Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my gratitude and congratulations to an outstanding public servant and firefighter, who

has been truly a gift to the people of Prince George's County, Maryland. Chief Marc Bashoor retired in February after leading the Prince George's County Fire Department for the past six years and following a career in the fire service that has lasted more than three decades. Throughout that time, he has won well-deserved praise from county, state, and national officials for his skill at management and his efforts to streamline operations and provide steady leadership. Chief Bashoor has also received high marks from residents across the county, grateful for the peace of mind that comes with a well-run fire department.

Chief Bashoor, a native of Bowie in Prince George's County, came to the fire service at the young age of sixteen, when he began as a volunteer firefighter there. It was there at Station No. 39 that he met his wife, Laura, a fellow volunteer firefighter. Their wedding celebration prominently included a County fire truck, naturally. Chief Bashoor became a paid firefighter with the Prince George's County Fire Department in 1987 and served until 2004, when he retired and took a job as Director of Homeland Security for Mineral County in West Virginia. Thankfully, Prince George's County Executive Rushern Baker was able to convince him to return in 2010 as Fire Chief. I, and so many in my district, am very glad that he did.

During his tenure in office, Chief Bashoor oversaw a major expansion to meet the needs of the growing county. He hired more paid firefighters, recruited more volunteers, purchased more vehicles and equipment, and worked to bring new fire stations online. He advocated for the Department to have a budget increase of 30 percent. It paid off, with response times to emergency calls going down measurably. We cannot even begin to speculate how many lives and properties were saved as a result.

I've been fortunate to work closely with Chief Bashoor throughout his tenure. As a Co-Chair of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, I've worked to increase F.I.R.E. and S.A.F.E.R. grants and ensure that the Prince George's County Fire Department and departments all across the country have the resources they need to keep their communities and their personnel safe. I've also joined with him to advance the work of ensuring that the families of fallen firefighters receive the benefits they deserve as well as the honor and gratitude they are owed.

Mr. Speaker, our nation counts on dedicated fire service leaders like Chief Bashoor every day, and I join in thanking him and all who work or volunteer on the fire line. I hope my colleagues will join me in wishing Chief Bashoor well in his retirement and in thanking him for his extraordinary service to Prince George's County, the State of Maryland, and our nation.

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), my friend.

(Mr. McCARTHY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I thank the gentleman for that information.

As the majority leader knows, after today we will have 8 legislative days left before the CR runs out on April 28. We will be gone, as the gentleman knows, for 2 weeks, or a few more days than that, for the Easter break. We have not enacted any appropriation bills except for the MILCON-VA and the Defense Appropriation bill we passed through this House in a bipartisan vote and that is pending in the Senate.

Given the limited number of days in session before April 28, we are going to require relatively quick action if we are to fund the government for the balance of the year past April 28.

Mr. Leader, can you tell me--because no appropriation bill or CR or omnibus was on the schedule for next week, can the gentleman tell me when he expects some form of continuing to authorize expenditures for the balance of the year between now and September 30 will occur?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those comments.

Does the gentleman contemplate the possibility of a short-term CR being necessary?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information and comments.

Frankly, I want to tell the majority leader, honestly, nobody on my side, maybe someplace else, but nobody on my side is wanting to shut down the government. We don't want to shut down the government.

Of course, I will remind my friend, the majority leader--and I appreciate his comments about our cooperation and ability to work together--the only way the government has been kept open over the last 5 years has been with Democratic votes. My friend didn't have 218 votes on his side of the aisle that would do that. So I think that belies the fact that we want to shut down the government.

I would assure my friend that that is neither our intent or desire. As a matter of fact, we want to work quickly to avoid that happening. That is not good for, obviously, the American people, it is not good for managers trying to plan on how to deliver services, and it is certainly not good for our Federal employees. So I would want to work with you to make sure that doesn't happen.

As we have in the past, we will be prepared to provide votes, as we have every time, to ensure that that does not happen.

Let me ask my friend, as we work towards the end of not shutting down government and passing, hopefully, an omnibus which will complete the 2017 appropriations process and fund the government through September 30, let me ask him--he was quoting some information. I have a quote for him as well. I know he would be disappointed if I didn't have a quote. This is not nearly as difficult as some of the others, however. It says:

House Republicans are considering making another run next

week at the passing of the healthcare bill that they abruptly

pulled from the floor in a setback to their efforts to repeal

ObamaCare. Two Republican lawyers say the leaders are

discussing holding a vote, even staying into next weekend, if

necessary, but it is unclear what changes would be made to

the GOP's healthcare bill . . .

That was in Bloomberg News on March 29.

Does the majority leader have any information or expectation that we would be considering another bill seeking to repeal the Affordable Care Act next week? I know the majority leader didn't announce that for next week, and I know on Thursday we will break for the Easter break.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information.

If I hear what the gentleman just said, my interpretation is that we don't expect anything next week, but that does not mean that we don't expect something in the future. Is that a correct reading of it?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, last week was an historic week in many respects.

My Republican colleagues have indicated, for 6 years, they wanted to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They introduced a bill which really did not accomplish that objective, but it did undermine, very severely, the protections and the opportunities that the Affordable Care Act provided our citizens. That bill did not come to a vote. Had it come to a vote, it would have lost very substantially.

Mr. Speaker, the proclamations last week by Republican leaders are that the Affordable Care Act will now remain in place. As Paul Ryan, our Speaker, said on Friday: ``ObamaCare is the law of the land.''

The Affordable Care Act is, indeed, the law of the land. Mr. Speaker, I rise, however, in a deep concern that the Trump administration and its allies in Congress will take steps to undermine the law and weaken it, to the detriment of millions who will see their health care put at risk. In other words, in my view, they may well try to do indirectly what they could not do directly.

Let it be absolutely clear: Republicans control the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. As a result, they are the governing party and will be responsible for anything that happens to our healthcare system on their watch.

Even without the passage of a repeal bill, the Trump administration's actions could fundamentally undermine the law and the stability of our healthcare system.

First and foremost, the Trump administration must commit to continuing payments for cost-sharing subsidies. We met with insurance companies yesterday to see whether or not the environment that was being created by the administration was undermining confidence so that it would undermine the ability to price the product that Americans need: healthcare insurance.

Cost-sharing payments, paid for and in the bill, are being put at risk by a suit that the Republicans in the House of Representatives have filed. They ought to withdraw that suit to give confidence to the system. We all know that confidence in markets is critically important. This is essential to preserving the affordability and accessibility of health care for millions of Americans and to ensuring stability in health insurance markets.

The uncertainty around cost-sharing subsidies that has been perpetrated by the administration's silence on this issue, must come to an end. The administration has said the system will implode. It will only implode if they are forced to do so by the administration through executive action. Insurers are preparing to file rates as soon as next month in some States. Without a clear and public commitment from the administration, we could very well see premiums spike and insurers flee.

Americans have made their opinion pretty clear. They said: Do not do that. Do not undermine the system.

Second, already, President Trump has undermined that requirement through lax enforcement that the individual responsibility requirement--a Republican suggestion, a Heritage Foundation suggestion, a Romney-adopted policy in the State of Massachusetts--a premise of personal responsibility that is being undermined right now by the Trump administration. The individual responsibility requirement is vital to ensuring that those with preexisting conditions can be guaranteed coverage.

To my friends across the aisle who talk often about defending our Constitution, I would remind them that the President has sworn an oath to faithfully execute the laws of this Nation; not picking and choosing which ones he likes.

Third, the administration can--and I would suggest it should-- encourage States that have not yet accepted expanded Medicaid to do so. It works. According to a 2016 report by the Department of Health and Human Services, in the expanded-Medicaid States, premiums were 7 percent lower on average.

Mr. Speaker, just yesterday, the Republican-controlled Kansas State legislature--Republican Governor, Republican House, Republican Senate-- sent a bill to the Governor that would expand the State's Medicaid program. Presumably, they made a judgment that was in the best interest of their State and the best interest of their people.

The Republican sponsor of the bill, State Senator Vicki Schmidt said: ``I don't believe we can wait for D.C. They had an opportunity, and they didn't take it.''

So her response was, and the legislature's response has been: adopt Medicaid expansion.

We have heard a lot from Governors of both parties from States with expanded Medicaid, almost universally extolling the benefits that they provided, and urging Congress not to roll it back.

The Trump administration must recognize the importance of Medicaid expansion and support ongoing efforts in States like Kansas, Virginia, and Maine to do what is right for their people and their State.

Fourth, the Department of Health and Human Services, under Secretary Price, has a responsibility, a duty, an obligation to focus at least as much on outreach and enrollment, as did his predecessor, Secretary Burwell, to let people know what options they have, what opportunities they have, what protections they have, what securities they can achieve.

Earlier this year, the Trump administration, instead, intentionally sabotaged enrollment efforts in the final week, pulling media ads to let people know what they could sign up for, and ending other outreach programs.

This move resulted in half a million fewer people obtaining affordable coverage through the marketplaces--the first decline in the history of the law. Those people will be hurt because some of them are going to get sick. Some of them may have a catastrophic accident, and they will need insurance, and they will not have it because they did not get the information that they needed.

Now that the Affordable Care Act will continue to be the ``law of the land,'' to use words first spoken by former Speaker Boehner in 2012, the issue in 2012 was the Affordable Care Act--President Obama's probably crowning achievement. Republicans called it ObamaCare, derisively. We call it the Affordable Care Act, supported by President Obama.

After the 2012 election, Speaker Boehner said, well, we resolved that issue. The American people have voted to confirm a President whose principal law that was. But the Republicans kept trying to undermine it. They kept trying to say they wanted to repeal it. And now they have all of the power. They haven't done that.

Don't break it. If you couldn't do directly something, don't do it indirectly. Don't undermine the security of the American people indirectly; not through law.

So when open enrollment comes later this year, Mr. Speaker, it would be a dereliction of duty--let me repeat that: it would be a dereliction of duty--not to inform Americans to know how they can benefit under the law, what options they have for finding coverage at more affordable rates or through expanded Medicaid. Let there not be a dereliction of duty.

The larger point here, Mr. Speaker, is, as I have said, that Republicans cannot now simply throw up their hands and say: We failed to offer a viable alternative, and we will now, by action and inaction, by negligence and malfeasance, conspire to undermine the options that are available to the American people.

More than two-thirds of Americans have said that is not a responsible policy. The Affordable Care Act has brought protections and benefits to millions. Twenty million more people are insured in America. But now my Republican friends, who have no workable alternative, are in power; and it is

now their duty to ensure that they faithfully execute existing laws to benefit the American people. If they fail to do so, or intentionally sabotage the current healthcare system, they will surely be held accountable by the American people.

Democrats don't want to see that happen. We reject the premise of some kind of death spiral. By the way, the Congressional Budget Office--an independent bipartisan group, but its director appointed by Republicans--said it was not only not on a death spiral, but it was stable.

The yardstick by which we all ought to be judged is not whether the law succeeds just enough, but whether we can work together--work together, work together--to make the law work as best it can, to benefit as many Americans as it can.

President Trump, speaking at that rostrum, looked directly into the TV camera of 100 million-plus Americans and said: I want every American to have health insurance that will be cheaper and higher quality than we have today.

Mr. President, if you send such a bill to this House, I will vote for it. I haven't seen a bill like that, but if I see it, and if you send it down here, and that is your commitment, I will vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my friends across the aisle will take a lesson from last week that, to paraphrase the President, health insurance is indeed complicated, and that it will truly take both parties working together towards consensus to meet the healthcare challenges we face.

Our constituents and our country is counting on us not to fight, not to throw bricks at one another, but to act in their best interest. And what I urge the Trump administration to do, Mr. Speaker: Do no harm until you have a bill that accomplishes what you said to the American people you want to accomplish. Mr. President, do no harm. Ensure that the American people continue to have access to affordable, quality health care.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor a dear friend, Maureen ``Mo'' Gilman, who retired on March 17 as the legislative director of the National Treasury Employees Union.

Mo served NTEU with great ability for 31 years after working in this House for former Representatives Sam Gejdenson of Connecticut and Chris Dodd, also of Connecticut.

NTEU represents approximately 150,000 Federal employees working in 31 Federal agencies. Mo has been tireless in the effort to ensure that Federal civilian employees receive the pay, benefits, and workplace protections they deserve. Mo spent a considerable part of her years at NTEU educating Congress and administrations about the important work Federal servants carry out.

At a time when some in Congress and in the current administration are denigrating Federal civil servants, threatening to reduce their pay and benefits and deeply cut the budgets of agencies for which they work, I am more than a little sad to see Mo retire. But as she does, Madam Speaker, I am certain that Mo will keep inspiring us all to continue the fight with the same resolve that she showed every day of her career.

I hope my colleagues will join me, Madam Speaker, in wishing Mo Gilman well and thanking her for her extraordinary work on behalf of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), my friend, for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

May I ask, do you know when the Rules Committee will meet, Mr. Majority Leader?

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to tell the gentleman, but it was a good fishing trip that the gentleman was on.

I thank the gentleman, but my assumption is that Members can be relatively confident, based upon what we are going to do and what you are going to do, to be out of here somewhere before 5 p.m. tomorrow; is that correct?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's information, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this week we will consider the most important bill that this House will consider in this Congress.

Every day we are hearing from more and more Republican Members of this House and of the Senate who oppose--who oppose--who oppose--the dangerous healthcare bill on the floor this week.

Just yesterday, conservative Republican Representative Justin Amash tweeted the following--a very conservative Republican from the mid-part of our country said this: ``While I've been in Congress, I can't recall a more universally detested piece of legislation than this GOP healthcare bill.'' Or health no care bill.

This is just the most recent in a long list of statements by Republicans on the demerits--demerits--of the bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

It is interesting that they have named it the American Health Care Act. The only thing they struck from our title was ``affordable.'' It should tell you something about the bill. They replace it with a system that requires Americans to pay more and get less.

This bill has been rushed through the committees without a single public hearing--not one, no testimony or expert view. And when the committees marked it up, it did not have what we call a CBO score.

That is simply Washington-speak for the agency that is nonpartisan, bipartisan, with the Director appointed by the Republicans to give us the advice of the consequences of the enactment of such legislation.

They came back and told us that there would be 24 million less Americans insured by 2026. That would total 58 million uninsured Americans as a result of this bill just 9 years from now.

Republicans are rushing it to the floor for two reasons. First, they know that if the American people see what this bill would do and what it would cost, it wouldn't pass.

As a matter of fact, we have some information on that already because, at town meeting after town meeting after town meeting that Republicans have held and Democrats have held on this bill, the overwhelming number of people that came to those town meetings said: This is a bad bill. It will hurt us. It will hurt our health care. It will hurt our families. It will hurt our children.

We are rushing this bill that was introduced just some 2\1/2\ weeks ago. It was introduced on a Monday night, late at night. It was marked up less than 36 hours later in both committees. And they were so intent on getting it marked up and speeding it along that they held a hearing for 26 hours straight. Excuse me. It was not a hearing. No witnesses. They just held a markup for 26 hours straight.

Now, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that millions of Americans were awake at 4 a.m. in the morning to see what the committee was doing. Obviously, I am not sure of that at all. Perhaps that was the strategy.

Now that the CBO score which I just related to you has been released, we know the harm that this bill will bring. As I said, 24 million Americans kicked off their insurance, including 7 million Americans who are currently covered under plans provided by their employers, premiums for individual policyholders rising 24 to 29 percent.

This is not my view. This is the Congressional Budget Office, whose Director was appointed by this Republican Congress. His predecessor, Dr. Elmendorf, testified in a hearing that we held, because Republicans refused to hold a hearing on this bill, and he agreed with the Republican-appointed Director and Congressional Budget Office.

So you have a bipartisan agreement that this bill will harm Americans--and not just those 24 million Americans. It will harm all Americans because their premiums and copays and deductibles will go up. States will be forced to drop 14 million Americans from Medicaid--and I understand there is a manager's amendment that is going to make it worse--while cutting benefits and provider payments.

A less fiscally sustainable future for Medicare, they shorten the life of Medicare's fiscal sustainability by 3 years, from 2028 down to 2025.

The list goes on, Mr. Speaker, of the reasons why this bill would be a disaster for families in our country.

The second reason they pushed the bill through so quickly is because they wanted to bring it to the floor this week--not next week, not the week after, not after thorough consideration, not after hearings, not after listening to the American people, but this week.

Why this week? Because this week marks the seventh anniversary of the enactment of the law they are seeking to repeal, in other words, optics, spin, propaganda, message. That is what their timeline and their bill are all about: messaging--not results, not reform, political messaging.

This is the fulfillment of a campaign pledge based on a premise that is no longer sustainable. Seven years after the law's enactment the facts are clear. It has expanded coverage, improved benefits, banned discrimination against women and people with preexisting conditions and disabilities, and prohibited annual and lifetime limits on coverage.

Now, they keep some of those things in their bill because they were so popular they thought they couldn't get rid of them. But they have voted 65 times to repeal all those benefits.

Is the Affordable Care Act perfect? Of course not. In the areas where it has fallen short, let's fix it--together.

But this bill--this bill repealing the law and making Americans pay more for less--will throw our healthcare system into turmoil and put millions of families and small businesses at risk. That is why doctors oppose it. That is why hospitals oppose it. That is why senior organizations like AARP oppose it. There are literally 1,000 organizations, plus, that have opposed this legislation.

We are now hearing reports, Mr. Speaker, that Republican leaders are making secret backroom deals with individual Members in order to win their support, the kind of desperate maneuvering that shows how unpopular this bill is.

Republicans, Mr. Speaker, must remember that, as the governing majority, they will be responsible for what happens to our healthcare system under their watch. And I do not just mean this bill. I mean the lack of certainty and the turmoil that they have been creating for the Affordable Care Act market since not only Trump was elected, but since they started attacking this bill some years ago.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my Republican friends, for the sake of their constituents, for the sake of the children of this country, for the sake of those who are at risk because of health challenges that confront them, I urge my Republican friends to abandon this dangerous bill and instead work with us to strengthen our healthcare system for all of our citizens.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must hasten to add that the gentleman from California added a little comment that ``it is known.'' I don't share that view, Mr. Speaker, that it is known that the Affordable Care Act is failing.

In fact, we had a hearing yesterday when the former Director of the Congressional Budget Office appointed by Democrats testified on the Affordable Care Act and testified on the American Health Care Act. Lo and behold, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Elmendorf agreed with the present CBO Director. In other words--and everybody in America ought to be pleased on this because they all are asking for bipartisan--the former Director appointed by Democrats of the CBO agrees with the Republican Director of the CBO, who just came down with his advice and counsel to the Congress just a few days ago.

That ought to give pause to those who are pressing to pass a bill, which would result in the loss by 24 million Americans of their insurance and would result in the increased costs to almost every American of their insurance.

Now, yes, there are some Americans who would choose not to have health care. Then they would get sick or they would get in an automobile accident or something else would happen where they would require medical care, and they would not be able to pay for it. Guess what? We would all pay for it.

That is what was happening before the Affordable Care Act. It is still happening with some who choose either to pay their contribution toward health--some people call it a penalty; I call it a contribution--to meet their personal responsibility, as the Heritage Foundation suggested, of having provisions that, if they get sick, they will be able to pay for it.

Now, last week, Mr. Speaker, the majority leader had some quotes from people who did not like the Affordable Care Act. At this hearing that we had, we had a number of people, and I want to quote some of them:

I certainly never imagined I would have a child who would

rely so much on a government program like Medicaid.

This child, Mr. Speaker, suffers from Rett syndrome, which is a neurology disorder that strikes mostly young girls with normal development for the first 18 or 24 months of their life. Then their development is arrested and, in fact, in some respects, there is a retreat in their abilities.

She went on to say:

Medicaid provides skilled nursing care, which allows us to

raise our daughter, Caroline, in our home instead of a

hospital or institution.

Of course, a hospital or institution would be far more expensive, Mr. Speaker.

She went on to say:

This allows my husband and me to hold jobs and take care of

other family needs. The House Republican plan for Medicaid

would put my daughter's life at risk, and my family is

terrified.

That was Marta Conner, mother of a child with Rett syndrome covered under Medicaid.

I titled yesterday's hearing: The hearing that the Republicans refused to have on the American Health Care Act or the Affordable Care Act itself.

This quote is by a doctor:

In public debate in Congress, the actual people can be

obscured by graphs and numbers. But, ladies and gentlemen,

every day in clinic, I am one-on-one with the real people,

real Americans who could take steps closer to health or

suffer more with this Congress' decision. I urge you and your

colleagues to reject the American Health Care Act and,

instead, strengthen the Affordable Care Act.

To that extent, Mr. Speaker, as the majority leader knows, that testimony joined hundreds in the medical field: The American Medical Association, associations of physicians with particular skill sets, of hospitals, of insurance companies, of patients, of providers, of urban hospitals, suburban hospitals, rural hospitals, and literally hundreds of people intimately involved in the healthcare system who are urging us not to pass the American Health Care Act and to leave in place but improve the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. Speaker, I have indicated to many on this side of the aisle that we are prepared to work to improve any piece of legislation that has been passed and particularly a piece of legislation which affects so many Americans. Unfortunately, we have not had that opportunity since this bill, the Affordable Care Act, was first considered and passed.

This week, the Congressional Budget Office released their estimate and impacts of the House Republicans' bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. Speaker, as the majority leader knows, President Trump, in this body and at that rostrum, promised insurance for everybody that is much less expensive and much better. He has not offered such a bill. The American Health Care Act certainly does not provide that.

In fact, the CBO--both Republican and Democratic directors--opined at least 24 million people will lose their insurance and, by 2026, there will be 58 million people in America without health insurance.

Mr. Speaker, the majority leader has indicated this bill will be on the floor next week. I hope that everybody takes the opportunity to read the CBO report and the testimony given in yesterday's hearing on the bill. It was the first and only hearing that was held on the bill that will be on the floor. Previous hearings on the Affordable Care Act are not good, and previous hearings that there are alternatives out there don't deal with the bill that is going to be on the floor next Wednesday or Thursday.

Senator Susan Collins has said of the bill that is going to be on the floor:

It should prompt the House to slow down and reconsider

certain provisions of the bill.

She was referring, of course, to the CBO report.

Senator Bill Cassidy from that liberal leftwing bastion of Louisiana said:

Can't sugarcoat it. Doesn't look good. The CBO score was,

shall we say, an eyepopper. I also hope it was a thought

provoker.

And Senator Rob Portman, who served in this body for many years, said:

I am concerned about the Medicaid population. That is the

biggest part of coverage for Ohio.

That is why their Governor, a Republican, and Rob Portman, a Republican who served on the Ways and Means Committee, is urging caution and has great reservations about the bill that has been announced to come to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the majority leader whether or not he can confirm whether changes will be made to the repeal bill, that is the American Health Care Act, that was reported out of the Budget Committee, whether he can confirm whether or not the repeal bill will be changed before it comes to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, just to clarify, Mr. Speaker, that the bill to which he is referring is not the bill to which I was referring. I was referring to the Affordable Care Act and improvement of the Affordable Care Act.

He is now referring to the American Health Care Act which, we think, bears no resemblance to the Affordable Care Act.

Of course, with the Affordable Care Act. We think the bill that has been, as I said, Mr. Speaker, offered will devastate many individuals, millions and millions and millions of people in this country. We have said that pretty clearly.

But more importantly, the CBO Director, appointed by Republicans, said that in his report, which was, by the way, Mr. Speaker, given after, after it was considered in either one of the

committees, either the Energy and Commerce Committee or the Ways and Means Committee.

They did not wait for the CBO report. My opinion, Mr. Speaker, they did not wait for the CBO report because they knew how devastatingly negative the CBO report would be to the legislation they were considering.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

I certainly will do that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his information. People, I am sure, listening to this colloquy must get confused because they hear one representation from somebody who sounds pretty reasonable, my friend, Mr. McCarthy, and then they hear exactly the opposite from me. So they will have to make a judgment.

The bill that is going to be on this floor next week was introduced a week ago Monday. It was marked up less than 42 hours later.

My friend, the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, said: I love to listen to constituents. Not a single constituent on his side of the aisle or my side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, had the opportunity to testify on this bill. Not a single one of my constituents, or the majority leader's constituents, had the opportunity to know what the CBO said was going to happen; that 24 million people

would lose their insurance, 14 million next year; that Medicare would be put at risk; and Medicaid would be gutted by 2021. Not a single constituent was listened to because they had no opportunity to come and say: this is what I think.

The testimony to which I referred was yesterday. I don't know the dates on the letters that the gentleman just read, but perhaps they were just within the last few days.

But I will tell that 63-year-old woman that what this bill does, if you got a 60 percent increase, will up that by 66 percent because you are going to go from a 3-to-1 ratio to a 5-to-1 ratio on which seniors, and 63 years of age, regrettably, from my standpoint, are referred to as seniors. The bill that is going to be considered will allow the insurance company to do a 5-to-1 ratio, rather than a 3-to-1 ratio, so that 60 percent is going to go up by 40, maybe get to 100 percent.

Mr. Speaker, the American people know about transparency. That means they can see something.

The gentleman says: Well, now it is online. Yes, they had 40 hours, give or take, to see this bill from Monday night to Wednesday, when it was marked up, and it was marked up and passed in the Ways and Means Committee in the dead of night, sort of like they passed the prescription drug bill, at 5:59 in the morning. The majority leader wasn't here. I was here. Perhaps there is a predilection to middle of the night. By the time the Energy and Commerce Committee passed it, they had been in session for over 24 hours and were bleary-eyed.

As I told him last week, Mr. Speaker, my folks were not up at 4 a.m. watching the Energy and Commerce Committee. And I would tell him further that--he said the bill was now online and people had an opportunity to read it. Perhaps, Mr. Majority Leader, Mr. Speaker, that is why the Affordable Care Act has now got more support from the country than it has had at any time since its existence; where there are 49 percent of Americans who now like the Affordable Care Act. Perhaps the reason that is happening now is because they have had the opportunity to see the alternative that the Republicans have offered and are offering on Wednesday.

This bill that they offered is going to significantly raise--I will tell Colleen--her out-of-pocket expenses.

And, yes, under their bill, the CBO says that perhaps the premiums will go down. Why will the premiums go down? Why does insurance go up and down? Because the risk goes up and down; and the greater the risk, the more the cost. But if you don't allow people who are sick people to get into the system because they can't afford it, then the risk goes down. When the risk goes down and you shut people out of the system and 24 million people are out of the system, yes, of course, the rates go down because you are insuring the healthy.

Now, Americans know that very well because they know they have automobile insurance--which, by the way, they are mandated to have in almost every State, if not every State. Why are they mandated to have it? So the rest of us are protected when we have an accident or we are protected from our rates going up because there is not a broad spectrum of the insured so that the risk can be minimal for the insurance company.

So I say to my friend that CBO has told the truth. The Americans are seeing that, and they don't like that. I would urge those on the other side of the aisle to be very careful when they vote either Wednesday or Thursday on this bill because this bill is going to have a very detrimental effect on the American people.

Now, I understand there are going to be two other bills. There are going to be four bills on the floor, as I understand it. Can the gentleman inform us of when we will see the details of this additional legislation?

I yield to the gentleman.

The third bill and the fourth bill.

Are they available now to be reviewed prior to them coming up later in the month?

I yield to the gentleman.

Lastly--and I know you are glad to hear that comment, as are the folks waiting to do 1-minutes--we have received a letter from Secretary Mnuchin on March 8. It was directed to the Speaker, Mr. Leader, and like most Secretaries of the Treasury, he is hoping that we will pursue financially responsible and confidence-building policies.

I won't read the whole letter, but he says in the last paragraph: ``As I said in my confirmation hearing, honoring the full faith and credit of our outstanding debt is a critical commitment. I encourage Congress to raise the debt limit at the first opportunity so that we can proceed with our joint priorities.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask the majority leader whether that is going to be scheduled in the near term because, on March 15, we met the debt-limit extension. This administration and every previous administration have taken steps to prolong the time before we default by using extra mechanisms so that we are, in effect, not investing in the retirement system or something else and paying our debts.

I have indicated publicly, Mr. Speaker, and I reiterate here, that I will urge my side to support a debt-limit extension if it is clean. What I mean by ``clean,'' if it does not incorporate something that is not agreed to and there is not a consensus on. By that I mean, simply, if there are things that we have a consensus on that need to be passed, certainly including those in the debt-limit extension would not be objectionable. But if there are items in that bill designed to force us to vote for what is a responsible policy but takes something that we obviously very strongly disagree with, we will not do so.

So my questions to the majority leader are: A, can we expect a clean debt-limit extension? B, can we expect that in the near term, as Secretary Mnuchin requests, so that we can put that matter behind us and not undermine confidence in our fiscal posture as a nation?

I yield to my friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the gentleman's words be taken down. I have never had such a vicious attack made on me.

But I must admit I was deeply disappointed last night. My congratulations to the young men at Xavier and their coach, but my, my, my, I was disappointed in the quality of our play. We have got a great group of young people playing, but it was not their night.

I am sure that I will pick another team sometime as the March Madness continues. What I would hope, though, is we would not have March Madness on this floor next week.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

I guess the answer to that question, Mr. Speaker, is what will determine an upset. Will the American people be upset? Will the Republicans be upset? The answer to that question remains in the hands of our Republican colleagues, because what I want to do in observation, I disagree with all three of the propositions that the majority leader said in his closing statement.

This is not going to reduce the budget. Yes, on its face, they give a $600 billion tax cut to the wealthiest in America. Where do they take it from? Medicaid, some of the poorest people in America. That is where that money comes from.

Premiums are going to go up. Deductibles are going to go up. You can quote me on this 2, 3 years from now. I don't think your bill is going to pass. But if it did pass, that is what would happen. You won't be able to test me because I don't think the bill is going to pass. It may pass this floor, but it will not become law.

The majority leader's statement, Mr. Speaker, that that is what the American people are expecting, I disagree with that. What the President of the United States said he was going to give to the American people is insurance for everybody. The majority leader ignores the 24 million. He hasn't spoken about that. He spoke about some other observations in the CBO report, as did Speaker Ryan. I don't blame him. I would try to point to some positive indicators myself.

I think this is going to up the deficit, it is going to up costs, and it will decrease the insured and make hospitals have more uncompensated care. We will have this debate next week, Mr. Speaker.

But on the last issue, I would hope, Mr. Leader, that we do agree on fiscal responsibility. I happen to believe, as you know, the debt limit issue is a phony issue, a totally political issue. It has been used as a political issue on both sides of the aisle. There should be no question but of course the United States is going to pay its debt, of course the United States is going to pay people whom it has bought things from, and of course it is going to pay people moneys that they have been promised. Of course it is going to do that. This is not about new spending. It is about spending that we have already incurred.

I would urge the majority leader to bring a clean bill to the floor. I will work with him. We will get the overwhelming majority of Democrats to vote for that. Let's not blame one another for the debt. There is plenty of opportunity to do that, and both sides are guilty of that result.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman has nothing further he wants to say, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in opposition to this bill, and I adopt many of the premises that my friend, Mr. Walz, adopted.

I also adopt the premise of Dr. Roe, who is a really dear friend of mine, that Tim Walz is the kind of guy you wouldn't mind riding across the country with. That is because he is honest, he is knowledgeable, and he is sincere. Frankly, I attribute all of those same characteristics to Dr. Roe.

But, Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. Everybody on this floor agrees that our veterans deserve the best care possible. There is no debate about that. All of us in this House are focused on that goal. But this bill does nothing to meet that goal, in my view. This bill is part of--and I do not ascribe it to Dr. Roe--a significantly long history of a partisan effort to scapegoat Federal civil servants that has been going on for decades, long before Dr. Roe got in it or Mr. Walz got in it.

It is a follow-on to the dangerous hiring freeze the Trump administration imposed in January and the repeated attempts over the last several years to extract more and more cuts from Federal employees' pay and benefits, which contributed over $150 billion in cuts in pay and benefits over the last 6 years. Stripping away the rights of VA employees to work in a nonpartisan, professional environment will not improve the care our veterans and their families deserve and expect from the VA medical system.

This bill, in my view, would undermine the collective bargaining rights--I am a very strong supporter of collective bargaining rights-- of VA employees serving as doctors, nurses, physical therapists, and others in critical jobs, and disrupt the collaborative relationship between VA managers and employees that is essential to a successful workplace environment.

Many years ago--almost 100 years ago--we adopted a civil service system. The premise of that system is we ought to have professional employees--not political employees, not political appointees--not subject to change because of the political whims that may be blowing one way or the other. This bill risks demoralizing those who have tirelessly been working to help our veterans reintegrate into civilian life in communities across this country.

Let me make it clear--and I am sure Dr. Roe is not surprised when I say this--that I agree with Mr. Walz. If there is an employee who is not performing well, that employee ought not to be kept on. But this bill removes the process that was negotiated, or could be negotiated, in a collective bargaining way. And if, by the way, it takes 300-plus days, then perhaps this legislation could deal with that to shorten it. There are ways this could be dealt with that, in my view, will not undermine the civil service protections that are important not only for the employees, but for the system itself.

I have no doubt there are measures that can be adopted to improve VA performance and effectively and fairly discipline employees who engage in misconduct. We ought not to tolerate that. But this bill does not include them. I have not read Senator Isakson's bill, but perhaps that is closer, and I look forward to reviewing it with both the chairman and the ranking member.

This bill goes too far, shreds basic due process rights, in my view, and punishes even model employees. And let me say as an aside, when I say it undermines basic due process rights, part of those rights are to have some time to get representation, to thoughtfully respond, to have some discovery as to what is going on here, what is being alleged, why is it being alleged, and who is alleging it. This bill eviscerates that, in some respects.

I am proud to represent 62,000 Federal employees in Maryland's Fifth District, including many who work at the VA's clinic in Charlotte Hall and in Camp Springs in the neighboring Fourth District. We ought to remember, Mr. Chairman, that when we undermine our Federal workforce and our ability to recruit and retain the best and brightest, we undermine our government's ability to serve the American people. So this is not just about present employees. It is about those who might consider employment in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I hope we don't make the mistake of, in effect, throwing the baby out with the bath water. Let's not take away the rights and protections of those who serve us so ably.

But, yes, I agree with Dr. Roe and with Ranking Member Walz. If there are those who are not serving us well, yes, there ought to be a process; it ought to be fair, it ought to provide time in which to respond, not interminable time, so that we can have an agency of which we can be proud and does what we all want--serve our veterans in a way that we would expect,

demand, and that we are morally obligated to give.

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

(Mr. McCARTHY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that insightful comment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, on a less happy collegial note, it comes as no surprise to the majority leader at the height of our displeasure and disappointment as it relates to what is going on, back to the consideration of the reconciliation process for the repeal or modification of the Affordable Care Act with the American Health Care Act. The bill was posted this Monday, this past Monday night, it was marked up on Wednesday, there were no hearings, there were no opportunities for witnesses to come forward. And as the gentleman knows, he is absolutely correct, I like these quotes, but I like these quotes because they point out theoretically what I would have great agreement with in terms of process.

Particularly, I call your attention to a quote of Speaker Paul Ryan: ``Congress is moving fast to rush through a healthcare overhaul that lacks a key ingredient: the full participation of you, the American people.''

That quote was July 19, 2009. That quote was referring to the process involved in the adoption of the Affordable Care Act.

As the gentleman knows, the Affordable Care Act had 79 hearings. As the gentleman knows, there were 181 witnesses who testified about the Affordable Care Act. As the gentleman knows, that process took approximately 1\1/2\ years, 8 months of which was waiting to see whether Senator Grassley would participate in a bipartisan way in forging healthcare reform in this country.

The gentleman is well aware, not only have we had literally hundreds of thousands of people around the country come to townhall meetings, many that his Members have held, and express their deep concern about the loss of healthcare security if the Affordable Care Act is repealed. So there is no doubt that the American public--I am not saying it is 100 percent--but a large number of the American public are very concerned.

The gentleman further knows, I am sure, because I am sure he has seen the letters, the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Nurses Association,

even the Consumers Union, and hundreds of other groups representing providers, patients, even insurance companies, have expressed deep, deep concern about the adverse consequences of the passage of the American Health Care Act that was marked up in the dead of night. We were criticized. The gentleman apparently doesn't agree with that. But the facts are the facts. They are not alternative facts.

You started marking them up on Wednesday morning, there was some delay during the day, as you know, because we were very concerned about how fast you were moving that. Less than 48 hours after it was introduced, it was marked up. No hearings, no witnesses, no ability to read the bill.

As a matter of fact, shockingly, Mr. Brady voted against an amendment which said: Read the bill. Now, what was shocking about that is that was Mr. Brady's amendment that he offered back in 2010. He voted against the amendment that said: Read the bill. I don't think anybody really had much opportunity to read the bill before it was marked up.

Greg Walden, who is chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said also, in July of 2009:

On a bill of this significance, you would think that we

would at least allow people to come in who are affected by

the extraordinary changes in this bill and have a chance to

let us know how it affects them.

That was Greg Walden, now the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, July 9, 2009. He is now in charge of that committee. Not a single witness testified on the bill that was marked up in his committee. And it was marked up through the dead of the night, if we want to parse our words, because it started in the morning of Wednesday. But it didn't end until the morning, 26 hours later, on Thursday. Which meant that Mr. Walden kept his members in their seats marking up a bill, except when they were voting coming over here, for 26 hours straight on one of the most consequential bills this House will consider and that the Senate will consider, affecting, as I said, millions and millions and millions of people.

Now, I understand the Budget Committee is scheduled to mark that bill up on Wednesday, just a week later. Again, I don't know whether there are going to be hearings and if those hearings will be open to the witnesses that should be called to testify on a bill of such impact.

Let me do one additional quote, because the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee had an interesting quote as well. He said: ``The Democratic Congress and White House simply aren't listening. Democrats are ramming it through over the public's objections.''

That was on March 17, 2010, some year after the bill had been introduced. Thousands of meetings had been held by Republicans and Democrats around the country on the bill. And, as I said, 79 hearings and 181 witnesses later. That is what Chairman Brady said.

And, of course, Chairman Brady, in less than 48 hours, had a markup. Now, he did not have quite as long a markup. It ended at 4:30 a.m. Thursday morning. So that was the dead of night. Or, if you want to parse words, perhaps, the dead of the early morning. But, nevertheless, most of my public wasn't up watching. I presume even at 4:30, which would have been 1:30 for your public, they weren't up watching.

So this was done out of the sight of the public and is inconsistent, I suggest to my friend, Mr. Speaker, the majority leader, inconsistent with the pledge of transparency, openness, and those three quotes that I just read you that said the American people should have the opportunity to express their opinion on legislation generally, but certainly on legislation of this consequence.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, we have had, literally, tens of thousands of hearings that have dealt with almost every issue that this

House considers. I suppose I should take from the majority leader's discussion that, if we have had those hearings in previous Congresses, in the last Congress, the Congress before that, the Congress before that, and we have a substantial number of new Members in this House, and we have millions and millions of voters who are counting on this, we will just simply tell them: Read the transcript of 2002 or of 2009 or of 2013. That is not regular order, Mr. Speaker.

Regular order is you introduce a bill. It is referred to a committee, which in turn refers it to a subcommittee, and, even if it keeps it in the bosom of the full committee, it has a hearing. It posts the bill. It tells citizens throughout this country: If you have an interest, come in and tell us what your interest is, what your perspective is, what you think the ramifications of this bill are. The subcommittee marks it up, if it was referred to a subcommittee, then the full committee marks it up, and then it is referred to the floor. That is regular order, Mr. Speaker.

To rationalize a procedure which has a bill introduced Monday night and is subjected to 26 hours, straight, of markup on the following Wednesday, less than 48 hours later, no matter how you dress it up, that is not, Mr. Speaker, regular order.

What it is is trying to jam through a bill before the American public has an opportunity to tell us what they think about the bill. What it is is jamming through a bill and not allowing the providers, the doctors, the patients, the insurance companies, all of the stakeholders, to have an opportunity to read that bill introduced about 72 hours ago now--a little more than that, maybe close to 96.

That, Mr. Speaker, is not regular order. And I will tell my friend for whom I have a great deal of respect, I think he puts the best face on it, but nobody believed the Republicans had a bill, Mr. Speaker, until Monday night. Well, actually, I believed they had a bill at the last colloquy, and I looked for it all over this Capitol. I couldn't find it. It wasn't posted. The ranking member on the committee didn't have it. No committee Democrat had the bill. They couldn't read it.

So to pretend, Mr. Speaker, that hearings on some other bill at some other time in some other Congress suffices for regular order is something, Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with. And if the situations were reversed, as I have experienced over the last 36 years, that side of the aisle would have torn this place apart. Why do I think that? Because I have seen it.

Yes, we had some delaying, four motions to adjourn, so that we had some time to figure out what this bill was about and some time to hear from the American people. It certainly wasn't enough time. We are going to be hearing more from the American people, I think, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the gentleman trying to say that, well, we only had 48 hours. Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, we do that in a hurry. And the reason is because we are about to go on a break. We are about to go on an August break or a recess or something of that nature. That is not the case. These committees didn't have to meet through the night. They could have met Thursday. They could have met today. They could meet next week. But this bill is being rushed through too fast with too much adverse consequence to the American people.

I would hope the majority leader would slow this bill down. I hope the Rules Committee has full hearings on this bill and that it does not have just attenuated hearings with few witnesses, because there are a lot of people who want to tell us, their Representatives, what their view is of this bill.

I know the Speaker has said there are going to be three phases to this bill, and the majority leader said so as well, and there will be additional legislation. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that my friend, the majority leader, will urge the committees not to consider additional legislation either in the middle of the night or with no notice and no opportunity for witnesses and no hearings.

Previous hearings will not suffice, Mr. Speaker. Other Congresses had hearings. This Congress has a responsibility to hear from the American people. That is what Speaker Ryan said; that is what Mr. Brady said; that is what Mr. Walden said. They said it at a time when they were in the minority, but it ought to apply when they are in the majority. And if we are in the majority, it ought to apply to us as well. I hope that happens, Mr. Speaker, for the country's sake, for our people's sake.

I will yield to the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, if he would like to speak.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the majority leader. I presume that he has heard from--I don't have the quotes in front of me,

but maybe I will bring them next week--the thousands of people who have said their lives have been saved by the Affordable Care Act; the thousands of parents with a child with a preexisting condition that, if the Republicans had succeeded in their 65 votes to repeal it, would not have been protected; the millions of seniors who are paying less for their prescription drugs because of the Affordable Care Act.

I could read all those letters.

Why do I read the letters of Mr. Walden, Mr. Brady, and Speaker Ryan?

Because they are in charge.

All our constituents, on either side, had no opportunity to testify on this bill. But Speaker Ryan, Mr. Walden, and Mr. Brady could have given them that opportunity, and they chose not to. They rationalize it apparently because, well, we had hearings in the past.

Does this bill have the subject matter of the ACA?

It does. But this bill was offered just some, as I said, 90-or-so hours ago. And the leader says: Well, that is okay. It is based on all those hearings we had.

The fact is this bill has not been brought forward for the last 7 years while there was a repeal for ACA.

Why?

We all know why. Mr. Speaker, it is because the majority could not come to an agreement, and they are not in agreement now. Perhaps, if this bill stands out there a little bit, it is so flawed they won't be able to get the votes on their side of the floor.

I was here--I don't think the majority leader was here--when we adopted the part D prescription drug program. It was called up by the majority, the Republican Party at the evening hour; and we voted from 3 a.m. until 6 a.m. And when I say we voted, that vote was kept open for 3 hours while they opportuned their Members: You have got to vote for this. President Bush wants it. You have got to vote for this.

We voted against it. But the vote was held open 3 hours, I tell my friend. That was not regular order.

Now, our side has held a vote open from time to time--never for 3 hours, but from time to time. That is why it is being rushed. It is not because they had a lot of hearings before, not because witnesses had testified they didn't like the Affordable Care Act. We understand that.

The issue is not whether people like or dislike the Affordable Care Act. It is how are we going to provide what the President has promised: access for everybody to health care at a lower cost and a better price.

I told the majority leader last week--and I repeat my comments, Mr. Speaker, to the majority leader this week--if they bring such a bill to the floor, I will support it. This bill does not do that.

So what President Trump promised during the election and what he promised from that podium just a few days ago is not what this bill represents. It is not what they promised to the American people.

What I asked the majority leader was--they are apparently going to have some additional bills--whether or not they will be also rushed through without hearings on the premise that there were hearings in the past.

I repeat that there are a lot of new Members in this body that didn't have the opportunity to have those hearings and weren't in this body. I don't know how many there are because I don't know how many Congresses we are talking about if we adopted this bill 7 years ago and then there were hearings subsequent.

So I don't know where we are going, Mr. Speaker, but I think the American people expect an opportunity to be heard. Yes, I may quote some next week.

The people who were elected by the American people to do their job have the power to open up the doors and open up the windows and pull back the curtains so that the American people could come in and testify. There were all those witnesses who testified in the last Congress and the Congress before that, but I am talking about the people who testified during a Congress in which we considered the bill. We haven't had an open rule this year, Mr. Speaker. We have had structured rules. We have had no open rule.

So in terms of the majority leader telling me, Mr. Speaker, that we want everybody to have their opportunity, and he caricatures one amendment that was--I think I would agree with him--more to show that not a single Republican would vote. And Mr. Brady, as I pointed out, didn't vote for his own amendment that he offered when the Affordable Care Act was marked up to say read the bill.

Time was not given to read the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I understand we are not going to come to any conclusion today; but I am hopeful that the process that was perpetrated on not only the minority but also the majority this week will not be repeated, and that the representations that have been made by the Speaker, by the young guns, and by so many others would be a process that is, in fact, open, thoughtful, and democratic.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just came from the Energy and Commerce Committee. That committee, along with the Ways and Means Committee and the Education and the Workforce Committee, is seized of the responsibility to consider the harmful American Health Care Act being offered by the Republicans as a better way. It is anything but a better way.

Mr. Speaker, they don't want the American public to see what they are doing. They met all through the night. They have been meeting now for over 24 hours, without sleep, without rest, without reflection, and with no opportunity, Mr. Speaker, for the American people to see what is going on. In the dead of night, out of the sight of the public, they are hiding their bill and rushing to judgment.

Why? Because they know, as they have seen in town meeting after town meeting after town meeting--that is, of course, those Republicans who have had town meetings--that the American public is extraordinarily concerned and worried they are going to lose the health care that they receive through the Affordable Care Act.

They are concerned about the premiums and deductibles that they have to pay skyrocketing because of the Republican bill that is being proposed. They are concerned that Medicare and Medicaid are going to be decimated and the life of Medicare reduced in terms of its ability to pay the benefits promised.

Mr. Speaker, the President stood at that rostrum and said he had a healthcare bill that was going to give healthcare coverage for everybody--not just some, but everybody--at less expense and greater quality. There is no such bill that the President has provided us with. If there is, and if he has such a bill, Mr. Speaker, I will support it, but it is certainly not the bill that the Ways and Means Committee ended its work on at 4:30 a.m. this morning.

The American people, Mr. Speaker, ought to be asking: What are you hiding? What is the rush? You have had 7 years to consider this bill. That is 7 years. We are meeting tomorrow, we are meeting next week, we are meeting the week after. It is not as if we are going on a summer break and we need to rush to judgment. It is not that we need to keep the American people out of consideration of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats in committee and on this floor are doing everything we can to slow down this process and to open the doors, open the windows, and keep the lights on so that the people who deserve to know how a Republican bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act will impact their lives and the lives of their family and their children.

Houses Republicans are marking up this bill without holding a single hearing--not one hearing--for a bill that gives $600 billion in tax cuts and cuts hundreds of billions of dollars from health care. The tax cuts go to the wealthiest in America. Perhaps that is why there are no hearings. Perhaps that is why they didn't invite any witnesses. Perhaps that is why they are rushing to judgment before the Congressional Budget Office, which is nonpartisan and will give us an accurate estimate of its cost and who is going to be hurt--Mr. Speaker, apparently they don't want the American people to get those facts before their representatives have to make a decision.

I know they voted for repealing the Affordable Care Act almost 65 times here in this House. Democrats have voted against that because we believe the Affordable Care Act is working.

Is it working perfectly? No.

Do we need to join together and make it work better for the American people? Yes.

This bill will impact, Mr. Speaker, every single American family and business. If enacted, it will force Americans across the country to pay more for less coverage and fewer benefits. Shamefully, Republicans are hoping they can jam this bill through the House and Senate before Members have to go home and face their constituents in April. That is why we are having to rush, because they don't want their Members to go home in April and say: This is what we are considering, what do you think? Because they know. Because they have had hearings, town meetings. They haven't had any hearings on this bill, but they have had town meetings, and every American has seen the reporting on that, angry Americans fearful that they are going to lose benefits absolutely critical to them and their families.

They continued marking up this bill through the night, using the very same tactics they claimed we were using when considering the Affordable Care Act. We had over 79 hearings not in the middle of the night, but during the day. We had over 181 witnesses. That is opposed to zero-- zero--witnesses on this bill. Shame. It gives a lie to the representation of transparency and openness and accountability that our Speaker has said he would operate this House to ensure that those happened.

They used the same tactics that they claim, as I said, that we were considering. In fact, here is what Tom Price, who was then a member of the House of Representatives, now the Secretary of the Health and Human Services, said: ``The negotiations are obviously being done in secret and the American people really just want to know what they are trying to hide.''

He said that on January 6, 2010.

180 witnesses, 79 hearings, a year and a half or more of consideration, yet we have a bill that was introduced Monday night. Today is Thursday. Monday night it was introduced, and no hearings. Wednesday, deep into the night, and this morning this bill is being marked up.

Kevin Brady, the chairman of the Committee on Way and Means, who held a markup until 4:30 a.m., said this: ``I think there is never a more critical time for the American public to weigh in on an important issue than on health care today and there is a lot about this bill we don't know.''

He said that in a townhall August 10, 2009. Well, now he is chairman of the committee, and apparently he has decided that the American public doesn't need to know now. When we were in charge, he thought the public needed to know, and that is why we had those 79 hearings and 181 witnesses and townhalls, thousands of meetings and townhalls around the country on the Affordable Care Act. But Mr. Brady apparently doesn't think that is applicable when he is in charge of the committee.

Then Speaker, now former Speaker John Boehner said this: ``Can you say it was done openly, with transparency and accountability? Without backroom deals struck behind closed doors, hidden from the people? Hell, no, you can't.''

But now the shoe is on the other foot, and my Republican colleagues are in charge. They are full speed ahead, and the doors are closed, the windows are shuttered, and the blinds are drawn.

The process we had in 2009 and 2010 to write and adopt the Affordable Care Act included, as I said, 79 hearings versus zero hearings on this bill. Zero. None. 181 witnesses that I have referred to. Zero witnesses, zero Americans included from the public in this process. We had a 2-year process that was open and recognized how consequential the

legislation would be, ensuring that Americans from all over the country, including doctors, healthcare organizations, providers, insurance companies, average citizens could weigh in.

Now in their rush to pass their repeal, Republicans are doing everything they said was wrong and much more. Republicans are terrified that the American people will find out what is in this bill. The problem they have is a lot of their Members have found out what is in this bill, and they don't like it. Hardly any newspaper in America likes it. We think the public is thinking they are moving too fast and are going to hurt them. They are afraid, however, of having to face angry constituents who will see that this bill will take healthcare coverage away from 20 million Americans and cause out-of-pocket costs to go up for millions more. This bill could destabilize even the employer-based insurance market. That is people who know nothing about the exchange, but they have insurance through their employer. This bill will destabilize their insurance as well.

The point is, Mr. Speaker, we don't know for sure how bad it is. We know it is bad, and that is information we ought to have before being asked to vote on the floor or in committee on such consequential legislation. My Republican friends say, well, we will have a CBO score by the time we consider it on the floor. But they don't want that information out for very long because it is going to be very negative.

Democrats will continue, Mr. Speaker, to do everything in our power to slow down this process and throw back the curtain Republicans have pulled over this bill and this process in an attempt to hide the details of their dangerous plan from the American people. We are ready, as I said, to turn the lights out in this Chamber before we let the Republican repeal bill turn the lights out on coverage and care for millions of our fellow Americans. I do not yield my conviction to oppose this bill as strongly, as long as I possibly can.

Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair.

Can the Chair tell me whether the CBO has scored the American Health Care Act, which is currently being marked up in the Ways and Means Committee?

Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Speaker will not respond.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans released a bill last night. That bill deals with every American's welfare--every American's welfare--every child's welfare in this country. None of them were able to testify before the committee, before the committee marks it up on Wednesday. None of them were able to come to that committee and say how it will affect them or their families or their fellow citizens. None of them were able to testify as to the benefits of the Affordable Care Act for them, their families, their children, and their neighbors. None of them will have been able to read and digest the bill.

Mr. Speaker, last night, after locking it away in a basement for days, and just as reporters were leaving to go home, Republicans released the text of their legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The country has been waiting for 7 years for the Republican replacement, for the Republican alternative, for the Republicans to redeem their promise of a better plan, a better way to ensure the security of having health care that is affordable and available to each American and to their families and their children.

Republicans have been promising, since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, that they would repeal it entirely and enact something better. They don't repeal it entirely, and they don't offer something better, something that covers more Americans and lowers costs to consumers. For 7 years, they have said we have a better plan. Last night, they revealed the inaccuracy of that representation; the bait-and-switch, if you will, of that representation; the pretense to their conservatives who have voted some 65 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act that they were not going to offer a bill that did that, notwithstanding the fact that they said that is what they are going to do.

The legislation they introduced would repeal, of course, some parts of the Affordable Care Act and replace them with policies that will take health coverage away, take health care away from millions of Americans and make millions of others pay more for less.

President Trump, just the other day from that rostrum, promised the American people that the Republican plan would ``have insurance for everybody.'' That was not true. Neither the House Republicans nor the Senate Republicans nor President Trump have offered such a plan, and the plan that was revealed last night does not fulfill that representation.

Mr. Speaker, it should not surprise us, however, that our President says things that prove to be not accurate. He also said from that rostrum that the policies would be far less expensive and far better than they are now. This bill does not do that, and the President has offered no bill that does that.

This plan fails that representation miserably. It increases healthcare costs for middle class families in order to pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest, who don't need them to afford health care. We should not penalize people for becoming wealthy. We applaud their success. But we should not subsidize health care for those of us who can afford our health care while those who cannot are left to fend for themselves. In other words, the Republicans are once again saying you are on your own.

Their bill also raids the Medicare trust fund, threatening its long- term solvency. In fact, the affordable care added to the life expectancy of Medicare. The bill that the Republicans have put forward imposes severe cuts to Medicaid as well. It forces States and healthcare providers to carry the burden of the uninsured while taking away funding for expanded Medicaid.

Their bill requires States to ration care by throwing those with preexisting conditions into ``sick pools,'' with higher premiums, higher deductibles, and waiting periods for coverage. And what services would be available under Medicaid?

Their plan replaces the individual responsibility requirement which, by the way, Mr. Speaker, as you may well know, was the proposal of The Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Action for America, which is the political arm of the foundation, opposes the Republican bill. Not for the same reason I do, but because they believe it continues much of what ACA tried to do in protecting Americans in a plan that was initially proposed by The Heritage Foundation and adopted by Governor Romney in Massachusetts.

Unbelievably, Mr. Speaker, Republicans won't even tell the American people how much this legislation will cost and what its impact will be on consumers' wallets and on our insurance markets. How do you do that? You have hearings, you listen to people, you listen to their experiences now, you listen to what their needs are, and you listen to those who have the greatest experience on their view of what the impact of this legislation will be. There have been no such hearings and none are planned.

Republicans know that millions of Americans will lose coverage under their legislation: those covered under Medicaid, the health insurance exchanges, and even those with employer-based insurance. That is why, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, they are rushing to see this bill put in force before it is illuminated by the light of day and before the American people find out how they will be impacted.

Thankfully, Mr. Speaker, it will be difficult for House Republicans to enact their bill into law, not only because of the extreme opposition to those proposals by the American people, as we have seen in townhall meeting after townhall meeting after townhall meeting across this country, but also because the House and Senate Republicans are already rejecting it. It is not certain that House Republicans can even reach a majority in this House on their legislation.

The head of the Republican Study Committee, the largest group of Republicans, has said this bill is not acceptable. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows), the head of the Freedom Caucus, has said this bill does not repeal the Affordable Care Act, which is his objective and the objective of the Freedom Caucus. Senator Cruz has said that as well. Senator Paul has said that as well. Senator Lee has said that as well.

One thing is clear, however, Mr. Speaker, House Republicans are going to have to find the votes on their own to dismantle the protections incorporated in the Affordable Care Act that the American people now have.

Is the Affordable Care Act perfect? It is not. Should we have spent the last 6

years trying to make it work as well as it possibly can? Yes, we should have. Were we able to do that? No. The only alternative the Republican Party offered to the American people and to this House was to repeal. Not to replace, not to repair, not to fix, not to make sure it was more affordable and more available to the American people so that we would be a healthier and stronger nation. Their only option was to repeal.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Republican leaders to withdraw this bill. Let us work together to ensure what almost every Member says they want, and that is a healthcare program in America that is affordable by all, available to all, and enjoyed by all. That is what President Trump said at that rostrum just days ago.

This bill that the Republicans are going to mark up on Wednesday does not do what they say or what President Trump said. The American people will oppose it, and we will reflect their opposition in this House. But we are available to our Republican colleagues in good faith to work together to ensure that what the President said--available to all, at a lower price, with everybody having access--we will support that bill, if it exists, and we will work with our Republican colleagues to pass it and give that protection and security to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I note that there have not been many Republicans to speak this morning. I understand that one Republican spoke about this bill. I am amazed if they think this is a better way. I am amazed if they think this will do a better job than the Affordable Care Act. I am amazed if they think they are going to bring costs down and care up, and that we don't have a lot of Republicans, Mr. Speaker, coming to this floor and claiming victory. They are not here because they can't claim that victory.

Let's reject this bill, Mr. Speaker. Let's work together. We can do better. The American people expect us to do better.

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.

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?

Do you know when it will be marked up?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

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?

The gentleman just indicated that this will be the bill that we passed last year.

So I am correct, then, that the bill will be the same bill that we passed last year? Is that accurate?

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?

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.

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,

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.

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.

I have some more.

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

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. Leader, you can be assured that history will show that. Can I see the bill today?

In other words, they will mark it up before anybody in the public, including a Member of the House of Representatives----

Before then, we cannot see it.

Is that what the gentleman is telling me?

I yield to my friend.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

I ask you: Do you expect the Budget Committee to have a hearing on it?

I yield to my friend.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.