Hoyer Discusses Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care Reform and House Contempt Vote on MSNBC

For Immediate Release:

June 29, 2012

Contact:

Daniel Reilly, 202-225-3130

WASHINGTON, DC - House Democratic Whip Steny H. Hoyer (MD) discussed the Supreme Court decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act and the contempt vote against Attorney General Eric Holder on MSNBC’s “The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell” last night. Below are excerpts and a link to the video:

Click here to watch the video

On the Supreme Court Ruling to uphold the Affordable Care Act:

“We thought the bill was constitutional. The Supreme Court has said it’s constitutional. It's within our powers and we think the American public can be more secure today than they were yesterday with the assurance that they're going to have access to affordable, quality health care.”

“We think this is a bill that is good for America and will bring down costs. We'll provide for seniors with lower prescription drug costs; we'll give young people the ability to stay on their parents’ policy until they’re 26 if they haven't been able to find a job; we’ll make sure the insurance companies can’t put caps on insurance benefits when people get really sick; and we'll particularly importantly make sure that people that already have an illness – a preexisting condition - will be able to get health care insurance which they need. We think it's a good day for Americans.”

On the House Contempt Vote Against Attorney General Eric Holder:

“I thought this was a very sad day for the Congress of the United States This was politics, not due process. That was choosing confrontation over cooperation.”

“The normal number of days between a Committee action and Floor action is 87 days. This was 7 days. [Note: Mr. Hoyer misspoke, it was 8 days.] It was rush to judgment. This is all about politics and not in my opinion about the ability for Congress to get the information it needs. The Attorney General has been extraordinarily cooperative - turned over 7,600 pieces of documents for the committee to see. And in fact the committee's investigation of the underlying substance of this issue was superficial, and they shut out witnesses [who] asked to be called who knew about … the so-called ‘Fast and Furious’ process. That's not what this is about. This is simply about politically going after the Attorney General for partisan purposes.” 

###