Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I ask you: Do you expect the Budget Committee to have a hearing on it? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I will close on this subject, unless the majority leader would like to make a comment. He does know I like quotes. Mr. Leader, you said the following: This bill is being pushed through because the majority in the Congress refuse to listen to the people. You said that on March 2, 2010. You were referring, of course, to us Democrats who refused to listen to the American people, because your presumption was the American people was not for the proposition we were promoting. There were two candidates for President who got major votes in this election. One was Hillary Clinton, who said: I want to keep the Affordable Care Act. And one was Donald Trump, who said: I want to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. Although, he has said then and now that he wants to have everybody covered at a cheaper price with assured benefits. As I said, we would support a bill like that. Of those two candidates that were running, one got 65 million votes and one got 62 million votes. Now, the one who got 62 million votes won the election. Why? Because of the electoral college. He is the legitimate elected President of the United States. I do not question that at all. But it ought to give some degree of humility that he got 3 million less votes than the person that espoused policies other than those espoused by President Trump. It ought to give some pause to let the American people into the process and testify. I will tell the gentleman that what the Republican Party is recommending in repeal of the ACA will have very substantial consequences. You may think they are positive, I may think they are negative, but I hope neither one of us think that that won't have very substantial consequences for our country. In that context, we ought to have allowed, and we ought to allow, the people of this country to testify on those consequences. Again, I will move on, unless the gentleman wants to make an additional comment. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. There are so many comments I could make in response to that. No one today on this floor is questioning the legitimacy of President Trump's Presidency--period. What I said was that more people voted for the candidate who wanted to keep the ACA than voted for the candidate who wanted to repeal the ACA. Secondly, if the gentleman refers to the polls of his quote in 2010, then I can refer to the polls today, which show that the majority of respondents believe that the ACA should be retained until and unless an acceptable replacement is provided. The gentleman talks about 6 years. Not once in those 6 years, not once, has the majority party offered a comprehensive replacement for the Affordable Care Act. They have talked about it. By the way, on the 26-year-olds and on the preexisting conditions, the repeal bills didn't say we were going to keep the preexisting conditions or the 26 age or the lifetime limits or the annual limits or the drug discounts for senior citizens. It didn't say any of that. It said repeal the ACA. So the polling data today, Mr. Speaker, is that more people want to keep the ACA prior to the consideration and adoption of a replacement than want to repeal it. I agree with you, that is a change from 2010. And the reason it is a change is because they are now looking at it very carefully. They are figuring out what, in fact, it has done for them and their families and for their children who had preexisting conditions and for their access to affordable health care, and they are saying: We are taking a second look. They do not now reflect that poll to which the gentleman referred that is now 7 years old and, very frankly, last year's poll. Now they look at it differently. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Well, I think that is some degree of clarity in terms of the markup, and no hearing, no witnesses, and I presume no CBO score to tell us how much that legislation is going to cost. Now, Mr. Leader, two things. One is certainly less global and impactful, but, nevertheless, important. I am sure the gentleman met with the Governors when they were in town, as I did. They met on a bipartisan basis. I met with a lot of the Republican Governors and Democratic Governors together. They are very concerned, as you know, not only about the ACA--which we talked about, which they have great concerns of the impact on their States, Republicans and Democrats, of the repeal of the Medicaid expansion, in particular, the impact it will have on them and their people--but they also are very concerned about the Marketplace Fairness Act. That is simply, frankly, trying to protect small businesses so that they can compete, the local mom and pop store can compete with the online vendors so that everybody would have to pay the sales tax, whatever the State sales tax is. That bill, I believe, enjoys the majority support in this House. I think it has enjoyed the majority support since it passed the Senate pretty handedly. Does the gentleman know whether or not that bill is going to be considered at any point in time in the near term? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my friend, the majority leader, that I look forward to working with him. I see that he recently observed that the attorney general ought to recuse himself in dealing with issues of the relationship between the administration during the course of the campaign and Russia, which the intelligence community has said interfered in America's election. All of us ought to be concerned about that--a foreign government interfering in our democracy; particularly, a government that is hostile to our interests; particularly, a government led by Mr. Putin, who has committed international crimes, who, contrary to international law, invaded Crimea, still holds Crimea inconsistent with international law, and has been sanctioned. Hopefully, those sanctions will stay in place. I agree with the gentleman that, at the very least, the attorney general ought to recuse himself. I have asked him to step down. But we need to have, Mr. Speaker, an independent bipartisan commission with subpoena power, similar to the 9/11 Commission, for the security of our country and, yes, for the confidence building for our President to see what, in fact, were the relationships between his campaign and Russia and to what extent Russia involved itself in trying to impact on the elections of the United States. I don't have anything further to say. Unless the gentleman wants to say something, I will yield back. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the majority leader for his comments. Let me say that I was very disappointed to learn that Mr. Nunes, at the request of the administration, talked to members of the press before the investigations have occurred, before they have heard a single witness, to say that he really thought this was not a matter that really needed careful consideration. That is not a quote. I characterized what I read his comment to mean to the press. In addition, I understand the Department of Homeland Security was also requested, and the FBI, to talk to the press to tamp down interest in those. The American people need to be very concerned about these issues. Every Member of this Congress, a separate and coequal branch of the Government of the United States, ought to be very concerned about that. The Bible says that the truth will set us free. And the truth will give us confidence. And the truth should be known by the American people. The problem I have with the Intelligence Committee is that the Intelligence Committee--most of the information they gather is not available to the public. I don't know what they will do moving forward. But we found in the 9/11 Commission a perfect example of a commission equally divided with two extraordinarily respected co-chairs that got to the bottom and made significant recommendations, most of which-- almost all of which--were adopted in a bipartisan fashion by this Congress. So, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would pursue that not in lieu of the Intelligence Committee--not in lieu of the Intelligence Committee--but in addition to. Benghazi, we had seven committees, and you thought on your side of the aisle that wasn't enough, so you spent some $4 million on an additional special committee to find exactly the same conclusion. So, in this case I do not oppose the work of the Intelligence Committee, but I certainly believe the American people would expect and would want a similar bipartisan commission as they saw work on the 9/11 tragedy to give them the confidence that Russia is not in any way undermining the independence of our government or undermining the democracy that we hold so dear. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Peoria. Well, maybe not exactly Peoria, but Bradley University. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor one of the most decent, patriotic Americans with whom I have ever served in any legislative body. I had the great honor of being Bob Michel's friend, the great honor of being his colleague, and the great honor of believing that what Bob Michel represented in this Congress was the best of us, the most decent of us, the most considerate of us, and deeply committed to his country and respectful of those with whom he served, perhaps differing with them, but, nevertheless, deeply respectful of his colleagues. He and Tip O'Neill were good friends. They could argue their side and their policies vigorously but be the best of friends after we adjourned that day. I thank my colleague from Illinois for leading this tribute, and I rise to join in remembering this great man, a great American leader, Bob Michel. Mr. Speaker, Bob's entire life was given to service to his country. From his time in the Army as an infantryman on the front lines of the fight for democracy in the Second World War to his long career in government, Leader Michel sought to make America and the world safer and to protect the American Dream for all of our people. Mr. Speaker, I did not want to lose the majority in 1994, but when we lost, I lamented the fact that Bob Michel did not become the Speaker of the House of Representatives. In my opinion, if he had, America would be a more civil place today and this body would be a more collegial body than it is. I want to congratulate the gentleman who represents Bob Michel's district now, succeeding in that office, his father, who is a very dear and close friend of mine. All three of them represented the best of that which America hopes would serve it well. Bob Michel and I didn't always agree on policy, Mr. Speaker, but as colleagues, we worked together to reach consensus and achieve results. I remember in 1989 when Tony Coelho and I were working to pass the House's version of what would become the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act. It was Bob Michel who saw how important this legislation would be and asked my friend, Steve Bartlett from Texas to work with me, from the Republican side of the aisle, to achieve a bipartisan version that could become law. That is how Bob Michel operated. This House would be a better House if we followed the example of Bob Michel. He saw a problem and looked for a way we could come together around a compromised solution, not focused first on confrontation. His decency and friendliness were as evident as his seriousness as a legislator. As Republican whip and leader, he set an example of how to lead an effective opposition based not on obstruction, but on identifying ways to work together to achieve common goals. To that extent, and in so many other ways, as I have said, Bob Michel represented the best of us. Now, Bob, Mr. Speaker, could be tough. He could be really tough. He knew how to defend his party's interests and advance its goals in the minority. But Bob believed strongly that we who are sent here by our constituents have, first and foremost, a responsibility to make policy, not to play politics. And that is how Bob Michel served--by always, always, always putting country first. Mr. Speaker, I hope his example will be an inspiration to all who serve today. I join in extending my condolences to Bob's children--Scott, Bruce, Robin, and Laurie--and the entire Michel family. I join the people of Illinois' 18th District in mourning the man who was their champion for so many years. Illinois, this House, and our country lost a great light, but one, I hope, that will continue to shine through its reflection in those whom Bob Michel inspired. I was one of those. We will miss him. There aren't enough Bob Michels.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Speaker Ryan for yielding. He admonished us to be brief. So, Joyce, I will be brief. Often I rise on this floor when we have extraordinary staffers retire on either side of the aisle, Republican or Democrat, and observe what an extraordinary difference they make to the comity that does, in fact, exist but is rarely seen by the public. Joyce Meyer has been an extraordinary member of our family. Speaker Ryan says family is important to her. Family is important to all of us, and this is a family. It is sometimes a contentious family, but it is a family. Frankly, the peacemakers in the family are largely the members of the staff, particularly the highest ranking staffers, and particularly those staffers who have been with each of us and many of us for a significant period of time. They understand the tensions that can be created, but they also understand that there is a responsibility to the American people. Every time I went across the aisle and talked to Joyce Meyer, I knew that she understood that and that she wanted to be a positive force in making this institution work better. Let me say that Joyce Meyer now has an even bigger responsibility because she is going to the White House. May we all wish her the best in making that institution work better. Joyce, God bless you and Godspeed.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Going to go to another subject, Mr. Leader, obviously, we are very concerned about the Affordable Care Act, but we are also very concerned--as we talked about executive orders on this refugee ban that were issued, according to almost everybody, without much consultation with anybody other than within the White House--of an order banning Muslim refugees from coming into this country even after very strong vetting. I know that the position is, oh, this is not a ban. The complication you have to that representation is the President keeps mentioning it as a ban, as he said he was going to do in the election, and he referred to it as a ban just a few days ago. But I would point out to you, Mr. Leader--and I am sure you know this--not a single terrorist act--not one--has been perpetrated by a refugee coming into this country from any one of the seven nations mentioned in the ban. We believe this is not only contrary to the Constitution but that it is contrary to our principles. Let me make it clear, Mr. Leader, so that there is no confusion: nobody on this side of the aisle doesn't want to make America's borders secure, America's land and assets safe, and the American people safe. Every one of us on this side of the aisle wants to make sure that that happens, and we certainly want to make sure that the vetting is appropriate. As the majority leader knows, the vetting today is a very long and very careful process. We believe this ban alienates our allies and emboldens terrorists who are now saying: See, this really is a war on Islam. That will not be consistent with the safety of our men and women whom we have at the point of the spear and will not be consistent to the safety and security of our allies in the Middle East. Senators McCain and Graham have said exactly that. They pointed out: ``Our government has a responsibility to defend our borders, but we must do so in a way that makes us safer and upholds all that is decent and exceptional about our nation.'' This is John McCain and Lindsey Graham. ``It is clear from the confusion at our airports across the nation that President Trump's executive order was not properly vetted.'' Senator Graham and Senator McCain, chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the gentleman from South Carolina. They go on: ``We are particularly concerned by reports that this order went into effect with little to no consultation with the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security. Such a hasty process risks harmful results.'' This continues to be a quote by Senator McCain and Senator Graham. ``Ultimately, we fear this executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism.'' Senator McCain knows something about increased risk. He went on to say, along with Senator Graham: ``This executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country. That is why we fear this executive order may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security.'' They said that on the 29th of January, just 4 days ago. At least four times this week, Mr. Leader, we asked for the consideration of H.R. 724, which rescinds and defunds the refugee ban. The Speaker said, when he took office initially--and he repeated this year--that we were going to have an open, transparent process and that we would consider the important issues of the day on this floor, with an opportunity for every Member of this House to offer alternatives. I know the committee would not report it out, but this is a critical issue to our country, to our safety, and to our values; and I ask the gentleman: Is there a possibility that you would bring to the floor next week or the week thereafter--preferably next week--H.R. 724 so that the Members of this House--the people's Representatives--could speak to this critically important issue consistent with the observations of Senator McCain and Senator Graham? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I think that is an excellent quote, which I still agree with.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the gentleman from California to do something? The advice that the gentleman gives to his children about taking a breath, perhaps before they tweet----

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader and my friend, for the purposes of inquiring of the schedule for the week to come.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the schedule of regulations to come. I am sure we will have some discussions about that next week. In fact, we are going to have some discussions about all of these regulations which we believe reduce the protections, according to the American people, by a number of the regulations that are sought to be repealed. However, first, Mr. Speaker, let me note that, first of all, we have another Ben in Maryland. He is the senior Senator, a former colleague of ours, Ben Cardin. He had a TV ad which ended with ``My Friend, Ben.'' I want to say hi to my friend Ben, who has--indeed, as all of you know, I think the staff that serve with us make such an extraordinarily positive difference, and they sometimes--or most of the time--rise above what might be the partisan confrontation that Members have and continue to try to reach consensus so that this institution will run positively and well for the American people. Ben Howard has been one of those people. I know that Shuwanza Goff, who sits next to me and is my floor director, has worked very positively with Ben through the years and appreciates very much his working with us. Kelly also falls into that category. But Ben, we are going to miss you. I am sure that wherever you go, you are going to advantage the enterprise that you associate with. Olney, Maryland, is one of our thriving communities in Maryland. We are always proud of our Marylanders, and they always do a good job. So I will say to him, Godspeed. I don't want to wish Penn State a lot of success, but, nevertheless, I do want to wish you a lot of success, Ben. Thank you very much for your service. Now let me move on to, perhaps, some subjects that we might not have as much agreement on as we do have on Ben Howard and his quality and the service he has given this institution. One of the first acts of Congress, of course, as you know, Mr. Leader, which was the plan, was to begin the reconciliation process to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The budget resolution set a deadline of January 27 for committees to report legislation repealing the law. It is now the 3rd of February, and after voting 65 times to repeal the ACA, House and Senate Republicans, Mr. Speaker, do not have, as far as I know, and don't appear to have, a replacement and are, as I read in the papers, Mr. Speaker, divided on the path forward. Repealing the ACA without replacing it immediately will not only cause 30 million Americans to lose their coverage, but it would increase the cost for tens of millions more and would, I suggest, disadvantage everybody who has insurance, and clearly those who do not and would not have access. Mark Meadows, who chairs the House Freedom Caucus, said: ``We need to slow down the process so we can understand a little bit more the specifics and the timetable of replacement votes and reconciliation instructions. . . .'' That was in Politico on January 9 of this year. Senator Bob Corker, in the Senate, said: ``There's more and more concerns about not doing'' repeal and replace ``simultaneously. You would think after 6 years, we would have a pretty good sense of what we would like to do.'' We have not seen a repeal and replace bill. The President said it ought to be done contemporaneously. Bob Corker and others have said it ought to be done contemporaneously. We haven't seen it. So my question, Mr. Majority Leader, is: Does the gentleman expect that if repeal does move forward, that a replacement bill would be considered simultaneously? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I can clarify that for the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. We are not in agreement, Mr. Speaker. What we will be doing would be 180 degrees different. We would not be pretending that we are going to repeal an Affordable Care Act that has been a success. We do not agree, Mr. Speaker, that having 30 million Americans insured that were not insured before the Affordable Care Act is a failure. We do not agree that people with preexisting conditions who can now get insurance is a failure. We do not agree that people who are 26 or younger being on their family's policy when they don't have a job or alternative insurance is a failure. We do not agree that Americans having the security that their insurance will not be canceled because they reached an annual limit is a failure. We do not agree that Americans having no lifetime limit so that if they have a catastrophic illness they will still have coverage--that is not a failure. What is a failure is to have pretended for the last 6 years that they wanted to repeal the Affordable Care Act and have no replacement as of this time. That was a failure. The President says, Mr. Speaker, that his plan is going to make sure that everybody is insured, comprehensive coverage, and that costs will come down. He, of course, Mr. Speaker, has now offered a bill to effect that objective. We would welcome such a bill so that we can consider it. No, Mr. Speaker, had the 3 million additional people who voted for Hillary Clinton more so than voted for Donald Trump prevailed--the Electoral College prevailed, but the majority of the American people that voted, the plurality, voted for policies to keep the Affordable Care Act as Mrs. Clinton said she would do if she were elected. So, Mr. Speaker, the majority leader is in deep error on we would be having the same debate. But he is right; we had an outcome of a party and a President who said they were going to repeal the Affordable Care Act. GOP Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers stated: ``Let me be clear: no one who has coverage because of ObamaCare today will lose that coverage.'' The majority leader said something about the President saying, if you like your policy, you can keep it. In fact, the President was substantially right on that. Yes. Were there minimum coverages so that people weren't scammed by insurance companies saying you got insurance, but, oh, by the way, we don't cover that, by the way, we don't cover that? Have you seen those ads about, I bought a new car and I had a wreck a day later and, guess what, the insurance company wants to give me 80 percent, 90 percent, 70 percent less? That is what the insurance companies were doing. People thought they had insurance for something, and they didn't have it. So Cathy McMorris Rodgers says you are not going to lose anything. Well, I don't know. If it was so bad, why don't you repeal it? Why don't you offer a bill to repeal it and to undermine all those factors of the Affordable Care Act that are now available to the Americans that I suggested? President Trump--I said this, but I want to repeat it--said last month that Republicans were nearing completion of an ACA replacement that would provide insurance for everybody. Bring it on. Bring it on. Insurance for everybody. Let's see it. He went on to say his plan would have lower numbers, much lower deductibles. God bless him. Bring it on. Let us see it. Let's vote on it. It is not on the floor, and I am not sure when it will be on the floor, but perhaps the majority leader could tell us. My question to you is: When do you expect such a bill consistent with the President's representation to the American people of everybody having insurance and at lower cost and lower deductibles? When do we expect a bill like that on the floor? I yield to the majority leader.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the majority leader for his comments. I don't think he wants me to delve very deeply into why we do not have a Secretary of Health and Human Services. It is because the Republicans have not produced nor has the nominee produced full disclosure, as the gentleman knows, of his financial dealings with respect to legislation that he introduced and supported. They want full information so that they can make a considered judgment. I won't go further into that deep well, however. I will say to the gentleman that you don't need a Secretary to bring legislation to the floor, and this is not an issue that is new this year or that is as a result of the November election of last year. It is, frankly, after 65 votes on this floor, to repeal the Affordable Care Act without having an alternative. I will tell my friend, the majority leader, with great respect, you have had 6 years. You can catalog all of the things that you think are bad. Obviously, you don't mention any of the things that are good except so many in your caucus--perhaps the overwhelming majority of the caucus--say we are going to keep preexisting conditions, and we are going to keep 26. Of course, we are not going to eliminate annual limits, because that will hurt people and force them into bankruptcy. I don't hear that discussion going on. But the fact of the matter is, Mr. Leader, you cannot get away from the fact that 6 years have gone by since we adopted the Affordable Care Act--6 years of complaining about how awful it is. By the way, as the gentleman knows, the majority of people now have made it very clear they do not want to repeal the Affordable Care Act unless they see a replacement on the table that they can consider and look to for alternatives. And that, as you know, Mr. Leader, is the first time in the 6 years because people said, ``yes, we don't like the Affordable Care Act'' in a vacuum, but now, when it really may be repealed, they are looking at it much more closely, and they don't know what is going to replace it, and they are concerned. I have, I will tell you, family after family after family--I had somebody come up to me in the grocery store two nights ago, at Harris Teeter--with tears in his eyes--who said: Don't let them repeal the Affordable Care Act. I have a son who has a dire illness; and but for the fact of the Affordable Care Act, he would not be covered, and we couldn't keep him alive--with tears in his eyes. So, when I hear you cataloging some of the things, those cases aren't mentioned. The 30 million aren't mentioned. The preexisting condition isn't mentioned. I will say to my friend that you don't need a Secretary of Health and Human Services to bring a bill forward.

Mr. HOYER. That is good advice as well. Would you give that advice to the President of the United States and tell him to take a breath before he makes policy or before he offends our allies or before he creates great fear in those who hear what he has to say off the cuff? Yes, I understand that rhetoric counts. You might talk to him about that as well. He is the one that calls this a ban. I know that everybody else is trying to clean it up, and I hope that is the case. In fact, I have seen the head of Homeland Security, Secretary Kelly, trying to clean it up. It is a darn shame that it wasn't cleaned up before. It was a darned shame that the time was not taken to do an order that would make sure that vetting was appropriate, as my quote and our legislation that you talked about urged. It is good advice to your children and good advice to this President: Take a breath. Just don't, as immediately it comes to mind, tweet it and have the impact not known to you, your staff, or to the country. Almost invariably, we have seen this has a negative effect. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comment. I think we have demonstrated over the years that we ascribe to that concept. My point to you is, in the first 10 or 12 days of this administration, that concept has been put at great risk. I think the gentleman's advice is good, and we have pursued that. I simply urge the gentleman from California to suggest to the President of the United States that he adopt that concept as well. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have always been a strong ally of the disability community and have paid close attention to the concerns many have had with this rule. I'm proud to have been the lead sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, which opened doors of independence, access, opportunity, and equity for millions of Americans with differing abilities. In Congress, Democrats have put forward commonsense gun safety laws that would prevent violent and dangerous individuals with mental disabilities from purchasing firearms. However, the Republican-led Congress would not allow even a vote on such legislation. President Obama took a series of limited steps within his authority, one of which was this rule, whose aim has been to prevent those who shouldn't have guns from obtaining them. I believe that, absent action from Congress to enhance our background check system, this rule represents an imperfect but necessary step. It is imperfect because it stigmatizes the disability community unfairly and needs a stronger appeals process to protect the rights of those who fall under its purview. I disagree with the premise that having a mental disability that precludes independent management of one's finances correlates with a heightened risk of violence. I have read the rule and recognize that it was written in a narrow way so that it applies only to those with severe mental illnesses. I've had many discussions over the past several days with leaders in the disability community. I've grappled with the very difficult questions this resolution poses and ultimately decided that, given these circumstances, the best step right now is to oppose this resolution. I look forward to working closely with the disability community and gun safety advocates to push for Congress to take up legislation that keeps all Americans safe from gun violence while protecting the rights of those with differing abilities.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise out of deep concern for our country, our people, and those who serve us in uniform. The executive order signed by President Trump on Friday has not only sown chaos and created a backlash being felt across the world, it is also endangering our people here at home and our troops overseas. It bans refugees and is, for all intents and purposes, a ban on Muslims entering our country. It is a religious test. It plays right into the hands of ISIS, al Qaeda, and other extremist groups that mean to do us harm. It arms them. Their message in recruiting and propaganda has been that America is at war with Islam and that when we say we are tolerant and inclusive, it is a lie. We must not let it be a lie. Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, this order will do nothing to make America safer from terrorism. Our enemies will use this Muslim ban to their full advantage, broadcast to all of those who, for whatever reason, may be teetering on the edge of extremism, one image, one tweet, one excuse away from radicalization. And our Muslim allies are scratching their heads in disbelief and disappointment. CBS News reported this morning, Mr. Speaker, that a senior Iraqi general who commands the elite counterterrorism force trained by the United States military was supposed to come here next week but is now banned from doing so. He told CBS news: ``I am a four-star general. I have been fighting terrorism for 13 years and winning. Now my kids are asking me if I am a terrorist.'' That general, Talib al-Kenani, has been coming here for over a decade meeting with senior U.S. military leaders at CENTCOM, but now he is banned from entering the country. This policy is dangerous, counterproductive, and extremely unfortunate. It is important to note, Mr. Speaker, that of the seven countries included in this ban--hear me, my colleagues--of the seven countries included in this ban, no refugee or immigrant from any of those nations has committed a terrorist act in the United States. The President of the United States has a responsibility--a sacred and public trust--to do everything in his power to protect our Nation. We have that same responsibility. This Congress has a sacred duty to hold the President accountable and ourselves for doing so in a way that respects our Constitution and our values. That, Mr. Speaker, is patriotism. So I urge my colleagues on both sides: Stand against this order. Stand up for America. Stand up for the Constitution. Stand up for our values. Stand against an act that does nothing but empower our enemies and erode faith in our highest principles in our country and around the world. The Nation, Mr. Speaker, is watching. The world, Mr. Speaker, is watching. I urge us to action. Representatives Lofgren and Conyers have introduced a bill to block this executive order. I have cosponsored it, along with 160 other Members of this House. This is a time when party should not be put before country. Party should not be put before patriotism. Party should not be put before principle. Join me, and let us deny our enemies this potent tool and remind the world what truly makes America great.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and urge that we bring up H.R. 724, which would rescind President Trump's refugee ban on children, like a 5-year-old that came to Dulles Airport with another family. Her mother was waiting for her, and for 4 hours she was not allowed to see her mother. That is not good policy. It is not good for the safety of our troops. It is not good for the safety of America. Let's pass H.R. 724.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday President Trump issued an executive order. He imposed a hiring freeze on the Federal workforce. It was not only a freeze, but an attack on those serving our country and a misguided action that will achieve the opposite of what is intended. For those who are listening in the Chamber, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I am proud to represent 62,000 Federal employees. Hopefully, all of us refer to them as working people. We all say we want to be supportive of working people. Some people, however, in this body and down the avenue exempt Federal employees as working people. They are not only working people, but they are working for the American people. Let's not forget that two-thirds of Federal employees live and work outside the Greater Washington area. It is very nice to say ``all of those bureaucrats in Washington,'' but two-thirds of our Federal employees serve in every community around our country, serve in protecting them: FBI agents; agents around the world who work for the Central Intelligence Agency--117 of whom died in service, and the President spoke in front of their memorial the other day--employees of the Centers for Disease Control keeping us healthy as communities and as a country, protecting our children and our families from diseases that would attack us; Federal employees at the National Institutes of Health studying how we prevent and cure cancer, heart disease, lung disease, diabetes, autism, other afflictions that confront our country, both health care from a physical and mental standpoint; and, yes, nurses at our veterans hospitals. A freeze so that if a nurse leaves, you can't replace her or him; a doctor at a veterans hospital leaves, you can't replace that doctor, apparently; even at the IRS where we talk about making sure our tax system is fair and making sure that everybody pays their fair share, we undermine the ability to make that a reality; our Border Patrol to keep our borders safe; homeland security to keep our homeland safe--they serve the public in every State and every congressional district in the country. This hiring freeze will not save us money or do anything to make the government more efficient. Should we do both? Yes. Will this policy do it? No. Its effect will be a reduction in the level of service benefiting the American people, greater difficulty in recruiting and retaining the most talented Americans to public service, and increased costs as a result of having to hire more expensive private contractors to do the work that still needs to be done. That is something that the public doesn't understand, that, frankly, we exploded, in the early part of this century, the contracting out, which gave us less control and more cost. It is more expensive to contract out. Already, our Federal employees have made significant sacrifices toward achieving a greater fiscal sustainability in this country. Now, let me give you the magnitude of that. Federal employees, over the last 10 years, have given up $159 billion in pay and benefits to which they would otherwise have been entitled, but we withdrew those resources from them. Instead of continuing to vilify Federal civilian employees, as they have done for years--and when I say they, the politicians have done it, mostly on the Republican side of the aisle, but perhaps not exclusively--vilified our Federal employees. Republicans in Congress and in the White House ought to be thanking them for their hard work. I can't imagine any of us would treat our own employees, Mr. Speaker, in a fashion that said we are going to lay you off, we are going to undercut your pay, we are not going to give you the benefits which we promised you, and think that they were going to keep personnel on board with high morale and highly motivated to do the job, not only for us Members but for the American people. No employer would think that they can mistreat their employees and expect the highest performance out of them. And certainly no employer would think that if I treat my employees the way we have been treating Federal employees that we could recruit and retain the best and the brightest to serve our country. Mr. Speaker, I urge the President to rescind his order. That is not to say that executives in all of these agencies should not look at making sure that we have the proper number of employees on board and are acting efficiently and effectively and working hard to accomplish the objectives that we as a Congress, on behalf of the American people, have given them. That is the issue. I urge my Republican friends, in this House and in the Senate, to speak out against it. And I urge all Federal employees and their families to speak up in their communities across our country to remind their fellow Americans of the important work they do and why this hiring freeze would be so harmful to our country. Giving one another respect in America is not political correctness. It is the way we ought to treat one another. And we ought to treat our public employees who work for us and our country with the same kind of respect that we would want for ourselves. Frankly, respect of one another was a victim in this last campaign, but it should not be and must not be the norm.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I absolutely disagree with the previous speaker. He is wrong. He is wrong on the facts. The fact is, the Affordable Care Act was on the table longer than any bill since I have been in Congress--which is 36 years--to read, to review, to analyze, and to make a decision. Every American will be adversely affected if we repeal the Affordable Care Act. Millions of Americans with disabilities depend on access to quality, affordable health care and deserve to have their voices heard in the debate over our healthcare system. In fact, only one in five Americans, when polled, think we ought to repeal the Affordable Care Act without having a replacement. There is no replacement. Sixty-four times they voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They still do not have a replacement. According to the CDC, 53 million Americans live with some form of disability. Were the Affordable Care Act to be repealed, insurers would again be permitted to discriminate against them, denying coverage for increasing premiums based on their disabilities. Repeal would also allow insurance companies again to impose annual and lifetime limits on coverage for every American. Do not repeal the Affordable Care Act. Show us the beef. Show us the alternative.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, every American will be affected by this vote, not just the 20 million people who will lose their insurance immediately. Thirty million, in total, will lose their insurance. Everybody's premium will ultimately go up. Preexisting conditions will not be available. Seniors will pay more for prescription drugs. 25-, 24-, 23-year-olds will be dropped from the insurance of their families. The fact of the matter is--the gentleman from Florida that just spoke--there is not a better way that has been proposed. There is some discussion about across State lines. There is some other discussion about health savings accounts, which is great if you have the kind of salaries we have; but if you are an average American trying to support your family, getting additional funds to put into a health savings account is not available to you. Mr. Chairman, this budget resolution is an abdication of responsibility and duty. Rather than showing Republican spending and revenue priorities, it is nothing more than a vehicle for expediting a repeal of the Affordable Care Act and taking insurance coverage away from 30 million people. Again, let me remind you it is hundreds of millions of people that will be adversely affected. Since taking the House majority, Republicans have held 65 votes on this floor to undo healthcare reforms that have brought the uninsured rate to its lowest in recorded history and banned discrimination and discriminatory practices, such as denying coverage to Americans with preexisting conditions or charging women higher rates than men simply because of their gender. Now our Republican colleagues want to repeal the Affordable Care Act without immediately replacing it, contrary to at least 12 of their colleagues in the United States Senate--Republicans--saying that is not the right way to go. That is what this resolution would do. By the way, they should have adopted this resolution last Congress by April 15. They didn't do so. This is not a real budget resolution. This is simply a device so that they can jam through repeal of the Affordable Care Act in the United States Senate contrary to the existing rules. It would come at a severe cost to our economy and our budget sustainability. In addition to the 30 million who would lose their insurance, tens of millions more, as I have said, would see their costs go up. A report by the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund and Milken Institute found that the repeal would lead to the loss of 3 million jobs, and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found it would add $350 billion to deficits over the next 10 years. Let us be clear, Mr. Chairman, a vote for this budget resolution is a vote to take health insurance away from 30 million Americans and adversely impact the health care of millions more. I urge my Republican colleagues who have serious concerns about our fiscal path and misgivings about repealing the Affordable Care Act without replacing it: let's lay down a marker that Congress should not rush headlong into this costly repeal not only in terms of dollars, but in terms of health security consequences for the American people. Mr. Chairman, I urge the House to vote ``no'' on this dangerous and destructive resolution.