Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. All Members of this House are strongly committed to protecting our national security regardless of party, region or political point of view. It has been the tradition of the House Armed Services Committee, at the staff and member level, to work in a bipartisan way to carefully craft the annual Defense authorization bill. I recognize Chairman Buck McKeon and Ranking Member Adam Smith for continuing that collegiality. Given such a tradition, it comes as a surprise to see so many provisions in H.R. 1540 that attempt to repudiate and attack several of the President's national security policies: from warehousing low-level detainees for an indeterminate amount of time, to delaying the implementation of the repeal of Don't Ask-Don't Tell, to hamstringing the implementation of the bipartisan-supported New START Treaty, to seeking a so-called ``updated'' authorization for the use of military force that no longer references the devastating 9/11 attacks against America but, instead, gives broad authority to the executive branch to pursue military operations anywhere and for any length of time. Such changes have all the appearance of a partisan agenda. Yesterday, I expressed my hope that the Rules Committee would make in order amendments so that a broad range of issues and recommendations might be considered and voted upon by this body. Over 200 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee for consideration, and 152 amendments were made in order; but each amendment only receives 10 minutes of debate time, evenly divided between supporters and opponents. When the House is debating whether to significantly change and expand the authority under which the President--any President--may send our servicemen and -women into harm's way without consulting Congress and under the vague terminology of fighting global terrorism, is 10 minutes really enough time to give this grave matter the attention it deserves? When military operations are underway in Libya, is 10 minutes really enough time to debate whether ground troops should not be deployed under any circumstances? A number of amendments submitted to the Rules Committee focused on the future of our policy and military operations in Afghanistan. As most of my colleagues know, I believe we need to rethink our strategy in Afghanistan. It has demanded the lives of 1,573 of our servicemen and -women, and has gravely wounded tens of thousands of our troops. Suicide rates among our veterans from Afghanistan and Iraq have soared; and right now, there is no genuine path aimed at ending our military footprint in Afghanistan--no exit strategy. The death of Osama bin Laden creates an opportunity for us to reexamine our policy in Afghanistan and to ask the President exactly how and when he will bring the last troops home to their families and to their communities. This is a moment to bring fresh eyes to the question of what kind of defense priorities and budget best fit the needs of our Nation and our national security, especially in these difficult economic times. This is a matter that touches every single American and especially our uniformed men and women, their families and their communities. How can we make any decision on budget priorities unless we know how much longer this war is going to last? Already, it is the longest war in our Nation's history. It is bankrupting our Nation. Every day, every week, every month, we see billions and billions of dollars charged to the national credit card, increasing the deficit, increasing the debt--with no end in sight. We see corruption everywhere within the Karzai government in Afghanistan, and we see the basic needs of our own communities--roads, bridges, clean water systems, education, health care, and hunger programs--cut or eliminated for lack of funds. Where does it all end? When does it all end? On a matter this important, shouldn't we be engaged in debate for more than 10 minutes? I am pleased that the amendment I submitted with cosponsors Walter Jones, Loretta Sanchez, Justin Amash, John Lewis, Ron Paul, David Cicilline, and Peter Welch was made in order. We have 5 minutes to describe why the President needs to clearly lay out to Congress, to the American people, to our military men and women, and to our military families exactly how and when we will complete the accelerated transition of our military operations to the Afghan authorities--5 minutes, Mr. Speaker--not to mention why the President needs to accelerate talks to achieve a political solution and reconciliation in Afghanistan and why we need to have a new National Intelligence Estimate, not just a report from the National Counterterrorism Center on the leadership, locations and capacity of al Qaeda. Five minutes. This Defense bill would give the executive branch carte blanche to fight global terrorism anywhere and by any means, but we don't even have an up-to-date NIE on al Qaeda. That's not debate, Mr. Speaker. Quite frankly, it's an insult, not to mention that, if we add up the time of all the amendments, at best, the debate on the future of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan might begin as early as 10 or 11 o'clock tonight--but, most likely, even later. Mr. Speaker, there is no reason to rush this bill through just because Members were told they could fly out of town at 3 o'clock tomorrow. We could stay on Friday or we could continue the debate on the amendments next week. War. The very lives of our uniformed men and women. Libya. Unchecked power granted to the executive versus the constitutional responsibility of Congress to declare war or to authorize the specific use of our military might around the world. These are matters that deserve much greater attention than what is granted under this rule. I urge my colleagues to support the McGovern-Jones-Sanchez-Amash- Lewis-Paul-Cicilline-Welch amendment on Afghanistan when it comes up for debate late this evening; and I ask my colleagues to reject this rule, which denies this House the ability to debate these grave matters in the manner they deserve and require. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 3 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, let me again express my disappointment with the lack of time that we are being allowed to debate some very, very important issues that impact everybody, every single person in our country: issues of war; issues of granting the executive branch this new broad authority to be able to go to war any time they want without even consulting the United States Congress, giving them these unilateral powers which I believe is not what our Founding Fathers ever anticipated; issues involving Libya; and I could go on and on and on, not to mention some of the issues that were not allowed to be brought up at all, and Ms. Bordallo just mentioned one of them. I don't understand why that was not made in order. But in this House of Representatives, since the new majority took over, we debate trivial issues passionately and important ones not at all. You know, we spent hours debating whether we should defund National Public Radio. But on the issue of Afghanistan, what our policy should be in Afghanistan, we have over 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, we are borrowing over $8.2 billion a month--a month, a month--to pay for Afghanistan, that is all going on our credit card. That is going, adding to our deficit, to our debt. Our kids and grandkids are going to pay for the fact that we are not paying for it now. Those issues deserve more than a few minutes of debate. Again, I have an amendment on Afghanistan to encourage the President to rethink our policy and to develop an exit strategy, and I and all the other Members who are cosponsoring my bill, my amendment, are given 5 minutes--5 minutes--to talk about this issue. Surely we could spend at least another 5 minutes on top of that--I mean, hopefully even longer--being able to discuss this important issue. I regret that, because I think we need to be debating and discussing what we are doing in Afghanistan. I think it is important. I think the American people want us to figure a way out, and yet we give them 5 minutes to be able to debate this issue. I think that is regrettable. [From http://www.thenation.com, May 10, 2011] End the War in Afghanistan, and Begin Nation-Building Here At Home (By Rep. Jim McGovern and Rep. Walter Jones) This week we joined with over a dozen of our colleagues-- Republican and Democrat--to introduce new legislation to require the Obama Administration to present an exit strategy for U.S. forces from Afghanistan. Specifically, our bill (the ``Afghanistan Exit and Accountability Act'') would: require the President to transmit to Congress a plan with timeframe and completion date on the transition of U.S. military and security operations in Afghanistan to the Government of Afghanistan; require the President to report quarterly (i.e. every 90 days) on the status of that transition, and the human and financial costs of remaining in Afghanistan, including increased deficit and public debt; and; included in those quarterly reports, the President must disclose to Congress the savings in 5-year, 10-year and 20-year time periods were the U.S. to accelerate redeployment and conclude the transition of all U.S. military and security operations to Afghanistan within 180 days (i.e. 6 months). The operation that resulted in the killing of Obama bin Laden demonstrated that the men and women of our armed forces and intelligence community are incredible people. The world is now a better, safer place. The question then becomes: now what? Now that bin Laden is dead and Al Qaeda is scattered around the globe, does it really make sense to keep using over 100,000 U.S. troops to occupy Afghanistan and prop up a corrupt government? We don't think so. Remember--we didn't find bin Laden on the front lines of Afghanistan. He was comfortably holed up in a mansion in Pakistan. We must continue to target Al Qaeda wherever in the world they are. But continuing to be bogged down in Afghanistan makes that mission harder, not easier. In December, Afghan President Hamid Kharzai made it clear that he would rather align himself with the Taliban than with the United States. So why on earth are we sacrificing so much in terms of dead and wounded soldiers and billions of dollars to support him? We believe that bin Laden's death creates an opportunity to re-examine our policy and to require the Administration to tell us exactly how and when we will end our massive troop presence in Afghanistan. Our bill requires the President to give Congress a concrete strategy and timeframe for bringing our servicemen and women home to their families and communities, and it requires quarterly reports on the human and financial costs of continuing the war--and how much we would save if we withdrew our forces within a reasonable time frame. That's not too much to ask. To make it worse, we're not even paying for the war. It's on the national credit card. The war in Afghanistan adds $100 billion a year--$2 billion each week, $8 billion each month-- to our debt. We're told that we can't afford vital domestic funding, but we should continue to borrow billions and billions of dollars for nation-building in Afghanistan. Instead, we should be doing some more nation-building right here at home. Why don't we take some of those billions to build roads and bridges and schools right here in the United States? In the end, of course, only President Obama can bring an end to the war. But Congress must play a role, as well. For too long, Congress has ducked its proper oversight responsibilities when it comes to the war in Afghanistan. We've avoided meaningful debate and discussion and have chosen to simply ``go along to get along.'' The President told us that we will see a substantial drawdown of troops in July. He needs to keep that promise. And he needs to tell us when all of our troops will be coming home, and how much staying in Afghanistan will continue to cost the American people--in sacrificed lives, wounded bodies and minds, and U.S. tax dollars--until this war is finally over. That's what our bill would require. We are hopeful that with enough public pressure, we can provide some wind at the back of the President to help him do the right thing. This war is the longest in our history. There's no end in sight. It's time to stop digging. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I feel I need to clarify the record on a couple of things. My friend from North Carolina said that the Republicans want to protect Medicare. I would suggest that she read the bill that she voted for and other Republicans voted for, the so-called Ryan budget. The way they protect Medicare is by destroying it. They turn it into a voucher system. And it will mean seniors will pay more and they will get less protection. It is outrageous what they're proposing. And more and more Americans are reading the bill, and they are outraged by what they are seeing. Democrats, and I hope some thoughtful Republicans, will stand firm and protect Medicare. It is the most important, successful program in our history, along with Social Security. And efforts to dismantle it and to put more burden on our senior citizens for their health care, and basically a major giveaway to the insurance companies, is not protecting Medicare. The gentlelady talks about the reckless spending in Washington. I will remind all of my colleagues that when Bill Clinton left office, we didn't have a deficit; we were paying down our debt. There was a detailed article in The Washington Post not too long ago explaining how we went from no deficit to now a huge deficit. It includes tax giveaways to the wealthiest people in this country that were not paid for, you know. I find it somewhat sad that one of the first things that was done in terms of addressing some of our economic concerns was to protect the tax cuts for people like Donald Trump but then to go in and cut emergency fuel assistance for poor people and to go after food and nutrition programs and Pell Grants. That's not the way we should be balancing the budget. But The Washington Post talks about these tax cuts for the wealthy that were not paid for; on top of that, two wars that were not paid for. Now, I am against these wars; but if you are for them, you ought to pay for them. That's the way we have done it throughout our history. World War II, we paid for it. There was a war tax. We had war bonds. The Vietnam War was paid for in part by eroding Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. It was paid for. But now we have these wars that are not paid for, $8.2 billion a month in Afghanistan alone. So I hope this is not a partisan agenda when we talk about the war in Afghanistan, and I am not here to put the blame on one party or another. I hope that we can have these amendments on the floor and have some thoughtful discussion about ways we could bring this war to an end. I think Democrats, and I know a lot of Republicans, feel that we should bring this war to an end. In terms of energy policy, I think people are horrified that we continue to protect taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil companies while they are gouging us at the gas pump. It is unbelievable that we can't have a debate on this floor about taking away these taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil that are making record profits. So I hope that we will talk a little bit more about that at the end of this debate. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a former member of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady from North Carolina and my friend, Dr. Foxx, 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, this rule allows for the consideration of H.R. 1216, the Graduate Medical Education Direct Spending Repeal Act, and general debate for H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, and this rule also allows for a martial law consideration of the reauthorization of the Patriot Act sometime this week. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, this is a disappointing rule. While I have no problem with a rule providing for general debate for the Defense authorization bill, it is disappointing that this rule also includes these two other provisions--especially the martial law rule. Let me begin with H.R. 1216. This bill is simple--it's another chance for the Republicans to dismantle the Affordable Care Act. It's one more part of their repeal agenda. The funny thing is, Mr. Speaker, Republicans continue to push their repeal agenda, but they haven't put any plan forward to replace these new health care provisions that we passed. The truth is that the Republicans are not only trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act, they are also trying to repeal Medicare. This is outrageous. The American people do not want the House Republicans to dismantle Medicare. The Affordable Care Act, Mr. Speaker, provides dedicated funding for the training of family doctors through graduate medical education programs at teaching health centers. The Republicans, while they claim they support doctors and training programs, don't believe in this dedicated funding. This bill not only rescinds the direct funding for these programs, it reduces the authorization by nearly $50 million. Now, everyone knows there is a shortage of primary care physicians in this country. Why, then, do Republicans want to undercut efforts to bring physicians into areas of desperate need? Making these funds discretionary will jeopardize the 11 programs currently underway across the country--including one program in my home State of Massachusetts. Making these funds discretionary does nothing to help our constituents who are struggling to obtain primary care. Making this program discretionary will deter other entities from making business decisions necessary to expand residency training--decisions like securing commitments from key stakeholders to agree to train new or additional residents, applying for accreditation if not already eligible, and hiring new faculty with funding over the next few years. Finally, claims that this bill saves hundreds of millions of dollars are just not true. Republicans may claim that this bill will cut nearly $200 million from the deficit, but that's only true if Congress provides no funding for this program. CBO--the nonpartisan budget arbiter that Republicans frequently ignore--estimates that $184 million will be appropriated over 5 years, meaning only $11 million will be saved by H.R. 1216. So claims of this incredible fiscal austerity are simply not true. Now, a second part of this rule is the martial law portion for same- day consideration of the Patriot Act extension. The Senate is currently debating this reauthorization, and the Republicans feel it necessary to once again jam this bill through this House as soon as the Senate is done with it. This is no way to debate legislation dealing with our homeland security and basic civil rights and civil liberties. This is an important issue. Members need time to be able to understand all of the implications of the Patriot Act. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, let me say just a few words about the fiscal year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act which we will begin general debate on later today. All Members of this House are strongly committed to protecting our national security--regardless of party, region, or political point of view. It has been the tradition of the House Armed Services Committee, at the staff and Member level, to work in a bipartisan way to carefully craft the annual defense authorizations bill, and I recognize Chairman Buck McKeon and Ranking Member Adam Smith for continuing that collegiality. But given such a tradition, it comes as a surprise to see so many provisions in H.R. 1540 that attempt to repudiate and attack several of the President's national security policies. From warehousing low-level detainees for an indeterminate amount of time, to delaying the implementation of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, to hamstringing the implementation of the bipartisan-supported New START Treaty, to seeking a so-called updated authorization for the use of military force that no longer references the devastating 9/11 attacks against America, but instead gives broad authority to the executive branch to pursue military operations anywhere for any length of time--such changes have all the appearance of a partisan agenda. This afternoon, the Rules Committee will be reviewing many of the amendments on these and other issues, and I hope that they will be made in order so that a broad range of issues and recommendations might be considered and voted upon by this body. Now, a number of those amendments will deal with the future of our policy and military operations in Afghanistan. As most of my colleagues know, I believe that we need to rethink our strategy in Afghanistan. It is bankrupting our Nation. The gentlelady from North Carolina talks about the deficit. I will remind her and others that we are borrowing to pay for the war in Afghanistan. We are borrowing approximately $8.2 billion a month. That's billion with a ``b.'' So if we're going to get serious about deficit reduction, we either need to end these wars--which I think we should do--or if you support them, you ought to pay for them. This war has already demanded the lives of 1,573 of our service men and women and gravely wounded tens of thousands of our troops. And right now, there is no true end in sight. The death of Osama bin Laden creates an opportunity for us to reexamine our policy in Afghanistan and ask the President exactly how and when he will bring the last troops home to their families and their communities. The death of bin Laden provides us with a moment to commend our intelligence and uniformed men and women, and it also allows us to bring fresh eyes to what kind of defense budget and priorities best fit the needs of our Nation and our national security, especially in these difficult economic times. I hope that the Rules Committee will embrace such a debate, allow a broad range of amendments to be made in order, and support a fresh and critical examination of the policies and priorities put forward in H.R. 1540. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. May I ask how much time I have remaining, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to support the efforts of my colleague from New York (Mr. Bishop). And let me just say the American people are sending a clear message to Republicans: Show us the jobs. After 140 days of the new GOP majority, they keep pursuing their agenda that destroys jobs and stalls our economic growth. This week is no different. And today, Republicans are only making matters worse, voting to kill graduate medical education in qualified teaching health care centers. The previous question, as Mr. Bishop referred to it, is based on H.R. 964, the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act. And it takes a stand for working families facing tough times and paying so much more at the pump. During an international oil crisis, as declared by the President, this legislation makes it illegal to sell gasoline at excessive prices and prevents Big Oil from taking advantage of consumers and engaging in price gouging. The cost of a barrel of oil and a gallon of gas has reached their highest level in years, with no end in sight, and America's middle class is paying the price. Republicans must join with Democrats to oppose price gouging and to ease the burden on our middle class. We must work together to create jobs, strengthen the middle class, and responsibly reduce the deficit. To help consumers at the pump and provide some relief to small businesses and families struggling with high gas prices, this legislation expands the authority of the President to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to combat market manipulation and bring down the price, and makes it a Federal crime to sell gasoline at excessive prices. The legislation also protects taxpayers, holds Big Oil accountable, repeals the largest tax breaks for the Big Five Oil companies, and ensures that oil companies pay billions of dollars owed to taxpayers for drilling on public lands. This is part of our multifaceted effort to lower the price of gas now, bring relief to consumers and taxpayers, strengthen our energy security, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and hold Big Oil accountable. Republicans' ``drill-only, oil above all'' plan is really a boon for Big Oil and does nothing to reduce the pain at the pump for America's middle class families who are facing these prices each and every day. Republicans are simply returning to the Bush policies for Big Oil-- continuing to purse ``drill-only'' policies with fewer safeguards and no accountability, that has us sending a billion dollars a day overseas for foreign oil. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up H.R. 964, the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act introduced by Representative Tim Bishop of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The late great Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. And the fact is, Mr. Speaker, when this record surplus was turned into a record deficit, I will remind the gentlelady that the Republicans controlled the House, they controlled the Senate, and they controlled the White House. And that is when we passed these tax cuts for the richest people in the world, and they were not paid for. And that is when we embarked on two wars that were not paid for. It appears that the gentlelady wants to continue these wars. I want to end them. But if you're going to continue them, then pay for them, because it is not fair to the men and women who are sacrificing their lives and the men and women who are in harm's way and their families to just accumulate all this debt and pass it on to them, their children and their grandchildren. If we are going to go to war, we all ought to take some responsibility. And, finally, on the issue of the taxpayer subsidies for oil companies, we have not had a debate on this House floor or a vote on this House floor on this. I don't care what the Senate did or did not do. I'm not a Member of the United States Senate. I'm a Member of the United States House of Representatives. And under this new and open process that we were promised, by the way, not a single open rule yet-- not a single open rule--but under this new and open process, we can't bring an amendment to the floor to be able to debate this issue. So I would respectfully suggest that maybe my colleague from North Carolina and the Rules Committee will once in a while vote for an open rule so we can bring some of these things to the floor. At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, health care is a right, not a privilege. We made a promise to our seniors that they will have health care when they retire, that they will not have to wither away as they age. But Republicans have broken that promise. Republicans, by passing the Ryan budget, believe that seniors should fend for themselves, that America should not honor the bargain made with its seniors. It's simple, Mr. Speaker. Republicans don't like Medicare. I am glad this new majority is showing its true colors. And it is no surprise that Americans don't like this position. They didn't like it when they tried to privatize Social Security, and they don't like the Republican plan to voucherize Medicare. Republicans would rather break this promise for their partisan, ideological crusade. In contrast, Democrats stand with America's seniors. We believe America should keep its promise to America's seniors. We believe America's seniors deserve better. Support Medicare.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 100th anniversary of St. Anthony of Padua Church in Fall River, Massachusetts. St. Anthony of Padua has served as a vibrant center of faith and community for the Portuguese population of Fall River for generations. St. Anthony of Padua evolved in 1911 due to an influx of Portuguese immigrants in Fall River. Early on, Reverend B. Carmo administered to Portuguese speaking immigrants in the crypt of another church, to which parishioners would walk several miles in order to attend Mass in their native language. Through the hard work, fundraising, and labor of dedicated parishioners, the edifice of St. Anthony of Padua was completed and dedicated on February 2, 1913. Over the past hundred years, St. Anthony of Padua has shown a steadfast commitment to Fall River and the surrounding community. As its spiritual community continues to grow and thrive, St. Anthony of Padua continues to open its doors and serve all in need. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the United States House of Representatives joins me in recognizing St. Anthony of Padua for the indispensable role it has played in our community over the last 100 years, and hopefully many years to come.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I just want to remind the gentlewoman that the Department of Energy says that if we go ahead with this plan, prices will go down by 3 cents to 5 cents in the year 2030. If you're serious about alternative forms of energy, then my question is, Why have you defunded all the programs that would fund those new clean, green jobs? While my Republican friends cut Medicare; while they cut fuel assistance for elderly people who can't afford the cost of fuel during the cold months; while they cut Pell Grants; while they go out of their way to protect the tax cuts of Donald Trump and millionaires while putting all the burden to reduce the deficit on middle class families; while they protect the subsidies for big oil companies, it is shameful. It is shameful that with the record profits that Big Oil is making, that taxpayers continue to subsidize them by billions of dollars. It is unconscionable. Do you want to reduce the deficit? My friends on the other side go after programs that benefit the poor. They protect programs like corporate welfare that goes to big oil companies. We should be investing in alternative forms of energy. We should be investing in cleaner and greener technologies. That's what we have been trying to do, but my friends on the other side have been obstructing everything that we have proposed. They say they want to not be so reliant on fossil fuels in the future, and yet they cut the very programs that will allow us to become more energy independent. This bill here will do nothing, absolutely nothing, zero, to impact the price of gasoline. It does nothing. Everybody knows how Big Oil operates, and they do whatever they want to do. At a time when they're raising their prices, they're going to make more money this year than they did last year. It's outrageous what they're doing to the American people, how they're gouging the American people. This bill is not an answer to anything. It is just a sound bite for them to go home and say, hey, we did something, knowing it will never pass the Senate, but also knowing that even if it did pass the Senate and if the President signed it, it would mean nothing. So rather than focusing on things to help create jobs, to help make it in America, to help create more products in this country, we are going through these ridiculous exercises every week on different subjects; and today it happens to be a bill that is a big wet kiss to Big Oil. To me, this is the wrong thing we should be taking our time up doing. We should be talking about how should we create jobs in this country, how do we put people back to work. And, yes, we should be talking about ways that we could truly reduce the cost of energy for consumers. Mr. Speaker, I am urging that we defeat the previous question. I will offer an amendment, if we defeat the previous question to the rule, to provide that, immediately after the House adopts the rule, it will bring up H.R. 1367, the Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2011, introduced by Representative Peters. I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule and very strong opposition to the underlying legislation. Here we go again. Another week. Another day. Another bill that helps record profit-making Big Oil but does absolutely nothing to help American families paying $4 at the pump for gasoline. Although Republicans continue to frame these efforts as a cure for rising gas prices and a way to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, the truth is that oil prices are set on a world market. It's simply not possible for us to drill our way out of these problems. Yesterday, in the Rules Committee I offered an amendment as a stand- alone bill, again, that would eliminate subsidies for Big Oil. While I do not agree with H.R. 1231, my amendment would have done nothing to prevent this bill from moving forward. Instead, my amendment would have allowed for a separate bill to come up under this rule that would end subsidies for big oil corporations that are making money hand over fist while gouging Americans at the pump. Let me remind my Republican colleagues of the facts. Two weeks ago, ExxonMobil announced that in the first 3 months of this year it had made nearly $10.7 billion in profits. That's $10.7 billion. Billion with a B. There's nothing wrong with corporations making profits. That's what they're in business to do. What is wrong is for American taxpayers to be subsidizing wildly profitable companies at a time when too many Americans are still unemployed and struggling to pay their bills. With their tax dollars funding corporate welfare for Big Oil and then still paying astronomical prices at the pump, it's a double whammy for American families. With all the talk of cutting spending and reducing subsidies here in Washington, I would have thought that the Rules Committee would have made my amendment in order. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleagues that energy companies are sitting on thousands of drilling leases in the Gulf of Mexico, and they're not producing anything. And despite the misleading title of this legislation, no drilling moratorium currently exists. Since October 2010, when the drilling moratorium was lifted, 39 shallow water and 10 deepwater permits have been granted, roughly the same average rate even before the BP oil spill. Mr. Speaker, while H.R. 1231 may make for a good sound bite, this is not a serious solution to bringing down high gas prices. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and to oppose H.R. 1231. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just make a couple of points that a New York Times editorial, entitled ``The Return of `Drill Baby Drill' '' made, and that was that drilling alone cannot possibly ensure energy independence in a country that uses one-quarter of the world's oil while owning only 2 percent of its reserves. The other point it makes is the Energy Information Agency recently projected what would happen if the Nation tripled production on the Outer Continental Shelf. There would be no price impact at all until 2020 and only 3 cents to 5 cents a gallon in 2030. The bottom line is that we need an energy policy that does not rely solely on drilling for oil; and we've tried to pass a bill that would do that, only to have strong objection from my Republican colleagues. I would also say I just want to make sure we're clear on one thing because the chairman of the Rules Committee seemed to intimate that bringing up my legislation that would allow for there to be a vote to cut taxpayer subsidies to oil companies would somehow be against the rules. It's not against the rules. It would be totally within the rules, and the Rules Committee could have made it in order. One of the things that I hear, when I go back home, from my constituents is, Why are you cutting programs that help elderly people be able to heat their homes in the winter? Why are you cutting programs that would invest in alternative energy and at the same time you have Congress protecting taxpayer subsidies to big oil companies that are making record profits? People are outraged by that. [From the New York Times, May 6, 2011] The Return of ``Drill, Baby, Drill'' As President Obama observed in a March 30 address on energy issues, drilling alone cannot possibly ensure energy independence in a country that uses one-quarter of the world's oil while owning only 2 percent of its reserves. Nor can it lower prices, except at the margins. Only coordinated measures--greater auto efficiency, alternative fuels, improved mass transit--can address these issues. Still the oil industry and its political allies persist in their fantasies. On Thursday, the House passed the first of three bills that will require the Interior Department to accelerate drilling permits without proper environmental or engineering reviews, reinstate lease sales off the Virginia coast that were canceled after the BP blowout, and open up protected coastal waters--East, West and in Alaska--to drilling. The bills would make regulation of offshore drilling even weaker than it was before the spill. They would also do almost nothing to solve the problems of $4-a-gallon gas. Here's the hard truth: Prices are set on the world market by the major producers, OPEC in particular. Even countries that produce more oil than they need, like Canada, have little leverage. Canada's prices track ours. The Energy Information Agency recently projected what would happen if the nation tripled production on the outer continental shelf. There would be no price impact at all until 2020 and only 3 cents to 5 cents a gallon in 2030. By contrast, the agency found, raising the fuel efficiency of America's cars would do real good. Increasing the fleetwide average from roughly 30 m.p.g. today to 60 m.p.g. in the next 15 years, an ambitious but not implausible goal, could bring prices down by 20 percent. Some politicians get it. Senator Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, is drafting a bill that seeks to repeal $4 billion in annual taxpayer subsidies to the oil industry and use the proceeds to develop more efficient cars and alternative fuel sources. Mr. Obama has tried twice, without success, to get rid of those subsidies, and the House voted in March to preserve them in the current budget. The tax breaks--fast write-offs for drilling expenses, generous depletion allowances, and the like--may have been useful years ago but are wholly unnecessary when oil prices and industry profits are reaching new highs. Even John Boehner, the Republican leader, conceded in a recent ABC News interview that oil companies ``ought to be paying their fair share.'' When horrified aides reminded him that ending the subsidies would amount to a tax increase-- anathema among Republicans--he backed off. Repealing these breaks would reduce the deficit and yield revenues to be invested in cleaner fuels, while having no real impact on prices. Mr. Obama may not be able to persuade the House of these simple truths. But he can and must seize whatever opportunities are offered in the Senate, involving himself, not just rhetorically, in the hard but necessary struggle for a sane energy policy. At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am amazed that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to be apologists for Big Oil. The fact of the matter is that Big Oil in this country is about making profits for Big Oil. They don't seem to care very much about the consumer. I hold this chart up, Mr. Speaker, just to kind of prove a point that, notwithstanding the fact that they're raising prices on consumers, in the first quarter of this year as compared to last year, all of these oil companies--Exxon, Oxy, Conoco, Chevron, BP--all made record profits. Exxon is up 69 percent. They made $10.7 billion in profits in the first quarter. What is particularly outrageous is they're making all this money, and my friends on the other side of the aisle continue to protect the subsidies and the tax breaks that they get. It's outrageous. They cut money for poor families who are trying to heat their homes in the winter; and on the other hand, they go out of their way to protect Big Oil from any amendments that we could bring to the floor here to be able to go after these subsidies and tax breaks. My colleague from California, the chairman of the Rules Committee, says, oh, he's sympathetic. Well, we don't want your sympathy. We want your vote. I brought this amendment to go after the subsidies that the oil companies currently enjoy, taxpayer-funded subsidies, three times in the Rules Committee. All three times, it was voted down. So enough is enough. In terms of this rule, I want to point out something. There was an amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell). It was germane, and it complied with the Republicans' new cut-go rules. It simply required that anyone who gets a lease under this bill would have to give preference to hiring veterans--the men and women who we have sent over to Afghanistan and Iraq. When they come back, we ought to go out of our way to make sure they have jobs. This amendment was voted down in the Rules Committee, an amendment to help our veterans. I mean, it is unbelievable to me that the Republicans voted this amendment down. Maybe there's a reason someone could give me on the other side of the aisle as to why this was ruled out of order. It was germane, and it complied with the cut-go rules; but the idea that we're not going out of our way to help our veterans, I think, is unconscionable. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. It appears, based on what I'm hearing here, that what the Republicans are dedicated to is helping the oil companies make more profits but doing nothing to help the consumer. With that, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the ranking member on the Resources Committee, Mr. Markey.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself 10 seconds. Mr. Speaker, my colleague on the Rules Committee talked about all the people she stands with. I want to know why she didn't stand with the veterans last night when we had a vote that would help make sure our veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan would have preference in terms of these so-called new jobs that were going to be created. I find it unconscionable that the Rules Committee did not make that amendment in order, the Boswell amendment. At this time, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).