Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Polis.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, a member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Scott.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record an article from The New York Times, entitled, ``So Much for Small Government.'' [From the New York Times, Oct. 25, 2011] So Much for Small Government House Republicans usually claim to be champions of both small government and states' rights, which makes it hypocritical, and downright reckless, that they are obsessed with taking away the authority of states to decide who is allowed to carry a concealed and loaded handgun. On Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee voted 19 to 11 for a measure that would do exactly that. Only one Republican, Representative Dan Lungren of California, joined the committee's Democratic members in voting against the bill. This extreme legislation, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, would obliterate state and local eligibility rules for concealed weapons and the state's discretion to decide whether to honor another's permits. At least 36 states now set a minimum age of 21 for carrying concealed guns, and 35 states require some sort of gun-safety training. Thirty-eight states prohibit people convicted of certain violent crimes like misdemeanor assault or sex crimes from carrying concealed weapons. The act would override those rules, requiring states with tight restrictions, like New York and California, to allow people with permits from states with lax laws to tote concealed and loaded guns in their jurisdiction. Wording added by the committee exempts people with a concealed-carry permit from one state from having to meet eligibility standards set by the state they are visiting. The measure, pushed by the National Rifle Association, would undermine legitimate states' rights by nationalizing lenient gun rules most states have rejected for themselves. It would increase the chance for gun violence and make it harder to combat illegal gun trafficking. Nevertheless, the full House is expected to approve the bill soon. That would leave it to the Senate, where a similar bill could surface any day, to protect Americans. Much will depend on Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader. He voted for a similar measure two years ago while running for reelection. Nevada law enforcement groups oppose the bill, and the state recently ended reciprocity for concealed- carry permits with Utah and Florida out of concern about the weak licensing rules in those states. For the safety of the people in Nevada and elsewhere, he needs to lead in the right direction this time. I would also like to insert into the Record an article by Frank Bruni, entitled, ``Have Glock, Will Travel.'' [From the New York Times, Oct. 24, 2011] Have Glock, Will Travel (By Frank Bruni) Between the struggle to fold a sport jacket so it doesn't wrinkle, the 45-minute wait on a security line if I'm flying, the price of gas if I'm driving and the worry either way that I left the coffee maker on, I thought I was pretty well versed in the inconveniences and stresses of domestic travel. Hardly! Things could be much, much worse, namely if I were a gun owner with a permit to carry a concealed firearm in my home state and an itch to do so in any other state I visited as well. As matters now stand, I'd have to defer to the laws of those states, which vary widely. In some, my permit from back home would suffice, even if getting it required little more than proper adult identification, proof of residency and a smile. The smile might even have been negotiable. A scowl and a clean felony record and I was good to go. Other states are sticklers, recognizing only their own concealed-carry permits and granting or withholding those based on such killjoy criteria as whether someone has a violent misdemeanor conviction, a history of alcohol abuse or any actual training in weapon safety. Some free country, ours. Thank heaven for the National Rifle Association, its sights ever fixed on the forces that try to separate Americans from the deadly firearms they like to keep snug at their sides. The N.R.A. is pushing a bill, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, that would eliminate the gun-toting traveler's woes. Should it become law, any state that grants concealed-carry permits, no matter how strict the conditions, would be forced to honor a visitor's concealed-carry permit from another state, no matter how lax that state's standards. Chris W. Cox, the N.R.A.'s chief lobbyist, recently wrote that the current situation ``presents a nightmare for interstate travel, as many Americans are forced to check their Second Amendment rights, and their fundamental right to self-defense, at the state line.'' Nightmare? I think that term better applies to the N.R.A., though it's not the first word that springs to mind when I mull its current effort. Contradiction, hypocrisy: those words rush in ahead. The bill thus far has more than 200 Republican cosponsors in the House, many of them conservatives who otherwise complain about attempts by an overbearing federal government to trample on states' rights in the realms of health care, tort reform, education--you name it. But to promote concealed guns, they're encouraging big, bad Washington to trample to its heart's content. Imagine how apoplectic they'd be if, on certain other matters, Washington forced their states to yield to others' values the way this bill, H.R. 822, would compel New York, Massachusetts and Connecticut to honor more permissive gun- control regulations from the South and West. As it happens these three Northeastern states all perform same-sex marriages, which more conservative states do not have to recognize. It's not fair to talk only about Republicans. H.R. 822 has dozens of Democratic co-sponsors as well, and when Democrats controlled Congress for the first two years of Barack Obama's presidency, they made no major progress on gun control. Reluctant to cross the N.R.A., they let it slide. In 2009, when Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader in the Senate, was about to enter a tough reelection battle in Nevada, he actually voted in favor of legislation highly similar to H.R. 822. It was defeated. That same year President Obama signed a law permitting concealed guns in national parks. The story on the state level has been just as sad over the last few years. Wisconsin recently approved concealed-carry legislation, leaving Illinois the only state in which civilians can't carry concealed firearms. Several states have enacted laws spelling out that concealed weapons can in many circumstances be carried into bars. One was Tennessee, where a state lawmaker who sponsored the legislation, Curry Todd, sometimes carries a loaded .38- caliber gun. I know this because it was beside him when Nashville Cops pulled him over two weeks ago for drunken driving. They also charged him with carrying a firearm in public while intoxicated. At least that's still illegal. New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey and several other states don't have reciprocity arrangements that allow someone like Todd to pay an armed courtesy call. That's because New York officials can deny concealed-carry permits on a case-by-case basis, whereas many other states--South Dakota, for example--don't put much stock in such scrutiny. H.R. 822, now in the House Judiciary Committee, makes a mockery of our diverse values and strategies for public safety. If it were enacted, off to New York the South Dakotan tourist could go, 9-millimeter Glock in tow. That's not liberty. More like lunacy. I would also like to insert into the Record a letter to the leadership of this House signed by Martha Coakley, the attorney general of Massachusetts, opposing this legislation. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Office of the Attorney General, Boston, MA, November 9, 2011. Re H.R. 822, ``National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011''. Hon. Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Hon. Mitch McConnell, Senate Republican Leader, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Hon. John Boehner, Speaker of the House, The Capitol, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic Leader, The Capitol, Washington, DC. Dear Honorable Congressional Leaders: As the chief law enforcement officer for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I am writing to express my strong opposition to H.R. 822, the ``National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011,'' which would permit individuals who are authorized to carry concealed firearms in their state of residence to carry concealed handguns in other states, forcing states to recognize all other states' permits to carry concealed firearms. Any legislation that would override the concealed carry laws of nearly every state is an affront to states' individual law enforcement efforts and should not be passed into law. A national concealed carry reciprocity law would force states to recognize every other state's permit to carry concealed, loaded firearms, creating a lowest common denominator approach to public safety that would undermine state and municipal authorities, endanger police officers and make it more difficult to prosecute gun traffickers. As you know, states issue permits to carry concealed firearms, and each state establishes its own criteria in deciding who may carry concealed firearms within its jurisdiction. Indeed, laws permitting individuals to carry concealed weapons vary from state-to-state. For example, some states require residents to complete training and meet other conditions before obtaining a permit, while others do not. National concealed carry reciprocity could create serious and potentially life-threatening situations for police officers. During police traffic stops, it would be nearly impossible for officers to verify every other state's carry permits. In addition, this legislation would make it easier for gun traffickers to travel across state lines with concealed, loaded firearms, exposing police officers to unnecessary danger and making our communities less safe. This dangerous initiative is opposed by a broad coalition of national law enforcement organizations, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, and the Police Foundation; more than 600 members of Mayors Against Illegal Guns; various state law enforcement organizations; faith leaders; prosecutors, including the American Prosecutors Association and the American Bar Association; and the National Network to End Domestic Violence, representing 56 domestic violence prevention organizations nationwide--a similar coalition to the one that helped to defeat this legislation on the floor of the Senate in 2009. Massachusetts has some of most stringent firearms safety protections in the nation. By allowing out-of-state permit holders to bring concealed, loaded firearms into our communities where they would not otherwise be allowed to carry, this legislation would greatly undermine public safety in our Commonwealth. A national concealed carry reciprocity amendment puts our citizens and police at risk and takes away the ability of state and local government to carefully craft laws that protect the public. I urge Congress to defeat this dangerous initiative. Cordially, Martha Coakley, Massachusetts Attorney General. Madam Speaker, we just heard from the gentleman from Georgia that we should somehow be grateful that the Rules Committee majority threw some crumbs our way. But the fact is this is not an open rule. This is not an open process. And for a majority that came in saying that everything was going to be open, they have not kept their promise, and this is far from it. A lot of good amendments were not made in order. Members don't have the right to offer amendments here on the floor. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, out of fairness, and especially my Republican friend, in keeping with your promise when you took the majority, please vote ``no'' on this rule. I will also say, Madam Speaker, that I oppose this bill because it tramples on the rights of my State and it tramples on the rights of a number of States that have reasonable guidelines for who can carry a concealed weapon. And under this bill, those guidelines all go away, so the lowest common denominator carries the day. I don't think that's good for public safety. And if you care about States' rights, it's not goods for States' rights advocates either. But I want to just spend my final moments just reminding my colleagues that we have an economic crisis before us. There are 14 million Americans without jobs. There are millions more who are underemployed. We just came back from another congressional break. I don't know where you went on your congressional break, but if you went back to your district, I find it hard to believe that the most pressing issue that faces your constituency is trying to figure out a way to make it easier to carry concealed weapons from State to State to State. I just don't believe that that's what people are talking about, certainly not people in my congressional district. My people are talking about jobs. When I'm at the airport, people are talking to me about jobs. That's what they want us to focus on, not on reaffirming the national motto of the United States as ``In God We Trust.'' I mean, we wasted a day on that. It didn't need reaffirming. There it is right up there in gold lettering above where the Speaker sits. It's on the back of the dollar bill. Why did we have to spend time debating that? And today we're not talking about jobs; we're talking about a gun bill? Now, I know that the special interest lobbyist, the National Rifle Association, they like this and they want us to move forward on this. But put the special interests aside for a second and put your constituents first. What do our constituents want us to do? They want us to fix this economy. We should be debating some of the components of the President's jobs bill or a jobs bill of your own. But we should be talking about how to put people back to work, not spending time here talking about how to make it easier to carry a concealed weapon from State to State to State. This is nuts that we're spending and wasting this time on this issue. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia said a majority of Members favor this bill; therefore, we should bring it to the floor. Well, you know what? A majority of Members of this Chamber also support a bill to hold China accountable for the fact that China manipulates its currency and, as a result of that, if we actually held them accountable, we could actually create an estimated 1 million to 1.5 million jobs in America. A majority of Members of this House on both sides of the aisle support that, yet we can't get that to the floor. That will help create some jobs. I mean, there's bipartisan support for that. There's bipartisan support for the components of the President's jobs bill, yet you will not bring it to the floor. Instead, we're dealing with this stuff. Again, this may be good for pleasing the special interests, but it is not what we should be doing in this Chamber. What's good for this country is to focus on the economy. What's good for this country is to focus on jobs. I would say to my Republican friends, your indifference on the issue of jobs is shameful, is absolutely shameful. There are millions of Americans out of work, millions underemployed, people worried about whether they can pay their mortgages, pay their heating bills, pay their prescription drug bills, whether they can afford to send their kids to college, and this is what we're spending our time on? Give me a break. We need to refocus in this Congress. We need to get our priorities straight. I'm going to tell you, at the top of the list is not reaffirming the motto of this country. It's not abortion bills or gun bills. What's at the top of the list is jobs. Let's put America back to work. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this restrictive rule and vote ``no'' on the underlying bill, and let's bring a jobs bill to this floor. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would like to insert in the Record dissenting views from the Judiciary Committee, entitled, ``Loosening Restrictions on the Carrying of Concealed Guns in Public Does Not Improve Public Safety.'' Concealed carry laws have not made us safer. As a result, forcing states with strict permitting standards to recognize permits issued by states with weak standards would make us even less safe. Proponents of H.R. 822 have cited research by John Lott that has been widely discredited. In fact, as columnist Michelle Malkin has pointed out, Lott has been accused of fabricating a study on which he bases the claim that 98 percent of defensive gun uses involved mere brandishing as opposed to shooting. Malkin reported that Lott incorrectly tried to attribute the data to three different studies, and when another researcher offered to independently verify Lott's findings, Lott claimed to have lost all of his data in a computer crash. He also could not produce any financial records, contemporaneous records or any of the students who supposedly worked on the survey. 78 other studies conclude that guns are far more likely to be used in crime than in self-defense. One such study found that the number of criminal gun uses outnumbered the self-defense use of a gun by a factor of at least 4 to 1.79 At this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, at this time I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman from Florida 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. Madam Speaker, first of all, let me rise in opposition to this restrictive rule, yet another restrictive rule. A lot of good amendments were not made in order, and Members do not have the right to offer amendments as they see fit during this debate. So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule for that reason. Madam Speaker, another week and another hot button social issue is being brought to the floor by this extreme Republican leadership. A few weeks ago, this House debated an abortion bill. That's months after we considered legislation to defund Planned Parenthood. This Republican leadership has tried to overturn the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act this year, simply because their corporate constituency demands it. And now we're turning to guns. We're about to debate legislation that makes it easier to carry concealed weapons in the United States. In fact, we're considering a bill that will make it easier for convicted felons. Yet what do Americans want most of all right now? Are they screaming for a lengthy debate on abortion issues? Do they want us debating whether or not we need to reaffirm our national motto? Are they clamoring for more lenient gun laws? No, Madam Speaker. The American people want jobs, J-O-B-S, jobs. But my Republican friends are either too stubborn to listen or just don't care enough to do something about the problem. Maybe they are just covering their eyes and plugging their ears, hoping that this crisis will magically disappear. That may work for a 6-year-old who's scared of ghosts, but that's not how you govern a country. Our unemployment rate is 9 percent. There are just under 14 million unemployed Americans; millions more are earning less now than they were before the economic crisis simply because they were forced with the choice to take a lower-paying job or face unemployment. And what's the Republican response to this problem? Not a jobs bill. In fact, the Republicans haven't brought up a jobs bill once in this Congress. So what, then, is their response to the jobs product? Surprise, surprise; it's a gun bill. Madam Speaker, what are we doing here? This is nuts. This isn't what the American people sent us here to do. The irony is, many of the new Republicans were allegedly sent here because of their opposition to Federal encroachment on States' rights, but here we are debating a bill that imposes the Federal role on States and undermines States' laws. This is crazy in normal times, Madam Speaker. It's even crazier today. And unlike the resolution reaffirming our national motto that we debated a few weeks ago, this legislation will have real impacts on people's lives. Madam Speaker, people will be hurt because of this legislation. People, in fact, may die because of this bill. Don't take my word for it; look at the facts. The bill obliterates State and local eligibility rules for concealed weapons. It eliminates the State's discretion to honor another State's permits. It requires States with responsible restrictions--like my home State of Massachusetts--to allow people with permits from States with lax laws to bring concealed weapons into those States. Simply, it allows a person to bring a hidden loaded gun into a State where, under today's laws, they are currently ineligible to carry a concealed weapon. Now there are reasons that States don't allow certain people to carry concealed weapons, and each State is different. My home State of Massachusetts doesn't issue concealed weapons permits to people who have specific dangerous misdemeanor criminal convictions or alcohol abuse problems, as well as people who have not completed firearm safety training, people who do not have a good character, or those who are under the age of 21. I would like to insert into the Record a letter from the Massachusetts Secretary of Public Safety and Security in opposition to this bill. But under this bill, a person who is convicted of spousal abuse in one State could go to a second State for a concealed weapon permit. When they get that permit, this bill allows that felon to bring their weapon into Massachusetts even though they would not be eligible for a concealed weapon permit under Massachusetts laws. Now my friends on the other side of the aisle will say that this bill is necessary, that more guns mean less crime, that people need to be able to protect themselves. Well, that's not how our Nation's mayors see it. Mayors Against Illegal Guns strongly oppose this bill because it makes our cities less--not more--less safe. Mayors Against Illegal Guns, founded by Boston Mayor Tom Menino and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, is made up of over 600 mayors of all political stripes, united to respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners while keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and other dangerous people. And I'm especially grateful for the national leadership of Mayor Tom Menino, who has long been a champion on this issue. Not only do more than 600 mayors in this coalition oppose this bill, but so do the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Police Foundation, the National Latino Peace Officers Association, and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives. In fact, not only does the American Bar Association oppose this bill, but so does the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys. I would like to insert into the Record the statement by the Mayors Against Illegal Guns in opposition to H.R. 822. Madam Speaker, Massachusetts is fortunate to have a number of anti- gun violence leaders in the Commonwealth. In addition to Mayor Menino, we are home to Stop Handgun Violence and, specifically, its founder John Rosenthal. Gun safety laws work. They keep our citizens safe. In fact, Massachusetts has the most comprehensive and effective gun violence prevention laws and initiatives and the lowest firearm fatality rate per 100,000 population of any urban industrial State and second lowest overall behind Hawaii. Every day more than 150 Americans are shot, and 83 die from gun violence in the United States. A child under 20 years old dies from gun violence every 3 hours, eight kids every single day. We could fill Fenway Park three times over with the 110,000 kids under 20 years old killed by guns in the past 30 years, and there is still no national law requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales in the U.S. In fact, in 33 States, there is no background check requirement or even proof of ID for private gun sales. And today we're going to make it even easier for these people to carry concealed weapons. Massachusetts is the leader in gun violence prevention. We should be working to prevent gun violence, not encouraging it with legislation like this. Madam Speaker, Federal preemption of Massachusetts law will only result in more innocent and largely preventible gun deaths in my home State. The same holds true for nearly every State of the Union. In fact, preempting State gun laws will make this entire country less safe, and I cannot and I will not support legislation that makes our neighborhoods and our cities and our States less safe. Madam Speaker, let me conclude by saying, if we want to combat crime, if we want to make our neighborhoods safer, I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join with us and bring the President's jobs bill to the floor. Let's provide people with jobs and economic security. Let's revitalize our neighborhoods that are struggling now in poverty. That's what we should be doing, not debating a bill to make it easier to carry concealed weapons. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and vote ``no'' on final passage of the bill. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, Boston, MA, November 10, 2011. Hon. Harry Reid, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington DC. Hon. John Boehner, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Mitch McConnell, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Reid, Senator McConnell, Speaker Boehner, and Minority Leader Pelosi: I write to express my strong opposition to H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, legislation that would force Massachusetts to recognize concealed carry permits granted by other states, even when those permit holders could not meet standards required by Massachusetts law. To protect vulnerable people, many states have set standards for carrying handguns that include criteria beyond an applicant's ability to pass a federal background check. Right now, Massachusetts does not issue concealed carry permits to people who have certain dangerous misdemeanor criminal convictions or alcohol abuse problems, as well as individuals who have not completed firearms safety training, who do not have good character, or who are under the age of 21. H.R. 822, however, would permit citizens of states with less strict laws to freely carry concealed weapons in our state. Varying state standards make it very difficult to know if a carry permit from another state is valid. If a police officer is unsure about whether a person is carrying a gun legally or illegally, especially during a traffic stop, it may result in a situation which could escalate dangerously. National concealed carry reciprocity is opposed by more than 600 mayors, including the mayors of Boston, Cambridge, Springfield, and Worcester; local law enforcement, including the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association and the Commissioner of the Boston Police Department; seven state attorneys general, including Martha Coakley, Attorney General of Massachusetts; the International Association of Chiefs of Police; the Major Cities Chiefs Association, representing the police chiefs of 56 major U.S. cities; the National Black Police Association; the National Latino Peace Officers Association; and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives. I urge you to support Massachusetts' law enforcement officials and the Commonwealth's right to make its own decisions about how to protect public safety. Sincerely, Mary Elizabeth Heffernan, Secretary. Marian J. McGovern, Colonel, Massachusetts State Police.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. There is a lot of talk about the supercommittee and debt reduction; but, Madam Speaker, what we need is a supercommittee for jobs. Here's the deal. If we can create more jobs, we can reduce our deficit; but my Republican friends have gone out of their way to talk about everything on this House floor except jobs. They refuse to bring the President's jobs bill to the floor; they refuse to invest in our roads, bridges, and infrastructure; and they're threatening to cut medical research, Medicare, and funds for education. All they seem to care about is making sure that the top 1 percent of income earners is protected from paying its fair share. It's time for a new agenda, Madam Speaker. It's time for a jobs agenda. It's time for the Republican leadership to focus and to get to work.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McGOVERN. Two final thoughts: One, this is not the President's jobs bill. And there are millions of people who are unemployed in this country. I repeat my claim that the Republicans have a lousy record on jobs.

Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McGOVERN. The gentleman said the same thing about NAFTA too.

Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman. I would urge the gentleman to come with me and talk to some of these unemployed manufacturing workers and say to them that the Colombia free trade agreement somehow----

Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield to me?

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman. Why won't you allow the President's jobs bill to come to the floor? Why have you denied us the opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on the issue of China's manipulation of its currency? Why, on these issues that will create millions of jobs, can we not get a vote?

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me, first of all, remind my colleagues that this is not an open process; this is not an open rule. If Members are watching the proceedings on the floor and want to offer an amendment, they are denied that opportunity. Not only that, but that's typical of the way this Congress has been run from the very beginning; promises of openness have not come to pass. Let me also say that the Republican majority in this House of Representatives has failed, and they have failed miserably, on the issue of jobs. We have talked about everything but jobs. This week we began our proceedings by debating a bill reaffirming the words ``In God We Trust'' as our national motto. Well, behind me, above the Speaker, in gold, is ``In God We Trust.'' On the back of a dollar bill it says, ``In God We Trust.'' I didn't know there was a problem. We get it. It didn't need reaffirming. It was there. But we spent a day debating that and not debating jobs. There are millions of people in this country without work, and we're debating those kinds of resolutions. We should bring the President's job bill to the floor. Why can't we bring the President's jobs bill to the floor? It has bipartisan support. All the others had bipartisan support until the President presented it. We were denied that opportunity. I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring up the issue of China's manipulation of its currency. The bills we are debating here today are fine, but they are peanuts compared to the jobs that are lost because of China's manipulation of its currency. But we have not, time and time and time again, been allowed to bring that to the floor. We can't bring the President's jobs bill to the floor. I have offered multiple times in the Rules Committee an amendment to end U.S. taxpayer subsidies for Big Oil; put that toward deficit reduction or put that toward investment in job creation. Time and time and time again, on party-line votes, we have been denied that right to bring that to the floor. So the Republicans have failed miserably on the issue of jobs. To come out here and say that jobs have been a priority is laughable, given the stuff that we have debated on this floor. What we should be debating is the President's jobs bill.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Another day in the House of Representatives, another day without a jobs bill. As a Red Sox fan, I'm not prone to quoting Yogi Berra--but this is deja vu all over again. This Tea Party-run Republican House is not only breaking House rules to move a bipartisan bill--something they said they would never do--but they are breaking these rules to protect big oil while taking healthcare away from low-income Americans. Talk about hitting the trifecta. Let's start with the rule. We have one rule for two bills, one bill repealing the 3% withholding requirement and another bill offsetting the costs of the first bill. Why have two bills come up under one rule? The only reason is because the Republicans want to shut down debate and limit the motion to recommit. That's why the rule combines these two bills into one bill after they are approved on their own. This is just one more example of this Republican leadership's continual streak of broken promises. If this weren't bad enough, this rule waives all points of order-- including the Budget Act. Why is this necessary? Well, that's because the 3% withholding bill violates the Budget Act twice. The sad truth is that the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, the gentleman from California Mr. Herger, didn't even know that his bill violated the Budget Act when he testified before the Rules Committee yesterday. Chairman Dreier, of course, tried to explain these violations but he was misinformed when he said the only reason for these violations was because the Senate did not pass a budget resolution. To correct the record, that's only one of the violations. The other violation is because this bill violates the House-passed budget resolution. I'm not one to defend the Ryan budget, but I'd like to think that the Republicans wouldn't use one bill to contradict legislation they passed earlier this year. And the Republican offset for the 3% withholding bill is a bad one-- it tightens Medicaid and health insurance exchange subsidy eligibility requirements. In other words, it prevents low-income individuals and families from being eligible for Medicaid, an egregious act during normal times but especially heartless in this difficult economy. Talk about turning a deaf ear to people who are struggling to make ends meet. Now, Democrats offered an amendment to replace the bad Republican offset by eliminating subsidies to big oil and gas companies. BP, for example, reported profits of $4.9 billion in the third quarter of this year even though their production decreased by 12 percent over that period. They made more money with less oil and we--the American people--still provide lucrative subsidies to them. Time after time, the Rules Committee has blocked my amendment ending the subsidy--siding with big oil and defending their subsidy--using procedural excuses. It's funny how the Republicans waive the rules when it's convenient for their agenda but they refuse to apply that same standard to all bills. In this case, Republicans waive all points of order against the underlying bills but cite germaneness and cut-go as reasons why they're not making the Democratic substitute in order. The truth is Republicans are hiding behind this flimsy excuse to protect big oil. To my Republican friends, let me set the record straight. You're making in order a non-germane bill to pay for the repeal of the 3 percent withholding bill--a bill that violates the Budget Act--but you're saying an amendment ending subsidies for oil companies making billions of dollars each month can't be made in order because it's not germane? You're making in order a bill that violates the rules of the House-- and you're protecting this bill from these points of order--but you won't do the same for our proposal? It's truly outrageous that you're making two bills in order and using the rule to combine these two bills into one; that you're going out of your way to make in order your non-germane bill and you're not doing the same for our bill. It's truly outrageous that you're more interested in rationing healthcare for those who need it instead of ending subsidies for oil companies who continue to rake in billions of dollars of profits each quarter; and that you're hiding behind procedural excuses in order to get your way. Mr. Speaker, this is a process even Tom DeLay would marvel at. The following is a list of the instances when the Republicans have waived germaneness (Clause 7 of Rule XVI) and both cut-go and germaneness (Clause 10 of Rule XXI). Republicans' Waivers of Cutgo and Germaneness This Year So Far: Cutgo waivers--clause 10 of rule XXI (3 times): H.R. 3079 (H. Res. 425)--Panama trade bill S. 627 (H. Res. 375)--Budget Control Act of 2011 S. 365 (H. Res. 384)--Budget Control Act of 2011 Germaneness waivers--clause 7 of rule XVI (9 times): H.R. 839 (H. Res. 170)--HAMP Termination Act of 2011 (canceled a program to help homeowners modify their loans) H.R. 861 (H. Res. 170)--NSP Termination Act (canceled a program to redevelop abandoned and foreclosed homes and residential properties) H.R. 910 (H. Res. 203)--Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 (taking away EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases) H.R. 1315 (H. Res. 358)--Consumer Financial Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act of 2011 (weakened the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) Senate amendment to H.R. 2608 (H. Res. 405)--CR I11Senate amendment to H.R. 2608 (H. Res. 412)--CR H.R. 658 (H. Res. 189)--FAA reauthorization H.R. 754 (H. Res. 264)--Intel Authorization H.R. 1892 (H. Res. 392)--Intel Authorization Vote no on the previous question, reject this rule, and reject the pay-for that violates the Budget Act and cuts healthcare for low-income families. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows: An Amendment to H. Res. 448 Offered By Mr. Hastings of Florida (1) In the first section of the resolution, strike ``the previous question'' and all that follows and insert the following: The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; (2) the amendment printed in section 4, if offered by Representative Levin of Michigan, or Representative Bishop of New York, or Representative Keating of Massachusetts, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. (2) At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in the first section of this resolution is as follows: Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today is National Food Day--a full day devoted to all aspects of the American food system: farms, industry, grocers, schools, and most importantly people. One stated goal of Food Day is to ``expand access to food and alleviate hunger.'' Mr. Speaker, it's unconscionable that hunger continues to exist in America. Nearly 50 million Americans go hungry every year. Over 17 million--one third-- of them are children. The sad truth is hunger is a reality in every community. There is not one part of America, not one Congressional district, that isn't touched by hunger. In my own district, as in many others places in America, volunteers help to alleviate hunger. On Saturday, I joined children and their parents in gleaning apples. We picked fresh, healthy fruit from an orchard to be delivered to the local food bank. If not for these volunteers, the apples would go to waste. It's an inevitable part of farming--produce that isn't ripe or is missed in the initial harvest stays on the trees or in the fields--because going back for a second harvest is too costly. At times volunteering is costly too. Transporting gleaned food to the very people who rely on it takes time and fuel. And we're finding that the transportation costs are becoming a barrier to delivering gleaned food, and this fresh produce is left to rot in the fields instead of helping to feed hungry Americans. That is why Representative Emerson and I introduced H.R. 3177, the Hunger Relief Trucking Tax Credit Act. This bill would encourage and reward individuals and businesses who haul gleaned food from one location to another within the U.S. Many trucking companies and individuals pay for transportation of this food out of their own pockets. The Hunger Relief Trucking Tax Credit Act would create a 25 cent tax credit for each mile that food is transported for a charity by a donated truck and driver for hunger relief efforts. This legislation will support those who are already transporting food donations and entice more companies to do so. We must make every effort to bring food to those who rely on it to feed themselves and their families. As we celebrate National Food Day, I urge my colleagues to join us by cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I would just remind my friend that you have already brought up 30 measures under a closed rule since you took over. Again, I'm just trying to keep you to your promise that you made about all this new openness, which we haven't seen. And today is an example of that.

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