Providing for Consideration of H.R. 1216, Repealing Mandatory Funding for Graduate Medical Education; Providing for Consideration of H.R. 1540, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012; and Waiving Requirement of Clause 6(a) of Rule XIII...

Floor Speech

Providing for Consideration of H.R. 1216, Repealing Mandatory Funding for Graduate Medical Education; Providing for Consideration of H.R. 1540, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012; and Waiving Requirement of Clause 6(a) of Rule XIII with Respect to Consideration of Certain Resolutions

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this rule allows for the consideration of H.R. 1216, the Graduate Medical Education Direct Spending Repeal Act, and general debate for H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, and this rule also allows for a martial law consideration of the reauthorization of the Patriot Act sometime this week.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, this is a disappointing rule. While I have no problem with a rule providing for general debate for the Defense authorization bill, it is disappointing that this rule also includes these two other provisions--especially the martial law rule.

Let me begin with H.R. 1216. This bill is simple--it's another chance for the Republicans to dismantle the Affordable Care Act. It's one more part of their repeal agenda.

The funny thing is, Mr. Speaker, Republicans continue to push their repeal agenda, but they haven't put any plan forward to replace these new health care provisions that we passed. The truth is that the Republicans are not only trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act, they are also trying to repeal Medicare. This is outrageous. The American people do not want the House Republicans to dismantle Medicare.

The Affordable Care Act, Mr. Speaker, provides dedicated funding for the training of family doctors through graduate medical education programs at teaching health centers. The Republicans, while they claim they support doctors and training programs, don't believe in this dedicated funding. This bill not only rescinds the direct funding for these programs, it reduces the authorization by nearly $50 million.

Now, everyone knows there is a shortage of primary care physicians in this country. Why, then, do Republicans want to undercut efforts to bring physicians into areas of desperate need?

Making these funds discretionary will jeopardize the 11 programs currently underway across the country--including one program in my home State of Massachusetts. Making these funds discretionary does nothing to help our constituents who are struggling to obtain primary care. Making this program discretionary will deter other entities from making business decisions necessary to expand residency training--decisions like securing commitments from key stakeholders to agree to train new or additional residents, applying for accreditation if not already eligible, and hiring new faculty with funding over the next few years.

Finally, claims that this bill saves hundreds of millions of dollars are just not true. Republicans may claim that this bill will cut nearly $200 million from the deficit, but that's only true if Congress provides no funding for this program. CBO--the nonpartisan budget arbiter that Republicans frequently ignore--estimates that $184 million will be appropriated over 5 years, meaning only $11 million will be saved by H.R. 1216. So claims of this incredible fiscal austerity are simply not true.

Now, a second part of this rule is the martial law portion for same-day consideration of the Patriot Act extension. The Senate is currently debating this reauthorization, and the Republicans feel it necessary to once again jam this bill through this House as soon as the Senate is done with it. This is no way to debate legislation dealing with our homeland security and basic civil rights and civil liberties. This is an important issue. Members need time to be able to understand all of the implications of the Patriot Act.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, let me say just a few words about the fiscal year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act which we will begin general debate on later today.

All Members of this House are strongly committed to protecting our national security--regardless of party, region, or political point of view. It has been the tradition of the House Armed Services Committee, at the staff and Member level, to work in a bipartisan way to carefully craft the annual defense authorizations bill, and I recognize Chairman Buck McKeon and Ranking Member Adam Smith for continuing that collegiality.

But given such a tradition, it comes as a surprise to see so many provisions in H.R. 1540 that attempt to repudiate and attack several of the President's national security policies. From warehousing low-level detainees for an indeterminate amount of time, to delaying the implementation of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, to hamstringing the implementation of the bipartisan-supported New START Treaty, to seeking a so-called updated authorization for the use of military force that no longer references the devastating 9/11 attacks against America, but instead gives broad authority to the executive branch to pursue military operations anywhere for any length of time--such changes have all the appearance of a partisan agenda.

This afternoon, the Rules Committee will be reviewing many of the amendments on these and other issues, and I hope that they will be made in order so that a broad range of issues and recommendations might be considered and voted upon by this body.

Now, a number of those amendments will deal with the future of our policy and military operations in Afghanistan.

As most of my colleagues know, I believe that we need to rethink our strategy in Afghanistan. It is bankrupting our Nation. The gentlelady from North Carolina talks about the deficit. I will remind her and others that we are borrowing to pay for the war in Afghanistan. We are borrowing approximately $8.2 billion a month. That's billion with a ``b.''

So if we're going to get serious about deficit reduction, we either need to end these wars--which I think we should do--or if you support them, you ought to pay for them.

This war has already demanded the lives of 1,573 of our service men and women and gravely wounded tens of thousands of our troops. And right now, there is no true end in sight.

The death of Osama bin Laden creates an opportunity for us to reexamine our policy in Afghanistan and ask the President exactly how and when he will bring the last troops home to their families and their communities.

The death of bin Laden provides us with a moment to commend our intelligence and uniformed men and women, and it also allows us to bring fresh eyes to what kind of defense budget and priorities best fit the needs of our Nation and our national security, especially in these difficult economic times.

I hope that the Rules Committee will embrace such a debate, allow a broad range of amendments to be made in order, and support a fresh and critical examination of the policies and priorities put forward in H.R. 1540.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I feel I need to clarify the record on a couple of things.

My friend from North Carolina said that the Republicans want to protect Medicare. I would suggest that she read the bill that she voted for and other Republicans voted for, the so-called Ryan budget. The way they protect Medicare is by destroying it. They turn it into a voucher system. And it will mean seniors will pay more and they will get less protection. It is outrageous what they're proposing. And more and more Americans are reading the bill, and they are outraged by what they are seeing.

Democrats, and I hope some thoughtful Republicans, will stand firm and protect Medicare. It is the most important, successful program in our history, along with Social Security. And efforts to dismantle it and to put more burden on our senior citizens for their health care, and basically a major giveaway to the insurance companies, is not protecting Medicare.

The gentlelady talks about the reckless spending in Washington. I will remind all of my colleagues that when Bill Clinton left office, we didn't have a deficit; we were paying down our debt. There was a detailed article in The Washington Post not too long ago explaining how we went from no deficit to now a huge deficit. It includes tax giveaways to the wealthiest people in this country that were not paid for, you know.

I find it somewhat sad that one of the first things that was done in terms of addressing some of our economic concerns was to protect the tax cuts for people like Donald Trump but then to go in and cut emergency fuel assistance for poor people and to go after food and nutrition programs and Pell Grants. That's not the way we should be balancing the budget.

But The Washington Post talks about these tax cuts for the wealthy that were not paid for; on top of that, two wars that were not paid for. Now, I am against these wars; but if you are for them, you ought to pay for them. That's the way we have done it throughout our history. World War II, we paid for it. There was a war tax. We had war bonds. The Vietnam War was paid for in part by eroding Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. It was paid for. But now we have these wars that are not paid for, $8.2 billion a month in Afghanistan alone.

So I hope this is not a partisan agenda when we talk about the war in Afghanistan, and I am not here to put the blame on one party or another. I hope that we can have these amendments on the floor and have some thoughtful discussion about ways we could bring this war to an end. I think Democrats, and I know a lot of Republicans, feel that we should bring this war to an end.

In terms of energy policy, I think people are horrified that we continue to protect taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil companies while they are gouging us at the gas pump. It is unbelievable that we can't have a debate on this floor about taking away these taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil that are making record profits. So I hope that we will talk a little bit more about that at the end of this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a former member of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The late great Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. And the fact is, Mr. Speaker, when this record surplus was turned into a record deficit, I will remind the gentlelady that the Republicans controlled the House, they controlled the Senate, and they controlled the White House. And that is when we passed these tax cuts for the richest people in the world, and they were not paid for. And that is when we embarked on two wars that were not paid for.

It appears that the gentlelady wants to continue these wars. I want to end them. But if you're going to continue them, then pay for them, because it is not fair to the men and women who are sacrificing their lives and the men and women who are in harm's way and their families to just accumulate all this debt and pass it on to them, their children and their grandchildren. If we are going to go to war, we all ought to take some responsibility.

And, finally, on the issue of the taxpayer subsidies for oil companies, we have not had a debate on this House floor or a vote on this House floor on this. I don't care what the Senate did or did not do. I'm not a Member of the United States Senate. I'm a Member of the United States House of Representatives. And under this new and open process that we were promised, by the way, not a single open rule yet--not a single open rule--but under this new and open process, we can't bring an amendment to the floor to be able to debate this issue.

So I would respectfully suggest that maybe my colleague from North Carolina and the Rules Committee will once in a while vote for an open rule so we can bring some of these things to the floor.

At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to support the efforts of my colleague from New York (Mr. Bishop). And let me just say the American people are sending a clear message to Republicans: Show us the jobs. After 140 days of the new GOP majority, they keep pursuing their agenda that destroys jobs and stalls our economic growth.

This week is no different. And today, Republicans are only making matters worse, voting to kill graduate medical education in qualified teaching health care centers.

The previous question, as Mr. Bishop referred to it, is based on H.R. 964, the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act. And it takes a stand for working families facing tough times and paying so much more at the pump. During an international oil crisis, as declared by the President, this legislation makes it illegal to sell gasoline at excessive prices and prevents Big Oil from taking advantage of consumers and engaging in price gouging.

The cost of a barrel of oil and a gallon of gas has reached their highest level in years, with no end in sight, and America's middle class is paying the price.

Republicans must join with Democrats to oppose price gouging and to ease the burden on our middle class. We must work together to create jobs, strengthen the middle class, and responsibly reduce the deficit.

To help consumers at the pump and provide some relief to small businesses and families struggling with high gas prices, this legislation expands the authority of the President to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to combat market manipulation and bring down the price, and makes it a Federal crime to sell gasoline at excessive prices.

The legislation also protects taxpayers, holds Big Oil accountable, repeals the largest tax breaks for the Big Five Oil companies, and ensures that oil companies pay billions of dollars owed to taxpayers for drilling on public lands. This is part of our multifaceted effort to lower the price of gas now, bring relief to consumers and taxpayers, strengthen our energy security, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and hold Big Oil accountable.

Republicans' ``drill-only, oil above all'' plan is really a boon for Big Oil and does nothing to reduce the pain at the pump for America's middle class families who are facing these prices each and every day. Republicans are simply returning to the Bush policies for Big Oil--continuing to purse ``drill-only'' policies with fewer safeguards and no accountability, that has us sending a billion dollars a day overseas for foreign oil.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up H.R. 964, the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act introduced by Representative Tim Bishop of New York.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?

There was no objection.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so we can debate and pass a bill that actually addresses the price of gas. I have tried, Mr. Speaker, on numerous times in the Rules Committee to bring responsible amendments to the floor that would get at this issue of taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil companies, and every single time my Republicans friends have voted ``no.'' Every time there has been an opportunity to try to address this issue, they have voted ``no.''

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source