[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 19 (Friday, February 3, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H958-H962]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  February 3, 2017, on page H958, the following appeared: Mr. 
HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McCARTHY), the majority leader and my friend.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  (Mr. McCARTHY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour 
and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 
p.m.
  On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and noon 
for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected during 
the evening hours on Tuesday.
  Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of suspensions next 
week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, the House will also continue our work under the 
Congressional Review Act to undo onerous Obama administration 
regulations through three more joint resolutions. The first, sponsored 
by Representative Brett Guthrie, will stop a rule that significantly 
expands the Federal Government's involvement in teacher education.

                              {time}  1045

  Without our action this could result in fewer teachers serving some 
of our

[[Page H959]]

Nation's most vulnerable children, and it could make it harder for 
schools to recruit the best teachers. That is the exact opposite of 
what Americans want for their children.
  The second, sponsored by Representative Todd Rokita, would address 
how the accountability provisions of the Every Student Succeeds Act are 
being implemented. This bipartisan law empowered States to hold schools 
accountable, but somehow, when the regulation came out, there was an 
expanded Federal role. This was not what Congress intended nor what is 
best for our students.
  And the third, Mr. Speaker, sponsored by Representative Liz Cheney, 
addresses how the Department of the Interior regulates resource 
management plans. These plans guide how BLM manages all Federal lands. 
But the rule only addresses how BLM must deal with the public, as well 
as State and tribal governments. We are rightfully concerned that there 
is no process or procedure for local governments in these new rules.
  Finally, my friend may notice that a familiar face is not sitting 
next to me today, but Ben Howard is up in the gallery today. After 
serving 8 years on Capitol Hill, the last 6 in my office, our friend 
Ben has left the job. He is now working in the White House Office of 
Legislative Affairs.
  Ben was one of the first people we hired when I was elected majority 
whip. It was here that most people around the Hill got to know Ben 
through his always witty floor updates and always constant Penn State 
football commentary. When I was elected majority leader, I asked Ben to 
be the floor director, a position in which he has served well for the 
past 2-plus years.
  My friend would be happy to know that Ben is from Maryland. He was 
born and raised and currently resides in Olney with his wife, Amy, and 
their two young sons, John and Daniel.
  So on behalf of myself, our entire team, and the entire Republican 
Conference, I want to thank Ben for his years of service and for his 
hard work, and wish him many years of happiness.
  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. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I am not sure if, in the beginning of your question, you want us to 
speed up or slow down, but I thank the gentleman for the question.
  Mr. HOYER. I can clarify that for the gentleman.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I heard your question. Your question asked it both 
ways.

  Regardless of who won the election, the simple fact is ObamaCare is a 
failure. Regardless of who won the election, we would both be sitting 
here today having the same conversation about what we would replace it 
with.
  Let's just simply talk about the facts.
  There were 23 co-ops created in ObamaCare. They were given $2 
billion. As of today, 18 of them have failed. There are roughly a 
little more than 3,000 counties in America; 1,022 of those counties, 
roughly one-third, now only have one insurance company. Five States 
only have one insurance company, thanks to ObamaCare.
  All of America knows the old quotes: if you like your health plan, 
you can keep it--we know that is no longer true--or if you like your 
doctor, you can keep it--that is no longer true.
  When the President said that our premiums would go down by $2,500, 
now we know that is not true. So, yes, we would have this discussion 
regardless of who won this election. ObamaCare has failed.
  So, yes, we are going to work together, just as, after the last 
election, I put a letter out to every Governor, Republican or Democrat, 
every insurance commissioner, Republican or Democrat, to provide us 
with their ideas. We welcome every idea on the other side of the aisle, 
too, because we will do this differently. We welcome your ideas as 
well.
  If you noticed in the Energy and Commerce Committee, they have the 
hearing schedule. We will begin, and it will be an open process. We 
welcome your participation because we want a system that works, we do 
not want a system that has failed, and I believe we have the ideas to 
make it work correctly.
  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

[[Page H960]]

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. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Since ObamaCare has passed and now that we know what was in it, you 
would know that there are 1,400 pages in there that give a great deal, 
amount of power to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. 
Unfortunately, today, that Secretary has not been confirmed.
  That Secretary has not been confirmed simply because of politics. It 
is not on my side of the aisle. It is on the Democrats' side of the 
aisle over in the Senate.

                              {time}  1100

  Do you know how far they have gone? How much do they really want to 
work on health care when you actually said it needed to be reformed? 
They wouldn't even show up in committee. So how much do they really 
care about Americans? They don't even show up in committee to ask the 
questions. They wanted to run and hide. So how much do they really want 
to work?
  If we want to go quote by quote, when we go back to what President 
Obama said when the premiums were going to lower by $2,500, what do we 
say to Arizona when they went up 116 percent or to Tennessee by 63 
percent and then three-quarters of Tennessee counties only have one 
provider or to Minnesota by 59 percent or to Oklahoma by 59 percent or 
to Alabama, 58, or to Pennsylvania, 53, or to Nebraska, 51?
  Can we stop this rhetoric, and can we now get to work? Because I will 
tell you this: next month is when we begin because I am hopeful that we 
will no longer put up with the political games on the Senate side and 
that we will confirm the new Secretary because you have to have a 
Secretary in place if you want to reform ObamaCare, because you gave so 
much power to the Secretary. We all know that. So let's work together 
on behalf of the American people and end this pain.
  I will tell you this: the unfortunate reality, in today's system, is 
that coverage does not always mean care. The deductibles are so high 
that many people don't even go to their doctors. I can tell you that in 
States, prior to ObamaCare, their high-risk pools were cheaper then for 
their care than now in just buying ObamaCare. We all know it is a 
failure. So let's stop playing the political games, and let's put the 
people before politics, and let's put a system in that works. Our door 
is open, and the committee is open for all ideas. Let's work together 
to solve it.
  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. McCARTHY. Yes, you do.
  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

[[Page H961]]

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. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I listened to the Speaker when he took office, too, and he also said 
``regular order.'' In the schedule for next week, it is not on the 
list.
  The executive order signed by the President, really, as you know, is 
based on legislation that passed this House with overwhelming 
bipartisan support. It was following the attacks over the past 2 years. 
It was the SAFE Act that passed this House 289-137, and the Visa Waiver 
Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act that passed by 
407-19. I will point out that these two bills received veto-proof 
majorities, and President Obama signed the visa waiver bill into law.
  President Trump's actions are temporary pauses and reassess our 
vetting procedures to keep our country safe. While there was, 
certainly, some confusion with how this was implemented over the 
weekend, the Secretary of Homeland Security is effectively addressing 
key issues to ensure legal permanent residents who are returning to our 
country are allowed entry unless our security services have a 
compelling reason to suggest otherwise. America remains a place of 
refuge for those seeking peace, freedom, and opportunity across the 
world.
  Now, my friend knows, because we have been in meetings this week, 
that our rhetoric matters. Other people listen to what we say. In these 
types of situations, especially with a new administration, I have 
always told my children: at any time in a situation, let's take a deep 
breath; let's not lose our heads. Especially with a brand new 
administration, I try to give them the benefit of the doubt. They don't 
have their Cabinet there yet. Let's let them get their footing. It is 
not a ban--it is a pause. It is based upon two pieces of legislation 
that passed this House.
  You love to quote people; so if I may:
  ``House Democrats and House Republicans have no greater priority than 
keeping Americans safe. This is neither a partisan issue nor is it a 
partisan difference. Many Americans are frustrated with the pace of 
progress against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. I want to see the 
administration and Congress working together to protect our Nation. The 
reforms in this bill are an excellent start.
  ``This legislation will make it easier for law enforcement to vet 
those visitors who are coming from Visa Waiver countries, such as in 
Europe, to ensure that we are not admitting those who have traveled to 
places like Iraq and Syria and link up with ISIS.''
  That was said by you.
  Mr. HOYER. I think that is an excellent quote, which I still agree 
with.
  Mr. McCARTHY. So you know the importance.
  What I would say to the gentleman is: let's work with this 
administration.
  As we sat in our meeting this week with leaders of other countries, I 
thought their advice to us was good advice: let's not say what this is 
not, because we may get political points with one another, but it puts 
them in harm's way, and they know what the truth of this is.
  I think you and I agree on a lot of different things, and we are 
cordial with one another when we disagree, and I think this is an area 
in which sometimes we may disagree, but sometimes we have shown we 
could agree.

                              {time}  1115

  I know you want to keep America safe, and I know we want to keep 
America safe.
  I also know it is a brand new administration. I also know that when I 
go down to that White House--you have been there with me--there is not 
a lot of staff there. I know there are going to be a few hiccups along 
the way. I am going to work with them. I am going to help them, and I 
want you to help us help them as well.
  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. McCARTHY. My kids don't tweet.
  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

[[Page H962]]

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. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, President Obama said that he was rooting 
for President Trump's success.
  I would also give the advice, let's not root against him. He still 
doesn't have his own Cabinet. When I watched and listened to what some 
on the other side of their own leadership say about some there, I could 
see where the rhetoric continues to rise. I think we should put that 
down. The election is over, and now is the time to govern.
  There are big problems out there. We can score as many political 
points as we want back and forth, but there are challenges. You and I 
have worked together on so many issues out here, from opioids, from the 
visa waiver so many different times. And we have disagreed others 
times.
  I think it would behoove us and the American public that we can show 
the leadership to do that, and I look forward to working with you on 
these issues.
  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. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, it is good to have these colloquies back.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________