Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I don't know what the gentleman is talking about. All I do know is this bill underfunds our highway and transportation system. It guts mass transit. It's not good for any State in this country. We deserve a better bill. Also what I have learned is all of these new Members who came to Washington and say they want a more open process are giving us one of the most convoluted processes I think I have ever witnessed on this floor. At this time, it is my privilege to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the ranking member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. We've passed the amendment deadline----

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. Madam Speaker, this bill is awful, this process is awful, and I think it's beyond salvageable. I just want to talk about one thing in closing. Madam Speaker, oil companies get taxpayer subsidies for oil injection, extraction, drilling, manufacturing, pricing, and inventory floors. They get taxpayer subsidies, while making tens of billions of dollars in record profits, and taxpayers continue to get fleeced with rising gas prices. At the end of this debate, I will try to defeat the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to eliminate one of these subsidies for the Big Five oil companies. The Big Five oil companies do not need, they do not deserve this subsidy, and the American people don't deserve these rising gas prices. I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous materials immediately prior to the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, Congress and the American people need to hear the truth about Afghanistan. It is impossible for us to make thoughtful, rational decisions on policy if we do not receive straight, accurate information about the situation on the ground. And we have no right to keep our brave service men and women in harm's way day after day, week after week, based on a steady diet of rosy statements that tell us everything is going well, progress is being made, conditions are improving, and victory is at hand. On January 18, I had the privilege of sitting down with U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis for a special briefing on his assessment of the situation on the ground in Afghanistan. He had recently submitted reports in both classified and unclassified versions to his superiors at the Pentagon. I was joined at that briefing by my colleagues Congressman Walter Jones and John Garamendi, and we were not only impressed with Lieutenant Colonel Davis' character, but the information and analysis he shared with us. Simply put, the situation in Afghanistan does not reflect the optimistic statements we repeatedly hear from high military officials and commanders on a regular basis. This week, a great deal of what Lieutenant Colonel Davis told us has appeared in the media in an article he wrote for the Armed Forces Journal, the Nation's oldest independent military magazine, and in The New York Times. Lieutenant Colonel Davis talks about the difficulties of training the Afghan police and military, the challenges facing our own troops to establish sustainable security zones, the rampant corruption, and the great discrepancy between the military's positive public statements and the classified material that contradicts such claims. The briefing with Danny Davis comes close on the heels of a number of articles that appeared toward the end of last year about the more pessimistic conclusions found in the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Afghanistan. According to the press, the current NIE on Afghanistan recognizes that U.S. policy has not achieved the objectives outlined by the President; that instead it casts doubt on official assertions of progress made by the U.S. Government and military leaders. No one likes to hear bad news, Mr. Speaker, but we do need to hear the unvarnished truth. We need accurate information in order to get a genuine understanding of what the situation is like on the ground in Afghanistan. We need to know the very real challenges faced by our troops and our diplomatic, development, and humanitarian workers every day. As Lieutenant Colonel Davis asserts, the amount of unclassified information available to the American people, the media, and public officials continues to shrink. Ironically, one week before being briefed by Davis, Congressman Walter Jones and I sent a letter on January 12 to the President asking him to declassify and release the 2011 NIE in Afghanistan. We are still waiting for a response to that request. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on military operations in Afghanistan. Over 5,500 Americans were wounded or killed in Afghanistan last year alone. Over the course of a decade, tens of thousands have come home. Many will carry for a lifetime the unseen scars of post-traumatic stress or traumatic brain injury. Like soldiers everywhere, they face a callous and unsympathetic battlefield. They do what is expected of them, and they do it with courage and determination. As my colleagues know, the majority of Americans want a safe and orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan as quickly as possible. I want every single one of our troops home and reunited with their families and loved ones as soon as humanly possible. I want them to be able to leave safely and in a manner that generates confidence in what the next day will bring for Afghanistan and the region. On February 1, the administration announced that it will end U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan at the end of next year. This is welcome news. To ensure that timeline is met and to ensure that our policies and priorities pave the way for a successful transition, we need to know now what the real conditions are on the ground. We can only do that with a clear-eyed, hard-eyed assessment of what is going on in Afghanistan. An unclassified version of Lieutenant Colonel Davis' report can be found at www.Afghanreport.com. I encourage all my House colleagues to read it. I encourage them to meet with Lieutenant Colonel Davis for a briefing. I urge my House colleagues to ask the President to declassify the 2011 NIE on Afghanistan. And I ask the Pentagon public affairs office to stop stalling and formally approve the release of Lieutenant Colonel Danny Davis' unclassified report. Mr. Speaker, the Congress and the people of this country deserve more than a whitewash. Too often over the last decade we have been misled about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Too often Congress has made decisions based on false information, and too many of our brave service men and women have lost their lives. This must change. America needs and deserves the truth. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, January 12, 2012. Hon. Barack Obama, President of the United States, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: Recent media reports have detailed that the current National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Afghanistan recognizes that U.S. policy has not achieved the objectives you have stated for our nation in Afghanistan. Similar reports were published concerning the 2010 NIE. These reports reinforce outside, independent assessments of the Afghan war and cast doubt on official assertions of progress by the U.S. government and military. Outside of official public statements by U.S. officials, there seems to be near universal recognition that the situation in Afghanistan over the last several years has deteriorated significantly. We are conscious of and sympathetic to the timing of a debate on the Afghan War during an election year. However, as you are aware, the majority of Americans continue to favor an accelerated withdrawal of American troops from the midst of what they rightly recognize as a civil war internal to Afghanistan, one devoid of significant or meaningful al-Qaeda participation. In order to facilitate an honest understanding of America's involvement in Afghanistan we request that you authorize the declassification and release of the 2011 National Intelligence Estimate on Afghanistan. There are historical precedents for the declassification and release of NIEs. Tragically, there are also historical precedents for inaccurate and misleading public assertions of progress in war by those opposed to bringing military actions to a close. It is haunting in the face of the enormous expenditure of American lives, limbs and resources that progress in Afghanistan may, in fact, be something other than is being represented by those who advocate continued involvement. The American public and its elected representatives deserve to have a full understanding of the situation in and outlook for Afghanistan as understood by our government. Too many families of our service members are sacrificing too greatly to allow for anything else. Respectfully, James P. McGovern, Member of Congress. Walter B. Jones, Member of Congress.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The reason why people should vote ``no'' on this rule is because it's not an open rule, number one. The other reason why people should vote ``no'' on this rule is because it enables bad behavior, and the bad behavior is bringing up bills that are going nowhere that aren't very serious. What we should be bringing to the floor right now is a clean extension of the payroll tax cut for middle class Americans and the extension of unemployment insurance. That's what we should be talking about. That's what should be on the floor right now. Instead, that measure, which would actually help people, is bogged down in conference because of ideological battles that my right-wing friends choose to wage. What we should be doing on this floor is putting the American people back to work and helping grow this economy through creating more jobs. The bill before us does nothing to address the critical challenges facing America's families. It doesn't create a single job. It does nothing to address our serious budgetary challenges. This bill does not increase revenues or reduce spending. It does nothing to cut this deficit. We are sitting here talking about something that really, again, is going nowhere and that really doesn't matter in the scheme of things. We should be talking about jobs and how we get this economy moving again. With that, Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by urging a ``no'' vote on this rule, which is not open, and a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill. The bill before us does nothing to improve the quality of life for any American. It doesn't create a single job. Not one job is created by this bill we're talking about today. This bill is going nowhere in the United States Senate. I don't believe this is a serious effort and, in short, we're wasting our time. Mr. Speaker, I cannot stress this enough. Congress must keep our focus on the most important priority facing the American people, and that is jobs--jobs, jobs, jobs. Democrats may sound like a broken record, but that's because we know that the core issue of our time is the economy and jobs. We need to do more to make sure that America's businesses get back on track and that the American people are in a position to succeed when these businesses start to hire. Now, we had some good news last week. The unemployment rate decreased for the fifth month in a row, falling to 8.3 percent. At the same time, we've had 5 straight months of job creation, and we're in the 23rd consecutive month of private sector growth. The economy looks like it's rebounding; and if this trend holds, that's a good thing. But while private sector employers added 257,000 jobs in January, there was a loss of 14,000 government jobs, including 11,000 local government jobs. Now, the reason for that, Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, is because the Federal Government is cutting away and State governments are cutting away and these so-called ``government jobs'' are being eliminated--the jobs that my friends on the other side of the aisle like to demonize. But what are these local government jobs? Mr. Speaker, these are cops, firefighters, teachers, librarians, and trash collectors. They're not faceless bureaucrats. They are people who make our lives safer, better, and cleaner every day. And they're our neighbors and our friends and our family members. So despite the relatively good news about the improving economy, we are clearly not where we need to be. Payroll employment is still 5.6 million jobs short of where it was at the beginning of the Great Recession of December of 2007. There are four jobless workers for every job opening and long-term unemployment is still at historic high levels. It is clear that this rebound, as slow and painstaking as it is, is taking place in spite of House Republicans and in spite of their policies, not because of them. In fact, I believe actions taken and policies voted on by this House have slowed down this economic recovery, have slowed down this economy, and have prevented a faster and more robust recovery. For example, congressional Republicans should be doing all they can to prevent a tax increase on middle class Americans. Congressional Republicans should be doing all they can to extend unemployment insurance for people who are unemployed through no fault of their own. Yet, Mr. Speaker, they have continued to drag their feet on this legislation and, in fact, continue to bicker among themselves about the need to extend these programs. This should be a no-brainer. This should be something that both sides should come together and be able to improve immediately. Yet it has become this theater, this drama that plays out; and nobody quite knows how it's going to end. Mr. Speaker, we're one week into February, more than 1 month into the new year, more than 13 months into this new Republican-controlled Congress; and we have yet to see one meaningful jobs bill. No wonder Congress' approval rating is at historic lows. And instead of bringing legislation to the floor that would help the economy--like a clean extension of the payroll tax and unemployment insurance--the GOP would rather bring up misguided budget bills that simply attempt to rig the budget rules so they can score cheap political points. House Republicans are simply trying to change the rules of the game to benefit their own point of view. This bill today, the so-called Budget and Accounting Transparency Act, is another sham bill in the Republican leadership's quest to change the rules of budgeting. This may seem like inside baseball to some, but it really is something quite extraordinary. Simply, the Republicans, with this bill, are attempting to artificially inflate the cost of Federal credit programs. They do so by changing the way government credit programs are calculated. The Federal budget is supposed to count the amount of money that is spent and the revenue received. If there is more money coming in than going out, it's a surplus. The opposite is a deficit. What the Republican leadership is trying to do with this bill is to recalculate the way these credit programs are scored, or counted, in the budget process, automatically making them more expensive. They do so by treating government credit programs in a similar way to private credit programs, even though they are treated differently by the markets. Now, on top of changing the way these credit programs are scored, it's important to point out that this bill doesn't apply to all Federal programs. In other words, we would have one set of scoring rules for one set of Federal programs and another one just for the Federal credit programs. That doesn't make any sense to me. If some of these recent budget bills are any indication, the House Republican leadership cares more about rigging the budget process just to dismantle the Federal safety net instead of actually working to reduce the deficit and at the same time spur job creation. Mr. Speaker, we should be talking about jobs. We should be acting on the President's jobs plan. Our committee work should be focused on how do we get this economy running again. What should be on the floor today is not a bill that's going nowhere, but a bill that will help put people back to work. You know, if we put more people back to work and this economy begins to recover more, then we can grow out of this deficit. I would just, again, urge the Republican leadership to stop bringing stuff to the floor that really, I believe, is a waste of our time. Bring things to the floor that are meaningful, that will make a difference in the lives of the American people, that will improve the quality of lives for people in this country. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and on the underlying bill and to put our focus back where it belongs, creating a stronger economy for the American people. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Then I will close for our side. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I will agree with my colleague on the Rules Committee that what is before us today is a small idea. The fact is that we have some big problems in this country and they require big and bold solutions, like extending the payroll tax cut for middle class Americans. Mark Zandi, a Republican economist who worked for John McCain, said that if we don't extend the payroll tax cut it might cost as many as 500,000 jobs in this country. It is a little bit puzzling to me--and I think to the American people who are observing this--that rather than bringing that bill to the floor or rather than bringing bills to the floor that will help enact the President's jobs program or any kind of bill that will help put people back to work, we are dealing with this, which my friend on the other side of the aisle said is a small thing, a small idea. I think we can do better. I think the American people are expecting us to do much better. We should be having a debate on our manufacturing agenda. We need to get a tax structure in place that encourages manufacturing investment here in this country. We should be eliminating tax incentives and loopholes that encourage financial speculation-- rather than investment--and outsourcing and offshoring their production and enact tax incentives for companies that produce domestically. That is the kind of bill we should be having on the floor right now, a recommitment to investing in our infrastructure. I was hoping that we would have a transportation bill that would be worth supporting; but by all accounts, the transportation bill has become such a monstrosity that people on both sides of the aisle are opposed to it. The LA Times did an editorial saying that the House Republican leadership unveiled its version of the 5-year transportation bill. It isn't just that this bill is so thoroughly partisan that it has no chance of being approved by the Democrat controlled Senate; it is that it is less a serious policy document than a wish list for oil lobbyists, and its funding proposals are so radical that they have been decried even by such conservative watchdogs as the Reason Foundation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the Taxpayers for Common Sense. I guess next week and the week after we're going to be bringing that bill to the floor. Again, I don't think anybody here thinks that that is going to see the light of day, which means that it's not going to create jobs; it's not going to put people back to work. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert in the Record the LA Times editorial and two editorials from The New York Times. [From the Los Angeles Times, Feb. 3, 2012] In the House, a Transportation Train Wreck After Congress pushed the nation to the verge of catastrophe last year by delaying a deal to raise the debt ceiling until the eleventh hour, our capacity to be surprised by that body's irresponsible gamesmanship was somewhat diminished. And yet, we still can't help but be awe-struck by the mess the House of Representatives is preparing to make of the federal transportation bill, a key legislative priority for both parties. On Tuesday, the House Republican leadership unveiled its version of the five-year bill. It isn't just that this bill is so thoroughly partisan that it has no chance of being approved by the Democratic-controlled Senate; it's that it is less a serious policy document than a wish list for oil lobbyists, and its funding proposals are so radical that they have been decried even by such conservative watchdogs as the Reason Foundation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Taxpayers for Common Sense. What's so bad about it? The bill slashes funding for inexpensive but worthwhile programs to improve biking and walking safety, cuts funding for Amtrak by 25% and runs roughshod over federal regulations aimed at protecting communities and the environment from the negative effects of transportation projects. But what's far worse is the GOP scheme for helping to fund the bill's $260 billion worth of infrastructure improvements over the next five years: opening up vast swaths of currently protected land to oil drilling. Logically and politically, this makes no sense. On the logic front, it can't work. Three bills under consideration in the House that are intended to fund the transportation bill would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, mandate oil shale leasing on federal lands and expand offshore drilling in sensitive areas. Yet even if drilling were allowed in these places, it would be many years before significant revenues started rolling in to the government, and it's difficult to predict how much money would be generated, making advance construction planning impossible. Moreover, oil shale development is an unproven technology that may never generate a dime. And politically, drilling in such places as the Alaskan refuge is rightly a nonstarter. If it weren't already abundantly clear that this bill is intended simply to pander to the GOP base during an election year, Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) seasoned the red meat by promising to attach a rider mandating approval of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, the biggest political football this side of the Super Bowl and an issue utterly unrelated to the purposes of the transportation bill. If this is how congressional Republicans think they're going to win the November elections, they might want to check their approval ratings. Americans are thoroughly sick of a Congress that would rather play political games than solve our country's problems.

Mr. McGOVERN. May I inquire of the gentleman how many more speakers he has?

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in congratulating Thelma Pond of Holliston, MA on her 100th birthday. Thelma has lived in Holliston since she was 4 years old. She attended Holliston High School and Framingham Normal School. After graduation, Thelma began her teaching career in Holliston at her beloved Wilder School. Thelma's passion for teaching continued long after retirement. She continued her service at Wilder School on a one-on-one basis volunteering for about twenty years--giving the students an extra boost with their reading. Thelma has impacted the lives of countless families in Holliston. Her fondest memories growing up in Holliston include seeing a horse pulling the plow to clear sidewalks on snowy days, and the young man who would arrive at her house in his wagon to collect her mother's grocery list and would deliver them later that day. Thelma also proudly participated in the annual Maypole Dance each year. Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank Thelma for her wonderful contributions to her community. Her commitment to education and passion for empowering young people is truly inspiring. I ask the House of Representatives to join me in celebrating the lifetime of contributions of Thelma Pond on her 100th birthday.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, I just want to point out to my colleagues, in case they may have forgotten, that the CLASS Act was actually debated in the Energy and Commerce Committee. And do you want to know what the vote was? It passed by voice vote. There were a lot of other provisions in this health care bill that did not pass by voice vote where my Republican friends insisted on an up-or-down vote; but on this one, it passed by a voice vote. I want to point that out just so there's no misunderstanding. The other thing I also think is important so there's no misunderstanding is that somehow nothing in the Affordable Care Act has kicked in. A lot has kicked in already. Blood pressure screenings for adults aged 18 and older, every 2 years for those with normal readings and annually for those with elevated results; cervical cancer screenings; child services, including screenings for autism; cholesterol screenings; colorectal cancer screenings; diabetes screenings; diet counseling; evaluation for depression; immunizations; mammograms, all aimed at encouraging people to get preventative care so that they can avoid some of the debilitating results from not being checked. Those are all being covered under the Affordable Care Act. My colleagues, over a year ago--over a year ago--it's now January 31--well over a year ago, you brought up on this floor under a closed rule a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act. And you said, oh, we've got some ideas on how to fix the health care challenges in this country. It's been a year. Nothing. What have we been doing here? Well, we had a very rigorous debate on National Public Radio, something I'm sure everybody is concerned about all across this country. We had a bill brought to the floor on reaffirming the national motto of this country, ``In God We Trust.'' There it is, ``In God We Trust,'' in gold letters right above where the Speaker sits. It's on the dollar bill. I didn't know it needed reaffirming, but we had to come to the floor and have this debate and vote on reaffirming our national motto. We had votes on every hot-button issue that you can imagine; but when it comes to things like health care, improving the quality of life for people, we can't find the time. My friends say they have all these great ideas. It's been over a year since you voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Do you want to repeal all these new services that are covered, all these tests to help people stay well, and in staying well, controlling health care costs? My grandmother used to say an ounce of prevention keeps the doctor away. She was right. There's wisdom in encouraging people to seek out preventative-care services. If we can provide those services without a cost to encourage more people to take advantage of them, then more people will stay well, and we will control health care costs in this country. We're having a discussion as a result of the Affordable Care Act about results-oriented health care, how do we keep our populations better. Not just how we could have the best doctors to do heart surgeries, brain surgeries and all these very complex surgical procedures which we want to make sure we still have the very best in the world, but maybe there are people who can avoid getting to that point. Already, because of the passage of this bill, more and more people are taking advantage of these screenings. That's a good thing. And my colleagues, every one of them on the other side of the aisle, voted to repeal outright all these things. All these things would have gone away. Senior citizens would be paying more for prescription drugs today if their repeal bill made it through this process. So there are some good things that are happening. I know it's tough to ever concede that this President has done anything good; but under this, the Democratic Congress, with no help from the Republicans on the other side of the aisle in this House, and the President of the United States, actually, I think, took a step in the right direction. As time goes on, more and more people are appreciating what is covered in that legislation. So I point that out because my friends on the other side have a tendency to say ``no'' to everything. It's very easy to say ``no.'' You don't have to take responsibility for anything. You said ``no'' over a year ago when you voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and you've said ``yes'' to nothing since. Today, you're asking us to join you in saying ``no'' again to the issue of making sure the people have the ability to take care of their loved ones and themselves in the case where they need long-term care. You're saying, say ``no'' to that. And replace it with what? Oh, trust us, we'll get back to you. Don't worry about it. We know what we're doing here. Well, again, it's very easy to say ``no.'' It's more difficult to say ``yes,'' and you've said ``yes'' on nothing when it comes to positive improvements in our health system. With that, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee). (Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. If I'm not mistaken, the allowance to let families keep their kids on their health insurance until they are 26 years old has kicked in.

Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. One is, as was pointed out, this is not truly an open rule--there is a preprinting requirement. But there is also a cap, a time limit of 3 hours on the total debate for this bill. So if Members have an idea about an amendment they want to offer and it bumps up against the 3-hour time limit, they're out of luck. I would remind my colleagues that this is an important issue. This is about long-term care, health care, mostly for our senior citizens. This is an important subject. We should be talking about this. We should be deliberating on this, and it deserves the necessary time to do this issue justice. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, because we can't get this leadership to bring up not only legitimate health care bills to help improve the quality of health care for our citizens, but we can't get them to bring up jobs bills. We can't seem to get this leadership to bring up anything of any consequence or any significance to the American people or anything that will improve the quality of life for the citizens of this country. Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle want to portray this as a very simple debate. They want everyone to think that this is a bill that just ends, as they put it, a problematic or a failed program, a bill that says we're going to run our government more effectively and more efficiently, a bill that says that we're going to get health care right for the American people. But, Mr. Speaker, nothing, absolutely nothing, could be further from the truth. And let me be clear: This bill is just one more example of how the Republican majority in this House stands with Big Insurance instead of the American people. It's another example of how Republicans want to rig the health care system so insurance companies can continue to discriminate based on preexisting conditions and can continue to reap big profits at the expense of our families. Democrats stand for improving access to the best health care system in the world. We want Americans to be able to take care of themselves and to plan for long-term care should they need it. The debate in the Rules Committee last week was a telling example of how my friends on the other side of the aisle view this critical health care issue. During that debate, one of our colleagues, Republican colleagues on our Rules Committee, compared long-term care planning to owning a swimming pool, a luxury, saying that since the government shouldn't build a swimming pool for everyone in the country, that we shouldn't be providing long-term care advice or help with long-term care planning for the American people. Mr. Speaker, this is where the discourse on health care has landed. We talk about how to lower costs and to increase access to health care, and my Republican friends talk about swimming pools. They are in over their heads, which is why their poll numbers are sinking to the bottom. This bill may appear to be fairly simple, but it will have a devastating impact on Americans as they plan for the future. H.R. 1173, the so-called Fiscal Responsibility and Retirement Security Act, would repeal the CLASS Act and defund the National Clearinghouse for Long-Term Care Information. The CLASS Act is a national voluntary insurance program for purchasing long-term or disabled care for things like nursing home fees. Let me repeat that: It's a voluntary program. There's no mandate, no requirement, no obligation for anyone to participate. This bill also converts mandatory funding for the National Clearinghouse for Long-Term Care Information into discretionary funding. While they say that this saves $9 million, the truth is Americans will lose access to critical information that can help them decide what kind of long-term care coverage they may or may not want, they may or may not need, as they grow older. We need to figure out how to best address the cost and availability of long-term care in the United States, and the reality is that voting for this bill is the same as putting your fingers in your ears or covering your eyes. Surely you may not want to be able to hear or see what is bothering you, but it doesn't mean that these problems go away. So why are we doing this today? Why are we repealing this without any replacement, without any thought given to how we might help the American people? Well, if you listen to the Republican rhetoric, you'd think that some unnamed and unseen person is going to send you off to a dark room in an isolated nursing home, and you have no choice where to spend your golden years. That is, of course, if you listen to their ridiculous rhetoric. It's true that the Obama administration has suspended enactment of the CLASS Act. They have done so after carefully assessing how they could implement a long-term, financially stable CLASS program. Unfortunately, they did not see a way forward at this particular point, but that doesn't mean we should just give up, throw up our hands and walk away. While the CLASS Act is a sound premise, it clearly needs more work if it's going to be a viable program. The problem with H.R. 1173 is that it repeals the CLASS Act. We need to fix the CLASS Act, not destroy it. We need to engage on how to solve this problem, not to walk away from it, not to turn it into yet another piece of campaign rhetoric. But that's not how the Republicans operate in this House. Their goal, it appears, is to tear down the health care system and to prevent people from getting adequate health care. How else can you explain their actions to repeal the Affordable Care Act and to end Medicare? Mr. Speaker, the Republicans began the 112th Congress with an effort to ``repeal and replace'' the Affordable Care Act. Well, the House voted to repeal the new health care law, but we still haven't seen their replacement. They voted for repeal without replacement. I should also point out to my colleague from Texas, it wasn't brought up under regular order; the repeal was brought up under a closed rule-- but that's not unique in this House either. The Republicans in control of the House of Representatives have found the time for bills on abortion and guns, bills to defund Planned Parenthood and National Public Radio and bills reaffirming our national motto, as if our national motto needs reaffirming. But when it comes to improving the quality of health care for the American people, my friends on the other side of the aisle are strangely silent. As we near the second anniversary of the enactment of the Affordable Care Act, it's important to look at the success of this law and explain why repeal, as they have advocated, would cause real harm to the American people. We know for a fact that the Affordable Care Act is lowering costs and expanding coverage for millions of Americans. The truth is crystal clear: 2.5 million young adults gained health insurance, 2.5 million young Americans gained health insurance. More than 40,000 Americans with preexisting medical conditions gained affordable health care coverage. Three hundred fifty new community health centers were built, and nearly 19,000 new jobs were created last year alone. Americans are benefiting from greater protections from unreasonable private insurance premium hikes. More than 2 million senior citizens saved more than $1.2 billion on prescription drugs in 2011. Again, let me repeat that: More than 2 million senior citizens saved more than $1.2 billion on prescription drugs in 2011. They want to repeal the bill, the affordable health insurance bill, which closes the doughnut hole, and all of a sudden senior citizens will see a tax hike the next time they look at their prescription costs. Seniors in Medicare Advantage plans saw their monthly premiums decrease 14 percent from 2010 to 2011. Millions of women, seniors, and people with disabilities accessed preventative services. The Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Justice stopped $3 billion in fraudulent claims in 2011. We also know that the quality of care is improving because of the Affordable Care Act. I'm talking about an expanded workforce, including primary care workers, better coordinated care for Medicare patients, and improvements in preventable hospital care and readmission conditions, just to name a few. In fact, the entire debate within the health care community is changing on how we can better keep our citizens well. Finally, we know that the health care industry is hiring more workers because of the Affordable Care Act. In fact, 514,900 new health care jobs have been created since the Affordable Care Act was enacted almost 2 years ago. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the Affordable Care Act is working, and benefits will continue to grow as we move towards full implementation by 2016. But by opposing the Affordable Care Act by pursuing repeal of the bill, Republicans have made it clear that they're against protections for people with preexisting conditions, that they are against expanding coverage for 2.5 million young adults who can't get health care on their own, that they are against new community health centers, that they are against the new jobs created by the Affordable Care Act. And with this bill today, they are announcing that they are against planning for long-term care. This makes no sense, Mr. Speaker. Americans need to think about long-term care. They need planning options for the future. Currently 10 million Americans need long-term care, and 5 million more will need long-term care over the next decade. Yet only 8 percent of Americans currently buy private long-term care insurance. Instead of forcing people to migrate towards Medicaid, the only other long-term care option available, we should be providing Americans with the tools they need to plan for the future. That's what the intention of the CLASS Act and the purpose of the National Clearinghouse for Long-Term Care Information is all about. I know my friends will say: Trust us; we're going to come up with something down the road. Wouldn't it have been refreshing, in the spirit of bipartisanship, if we had come up with something before they chose to just outright repeal this provision? Maybe this would have been an opportunity for people to come together. But, no, we're told we're repealing it. You know, that fits in with our campaign rhetoric for 2012: We're going to repeal it; and the American people, just trust us. Take two tax breaks; call me in the morning. That's all you need to worry about. The American people expect Congress to work each and every day to make this country better. Like Social Security and Medicare before it, the Affordable Care Act is an example of responsible legislating that is improving people's lives. It's not perfect. We need to build on it. We're going to need to make corrections. But there's not a piece of legislation that we have ever passed in any Congress that hasn't needed to be corrected and adjusted and tweaked as time has gone on. But it is an important step in the right direction. And notwithstanding the rhetoric on the other side of the aisle, it has made a real difference in the lives of many millions of Americans who otherwise wouldn't have access to health care. We must not and we will not let the Republicans drag us down with them on this issue. Vote ``no'' on this rule and ``no'' on the underlying bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, I think it's important to make it clear that there was a voice vote in the Energy and Commerce Committee. There were 2 days of debate on this CLASS Act, 2 days of debate. And the language in the amendment apparently was even changed before there was a voice vote. So to somehow diminish that there was some sort of a real vote or not-- there was a real vote; 2 days of debate and a real vote. Secondly, just so there's no misunderstanding, my friends keep talking about the debt and the deficit we face. First of all, as a Democrat, I want to say that I don't need a lecture from my friends on the other side of the aisle about deficits and the debt. We saw how this country went from surplus to deficit with the passage of the Bush tax cuts--mostly for the wealthy that weren't paid for. Every economist will affirm that they brought us into debt. Two, the prescription drug bill--that was much more expensive than my friends on the other side of the aisle told us it was going to be, and then they didn't pay for it on top of it. And then add to that two wars that aren't paid for. We are fighting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we didn't pay for them. We didn't look for offsets in the budget. They didn't even go to the American people and say, we're at war, we have to have a war tax, or we have to find a way to pay for the war. No. Soldiers go fight, you know, their families suffer, and we do nothing. So you want to know why we're in debt? That's why we're in debt. And just for the record, this CLASS Act that we're talking about is not this taxpayer-subsidized, endless government funding type of a program here. I mean, it has to be self-financed by the premiums that people pay who volunteer to get into it. It says in the law that this cannot be funded by the dollars of taxpayers. What this is is a framework, a framework to get us to focus on the issue that we need to address, which is long-term health care in this country. Now, I'm from Massachusetts, and I may be a little sensitive on this issue because one of my heroes, the late Senator Ted Kennedy, championed this issue. He understood that there was a need out there, and he saw, as we all have seen, what families go through when loved ones can't afford or families can't afford to pay for the long-term care of loved ones. So it took us decades to get here, to get to this point where we have a framework. Yes, it is true: This is not perfect. It needs more work. But we have a framework here. And it's not a framework which calls for endless subsidies by the taxpayers. It says we've got to come up with a program that can self-sustain itself, that is financed by those who want to be enrolled in it. Why would you throw this away? Why would you throw this away? My friend on the other side of the aisle talks about false promises. Please, give me a break. False promises? You got up over a year ago and said we're repealing this health care reform bill, the Affordable Care Act, and we're going to replace it with something. It's been over a year. Nothing, nothing, not a single thing. You know, it's not like we haven't had time to do it or to talk about these issues or debate these issues. I mean, this has become a place where trivial issues get debated passionately and important ones not at all. National Public Radio funding, we had to debate that on the floor. Reaffirming our national motto ``In God We Trust,'' we had time for that. Issues on abortion and every hot button issue you can think of, including we had a debate on making it easier for unsafe people to bring concealed weapons from State to State to State. Now, I don't know about Texas or about other countries, but I've got to tell you, people talk to me about a lot of problems and about a lot of things that keep them up at night. Some of the things that you've brought to this House floor never even enter their minds, because what keeps them up at night are things like this: What happens if I get sick, will I be able to take care of myself? What happens if my spouse gets sick, seriously ill, will I be able to care for her? Will I be able to care for him? What if it's my child? What if it's my mother, or what if it's my father? Will I be able to take care of them over a long period of time? Those are real-life issues that real people worry about each and every day. So I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, first of all, vote down this rule, because I think it is insulting to bring a rule to the floor on the issue of long-term care and say we're going to cap debate at 3 hours. I think this is too important. This is more important than reaffirming our national motto, number one. Number two, I would urge my colleagues on this side of the aisle, understand that what this represents is a framework and understand how long it has taken us to get to this point. And I've got to tell you, if we throw this framework away, I doubt very much that at any time in the near future this Congress is going to do anything meaningful on the issue of long-term health care. So let's get serious about dealing with the real challenges that the American people are faced with. Let's not say that this is going to add to the deficit. It's not going to add to the deficit. In the law, it says it has to be self-sustaining; if not, it doesn't work. It says that we are not going to be subsidizing this program. That's what it says. If you want to get serious about the deficit, you know what? Then make sure Warren Buffett pays the same tax rate as his secretary. If you want to get serious about the deficit, that's what you can do to help us deal with the issue of the deficit. But going after this with all these smokescreens I think is unfortunate. So I would urge my colleagues, vote ``no'' on the rule and vote ``no'' on the underlying resolution. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.

Mr. McGOVERN. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. McGOVERN. No, no. Under your repeal bill, that would go away. That was part of the Affordable Care Act. That is one of the many things that has kicked in.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I strongly agree with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when she declared on December 6, 2011, that LGBT rights are human rights. I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues the speech she gave in recognition of International Human Rights Day in Geneva, Switzerland, when she passionately and persuasively described the importance of the LGBT struggle for basic human rights. Remarks in Recognition of International Human Rights Day, Palais des Nations, Geneva, Switzerland Good evening, and let me express my deep honor and pleasure at being here. I want to thank Director General Tokayev and Ms. Wyden along with other ministers, ambassadors, excellencies, and UN partners. This weekend, we will celebrate Human Rights Day, the anniversary of one of the great accomplishments of the last century. Beginning in 1947, delegates from six continents devoted themselves to drafting a declaration that would enshrine the fundamental rights and freedoms of people everywhere. In the aftermath of World War II, many nations pressed for a statement of this kind to help ensure that we would prevent future atrocities and protect the inherent humanity and dignity of all people. And so the delegates went to work. They discussed, they wrote, they revisited, revised, rewrote, for thousands of hours. And they incorporated suggestions and revisions from governments, organizations, and individuals around the world. At three o'clock in the morning on December 10th, 1948, after nearly two years of drafting and one last long night of debate, the president of the UN General Assembly called for a vote on the final text. Forty-eight nations voted in favor; eight abstained; none dissented. And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted. It proclaims a simple, powerful idea: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. And with the declaration, it was made clear that rights are not conferred by government; they are the birthright of all people. It does not matter what country we live in, who our leaders are, or even who we are. Because we are human, we therefore have rights. And because we have rights, governments are bound to protect them. In the 63 years since the declaration was adopted, many nations have made great progress in making human rights a human reality. Step by step, barriers that once prevented people from enjoying the full measure of liberty, the full experience of dignity, and the full benefits of humanity have fallen away. In many places, racist laws have been repealed, legal and social practices that relegated women to second- class status have been abolished, the ability of religious minorities to practice their faith freely has been secured. In most cases, this progress was not easily won. People fought and organized and campaigned in public squares and private spaces to change not only laws, but hearts and minds. And thanks to that work of generations, for millions of individuals whose lives were once narrowed by injustice, they are now able to live more freely and to participate more fully in the political, economic, and social lives of their communities. Now, there is still, as you all know, much more to be done to secure that commitment, that reality, and progress for all people. Today, I want to talk about the work we have left to do to protect one group of people whose human rights are still denied in too many parts of the world today. In many ways, they are an invisible minority. They are arrested, beaten, terrorized, even executed. Many are treated with contempt and violence by their fellow citizens while authorities empowered to protect them look the other way or, too often, even join in the abuse. They are denied opportunities to work and learn, driven from their homes and countries, and forced to suppress or deny who they are to protect themselves from harm. I am talking about gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people, human beings born free and given bestowed equality and dignity, who have a right to claim that, which is now one of the remaining human rights challenges of our time. I speak about this subject knowing that my own country's record on human rights for gay people is far from perfect. Until 2003, it was still a crime in parts of our country. Many LGBT Americans have endured violence and harassment in their own lives, and for some, including many young people, bullying and exclusion are daily experiences. So we, like all nations, have more work to do to protect human rights at home. Now, raising this issue, I know, is sensitive for many people and that the obstacles standing in the way of protecting the human rights of LGBT people rest on deeply held personal, political, cultural, and religious beliefs. So I come here before you with respect, understanding, and humility. Even though progress on this front is not easy, we cannot delay acting. So in that spirit, I want to talk about the difficult and important issues we must address together to reach a global consensus that recognizes the human rights of LGBT citizens everywhere. The first issue goes to the heart of the matter. Some have suggested that gay rights and human rights are separate and distinct; but, in fact, they are one and the same. Now, of course, 60 years ago, the governments that drafted and passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were not thinking about how it applied to the LGBT community. They also weren't thinking about how it applied to indigenous people or children or people with disabilities or other marginalized groups. Yet in the past 60 years, we have come to recognize that members of these groups are entitled to the full measure of dignity and rights, because, like all people, they share a common humanity. This recognition did not occur all at once. It evolved over time. And as it did, we understood that we were honoring rights that people always had, rather than creating new or special rights for them. Like being a woman, like being a racial, religious, tribal, or ethnic minority, being LGBT does not make you less human. And that is why gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights. It is violation of human rights when people are beaten or killed because of their sexual orientation, or because they do not conform to cultural norms about how men and women should look or behave. It is a violation of human rights when governments declare it illegal to be gay, or allow those who harm gay people to go unpunished. It is a violation of human rights when lesbian or transgendered women are subjected to so-called corrective rape, or forcibly subjected to hormone treatments, or when people are murdered after public calls for violence toward gays, or when they are forced to flee their nations and seek asylum in other lands to save their lives. And it is a violation of human rights when life-saving care is withheld from people because they are gay, or equal access to justice is denied to people because they are gay, or public spaces are out of bounds to people because they are gay. No matter what we look like, where we come from, or who we are, we are all equally entitled to our human rights and dignity. The second issue is a question of whether homosexuality arises from a particular part of the world. Some seem to believe it is a Western phenomenon, and therefore people outside the West have grounds to reject it. Well, in reality, gay people are born into and belong to every society in the world. They are all ages, all races, all faiths; they are doctors and teachers, farmers and bankers, soldiers and athletes; and whether we know it, or whether we acknowledge it, they are our family, our friends, and our neighbors. Being gay is not a Western invention; it is a human reality. And protecting the human rights of all people, gay or straight, is not something that only Western governments do. South Africa's constitution, written in the aftermath of Apartheid, protects the equality of all citizens, including gay people. In Colombia and Argentina, the rights of gays are also legally protected. In Nepal, the supreme court has ruled that equal rights apply to LGBT citizens. The Government of Mongolia has committed to pursue new legislation that will tackle anti-gay discrimination. Now, some worry that protecting the human rights of the LGBT community is a luxury that only wealthy nations can afford. But in fact, in all countries, there are costs to not protecting these rights, in both gay and straight lives lost to disease and violence, and the silencing of voices and views that would strengthen communities, in ideas never pursued by entrepreneurs who happen to be gay. Costs are incurred whenever any group is treated as lesser or the other, whether they are women, racial, or religious minorities, or the LGBT. Former President Mogae of Botswana pointed out recently that for as long as LGBT people are kept in the shadows, there cannot be an effective public health program to tackle HIV and AIDS. Well, that holds true for other challenges as well. The third, and perhaps most challenging, issue arises when people cite religious or cultural values as a reason to violate or not to protect the human rights of LGBT citizens. This is not unlike the justification offered for violent practices towards women like honor killings, widow burning, or female genital mutilation. Some people still defend those practices as part of a cultural tradition. But violence toward women isn't cultural; it's criminal. Likewise with slavery, what was once justified as sanctioned by God is now properly reviled as an unconscionable violation of human rights. In each of these cases, we came to learn that no practice or tradition trumps the human rights that belong to all of us. And this holds true for inflicting violence on LGBT people, criminalizing their status or behavior, expelling them from their families and communities, or tacitly or explicitly accepting their killing. Of course, it bears noting that rarely are cultural and religious traditions and teachings actually in conflict with the protection of human rights. Indeed, our religion and our culture are sources of compassion and inspiration toward our fellow human beings. It was not only those who've justified slavery who leaned on religion, it was also those who sought to abolish it. And let us keep in mind that our commitments to protect the freedom of religion and to defend the dignity of LGBT people emanate from a common source. For many of us, religious belief and practice is a vital source of meaning and identity, and fundamental to who we are as people. And likewise, for most of us, the bonds of love and family that we forge are also vital sources of meaning and identity. And caring for others is an expression of what it means to be fully human. It is because the human experience is universal that human rights are universal and cut across all religions and cultures. The fourth issue is what history teaches us about how we make progress towards rights for all. Progress starts with honest discussion. Now, there are some who say and believe that all gay people are pedophiles, that homosexuality is a disease that can be caught or cured, or that gays recruit others to become gay. Well, these notions are simply not true. They are also unlikely to disappear if those who promote or accept them are dismissed out of hand rather than invited to share their fears and concerns. No one has ever abandoned a belief because he was forced to do so. Universal human rights include freedom of expression and freedom of belief, even if our words or beliefs denigrate the humanity of others. Yet, while we are each free to believe whatever we choose, we cannot do whatever we choose, not in a world where we protect the human rights of all. Reaching understanding of these issues takes more than speech. It does take a conversation. In fact, it takes a constellation of conversations in places big and small. And it takes a willingness to see stark differences in belief as a reason to begin the conversation, not to avoid it. But progress comes from changes in laws. In many places, including my own country, legal protections have preceded, not followed, broader recognition of rights. Laws have a teaching effect. Laws that discriminate validate other kinds of discrimination. Laws that require equal protections reinforce the moral imperative of equality. And practically speaking, it is often the case that laws must change before fears about change dissipate. Many in my country thought that President Truman was making a grave error when he ordered the racial desegregation of our military. They argued that it would undermine unit cohesion. And it wasn't until he went ahead and did it that we saw how it strengthened our social fabric in ways even the supporters of the policy could not foresee. Likewise, some worried in my country that the repeal of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' would have a negative effect on our armed forces. Now, the Marine Corps Commandant, who was one of the strongest voices against the repeal, says that his concerns were unfounded and that the Marines have embraced the change. Finally, progress comes from being willing to walk a mile in someone else's shoes. We need to ask ourselves, ``How would it feel if it were a crime to love the person I love? How would it feel to be discriminated against for something about myself that I cannot change?'' This challenge applies to all of us as we reflect upon deeply held beliefs, as we work to embrace tolerance and respect for the dignity of all persons, and as we engage humbly with those with whom we disagree in the hope of creating greater understanding. A fifth and final question is how we do our part to bring the world to embrace human rights for all people including LGBT people. Yes, LGBT people must help lead this effort, as so many of you are. Their knowledge and experiences are invaluable and their courage inspirational. We know the names of brave LGBT activists who have literally given their lives for this cause, and there are many more whose names we will never know. But often those who are denied rights are least empowered to bring about the changes they seek. Acting alone, minorities can never achieve the majorities necessary for political change. So when any part of humanity is sidelined, the rest of us cannot sit on the sidelines. Every time a barrier to progress has fallen, it has taken a cooperative effort from those on both sides of the barrier. In the fight for women's rights, the support of men remains crucial. The fight for racial equality has relied on contributions from people of all races. Combating Islamaphobia or anti-Semitism is a task for people of all faiths. And the same is true with this struggle for equality. Conversely, when we see denials and abuses of human rights and fail to act, that sends the message to those deniers and abusers that they won't suffer any consequences for their actions, and so they carry on. But when we do act, we send a powerful moral message. Right here in Geneva, the international community acted this year to strengthen a global consensus around the human rights of LGBT people. At the Human Rights Council in March, 85 countries from all regions supported a statement calling for an end to criminalization and violence against people because of their sexual orientation and gender identity. At the following session of the Council in June, South Africa took the lead on a resolution about violence against LGBT people. The delegation from South Africa spoke eloquently about their own experience and struggle for human equality and its indivisibility. When the measure passed, it became the first-ever UN resolution recognizing the human rights of gay people worldwide. In the Organization of American States this year, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights created a unit on the rights of LGBT people, a step toward what we hope will be the creation of a special rapporteur. Now, we must go further and work here and in every region of the world to galvanize more support for the human rights of the LGBT community. To the leaders of those countries where people are jailed, beaten, or executed for being gay, I ask you to consider this: Leadership, by definition, means being out in front of your people when it is called for. It means standing up for the dignity of all your citizens and persuading your people to do the same. It also means ensuring that all citizens are treated as equals under your laws, because let me be clear--I am not saying that gay people can't or don't commit crimes. They can and they do, just like straight people. And when they do, they should be held accountable, but it should never be a crime to be gay. And to people of all nations, I say supporting human rights is your responsibility too. The lives of gay people are shaped not only by laws, but by the treatment they receive every day from their families, from their neighbors. Eleanor Roosevelt, who did so much to advance human rights worldwide, said that these rights begin in the small places close to home--the streets where people live, the schools they attend, the factories, farms, and offices where they work. These places are your domain. The actions you take, the ideals that you advocate, can determine whether human rights flourish where you are. And finally, to LGBT men and women worldwide, let me say this: Wherever you live and whatever the circumstances of your life, whether you are connected to a network of support or feel isolated and vulnerable, please know that you are not alone. People around the globe are working hard to support you and to bring an end to the injustices and dangers you face. That is certainly true for my country. And you have an ally in the United States of America and you have millions of friends among the American people. The Obama Administration defends the human rights of LGBT people as part of our comprehensive human rights policy and as a priority of our foreign policy. In our embassies, our diplomats are raising concerns about specific cases and laws, and working with a range of partners to strengthen human rights protections for all. In Washington, we have created a task force at the State Department to support and coordinate this work. And in the coming months, we will provide every embassy with a toolkit to help improve their efforts. And we have created a program that offers emergency support to defenders of human rights for LGBT people. This morning, back in Washington, President Obama put into place the first U.S. Government strategy dedicated to combating human rights abuses against LGBT persons abroad. Building on efforts already underway at the State Department and across the government, the President has directed all U.S. Government agencies engaged overseas to combat the criminalization of LGBT status and conduct, to enhance efforts to protect vulnerable LGBT refugees and asylum seekers, to ensure that our foreign assistance promotes the protection of LGBT rights, to enlist international organizations in the fight against discrimination, and to respond swiftly to abuses against LGBT persons. I am also pleased to announce that we are launching a new Global Equality Fund that will support the work of civil society organizations working on these issues around the world. This fund will help them record facts so they can target their advocacy, learn how to use the law as a tool, manage their budgets, train their staffs, and forge partnerships with women's organizations and other human rights groups. We have committed more than $3 million to start this fund, and we have hope that others will join us in supporting it. The women and men who advocate for human rights for the LGBT community in hostile places, some of whom are here today with us, are brave and dedicated, and deserve all the help we can give them. We know the road ahead will not be easy. A great deal of work lies before us. But many of us have seen firsthand how quickly change can come. In our lifetimes, attitudes toward gay people in many places have been transformed. Many people, including myself, have experienced a deepening of our own convictions on this topic over the years, as we have devoted more thought to it, engaged in dialogues and debates, and established personal and professional relationships with people who are gay. This evolution is evident in many places. To highlight one example, the Delhi High Court decriminalized homosexuality in India two years ago, writing, and I quote, ``If there is one tenet that can be said to be an underlying theme of the Indian constitution, it is inclusiveness.'' There is little doubt in my mind that support for LGBT human rights will continue to climb. Because for many young people, this is simple: All people deserve to be treated with dignity and have their human rights respected, no matter who they are or whom they love. There is a phrase that people in the United States invoke when urging others to support human rights: ``Be on the right side of history.'' The story of the United States is the story of a nation that has repeatedly grappled with intolerance and inequality. We fought a brutal civil war over slavery. People from coast to coast joined in campaigns to recognize the rights of women, indigenous peoples, racial minorities, children, people with disabilities, immigrants, workers, and on and on. And the march toward equality and justice has continued. Those who advocate for expanding the circle of human rights were and are on the right side of history, and history honors them. Those who tried to constrict human rights were wrong, and history reflects that as well. I know that the thoughts I've shared today involve questions on which opinions are still evolving. As it has happened so many times before, opinion will converge once again with the truth, the immutable truth, that all persons are created free and equal in dignity and rights. We are called once more to make real the words of the Universal Declaration. Let us answer that call. Let us be on the right side of history, for our people, our nations, and future generations, whose lives will be shaped by the work we do today. I come before you with great hope and confidence that no matter how long the road ahead, we will travel it successfully together. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, last night, at the direction of the Republican leadership, the Rules Committee voted out a martial law rule that will deny the House of Representatives an up-or-down vote on the bipartisan Senate compromise. No vote. We're only days away from seeing 160 million hardworking middle- income Americans see their taxes increase, and there is no vote. We're on the verge of allowing 2 million jobless people to lose their unemployment benefits and 48 million seniors to lose their health care, and the Republicans tell us there can be no vote. Are you kidding me? Last night, my friends defended their delaying tactics by saying all they wanted was to protect regular order when it comes to legislation. Since when? Regular order? Please. The Rules Committee is becoming a place where democracy and fairness go to die. This process is shameful. We have a habit in this House in which we like to point fingers and blame at the Senate for its dysfunction, but we can't do that today because the Senate actually functioned and gave us a bipartisan compromise. It's not perfect, and we all want a 1-year extension of the payroll tax cut. Yet, as we struggle to find acceptable pay-fors, which up to this point we have not been able to do, the U.S. Senate has provided us with a bridge to get there. This compromise includes a short-term extension of the payroll tax cut, unemployment insurance, and the doc fix. The package also includes a requirement that President Obama make a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline, which many of us find hard to swallow. Democrats get something they want, and Republicans get something they want, but that's not good enough for House Republicans. At a time when the American people want Democrats and Republicans to work together, the Senate actually did. That politicians can come to agreement on important matters I believe is a good thing. But what's a bad thing is what we're doing here in the House today--trying to scuttle this deal by denying us a vote. In today's Washington Post, a Republican Member is quoted as saying, ``It's high-stakes poker.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, this is not a card game. In fact, this is not a game of any kind. Let me inform my Republican colleagues that this is real life, with real people and real consequences. I would say to the Republican leaders of this House, Show us that you can govern. This is time for an adult moment. It's time to tell your Tea Party wing that the American people come first. It's time to put country ahead of political party. We're less than 12 days away from a tax increase on middle class Americans; and instead of doing what's right for 160 million Americans, the Republican leadership is playing politics, denying us a vote, and ensuring that today, when all is said and done, we will accomplish absolutely nothing for the American people. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, vote down this rule. Don't leave town until we have a chance to vote on the Senate compromise so that we can ensure that millions of our fellow citizens don't see their taxes going up during these difficult economic times. Give us a vote. Why won't you give us a vote? We demand a vote. Let us have a vote so we can do what's right for the American people.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. When I'm finished, I'll yield.