[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 173 (Thursday, October 26, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H8254-H8257]
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) for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the 
schedule for the week to come.
  (Mr. McCARTHY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. 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 p.m. 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 H.R. 2936, the Resilient Federal 
Forests

[[Page H8255]]

Act sponsored by Representative Bruce Westerman.
  We have all seen the devastating effects of wildfires, especially 
this year. Unfortunately, the U.S. Forest Service estimates there are 
still nearly 58 million acres of forest at high or very high risk of 
wildfire. The bipartisan legislation builds on our recovery efforts by 
giving the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management the tools 
necessary to better manage our public lands.
  The House will also consider H.R. 849, the Protecting Seniors' Access 
to Medicare Act, sponsored by Representative Phil Roe. Supported by 
both Republicans and Democrats, this bill repeals ObamaCare's 
Independent Payment Advisory Board--or, as most know it as, IPAB--and 
gives patients more control over their healthcare and not Washington.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the House will consider legislation to extend 
funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program and other important 
public health priorities. Now, this was marked up earlier this month by 
the Energy and Commerce Committee. This package will help low-income 
children get health coverage, continue funding important health 
priorities like community health centers, and do so in a fiscally 
responsible manner.
  I look forward to the House passing these commonsense bills next week 
without delay.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the majority leader announced that the CHIP 
bill will be on the floor next week. CHIP and community health centers 
have always been, as the majority leader points out, a bipartisan 
priority.
  Unfortunately, this bill did not come out of the committee as a 
bipartisan bill, and negotiations were essentially not fruitful, and 
the committee reported out legislation to extend these important 
programs that included billions of dollars in partisan offsets.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the majority leader, does the gentleman 
know whether the $8.2 billion reauthorization of the Children's Health 
Insurance Program, which serves nearly 9 million children from low-
income working families, will be offset?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  First, let me set the record straight. Yes, it did come out of 
committee, and, yes, we did hold it up three times because your side of 
the aisle asked us to. But the reason why we are bringing it up next 
week is not because next week was the date we wanted. We wanted to get 
this done long ago. But the reason why we are doing it next week is 
because Minnesota is about to run out of money. And my dear friend 
knows because I sat with him, even this week, trying to work something 
out.
  Now, we know of these health centers, and in this bill we doubled the 
money for them. Of course, this bill is offset. We do it in a fiscally 
responsible manner. But this is not something to play political games 
with because some leadership Member wants to hold it up and go into 
December. We believe committees should be able to do their work.
  Now, we started out, and Committee Chair Greg Walden, three times, 
was asked to delay by the ranking Democrat of the committee, even 
though we know the timeline is about to hit a number of States that 
cannot wait for a lack of action here.
  So, yes, I am upset by this, but I am more upset about the number of 
times we sat down to try to work something out. And it was only 
yesterday I was told, Democrats said, no, they don't want to do 
anything, so we should just go forward. That is not the way this place 
should work.
  If you look at this bill, I believe, if the committee had the freedom 
on the other side without the leadership telling them they had to vote 
``no,'' it would have come out of the committee with a much different 
vote.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  First, let me say, as far as I know, the leadership didn't give any 
direction to the committee. The committee decided on its own that it 
thought that the cuts that were being proposed by the Republicans are 
very harmful to some very important programs in healthcare for seniors 
that the gentleman, in his previous remarks telling us what the 
schedule was, said were very important.
  So the reason that we have concerns is we believe the offsets being 
proposed, Mr. Speaker, by the Republicans, and why we don't agree with 
the bill that is being brought forward is because we think it hurts the 
healthcare of millions of Americans.
  Let me ask another question, Mr. Speaker, of the majority leader, and 
let me preface it with Mr. McCarthy said in response to my question 
about the CHIP program: Of course, it is offset.
  Let me ask him a follow-up question.
  Does the gentleman know whether the $7.2 billion for community health 
centers that provide primary care services to 26 million medically 
underserved Americans will be offset?
  Mr. McCARTHY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to my friend from California.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Right before your question, you said you had concerns 
with the offsets. The gentleman knows that I reached out to him, I 
don't know how many months ago, before a break, numerous times, right 
over on the floor on his side of the aisle, and I said: I am very 
concerned with what I am hearing on the Democratic side in the 
committee; I would like to get CHIP done early. And I asked for your 
assistance, and you helped.
  There is one higher position on your side of the aisle who called the 
Speaker numerous times and pretty much shut down your committee. So 
three times we were asked to delay, and we did.
  That is why, this week, I went back to all of you and said: Let's 
work out if you have a difference of opinion in pay-fors.
  It was not us who walked away from the table. It was the message I 
was delivered from the other side of the aisle.
  So I don't know why we are having this discussion. I don't know why 
you are asking these questions. It is you and your side of the aisle 
that have said no. It is us who said: Let's sit down and work this out.
  But let me walk through a few of the pay-fors so you understand them 
and so the American public can understand them, because I don't think 
they are controversial.
  We require health insurance companies to pay claims when they cover 
Medicaid enrollees while keeping Medicaid as the payor of last resort. 
Now, that saves $4 billion.
  We say that individuals can't skip on their premium for 90 days and 
get free coverage. That saves $5 billion.
  We say if somebody wins a high-dollar lottery, those winners should 
not be eligible for Medicaid.
  Now, your side of the aisle voted against that in committee. So the 
argument that you are making that it is not bipartisan is true. Your 
side of the aisle believes that if someone wins millions of dollars in 
the lottery, they should still be eligible for Medicaid.
  That will save $600 million that will actually go to the disabled, 
those who need this.
  And what is more important, these States should not have to wait. 
These States should not be put in this position. Colorado has just 
announced that it will freeze enrollment. It will freeze enrollment 
because you guys walked away from the table. It will freeze enrollment 
because you say high-dollar millionaire lottery winners should still 
stay on Medicaid.
  I don't think that is where the American public believes this debate 
should go. I believe that is common sense. I believe that is an area 
that we can get to. Let's care for the individuals, and let's stop 
playing politics with this. I am personally stunned you are even asking 
about this because you know what has gone on.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am chagrined that I have stunned my friend, 
the majority leader.
  Yes, we don't agree with some of those pay-fors. I happen to, by the 
way, agree. There is no reason why a lottery winner of millions of 
dollars ought to be on Medicaid.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Nobody did on your side of the aisle in the committee. 
They all voted against that.
  Mr. HOYER. I didn't yield yet.
  I simply say to my friend, had I instructed or the leader instructed, 
that outcome may have been different. However, there are some really 
substantive issues that we had, we had for a long

[[Page H8256]]

time, we negotiated for a long time, and we didn't reach agreement.
  My question to you was: Are they offset? I think your answer was, 
yes, they were offset, and then you proceeded to tell me what the 
offsets were.
  Now, let me ask you a follow-up question to that.
  Does the gentleman know whether the repeal of IPAB is offset? That is 
a $17 billion deficit creation item. Is it offset?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. If the gentleman's question is if IPAB is offset, it 
doesn't need to be.
  Mr. HOYER. Offset.
  Mr. McCARTHY. No, and it doesn't need to be.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that answer. Perhaps now he 
knows why I asked the first two questions.
  Apparently, it is not the debt that is of concern, because if the 
debt were of concern, the $17 billion would be of concern.
  That was put in the bill, as the gentleman knows, to try to pay for, 
as we paid for every nickel of the Affordable Care Act, and that was 
one of the larger pay-fors.
  Now, many Members on your side of the aisle don't like that pay-for, 
and many Members on my side of the aisle don't like that pay-for. That 
pay-for said that we are going to decide, if we are exceeding 
expenditure caps, what needs to be cut.
  As the gentleman knows, that board has never been appointed. But if 
it had been appointed, we would have had 30 days--30 legislative days 
or calendar days--30 calendar days in which to say, no, we don't agree 
with that. So the representatives of the people would have had that.
  But my point is we are selective in what we want to pay for, and I 
think that is a concern certainly to me, and I am sure it is to others.
  And the gentleman said: Of course, it is offset. The gentleman, here, 
says this is not offset.
  Can I ask the gentleman, why is this not offset? Why is this $17 
billion apparently not a worry for the debt and the other dollars for 
children are necessary to be offset?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I appreciate the roundabout way of trying to get around 
why you are not involved in the CHIP program, but let me explain very 
easily.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is correct. The 
gentleman has come to me. We tried to work on getting it bipartisan. We 
didn't reach that conclusion, and I regret that we didn't reach that 
conclusion.
  The majority leader did, in fact, come to me in, I think, absolute 
good faith, and I wanted to try to get to a resolution. We didn't get 
there, and I regret that. We are where we are. But I want to tell my 
friend that I am going to continue to try to work towards that 
objective.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I look forward to that.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  CHIP is in effect; IPAB is not. It hasn't even created a board yet. 
So what you are saying to me is let's offset something that hasn't even 
been created.
  What I am saying is the last time we had this bill on the floor, it 
was bipartisan votes. Democrats voted for it as well; 43 cosponsors on 
your side of the aisle.
  So I don't think this question is just to me; it is probably for the 
whole body. But I think the reason the majority of the body wants to 
get rid of it is it hasn't even been created, and the majority of the 
people think it is a bad idea. So let's get rid of it now.
  And do you know what? CHIP is already in effect. What is even worse 
on this process is it is in effect, but now people are freezing 
enrollments.
  So, if your argument why Democrats can't help us on CHIP and why they 
want to defend millionaire lottery winners is somewhere that something 
not created has to be offset, I don't think that is really a fair 
argument.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his response. I was 
going to respond later, but let me respond now.
  This bill was not marked up in committee prior to its expiring, prior 
to the authorization ending. So when the gentleman talks to me about 
time, with all due respect, had it been an item of importance--which it 
is a bipartisan bill. We both want to see this get done. The gentleman 
is correct, this program exists. The gentleman is also correct that, 
until we fix this, there will be States that will be running out of 
money. That is a great concern to us. It will adversely affect millions 
of children.
  We ought to get this done. We ought to get it done in a bipartisan 
fashion, and I am sorry that we didn't. I am sorry the committee didn't 
get it done so it didn't have to come to the majority leader or come to 
my attention or the leader's attention.
  But having said that, that does not answer the question of the 
gentleman says IPAB doesn't exist. It certainly exists in scoring. As 
the gentleman surely knows, this is a $17 billion item that will have 
to be paid for at some point in time, and it will add to the debt if we 
don't pay for it. It may not exist right now. It may not exist for 
reasons that the gentleman probably points out, correctly, that a large 
number on his side and a large number on my side are not for it.
  I want to tell the gentleman that I am for it. I voted that way. But 
a large number of the majority of my party, I think, are not for it. I 
agree with that.
  But the fact of the matter is repealing this is not paid for, and, as 
a result, the costs will have to come from somewhere; but on CHIP we 
had to pay for it, and on community health centers we had to pay for 
it.
  I agree with that, by the way, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Did I hear correctly that you voted to repeal IPAB?
  Mr. HOYER. I believe I did. No? I am checking on it.
  But I am saying here, publicly, I voted for the ACA. I think the ACA 
was good for the country, and one of the pay-fors we said we would pay 
for, and we did, one of the pay-fors was IPAB.
  If we want to substitute some other way to pay for the healthcare 
that we are giving, fine. That will not increase the debt. But if we 
don't pay for repeal of this IPAB, it is going to increase the debt.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. My question to the gentleman is: We have brought to the 
floor, twice, the repeal of IPAB. Am I understanding correctly that you 
voted to repeal that?
  Mr. HOYER. I thought I said, and let me reiterate, I voted against 
repealing IPAB. I am for IPAB. I will say it again. I know it is 
politically very controversial. It is a tough thing to do, but it helps 
pay for what we buy. And the problem in this House and the problem that 
we just did on the tax bill is we are not paying for what we buy. It is 
not spend-spend or tax-tax. We do not pay for what we buy. It is easy 
to buy and it is hard to pay. Here we are with another example.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Let me repeat what happened on this floor in history.
  Twice, this bill has come to the floor. Neither time--the repealing 
of IPAB--has it been offset. And do you know what? Forty-three Members 
on your side of the aisle joined with us. So it was the will of this 
House, a majority.
  But if your argument is why we cannot fund children's health, why we 
cannot say that millionaires winning a lottery have to stay on 
Medicaid, if that is the defense from the other side of the aisle why 
they walk away from the table, I am ashamed. We are better than that, 
and this House is better than that.
  I told you each time--and I tell the gentleman, I know it is not you, 
but there are other people on your side of the aisle who won't even 
release their Members from committee.

                              {time}  1130

  I know your members on the Energy and Commerce Committee did not want 
to vote ``no'' on that amendment. They don't want to defend those 
millionaires for being on Medicaid and taking away from the disabled 
and children. I know, in your heart, you don't want to sit back and 
make CHIP have problems for States, that maybe

[[Page H8257]]

Minnesota and Colorado can't increase enrollment, that they have to 
freeze it today.
  We are better than this. If twice it has come to the floor without an 
offset, and it is the majority of the House that voted on it and it is 
43 of your members doing it, I think we should move on now. Let's get 
back to the table. Let's solve this problem.
  Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the gentleman's remarks and I appreciate the 
premise for which he stood. I look forward to having the Dream Act 
brought to the floor, which a majority of Members are for on this floor 
and will vote for. I believe my friend knows that to be the case, and I 
hope we would bring it to the floor.
  Let me go to this, if I can. The majority leader did not mention 
whether Alexander-Murray was going to be on the floor next week. 
Obviously, as the gentleman knows, there is an extraordinary disruption 
of the marketplace in the healthcare insurance field.
  Alexander-Murray, at the request of President Trump, was an effort by 
Senator Alexander, a Republican from Tennessee, a former Secretary of 
Education, and a former Governor of Tennessee, to respond to the 
President's request and, as the gentleman has just noted, working in a 
bipartisan fashion to come to an agreement to stabilize markets to 
ensure that people are going to have healthcare and particularly to 
ensure that the poorest among us can afford their healthcare. 
Alexander-Murray is bipartisan and has over 60 Senators supporting it.
  Do you believe that that will be brought to the floor at any time in 
the near future?
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for the question, but, as the 
gentleman knows, for a bill to come to the floor here, it first has to 
get out of the Senate. The Senate has not voted on that bill.
  I know the gentleman quotes a certain number, but I would wait to see 
how many votes there are for the bill to see where it goes.
  As the gentleman knows, this House has passed a bill that repealed 
ObamaCare, reformed it, got us a new bill, but made those payments as 
it went forward. So there is a bill sitting in the Senate that they can 
take up and solve this problem at the same time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman, my friend, the majority 
leader, with whom I work in a constructive way on many, many items 
mentioned earlier about how children may lose their health insurance or 
some of our less well-off citizens who rely on Community Health Centers 
will lose access, and that, therefore, we need to get this bill done 
soon.
  Millions, I suggest to the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, will be 
adversely affected if we don't pass a bill stabilizing it.
  Yes, I understand you introduced a bill to repeal. You control the 
House, the Senate, and the Presidency. We are now 10 months into the 
year. That bill hasn't passed.
  So what we implore, Mr. Speaker, the administration and the majority 
party to do is not to do indirectly, that is, destroy access to 
affordable, quality healthcare for millions of Americans, that which 
they cannot do directly, and they haven't done it directly.
  So I would hope that we could bring at least a bipartisan bill, in 
light of the failure to pass a partisan bill, which has, I am told, 60 
Senators who have indicated they support it, maybe more.
  I would hope when it comes from the Senate, if Senator McConnell will 
put it on the floor, that we will consider it forthwith, because the 
instability that grips the system now is hurting millions, costing them 
millions, perhaps billions. So I hope that would be a priority item for 
us, along with the bill that we call the Dream Act.
  We need to redeem the dream, Mr. Speaker, and continue a policy which 
the Speaker has indicated he thought was erroneously repealed by the 
President of the United States, which I think many Republicans with 
whom I have talked to think is a policy that ought to be pursued. I 
hope we can bring that to the floor as soon as possible, and certainly 
before Thanksgiving.
  Mr. Speaker, unless the majority leader has anything further to say, 
I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________