Brett Guthrie

Mr. GUTHRIE

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, due to the death of a close friend, I was absent from the House on Thursday, December 15th and Friday, December 16th. Had I been present, I would have recorded the following votes: Rollcall 933--aye; Rollcall 934--aye; Rollcall 935--aye; Rollcall 936--aye; Rollcall 937--aye; Rollcall 938--aye; Rollcall 939--aye; Rollcall 940--aye; Rollcall 941--aye; Rollcall 942--aye; Rollcall 943--no.

Mr. GUTHRIE

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great friend and a remarkable Kentuckian, Mrs. Phyllis Causey. In January, after 39 years of honorable and selfless public service, she will retire. Her Lewisburg High School yearbook in 1968 contained a prophecy for her, saying, ``Phyllis will be in President Nixon's Cabinet in 10 years.'' And although President Nixon resigned while she was at basic training for the Army Reserve in '74 and she never did make it to the White House, lucky for us, she still decided to follow her passion for politics and public service. Phyllis graduated from Hopkinsville Community College in 1970 and received her bachelor's degree from Western Kentucky University in 1972. Upon her graduation, Phyllis worked for WKU for the following 23 years. In 1995, she was hired as a field representative for Congressman Ron Lewis. And when I was elected to replace Congressman Lewis upon his retirement, Phyllis was kind enough to continue working for me. While traveling as a candidate for Congress, I met so many individuals whose first question to me was, Are you going to keep Phyllis if you are elected? Their question was a testament to Phyllis' compassion, hard work, and dedication to the individuals in the counties she served. She was and still is irreplaceable. Phyllis grew up on a farm in Logan County, where her parents taught her the value of hard work and the importance of giving and caring for others. And throughout the nearly 20 years I have known Phyllis, she has exemplified these values every day. She has been such an inspiration to me, and she has always been devoted to the causes she believes in--church, family, and friends. Phyllis is an incredible wife, daughter, sister, and mother. I know her family--especially her husband, Larry--will be happy to have her around more often. And although I will miss her, I know this is in no way a goodbye. I am positive she will continue to be active and touch the lives of those of us who have had the privilege of call her a friend. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Mrs. Phyllis Causey, who exemplifies what it means to be an American, a Kentuckian, a Christian, and a public servant.

Mr. GUTHRIE

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great friend and remarkable Kentuckian, Mrs. Phyllis Causey. In January, after over 39 years of honorable and selfless public service, she will retire. Her Lewisburg High School yearbook in 1968 contained a prophecy for her, saying, ``Phyllis will be in President Nixon's Cabinet in ten years.'' And although Nixon resigned while she was at basic training for the Army Reserve in 1974 and she never did make it to the White House, lucky for us she still decided to follow her passion for politics and public service. Phyllis graduated from Hopkinsville Community College in 1970 and received her Bachelor's degree from Western Kentucky University in 1972. Upon her graduation, Phyllis worked for WKU for the following 23 years. In 1995, she was hired as a field representative for Congressman Ron Lewis and when I was elected to replace Congressman Lewis upon his retirement, Phyllis was kind enough to continue working for me. While traveling as a candidate for Congress, I met so many individuals whose first question to me was, to ask if I was keeping Phyllis on staff if I was elected. Their question was a testament to Phyllis' compassion, hard work, and dedication to the individuals in the counties she served. She was, and still is, irreplaceable. Phyllis grew up on a farm in Logan County, where her parents taught her the value of hard work and the importance of giving and caring for others. And throughout the nearly 20 years I have known Phyllis she has exemplified these values every day. She has been such an inspiration to me. She has always been devoted to the causes she believes in--church, family and friends. Phyllis is an incredible wife, daughter, sister and mother. I know her family, especially her husband Larry, will be happy to have her around more often. Although I will miss her, I know this is in no way a goodbye. I am positive she will continue to be active and touch the lives of those of us who have had the privilege of calling her a friend. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Mrs. Phyllis Causey, who exemplifies what it means to be an American, a Kentuckian, a Christian and a public servant.

Mr. GUTHRIE

Mr. GUTHRIE. The bipartisan position, the one that both parties working together have put forward, is to support this; and we've had different comments about the Republicans are doing this or that. But the truth of the matter is this is a bipartisan bill. It's a bipartisan bill that our country needs because for 2\1/2\ years bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency have run wild with new regulations while hiding the staggering job losses that would result. The TRAIN Act requires an interagency committee to study the actual economic effects of EPA regulations and make the findings public. Most of us say that's a commonsense request of EPA, no more regulations until we know how many jobs will be lost. Mr. Chairman, I have a manufacturing background, and I come from a manufacturing State. In Kentucky, we know what it takes to keep and grow jobs, and it isn't excess regulations from EPA. I implore my colleagues to pass the TRAIN Act and shed light on the havoc that this agency is causing for job creators nationwide. A vote for this bill is a vote for jobs and for transparency.

Mr. GUTHRIE

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Sergeant Dakota Meyer, U.S. Marine Corps, who has virtuously served the United States and the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Today, Sgt. Meyer will receive the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest medal for bravery, for his courageous actions while serving as a member of the Marine Embedded Training Team 2-8, Regional Corps Advisory Command in Kunar Province, Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. On Sept. 8, 2009, Meyer's actions saved the lives of 13 U.S. troops and 23 Afghan soldiers. Taliban insurgents were dug into the high ground and hidden inside a village, pouring down deadly fire at Afghan forces and their American advisers. Armed militants swarmed the low ground to try to finish off the troops. Meyer's team was pinned down near the village. Defying orders to stay put, Meyer set himself in the turret of a Humvee and rode straight into the firefight, taking fire from all directions. He went in not once, but five times, trying to rescue his comrades. During about six hours of chaotic fighting, he killed eight Taliban militants and provided cover for Afghan and U.S. servicemen to escape the ambush. We owe our freedom to exceptional soldiers, like Sgt. Meyer, whose bravery and heroism, and the bravery of those who he fought alongside of, will forever be remembered and appreciated. I ask my colleagues to join me today in honoring Sergeant Dakota Meyer for his steadfast commitment to the U.S. Marine Corps, his fellow soldiers, his nation and the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Mr. GUTHRIE

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I was absent today in order to attend my daughter's high school graduation. As a result, I missed three votes on Friday, June 3, 2011. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 410 and 411, and ``nay'' on rollcall vote 412.

Mr. GUTHRIE

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great Kentuckian, Mrs. Kathleen Bateman. After 33 years of teaching, Mrs. Bateman will retire leaving behind a legacy of dedication to her students and her community. Mrs. Bateman graduated from Murray State University in 1977 with a Bachelor of Arts in Education and earned her Master's in Counseling from Western Kentucky University in 1986. She obtained her Rank I in Art through the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards in 1990. Mrs. Bateman's most recent position was at East Hardin Middle School, but she has touched the lives of countless students throughout her career while teaching at several elementary and middle schools in the Commonwealth. A great teacher has the power to affect students throughout their academic journey, opening new horizons and starting them on a positive path with high expectations for the future. Mrs. Bateman did just that with the unwavering commitment she gave her students. It takes a special person and a tremendous level of perseverance to be an educator--qualities that Ms. Bateman exuded throughout her years of hard work. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Mrs. Kathleen Bateman for her many great contributions to the Commonwealth of Kentucky and for contributing to the success of many young people in our community.

Mr. GUTHRIE

Mr. GUTHRIE. Madam Speaker, as we began the debate about Medicare just a minute ago, we knew last week when we left to go home to work in our districts that Medicare's actuary said it is going to go bankrupt in 2024. This side of the aisle has offered a plan to make it stable, secure and sustainable. There is no member--no member as we heard all day yesterday--of the Greatest Generation on whom this will have any effect. As a matter of fact, over half the baby boomer generation will have no changes. We are changing Medicare to make it work so it is sustainable. If we follow the plan introduced by the President, which does raise taxes on the rich but still does not address the sustainability of Medicare in the future, my daughter, when she is my age 30 years from now, will wake up and go to work, and 100 percent of the Federal income tax she pays will pay for my generation to be retired. The Greatest Generation provided my generation opportunities, and we're working to make sure our children have opportunities as well. On the underlying bill, what's interesting is that this bill only takes this program back to the way it was passed out of the House in the health care bill. We are doing exactly what the majority passed out of the House. It changed to a mandatory program in the Senate, and was adopted when it came back from the Senate. So, if this program is so important that it has to be mandatory funding as they say it has to be, why didn't they do it when they debated the health care bill before and include the provision that is in this motion to recommit? As a matter of fact, this bill authorizes changes in medical education in hospitals, teaching hospitals, children's hospitals, nurses' programs, geriatric programs, pediatric programs. There are all sorts of them, and none of them have the provision that this motion to recommit wants to put on this program. So I say we need to get a handle on the budget so we can have a future for this country. We need to quit putting programs on autopilot, and put them in the process, that they go through the appropriations process so they can be reviewed and they can be determined which programs are successful and moving forward. It is important that we have primary care physicians trained at teaching health centers, but it's also important we have them at children's hospitals that were zeroed out in the President's budget. So as we put these programs on mandatory spending, we are losing opportunities to fund other programs. Community health centers, they compete for discretionary funding. This is money that would be taken from that area and on to mandatory funding. So, Madam Speaker, this side of the House is ready to say to the Greatest Generation, we're preserving what you have. We also want to tell our children they have a future as great as the Greatest Generation gave us. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote against this motion to recommit.

Mr. GUTHRIE. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GUTHRIE. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. GUTHRIE

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I want to point out, as we went through, what we're talking about doing is graduate medical education in teaching health centers will be identical to the graduate medical education in hospitals and children's hospitals. And I remember, I was not on the Energy and Commerce Committee but in Education and Labor. We worked on the health care bill. And the description that we went in through the night and went through the bill line by line is absolutely true. I think we were 24 or 25 hours direct on that. And I wasn't on Energy and Commerce when you went, but they went through the night, as well, Mr. Chairman. And when this bill passed out of the House of Representatives, the teaching health centers were authorized subject to appropriation. The change was made in the Senate. So working late into the night and going through the bill, we are just asking and what we are proposing is to treat teaching health centers as the House-passed version of the health care bill did, which is exactly the same as hospitals and children's hospitals and many of the other programs, nurse training and other things as well. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. GUTHRIE. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1216. The health care bill that was signed into law last year spent over a trillion dollars and empowered Federal bureaucrats more than it did the American people. As a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I have been working on legislation that takes steps to peel back a few of the many mandatory programs that were instituted in the health care law and limit the Federal Government's unprecedented power. Section 5508 of the health care law authorizes the Health and Human Services Secretary to award teaching health centers development grants and appropriates $230 million from 2011 through 2015. H.R. 1216 amends the Public Health Service Act to convert funding for graduate medical education in qualified teaching health centers from direct appropriations to an authorization of appropriations. This bill is not about the merits of graduate medical education or teaching health centers. Everyone agrees that there is a strong need for more primary care physicians in our health care system, but picking and choosing one program over another to receive automatic funding is irresponsible. Making these programs mandatory spending is unfair to all of the other health care programs that have to compete every year to continue to receive funds. For example, as HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said during her testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee earlier this year, the President's fiscal year 2012 budget eliminates Graduate Medical Education for Children's Hospitals. While children's hospitals must go through the regular appropriations process to fight for funding, teaching health centers will receive automatic appropriations. We are $14.3 trillion in debt, and our deficit for this year will approach $1.5 trillion. Congress is making difficult decisions about which programs to fund and which to reduce. We must prioritize, and I find it unfair that some programs are completely shielded and do not have to prove their merit to earn continued funding. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GUTHRIE. I rise in support of the Foxx amendment. We have been debating the bill throughout the day, and I support the bill. I just want to comment, I was also back home last week, and I went to a 100th birthday party for a group of people in northern Kentucky in the Louisville area and part of my district who were turning 100 years old. There was a lady there who was 103. She was born during Teddy Roosevelt's Presidency. I went there to thank them. I am one who is a big believer in what the Greatest Generation has done for us. I am a member of the baby boom generation. I was born in 1964. I am 47 years old. From 1946 to 1964, if you were born in 1946, you are in Medicare this year; you are 65 years old. I wanted to thank them and let them know that what we are doing is making a sustained and secure Medicare system for them. We all know as of the end of last week that 2024 is the date put out that Medicare goes bankrupt. So what we have put together is a real proposal for 10 years to allow people the opportunity to adjust that are 54 and younger because there is not a member of the Greatest Generation--and if anybody says different they are wrong--there is not a member of the Greatest Generation that is affected. As a matter of fact, half the baby boomers are covered, are not affected by the changes that we have to make to make a secure and better future. I am 47 years old. This means a lot to me because my daughter is 17. And you ask a lot of people my age: Do we have a better life-style than our parents had? Well, the Greatest Generation gave us a better life- style than they had because they wanted us to have a better life-style than they had. You ask a lot of people my age: Do we think our children will have a better life-style? It is amazing and it is disappointing to think how many people think that our children are not going to have the same quality of life that we had. I didn't come to Washington, D.C. to be part of a government that doesn't address the fact that we want our children to have a better future than we had. In 30 years when my daughter is my age--she graduates from high school in 2 weeks--we can pay off the national debt. So think about it. I am 47 years old. We have got a $14.3 trillion debt. You ask a lot of people my age: Do you think our children will have a better future? A lot of people say ``no'' because they say we keep piling on debt and deficits as far as the eye can see. Madam Chair, if you ask me now if I thought my daughter at 47 years old is living in a country with zero national debt, do you think my children, grandchildren and her grandchildren will have a better future, they will. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about saving and securing Medicare for the Greatest Generation. We are talking about saving and securing it for people as they become older and more mature. So anybody that says the Greatest Generation is affected by this is just not saying what was passed out of the House of Representatives. If anybody is saying that seniors are affected by this, they are not saying what was passed out of the House of Representatives. To say that we have to reform the program to make it stronger and better for them, that is accurate. And making it stronger and better for those who come forward, that is what we are talking about doing. That is what the facts are. People deserve the facts. People are tired of hearing rhetoric. They want facts. And the facts are that we are sustaining and securing it for the Greatest Generation, and reforming it so it will be there as our children mature. And if we pass the budget, if the Senate would pass the budget that we passed out of the House, when my daughter is my age, we will have zero national debt, and we will have a better future. And then ask her if she thinks her children will have a better future than she did, and I guarantee you that she will say that.

Mr. GUTHRIE. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to point out the list that was read of teaching health centers. The text of the bill is very clear: that we only rescind unobligated funding. If the funding has been obligated, then it continues to move forward. So, as to the list that was read, those will be funded. The amendment before us directs the GAO to determine the number of physicians who will be trained by this program if funds are not kept mandatory. I oppose the general premise that a program must have mandatory funding in order to be effective. This type of thinking has led us to massive budget deficits as far as the eye can see. During the debate on the continuing resolution, I can remember more than a few Members complaining that reductions in discretionary spending would have little impact on the deficit. There is some truth to the fact that discretionary spending which Congress has more control over comprises an increasingly smaller share of the Federal budget. It seems to me that some people's solutions to reining in the discretionary ledger of our Federal budget is to simply shift programs from discretionary to mandatory and let the spending cruise on auto pilot. That is not responsible governing. In a time of $1.5 trillion annual deficits, we must make spending priorities. However, setting priorities involves tough choices. The people that oppose this bill do so because they are unwilling to make the tough choices on what programs the Federal Government should fund and what they should not. So let's review what happened. Certain programs for training were made mandatory in the health care act and others were subject to future appropriations. Listening to the debate today, it is apparent that some believe any provision in the health care act that authorized a program subject to appropriations is essentially meaningless and did nothing at all. I have heard Members extol the virtues of dental education programs or training for nurse education contained in the health care act, but they are subject to further appropriations. Where was the amendment to the health reform bill that asked GAO to look into how the lack of mandatory spending in section 5305 of the health care act would affect geriatric education? There wasn't one, and not a single Member of the other side brought the issue up. The reason the other side didn't bring it up is because the programs were constructed in a way to go through the normal authorization and appropriations process. The underlying bill simply puts teaching health centers on equal footing with a myriad of other programs. I also oppose the amendment because it is a waste of Federal resources. We are asking the GAO to conduct a study that is almost impossible for it to complete. The GAO cannot determine the number of physicians that will be trained because so much of the program is under the discretion of the Secretary. In fact, the contours of the program have not yet even been set. The Health Resources and Services Administration does not even anticipate issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Teaching Health Center Graduate Medical Education Program until December. Under my bill, supporters of the program will continue to be able to make the case on an annual basis that the program is not duplicative, it is effective, and warrants continued funding over other programs like children's hospitals which the President's budget zeroed out. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. The merits of having training in general in pediatric and public health dentistry, I agree that we have to have that training. The issue here is if you do it in a teaching health center, then you guarantee funding for 5 years. If you do it in a children's hospital, if you do it in a regular hospital, profit or nonprofit, then you are subject to the annual appropriations. Someone came before our committee to testify, a State Senator from New Jersey, said we need this provision because we need more nurses. I will agree with that. However, this provision doesn't cover nurses. If you are going through a nurse training program, it's authorized in the bill, and you go through an annual appropriations process. All we are saying here is that we should treat graduate medical education at children's hospitals, hospitals and teaching health centers exactly the same and not give one an advantage over the other two. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. GUTHRIE. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GUTHRIE. Again, Mr. Chairman, it is important that we have an adequate supply of primary care physicians, and it is important public policy for this country. It is important that we also have oversight and control over the budget in the way the money is spent, and we do that through the appropriations process. I just want to point out, in the last Congress, there was great effort in putting together the health care bill. When we passed out of this Congress the House-passed version, this was an authorized ``subject to appropriations'' section of the bill. I know it has been described as being against health care throughout the country, but that was the way, through much debate, it passed out of this House of Representatives. It treats it similarly to hospital-based education in primary care and to children's hospital-based. It puts it on an equal footing with nurses' programs, nurse practitioner programs and other programs, which we all agree have shortages. We need more people in those fields. I just want to reiterate that this does not eliminate the program. It authorizes it. It changes it from a direct appropriation to an authorized appropriation through the regular appropriations process.

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out again, the mandatory spending was not in the House version of the health care bill that was passed. Teaching health centers were treated exactly like general pediatric and primary care physicians are in hospital settings and in children's hospital settings--general hospitals and children's hospitals. We are saying we are going back to the way it was established in the Affordable Care Act as it was passed out of the House of Representatives. We are talking about primary care physicians as well. I agree we need more primary care physicians. Their training at children's hospitals and hospitals is in geriatric, pediatric, internal medicine, all the primary care physician specialties that we know. We are just saying one shouldn't be treated differently than the other. They are important, and we should go through the annual appropriations process and present the validity of programs and let the appropriations process determine the level of funding. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).