[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 37 (Thursday, March 2, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H1484-H1488]
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 rise for the purpose of inquiring of the 
majority leader the schedule for the week to come, I yield to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader and my 
friend.


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

  
  March 2, 2017, on page H1484, the following appeared: Mr. HOYER. 
Mr. Speaker, I yield to
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: Mr. HOYER. Mr. 
Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority 
leader the schedule for the week to come, and I yield to


 ========================= 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, no votes are expected in the House.
  On Tuesday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and 2 p.m. 
for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30.
  On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for 
morning-hour and noon for legislative business.
  On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. 
Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m.
  Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of suspensions next 
week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business 
tomorrow.
  In addition, the House will consider several reform bills straight 
from our Better Way agenda:
  First, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation and Further Asbestos 
Claim Transparency Act, sponsored by Chairman Bob Goodlatte, which 
ensures that only similarly injured parties can be in the same class 
for purposes of a class action suit, as well as requires public 
disclosure of reports on the receipt and disposition of claims for 
injuries based on exposure to asbestos.
  Next, H.R. 725, the Innocent Party Protection Act, sponsored by 
Representative Ken Buck, which establishes a uniform standard for 
determining whether a defendant has been fraudulently joined to a 
lawsuit.
  And third, H.R. 720, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, sponsored by 
Chairman Lamar Smith, which restores accountability to our legal system 
by penalizing lawyers for filing baseless lawsuits.
  Our Federal litigation system is plagued with broken rules that 
unnecessarily harm American businesses and consumers. With these 
measures, we will follow through on our pledge to take on trial lawyers 
and crack down on lawsuit abuse through meaningful litigation reform.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the House will consider the Fiscal Year 2017 
Department of Defense Appropriations bill, sponsored by Chairman Rodney 
Frelinghuysen.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information.
  The gentleman mentions the Defense Appropriations bill is going to be 
brought forward. It is my understanding that the text was just 
introduced this morning. Is that accurate?
  Mr. McCARTHY. Yes.
  Mr. HOYER. Do you know when it will be marked up?
  I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  We passed this bill last year, working together with others. You will 
see the bill reposted, and we will vote on it next week.
  Mr. HOYER. Is the majority leader not aware of whether there will be 
a markup on the bill or will it come directly to the floor through the 
Rules Committee?
  Mr. McCARTHY. It will come straight to the floor.
  Mr. HOYER. The gentleman just indicated that this will be the bill 
that we passed last year.
  Mr. McCARTHY. This bill reflects the 2017 NDAA, which passed with 375 
votes in the House and 92 votes in the Senate.
  Mr. HOYER. So I am correct, then, that the bill will be the same bill 
that we passed last year? Is that accurate?
  Mr. McCARTHY. It is not the exact same, but it reflects the work of 
the NDAA. It is a bipartisan agreement. It is also--you will find as 
soon as it is posted to read all the way through it--a reflection of 
the 2017 NDAA bill.
  Mr. HOYER. The majority leader may not know, and I certainly 
understand that. We will see what differences might exist. If there are 
any substantive changes in the bill, we would hope that it would be 
subjected to a hearing or at least a markup.
  But the gentleman believes there is no substantive change. Is that 
accurate?
  Mr. McCARTHY. That is very accurate. This is a bipartisan, bicameral 
agreement based upon the 2017 NDAA bill, which, if you watched, had 375 
votes in the House, 92 in the Senate.
  As you know as well as I do, and we have talked many times together 
about this, we cannot continue to have our military continue further 
with just the CR. If you have a continuing resolution, you now are 
saying that you have to fund what was last year. You can't go through 
with what the future needs without putting together the appropriations 
process. And this is what we are going through right now.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the majority leader for that observation.
  I agree with the majority leader that subjecting the Defense 
Appropriations or any other appropriation is not a tenable or 
appropriate policy to pursue.
  The gentleman knows we were for an omnibus being passed in 2016, as 
an omnibus was passed in 2015, which, therefore, gives the 
administrators of any agency or Secretaries of any agency the 
opportunity to have the ability to plan over a period of time longer 
than months.
  So I certainly agree. But very frankly, I want to tell the majority 
leader, on our side of the aisle we are very, very concerned that 
privilege will be accorded to the defense bill.
  Can the majority leader tell me whether or not we intend to adopt and 
pass, in the regular order, individual bills--the Labor-Health bill, 
the Interior bill, the Agriculture bill, et cetera, et cetera--in a 
similar manner? That means considering them on their merits discretely, 
separately, individually.
  I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The gentleman knows we are working, in part, under the continuing 
resolution short-term; but it is my intention, once we pass the FY 2017 
defense bill, I will keep Members updated on the further floor schedule 
of appropriations bills. It would be my goal to continue to pass the 
rest of the appropriations bills.

  Mr. HOYER. I appreciate that, Mr. Leader, if that is your goal; and I 
hope that, in fact, we can pursue that goal. Very frankly, we believe 
that the scenario is being set up to take care of the defense bill.
  I voted for the defense bill. I was one of those people. I intend to 
vote for the defense bill next week when it comes to the floor, if, in 
fact, as the gentleman represents, it is substantively the same as the 
bill that we have already adopted.
  What I am concerned about and what Members on my side of the aisle 
are very concerned about is that the remaining nondefense discretionary 
spending bills will be substantially altered from that which we would 
have passed in December of last year in the 2017.
  Of course, we were 4 months late doing that--or 3 months late, at 
least: October, November, and December. But I am hopeful, Mr. Leader, 
that those bills will, in fact, be considered discretely so that the 
American public can see us vote on those bills and on the priorities 
that are incorporated in those bills.
  Mr. Leader, it appears that the majority has stalled somewhat in 
their efforts in a path forward on repeal of the ACA. President Trump's 
address on Tuesday, it seems to me, didn't offer many details. He does 
say, however, that everybody is going to be covered--everybody--with 
better health care,

[[Page H1485]]

cheaper. If that bill comes to the floor, I am going to vote for it, 
Mr. Leader. I want you to know that. Health care for everybody--
quality, accessible, affordable, and cheaper.
  Now, as the majority leader knows, the budget resolution that was 
passed this year set a deadline of January 27 for committees to report 
legislation repealing the law. It is now March 2, and there are 
reports, Mr. Leader, that Republicans have a draft bill that perhaps is 
located in H-157, that it is not being posted, and that Republicans 
have been told they can view it in H-157.
  I don't know that I have the room number correct, and I am not sure 
that the information that I have is correct, but I will tell you that 
Michael Burgess, or Dr. Burgess, on your side of the aisle said this. 
He said it yesterday: People need to have access to this document--
apparently his presumption was he did not have access to the document 
or he believed others should; not only Members of our side of the 
aisle, but also the public--and if there are problems, let's talk 
through them. It's been a long time in the works. Most of the pieces 
that are in there, people have seen in the past, but it does need to be 
an open process.
  Mr. Leader, let me repeat that. It does need to be an open process, 
according to Dr. Burgess.
  Gus Bilirakis says: We're not having a hearing or anything. We're not 
having a hearing or anything. But there'll be a place for us to view 
it, the draft.
  Paul Ryan, the Speaker, said, 3 days ago: We're going through the 
committee process. We're doing this step by step. We're having public 
hearings. We're having committee work on legislation. This is how the 
legislative process is supposed to be designed. We are not hatching 
some bill in a back room--perhaps H-157; he didn't say that, I said 
it--and plopping it on the American people's front door.
  Mr. Leader, you and I both were here when the Affordable Care Act was 
passed. There was a lot of talk about the Affordable Care Act and how 
it was passed in the dark of night. That was baloney, of course. We had 
79 bipartisan hearings and markups over the 2 years that we considered 
the Affordable Care Act. House Members spent nearly 100 hours in 
hearings, heard from 181 witnesses from both sides of the aisle, 
considered 239 amendments--both Democratic and Republican--and accepted 
121 amendments.
  The original House bill was posted online 30 days before the first 
committee began their markup and more than 100 days before the 
committee introduced their merged bill in the House. House Democrats 
posted the House bill--that was the final process--online 72 hours 
before the bill was brought to the floor, consistent with our rules.
  Now, to my understanding, the Ways and Means Committee has been told 
this bill is going to be marked up on Wednesday. There will not have 
been a single hearing, there will not have been a single witness, and 
Members cannot, on our side of the aisle--as I understand it--see the 
bill today.
  I don't know where all my Tea Party friends are who demanded full 
consideration and that everybody read the bill. I don't see them out on 
the lawn. I don't see them out on the plaza. I don't see them out on 
the sidewalk as they were when we were considering the bill and we had 
those 181 witnesses, the 100 hours of hearings that they thought 
weren't sufficient.

                              {time}  1130

  I don't know whether they will think that having a markup next 
Wednesday when the bill has not even been made available to Democratic 
Members of the House. Apparently, Republican Members have to go to a 
room to see it, and the public clearly has no idea of what that bill 
is.
  Mr. Leader, I hope you will tell me that I am wrong, that there will 
be hearings consistent with what Speaker Ryan said 3 days ago. I hope 
you will tell me, yes, we are going to honor what Speaker Ryan said, 
that we are going to have those hearings, we are going to have 
witnesses, and we are going to consider amendments.
  All of us understand that this is one of the biggest issues 
confronting the American people. We have had hundreds of thousands of 
people showing up at town meetings saying how concerned they are, yet, 
if my information is correct, Mr. Leader, they will have no opportunity 
to talk to the Committee on Ways and Means.
  I am further informed, and I hope the majority leader says this is 
wrong, that the markup will occur before the Congressional Budget 
Office has the opportunity to say how much it is going to cost. All 
this weeping and gnashing of teeth about balanced budgets and fiscal 
responsibility, a bill that affects 18 percent of the gross domestic 
product, and the critical need for people to have access to affordable, 
quality health care, not one of them will have an opportunity to know 
how much this repeal will cost.
  Again, Mr. Leader, I hope you are going to be able to tell me, no, 
Mr. Whip, we are going to have hearings, we understand how important 
this issue is, how much interest there is in this country, and we are 
going to give time for serious consideration, and we are going to have 
witnesses come before those hearings; and then after the witnesses, we 
are going to have a markup after substantial debate and consideration 
is allowed on both sides of the aisle.
  I now yield to the majority leader with the hopes that he will be 
able to give me some degree of confidence that Paul Ryan, our Speaker, 
was correct, that we are going to follow regular order and make a 
transparent consideration of this piece of legislation.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I always look 
forward to your quotes.
  Mr. HOYER. I have some more.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Now you have gone beyond. You now bring in rumors. I 
give you credit there. You have been here quite some time, much longer 
than I. I agree with you, this is a very big issue. That is why, for 
the last 6 years, we have had hearings because all those hearings you 
reported, I would have wished you would have listened during those 
hearings. I would have wished you would have been able to do a 
healthcare bill that actually works. The essence of what the ACA did, 
it was about exchanges and the expansion of Medicaid.
  So my dear friend here tells me that was a big success. What do you 
tell all those people across this country? In fact, one-third of every 
county in this country now only has one health insurer. Humana just 
announced they are pulling out. Because you love quotes so much, let me 
read what the CEO of Aetna says: ObamaCare is failing. It has entered a 
``death spiral.''
  With Humana pulling out, that gives 16 counties in Tennessee that 
have no one to care for them. The expansion of Medicaid--I know you are 
concerned about the budget, as am I--says within this 10-year window, 
in the tenth year, it will cost us $1 trillion. You know as well as I 
do that that is about the exact amount of money we spend for all 
discretionary spending in government today. We watched the ACA create 
23 CO-OPs. They were provided more than $2 billion. Eighteen of those 
23 have collapsed.
  So, yes, for the last 6 years, we have been holding hearings, we have 
been listening to the public, and we have been working on this bill. 
Yes, we will go regular order. We will have a markup in committee. When 
the bill comes out of committee, we will take that markup, we will go 
to the Committee on the Budget because it is reconciliation, and we 
will bring that bill to the floor, just as the rules state we will do 
that. We have waited 6 years to do this, just as we moved one last year 
to the President as well, and he vetoed it.
  We cannot sit and wait for this failure to continue any longer. The 
health of this country deserves something much better. That is why we 
have been spending our time, that is why we have been working on it, 
and that is why we have been listening. We have had the wisdom to 
listen, but now I promise you we will have the courage to lead.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment. It is, therefore, 
extraordinarily sad that we have spent 6 years with only one option 
that the majority would pursue: repeal. Not fix, not make it work 
better, not ensure that people can afford their care, not make sure 
that insurance companies had the competence to stay in the market 
because the market was destabilized for all of its lifetime to date by 
the Republicans saying all we are going to do is repeal.
  The gentleman talks about the cost. The gentleman cannot tell me some 
4

[[Page H1486]]

days before he suggests passing a piece of legislation that will affect 
18 percent of our gross domestic product what it will cost. Why? 
Because he has no score from the CBO. He can tell me all he wants about 
6 years of waiting and listening. He has no score on this bill. My 
judgment is he will have no score when he marks it up. By the way, he 
will give no access, contrary to Speaker Ryan saying that we are going 
to go regular order. I reject, with all due respect, Mr. Majority 
Leader, the fact that we had a hearing a year ago or 2 years ago or 3 
years ago, that the opinion that was given at those times by various 
witnesses who differed on their conclusions, that we can apply that to 
the bill that you have introduced now.
  I don't know what the bill you have introduced is. I don't know 
whether you have introduced it or somebody else has introduced it. I 
don't even know whether it exists. I told the gentleman what I am told. 
He has not disabused me of any of the assertions I made. He has 
not disabused me that it is not available publicly. He has not 
disabused me of the fact that we can't see it. He has not disabused me 
of Dr. Burgess saying it ought to be seen by everybody and considered, 
it should not be in a secret room someplace that people have to go to, 
like it is a secret document. We have to go down to the Capitol Visitor 
Center in the secure facilities of the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence to see secret documents. Surely that is not the standard 
that we are giving to a bill that will have such, in my view, 
catastrophic effect on individuals, on jobs, and on businesses.

  Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the majority leader that I do not accept 
the proposition that a hearing over 6 years about repeal only--and I am 
not sure how many hearings there were. Maybe the majority leader knows. 
But I know for a fact that proponents of the bill were very difficult 
to get on the list of witnesses that we wanted to testify at some of 
those hearings. The American people, the Tea Party, all those people 
for and against who came to these town meetings should really lament. 
And, frankly, I think that the Speaker's representation is not being 
followed. The assertion that it was done last year, the year before, we 
have a lot of new Members in this Congress who weren't here. Frankly, 
when we have bills introduced in Congress, we usually have hearings on 
them. That is the regular order.
  Now, we haven't been following regular order on all these 
congressional review acts, Mr. Leader, so maybe the precedent nowadays 
is forget about hearings because most of the bills that we have 
considered during this Congress have not had hearings. The 
ramifications of the repeal of these rules no one knows. There were no 
hearings on those. Frankly, we didn't have hearings on those year after 
year after year in the past. So, Mr. Leader, it appears that the 
representation you are making is we know all about this, we don't need 
hearings, we have been talking about this stuff forever, we are just 
going to act. The courage, I would suggest to my friend, the courage 
would be to expose these to full and fair and open debate. That would 
be the courage.
  Now, Mr. Leader, unless you want to respond to that, I will move on 
to a different subject.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Well, I would only like to end with this: I was here at 
the same time. I know you have your history, and I have the history 
that I remember. I remember seeing the Speaker at that time, now your 
leader, say we need to pass the bill to find out what is in it. I 
remember being here late that night. I remember a lot of people, 
citizens around this building complaining. You know what? The saddest 
part of all that, their fears became true. They didn't get to keep the 
doctor or the health plan that they were promised. The premiums they 
were told would go down $2,500, that didn't happen. They now find that 
they don't have the care that they were promised. We have spent our 
time.
  You did make a statement that there are a lot of new people in this 
building. I would argue that is a reason why there are a lot of new 
people in this building, the ACA and the way you carried it out. That 
is why we did not do that. You stipulated a little earlier, trying to 
state about a 3-day rule. That wasn't your rule. That is a rule we 
instituted and changed when we became the majority, Mr. Speaker.
  So we will have regular order. We will have regular order. We will 
take it through committee, we will have it open for debate, and we will 
bring it to the floor because we promised the American people, and we 
will keep our promise, just as the President, as you heard just this 
week, talked about the reform. We will protect preexisting conditions. 
We will make sure those who are 26 or younger can stay on their 
parents' plan. The bans or lifetime limits, we will protect those like 
we have always said we would. We will create a healthcare bill that 
actually empowers the individual, not more government. We will actually 
lower the premiums. That is the difference between us. We can have 
those debates, and I welcome them, because I think history will show 
your hearings and our hearings. But, at the end of the day, I want the 
history to show who actually did a better job of providing health care 
to the American people at a lower cost.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Leader, you can be assured that history will show 
that. Can I see the bill today?
  Mr. McCARTHY. You are not on that committee, so you can look at it 
when we mark it up.
  Mr. HOYER. In other words, they will mark it up before anybody in the 
public, including a Member of the House of Representatives----
  Mr. McCARTHY. No.
  Mr. HOYER. Before then, we cannot see it.
  Mr. McCARTHY. If the gentleman yields, I will answer his question.
  Mr. HOYER. Is that what the gentleman is telling me?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. It is similar to every other bill we move. They will 
post it before they mark it up so everybody can see it and debate it.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Leader, reclaiming my time, that is not regular order. 
I have been here a long time. You have been here a long time. That is 
not regular order. Regular order is you introduce a bill, you go up to 
this desk, and you put a bill in. We don't follow that very much, but 
that is regular order. It is then printed. It is referred to a 
committee. The public can see it as soon as it is printed. It goes to 
the committee. They establish a hearing. The witnesses then come before 
the committee and testify as to its positive and negative aspects. The 
committee then schedules a markup. It may even be the same day after 
the hearing, I get that. And then they mark it up. But the bill has 
been given to the public and to Members, invariably under regular 
order, substantially before that happens.
  You are telling me, as I understand it, Mr. Leader, I cannot see the 
bill today, 5 days before it is scheduled to be marked up. Is that 
accurate?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Have you seen a scheduled markup? I didn't have it in 
my list. I don't announce markups, but apparently this is another rumor 
you may have heard.
  Mr. HOYER. Is the leader telling me that he does not know personally 
whether a markup is scheduled on the Affordable Care Act repeal next 
week?
  I yield to my friend.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for asking. That is a question to 
the chairman. I simply provide you the schedule for next week.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman, but that was not my question, 
whether the chairman of the committee knows. Maybe the gentleman does 
not know, in which case he can say no.
  My question is: Does the gentleman know whether a markup is scheduled 
for next week in the Ways and Means Committee on the repeal of the 
Affordable Care Act?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  That is an action of the committees, and they will list as soon as 
they are prepared to do their markups.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether that is a ``yes'' or a 
``no'' or ``I don't intend to tell you,'' but it certainly does not 
tell me whether the majority leader knows that.
  I would suggest to the chairman of the committee, though, Mr. 
Speaker, that the majority leader ought to be informed of what the 
committee is doing on such an important issue.

[[Page H1487]]

  I am just informed that while the majority leader may not know, The 
Hill newspaper knows and says: ObamaCare reconciliation markup on track 
for next week.
  They, perhaps, heard the same rumor I have heard, Mr. Leader.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Will the gentleman yield for one moment?
  The gentleman understands that this is coming through reconciliation, 
and reconciliation is created through committee, not by submitting a 
bill. So this is regular order.
  I thank the gentleman for his concern, and I thank the gentleman for 
the last 6 years that we have had concerns about this. I will provide 
the gentleman with a number of hearings. In Energy and Commerce this 
year alone, they have had hearings and they have had votes on markups 
on improvements and changes to our healthcare system. If the gentleman 
would like, I will provide those to him at a later date.
  But when it comes to reconciliation, committees will move that. When 
it goes through the committees, it will then go to the Budget 
Committee, and then it will come to the floor. That is regular order, 
and that is what we are following.
  Mr. HOYER. I ask you: Do you expect the Budget Committee to have a 
hearing on it?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I expect to follow regular order. When a bill goes 
through Energy and Commerce and a bill comes through Ways and Means, it 
will then go for markup inside the Budget Committee, and then come to 
the floor.
  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. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I just didn't know that 4 months later we were still going to 
litigate who won the election. It has always been the electoral 
college.
  I know the gentleman likes to make a lot of quotes, but I think if 
you take my quote and you look at the date and you want to go back in 
time and you look at the polling, I think my quote is right. I think 
the American people were at that exact same position.
  You talk about consequences. The ACA has a tremendous amount of 
consequences on the American public, and, unfortunately, they haven't 
been positive. Some have, but the majority have not. That is why a 
number of people today, one-third of this Nation of the counties, 
1,022, only have one healthcare provider.
  I listened to our President just this week right down this well. I 
know you haven't commented about that or quoted anything he said there, 
but I listened to other people who commented about that, people who are 
on different sides of the aisle who I know did not vote for him.
  Mr. Speaker, Van Jones, I know the man well. He and I philosophically 
disagree. But he said that night, listening to President Trump, that he 
became America's President.

  So I just say to my friend across the aisle, Mr. Speaker, that I 
think 4 months is long enough to decide who won the race, and we don't 
have to come back to this. If we really want this country to come 
together, I don't think that type of questioning on this floor is 
productive. I think it is time to come together as one Nation and start 
solving these problems, but not try to bring back up and litigate who 
really won the election.
  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. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, if I could just tell my friend, when I 
refer to a poll, I mean the main poll of election day. If I look at 
what happened on 2010 and I look at what took place in this last 
election, you are correct, one side campaigned on repealing and 
replacing ObamaCare. This is only the third time since World War II 
that the American public entrusted that to a Republican Party who have 
a majority in the House, a majority in the Senate, and the Presidency.
  So, yes, that is the poll I was looking at; the same as what 
transpired in 2010. That was the cornerstone and the foundation of what 
people said in that last election.
  We are moving forward on that our promise. We have been working on 
this for more than 6 years with hearings, townhalls, and listening. We 
are going through reconciliation, the regular order. So the committees 
will mark up, send it in to the Committee on Budget, where they will do 
a markup, and then it will come to the floor.
  I thank the gentleman for his concern.
  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,

[[Page H1488]]

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. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Yes, Mr. Speaker, we did meet with a bipartisan group of Governors, 
and that was one of the discussions as well. It is not scheduled at 
this time, but we will continue to work on that in committee. Our hope 
is to be able to find a solution in committee and be able to move that 
forward.
  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. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  This is a matter for investigation by the House Intelligence 
Committee. For years, we have investigated Putin's hostile 
international actions.
  Just so the gentleman does know, Mr. Speaker, this week, Chairman 
Nunes and Ranking Member Schiff approved the scope of their committee's 
inquiry into Russia's measures of targeting in the 2016 election. I 
support this bipartisan investigation. I have great faith that the 
committee will fully investigate all of the evidence and follow the 
facts wherever they lead.
  I know the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, made comments in regards to the 
attorney general. Attorney General Sessions stated this morning that 
whenever it is appropriate, he will recuse himself. I agree with those 
remarks.
  As far as the ongoing investigation into Russia, I would, again, 
direct my friend to the bipartisan effort that is underway in the House 
Intelligence Committee.

                              {time}  1200

  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.

                          ____________________