would tell him further that--he said the bill was now online and people had an opportunity to read it. Perhaps, Mr. Majority Leader, Mr. Speaker, that is why the Affordable Care Act has now got more support from the country than it has had at any time since its existence; where there are 49 percent of Americans who now like the Affordable Care Act. Perhaps the reason that is happening now is because they have had the opportunity to see the alternative that the Republicans have offered and are offering on Wednesday. This bill that they offered is going to significantly raise--I will tell Colleen--her out-of-pocket expenses. And, yes, under their bill, the CBO says that perhaps the premiums will go down. Why will the premiums go down? Why does insurance go up and down? Because the risk goes up and down; and the greater the risk, the more the cost. But if you don't allow people who are sick people to get into the system because they can't afford it, then the risk goes down. When the risk goes down and you shut people out of the system and 24 million people are out of the system, yes, of course, the rates go down because you are insuring the healthy. Now, Americans know that very well because they know they have automobile insurance--which, by the way, they are mandated to have in almost every State, if not every State. Why are they mandated to have it? So the rest of us are protected when we have an accident or we are protected from our rates going up because there is not a broad spectrum of the insured so that the risk can be minimal for the insurance company. So I say to my friend that CBO has told the truth. The Americans are seeing that, and they don't like that. I would urge those on the other side of the aisle to be very careful when they vote either Wednesday or Thursday on this bill because this bill is going to have a very detrimental effect on the American people. Now, I understand there are going to be two other bills. There are going to be four bills on the floor, as I understand it. Can the gentleman inform us of when we will see the details of this additional legislation? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. The third bill and the fourth bill.

Mr. HOYER. Are they available now to be reviewed prior to them coming up later in the month? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Lastly--and I know you are glad to hear that comment, as are the folks waiting to do 1-minutes--we have received a letter from Secretary Mnuchin on March 8. It was directed to the Speaker, Mr. Leader, and like most Secretaries of the Treasury, he is hoping that we will pursue financially responsible and confidence-building policies. I won't read the whole letter, but he says in the last paragraph: ``As I said in my confirmation hearing, honoring the full faith and credit of our outstanding debt is a critical commitment. I encourage Congress to raise the debt limit at the first opportunity so that we can proceed with our joint priorities.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask the majority leader whether that is going to be scheduled in the near term because, on March 15, we met the debt-limit extension. This administration and every previous administration have taken steps to prolong the time before we default by using extra mechanisms so that we are, in effect, not investing in the retirement system or something else and paying our debts. I have indicated publicly, Mr. Speaker, and I reiterate here, that I will urge my side to support a debt-limit extension if it is clean. What I mean by ``clean,'' if it does not incorporate something that is not agreed to and there is not a consensus on. By that I mean, simply, if there are things that we have a consensus on that need to be passed, certainly including those in the debt-limit extension would not be objectionable. But if there are items in that bill designed to force us to vote for what is a responsible policy but takes something that we obviously very strongly disagree with, we will not do so. So my questions to the majority leader are: A, can we expect a clean debt-limit extension? B, can we expect that in the near term, as Secretary Mnuchin requests, so that we can put that matter behind us and not undermine confidence in our fiscal posture as a nation? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. It will probably be my last question. I have an additional observation.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the gentleman's words be taken down. I have never had such a vicious attack made on me. But I must admit I was deeply disappointed last night. My congratulations to the young men at Xavier and their coach, but my, my, my, I was disappointed in the quality of our play. We have got a great group of young people playing, but it was not their night. I am sure that I will pick another team sometime as the March Madness continues. What I would hope, though, is we would not have March Madness on this floor next week. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. I guess the answer to that question, Mr. Speaker, is what will determine an upset. Will the American people be upset? Will the Republicans be upset? The answer to that question remains in the hands of our Republican colleagues, because what I want to do in observation, I disagree with all three of the propositions that the majority leader said in his closing statement. This is not going to reduce the budget. Yes, on its face, they give a $600 billion tax cut to the wealthiest in America. Where do they take it from? Medicaid, some of the poorest people in America. That is where that money comes from. Premiums are going to go up. Deductibles are going to go up. You can quote me on this 2, 3 years from now. I don't think your bill is going to pass. But if it did pass, that is what would happen. You won't be able to test me because I don't think the bill is going to pass. It may pass this floor, but it will not become law. The majority leader's statement, Mr. Speaker, that that is what the American people are expecting, I disagree with that. What the President of the United States said he was going to give to the American people is insurance for everybody. The majority leader ignores the 24 million. He hasn't spoken about that. He spoke about some other observations in the CBO report, as did Speaker Ryan. I don't blame him. I would try to point to some positive indicators myself. I think this is going to up the deficit, it is going to up costs, and it will decrease the insured and make hospitals have more uncompensated care. We will have this debate next week, Mr. Speaker. But on the last issue, I would hope, Mr. Leader, that we do agree on fiscal responsibility. I happen to believe, as you know, the debt limit issue is a phony issue, a totally political issue. It has been used as a political issue on both sides of the aisle. There should be no question but of course the United States is going to pay its debt, of course the United States is going to pay people whom it has bought things from, and of course it is going to pay people moneys that they have been promised. Of course it is going to do that. This is not about new spending. It is about spending that we have already incurred. I would urge the majority leader to bring a clean bill to the floor. I will work with him. We will get the overwhelming majority of Democrats to vote for that. Let's not blame one another for the debt. There is plenty of opportunity to do that, and both sides are guilty of that result. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman has nothing further he wants to say, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in opposition to this bill, and I adopt many of the premises that my friend, Mr. Walz, adopted. I also adopt the premise of Dr. Roe, who is a really dear friend of mine, that Tim Walz is the kind of guy you wouldn't mind riding across the country with. That is because he is honest, he is knowledgeable, and he is sincere. Frankly, I attribute all of those same characteristics to Dr. Roe. But, Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. Everybody on this floor agrees that our veterans deserve the best care possible. There is no debate about that. All of us in this House are focused on that goal. But this bill does nothing to meet that goal, in my view. This bill is part of--and I do not ascribe it to Dr. Roe--a significantly long history of a partisan effort to scapegoat Federal civil servants that has been going on for decades, long before Dr. Roe got in it or Mr. Walz got in it. It is a follow-on to the dangerous hiring freeze the Trump administration imposed in January and the repeated attempts over the last several years to extract more and more cuts from Federal employees' pay and benefits, which contributed over $150 billion in cuts in pay and benefits over the last 6 years. Stripping away the rights of VA employees to work in a nonpartisan, professional environment will not improve the care our veterans and their families deserve and expect from the VA medical system. This bill, in my view, would undermine the collective bargaining rights--I am a very strong supporter of collective bargaining rights-- of VA employees serving as doctors, nurses, physical therapists, and others in critical jobs, and disrupt the collaborative relationship between VA managers and employees that is essential to a successful workplace environment. Many years ago--almost 100 years ago--we adopted a civil service system. The premise of that system is we ought to have professional employees--not political employees, not political appointees--not subject to change because of the political whims that may be blowing one way or the other. This bill risks demoralizing those who have tirelessly been working to help our veterans reintegrate into civilian life in communities across this country. Let me make it clear--and I am sure Dr. Roe is not surprised when I say this--that I agree with Mr. Walz. If there is an employee who is not performing well, that employee ought not to be kept on. But this bill removes the process that was negotiated, or could be negotiated, in a collective bargaining way. And if, by the way, it takes 300-plus days, then perhaps this legislation could deal with that to shorten it. There are ways this could be dealt with that, in my view, will not undermine the civil service protections that are important not only for the employees, but for the system itself. I have no doubt there are measures that can be adopted to improve VA performance and effectively and fairly discipline employees who engage in misconduct. We ought not to tolerate that. But this bill does not include them. I have not read Senator Isakson's bill, but perhaps that is closer, and I look forward to reviewing it with both the chairman and the ranking member. This bill goes too far, shreds basic due process rights, in my view, and punishes even model employees. And let me say as an aside, when I say it undermines basic due process rights, part of those rights are to have some time to get representation, to thoughtfully respond, to have some discovery as to what is going on here, what is being alleged, why is it being alleged, and who is alleging it. This bill eviscerates that, in some respects. I am proud to represent 62,000 Federal employees in Maryland's Fifth District, including many who work at the VA's clinic in Charlotte Hall and in Camp Springs in the neighboring Fourth District. We ought to remember, Mr. Chairman, that when we undermine our Federal workforce and our ability to recruit and retain the best and brightest, we undermine our government's ability to serve the American people. So this is not just about present employees. It is about those who might consider employment in the future. Mr. Chairman, I hope we don't make the mistake of, in effect, throwing the baby out with the bath water. Let's not take away the rights and protections of those who serve us so ably. But, yes, I agree with Dr. Roe and with Ranking Member Walz. If there are those who are not serving us well, yes, there ought to be a process; it ought to be fair, it ought to provide time in which to respond, not interminable time, so that we can have an agency of which we can be proud and does what we all want--serve our veterans in a way that we would expect, demand, and that we are morally obligated to give.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), my friend, for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come. (Mr. McCARTHY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information. I would now like to ask him, we passed the DOD Appropriations bill and sent that to the Senate. We have already done the MILCON bill. And I am wondering--there are ten remaining bills--whether the majority leader could give me some idea, in light of the fact that the CR, which once it goes to April 28, we will either have to do those bills individually or in some sort of an omnibus, whether the gentleman has any idea how soon we might be considering the balance of the year's appropriation to September 30? Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that insightful comment. Let me say this, Mr. Leader, if, as we did in the Defense Appropriations bill, if we follow the template where we will reach bipartisan agreement on those bills in committee without any poison pills language in them--which you did on the appropriation bill, and, as you saw, we appreciated that, and we were overwhelmingly supportive of that effort--I would hope that, Mr. Leader, you would urge--and I think, very frankly, I am a big fan of Mr. Frelinghuysen, who is the chairman of the committee. I think he is a Member that I have worked well with over the years, and I think he is somebody who is going to do the committee proud as its chairman--but I am hopeful that we can do, as we did with the appropriation bill for the Defense Department, a similar procedure. So I think that the majority leader will be pleased with our support if, in fact, that can happen. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on a less happy collegial note, it comes as no surprise to the majority leader at the height of our displeasure and disappointment as it relates to what is going on, back to the consideration of the reconciliation process for the repeal or modification of the Affordable Care Act with the American Health Care Act. The bill was posted this Monday, this past Monday night, it was marked up on Wednesday, there were no hearings, there were no opportunities for witnesses to come forward. And as the gentleman knows, he is absolutely correct, I like these quotes, but I like these quotes because they point out theoretically what I would have great agreement with in terms of process. Particularly, I call your attention to a quote of Speaker Paul Ryan: ``Congress is moving fast to rush through a healthcare overhaul that lacks a key ingredient: the full participation of you, the American people.'' That quote was July 19, 2009. That quote was referring to the process involved in the adoption of the Affordable Care Act. As the gentleman knows, the Affordable Care Act had 79 hearings. As the gentleman knows, there were 181 witnesses who testified about the Affordable Care Act. As the gentleman knows, that process took approximately 1\1/2\ years, 8 months of which was waiting to see whether Senator Grassley would participate in a bipartisan way in forging healthcare reform in this country. The gentleman is well aware, not only have we had literally hundreds of thousands of people around the country come to townhall meetings, many that his Members have held, and express their deep concern about the loss of healthcare security if the Affordable Care Act is repealed. So there is no doubt that the American public--I am not saying it is 100 percent--but a large number of the American public are very concerned. The gentleman further knows, I am sure, because I am sure he has seen the letters, the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Nurses Association, even the Consumers Union, and hundreds of other groups representing providers, patients, even insurance companies, have expressed deep, deep concern about the adverse consequences of the passage of the American Health Care Act that was marked up in the dead of night. We were criticized. The gentleman apparently doesn't agree with that. But the facts are the facts. They are not alternative facts. You started marking them up on Wednesday morning, there was some delay during the day, as you know, because we were very concerned about how fast you were moving that. Less than 48 hours after it was introduced, it was marked up. No hearings, no witnesses, no ability to read the bill. As a matter of fact, shockingly, Mr. Brady voted against an amendment which said: Read the bill. Now, what was shocking about that is that was Mr. Brady's amendment that he offered back in 2010. He voted against the amendment that said: Read the bill. I don't think anybody really had much opportunity to read the bill before it was marked up. Greg Walden, who is chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said also, in July of 2009: On a bill of this significance, you would think that we would at least allow people to come in who are affected by the extraordinary changes in this bill and have a chance to let us know how it affects them. That was Greg Walden, now the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, July 9, 2009. He is now in charge of that committee. Not a single witness testified on the bill that was marked up in his committee. And it was marked up through the dead of the night, if we want to parse our words, because it started in the morning of Wednesday. But it didn't end until the morning, 26 hours later, on Thursday. Which meant that Mr. Walden kept his members in their seats marking up a bill, except when they were voting coming over here, for 26 hours straight on one of the most consequential bills this House will consider and that the Senate will consider, affecting, as I said, millions and millions and millions of people. Now, I understand the Budget Committee is scheduled to mark that bill up on Wednesday, just a week later. Again, I don't know whether there are going to be hearings and if those hearings will be open to the witnesses that should be called to testify on a bill of such impact. Let me do one additional quote, because the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee had an interesting quote as well. He said: ``The Democratic Congress and White House simply aren't listening. Democrats are ramming it through over the public's objections.'' That was on March 17, 2010, some year after the bill had been introduced. Thousands of meetings had been held by Republicans and Democrats around the country on the bill. And, as I said, 79 hearings and 181 witnesses later. That is what Chairman Brady said. And, of course, Chairman Brady, in less than 48 hours, had a markup. Now, he did not have quite as long a markup. It ended at 4:30 a.m. Thursday morning. So that was the dead of night. Or, if you want to parse words, perhaps, the dead of the early morning. But, nevertheless, most of my public wasn't up watching. I presume even at 4:30, which would have been 1:30 for your public, they weren't up watching. So this was done out of the sight of the public and is inconsistent, I suggest to my friend, Mr. Speaker, the majority leader, inconsistent with the pledge of transparency, openness, and those three quotes that I just read you that said the American people should have the opportunity to express their opinion on legislation generally, but certainly on legislation of this consequence. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. Mr. Speaker, we have had, literally, tens of thousands of hearings that have dealt with almost every issue that this House considers. I suppose I should take from the majority leader's discussion that, if we have had those hearings in previous Congresses, in the last Congress, the Congress before that, the Congress before that, and we have a substantial number of new Members in this House, and we have millions and millions of voters who are counting on this, we will just simply tell them: Read the transcript of 2002 or of 2009 or of 2013. That is not regular order, Mr. Speaker. Regular order is you introduce a bill. It is referred to a committee, which in turn refers it to a subcommittee, and, even if it keeps it in the bosom of the full committee, it has a hearing. It posts the bill. It tells citizens throughout this country: If you have an interest, come in and tell us what your interest is, what your perspective is, what you think the ramifications of this bill are. The subcommittee marks it up, if it was referred to a subcommittee, then the full committee marks it up, and then it is referred to the floor. That is regular order, Mr. Speaker. To rationalize a procedure which has a bill introduced Monday night and is subjected to 26 hours, straight, of markup on the following Wednesday, less than 48 hours later, no matter how you dress it up, that is not, Mr. Speaker, regular order. What it is is trying to jam through a bill before the American public has an opportunity to tell us what they think about the bill. What it is is jamming through a bill and not allowing the providers, the doctors, the patients, the insurance companies, all of the stakeholders, to have an opportunity to read that bill introduced about 72 hours ago now--a little more than that, maybe close to 96. That, Mr. Speaker, is not regular order. And I will tell my friend for whom I have a great deal of respect, I think he puts the best face on it, but nobody believed the Republicans had a bill, Mr. Speaker, until Monday night. Well, actually, I believed they had a bill at the last colloquy, and I looked for it all over this Capitol. I couldn't find it. It wasn't posted. The ranking member on the committee didn't have it. No committee Democrat had the bill. They couldn't read it. So to pretend, Mr. Speaker, that hearings on some other bill at some other time in some other Congress suffices for regular order is something, Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with. And if the situations were reversed, as I have experienced over the last 36 years, that side of the aisle would have torn this place apart. Why do I think that? Because I have seen it. Yes, we had some delaying, four motions to adjourn, so that we had some time to figure out what this bill was about and some time to hear from the American people. It certainly wasn't enough time. We are going to be hearing more from the American people, I think, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the gentleman trying to say that, well, we only had 48 hours. Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, we do that in a hurry. And the reason is because we are about to go on a break. We are about to go on an August break or a recess or something of that nature. That is not the case. These committees didn't have to meet through the night. They could have met Thursday. They could have met today. They could meet next week. But this bill is being rushed through too fast with too much adverse consequence to the American people. I would hope the majority leader would slow this bill down. I hope the Rules Committee has full hearings on this bill and that it does not have just attenuated hearings with few witnesses, because there are a lot of people who want to tell us, their Representatives, what their view is of this bill. I know the Speaker has said there are going to be three phases to this bill, and the majority leader said so as well, and there will be additional legislation. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that my friend, the majority leader, will urge the committees not to consider additional legislation either in the middle of the night or with no notice and no opportunity for witnesses and no hearings. Previous hearings will not suffice, Mr. Speaker. Other Congresses had hearings. This Congress has a responsibility to hear from the American people. That is what Speaker Ryan said; that is what Mr. Brady said; that is what Mr. Walden said. They said it at a time when they were in the minority, but it ought to apply when they are in the majority. And if we are in the majority, it ought to apply to us as well. I hope that happens, Mr. Speaker, for the country's sake, for our people's sake. I will yield to the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, if he would like to speak.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the majority leader. I presume that he has heard from--I don't have the quotes in front of me, but maybe I will bring them next week--the thousands of people who have said their lives have been saved by the Affordable Care Act; the thousands of parents with a child with a preexisting condition that, if the Republicans had succeeded in their 65 votes to repeal it, would not have been protected; the millions of seniors who are paying less for their prescription drugs because of the Affordable Care Act. I could read all those letters. Why do I read the letters of Mr. Walden, Mr. Brady, and Speaker Ryan? Because they are in charge. All our constituents, on either side, had no opportunity to testify on this bill. But Speaker Ryan, Mr. Walden, and Mr. Brady could have given them that opportunity, and they chose not to. They rationalize it apparently because, well, we had hearings in the past. Does this bill have the subject matter of the ACA? It does. But this bill was offered just some, as I said, 90-or-so hours ago. And the leader says: Well, that is okay. It is based on all those hearings we had. The fact is this bill has not been brought forward for the last 7 years while there was a repeal for ACA. Why? We all know why. Mr. Speaker, it is because the majority could not come to an agreement, and they are not in agreement now. Perhaps, if this bill stands out there a little bit, it is so flawed they won't be able to get the votes on their side of the floor. I was here--I don't think the majority leader was here--when we adopted the part D prescription drug program. It was called up by the majority, the Republican Party at the evening hour; and we voted from 3 a.m. until 6 a.m. And when I say we voted, that vote was kept open for 3 hours while they opportuned their Members: You have got to vote for this. President Bush wants it. You have got to vote for this. We voted against it. But the vote was held open 3 hours, I tell my friend. That was not regular order. Now, our side has held a vote open from time to time--never for 3 hours, but from time to time. That is why it is being rushed. It is not because they had a lot of hearings before, not because witnesses had testified they didn't like the Affordable Care Act. We understand that. The issue is not whether people like or dislike the Affordable Care Act. It is how are we going to provide what the President has promised: access for everybody to health care at a lower cost and a better price. I told the majority leader last week--and I repeat my comments, Mr. Speaker, to the majority leader this week--if they bring such a bill to the floor, I will support it. This bill does not do that. So what President Trump promised during the election and what he promised from that podium just a few days ago is not what this bill represents. It is not what they promised to the American people. What I asked the majority leader was--they are apparently going to have some additional bills--whether or not they will be also rushed through without hearings on the premise that there were hearings in the past. I repeat that there are a lot of new Members in this body that didn't have the opportunity to have those hearings and weren't in this body. I don't know how many there are because I don't know how many Congresses we are talking about if we adopted this bill 7 years ago and then there were hearings subsequent. So I don't know where we are going, Mr. Speaker, but I think the American people expect an opportunity to be heard. Yes, I may quote some next week. The people who were elected by the American people to do their job have the power to open up the doors and open up the windows and pull back the curtains so that the American people could come in and testify. There were all those witnesses who testified in the last Congress and the Congress before that, but I am talking about the people who testified during a Congress in which we considered the bill. We haven't had an open rule this year, Mr. Speaker. We have had structured rules. We have had no open rule. So in terms of the majority leader telling me, Mr. Speaker, that we want everybody to have their opportunity, and he caricatures one amendment that was--I think I would agree with him--more to show that not a single Republican would vote. And Mr. Brady, as I pointed out, didn't vote for his own amendment that he offered when the Affordable Care Act was marked up to say read the bill. Time was not given to read the bill. Mr. Speaker, I understand we are not going to come to any conclusion today; but I am hopeful that the process that was perpetrated on not only the minority but also the majority this week will not be repeated, and that the representations that have been made by the Speaker, by the young guns, and by so many others would be a process that is, in fact, open, thoughtful, and democratic. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. It may not be true of your constituents, but most of my constituents were asleep between 12 and 6 this morning.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I just came from the Energy and Commerce Committee. That committee, along with the Ways and Means Committee and the Education and the Workforce Committee, is seized of the responsibility to consider the harmful American Health Care Act being offered by the Republicans as a better way. It is anything but a better way. Mr. Speaker, they don't want the American public to see what they are doing. They met all through the night. They have been meeting now for over 24 hours, without sleep, without rest, without reflection, and with no opportunity, Mr. Speaker, for the American people to see what is going on. In the dead of night, out of the sight of the public, they are hiding their bill and rushing to judgment. Why? Because they know, as they have seen in town meeting after town meeting after town meeting--that is, of course, those Republicans who have had town meetings--that the American public is extraordinarily concerned and worried they are going to lose the health care that they receive through the Affordable Care Act. They are concerned about the premiums and deductibles that they have to pay skyrocketing because of the Republican bill that is being proposed. They are concerned that Medicare and Medicaid are going to be decimated and the life of Medicare reduced in terms of its ability to pay the benefits promised. Mr. Speaker, the President stood at that rostrum and said he had a healthcare bill that was going to give healthcare coverage for everybody--not just some, but everybody--at less expense and greater quality. There is no such bill that the President has provided us with. If there is, and if he has such a bill, Mr. Speaker, I will support it, but it is certainly not the bill that the Ways and Means Committee ended its work on at 4:30 a.m. this morning. The American people, Mr. Speaker, ought to be asking: What are you hiding? What is the rush? You have had 7 years to consider this bill. That is 7 years. We are meeting tomorrow, we are meeting next week, we are meeting the week after. It is not as if we are going on a summer break and we need to rush to judgment. It is not that we need to keep the American people out of consideration of this bill. Mr. Speaker, Democrats in committee and on this floor are doing everything we can to slow down this process and to open the doors, open the windows, and keep the lights on so that the people who deserve to know how a Republican bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act will impact their lives and the lives of their family and their children. Houses Republicans are marking up this bill without holding a single hearing--not one hearing--for a bill that gives $600 billion in tax cuts and cuts hundreds of billions of dollars from health care. The tax cuts go to the wealthiest in America. Perhaps that is why there are no hearings. Perhaps that is why they didn't invite any witnesses. Perhaps that is why they are rushing to judgment before the Congressional Budget Office, which is nonpartisan and will give us an accurate estimate of its cost and who is going to be hurt--Mr. Speaker, apparently they don't want the American people to get those facts before their representatives have to make a decision. I know they voted for repealing the Affordable Care Act almost 65 times here in this House. Democrats have voted against that because we believe the Affordable Care Act is working. Is it working perfectly? No. Do we need to join together and make it work better for the American people? Yes. This bill will impact, Mr. Speaker, every single American family and business. If enacted, it will force Americans across the country to pay more for less coverage and fewer benefits. Shamefully, Republicans are hoping they can jam this bill through the House and Senate before Members have to go home and face their constituents in April. That is why we are having to rush, because they don't want their Members to go home in April and say: This is what we are considering, what do you think? Because they know. Because they have had hearings, town meetings. They haven't had any hearings on this bill, but they have had town meetings, and every American has seen the reporting on that, angry Americans fearful that they are going to lose benefits absolutely critical to them and their families. They continued marking up this bill through the night, using the very same tactics they claimed we were using when considering the Affordable Care Act. We had over 79 hearings not in the middle of the night, but during the day. We had over 181 witnesses. That is opposed to zero-- zero--witnesses on this bill. Shame. It gives a lie to the representation of transparency and openness and accountability that our Speaker has said he would operate this House to ensure that those happened. They used the same tactics that they claim, as I said, that we were considering. In fact, here is what Tom Price, who was then a member of the House of Representatives, now the Secretary of the Health and Human Services, said: ``The negotiations are obviously being done in secret and the American people really just want to know what they are trying to hide.'' He said that on January 6, 2010. 180 witnesses, 79 hearings, a year and a half or more of consideration, yet we have a bill that was introduced Monday night. Today is Thursday. Monday night it was introduced, and no hearings. Wednesday, deep into the night, and this morning this bill is being marked up. Kevin Brady, the chairman of the Committee on Way and Means, who held a markup until 4:30 a.m., said this: ``I think there is never a more critical time for the American public to weigh in on an important issue than on health care today and there is a lot about this bill we don't know.'' He said that in a townhall August 10, 2009. Well, now he is chairman of the committee, and apparently he has decided that the American public doesn't need to know now. When we were in charge, he thought the public needed to know, and that is why we had those 79 hearings and 181 witnesses and townhalls, thousands of meetings and townhalls around the country on the Affordable Care Act. But Mr. Brady apparently doesn't think that is applicable when he is in charge of the committee. Then Speaker, now former Speaker John Boehner said this: ``Can you say it was done openly, with transparency and accountability? Without backroom deals struck behind closed doors, hidden from the people? Hell, no, you can't.'' But now the shoe is on the other foot, and my Republican colleagues are in charge. They are full speed ahead, and the doors are closed, the windows are shuttered, and the blinds are drawn. The process we had in 2009 and 2010 to write and adopt the Affordable Care Act included, as I said, 79 hearings versus zero hearings on this bill. Zero. None. 181 witnesses that I have referred to. Zero witnesses, zero Americans included from the public in this process. We had a 2-year process that was open and recognized how consequential the legislation would be, ensuring that Americans from all over the country, including doctors, healthcare organizations, providers, insurance companies, average citizens could weigh in. Now in their rush to pass their repeal, Republicans are doing everything they said was wrong and much more. Republicans are terrified that the American people will find out what is in this bill. The problem they have is a lot of their Members have found out what is in this bill, and they don't like it. Hardly any newspaper in America likes it. We think the public is thinking they are moving too fast and are going to hurt them. They are afraid, however, of having to face angry constituents who will see that this bill will take healthcare coverage away from 20 million Americans and cause out-of-pocket costs to go up for millions more. This bill could destabilize even the employer-based insurance market. That is people who know nothing about the exchange, but they have insurance through their employer. This bill will destabilize their insurance as well. The point is, Mr. Speaker, we don't know for sure how bad it is. We know it is bad, and that is information we ought to have before being asked to vote on the floor or in committee on such consequential legislation. My Republican friends say, well, we will have a CBO score by the time we consider it on the floor. But they don't want that information out for very long because it is going to be very negative. Democrats will continue, Mr. Speaker, to do everything in our power to slow down this process and throw back the curtain Republicans have pulled over this bill and this process in an attempt to hide the details of their dangerous plan from the American people. We are ready, as I said, to turn the lights out in this Chamber before we let the Republican repeal bill turn the lights out on coverage and care for millions of our fellow Americans. I do not yield my conviction to oppose this bill as strongly, as long as I possibly can.