Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I am amazed by the comments of the gentleman from Florida when it comes to rules because when we were in charge of the House, I don't recall a single time where the gentleman came before the Rules Committee and did not advocate for an open rule. This is not an open rule. Members who have ideas that they want to bring to the floor in response to amendments that are being offered will be denied that opportunity, and there is a restriction on the ability of Members to be able to participate in the debate. Under a true open rule, every Member would have at least 5 minutes, if they chose, to be able to talk on a bill. So it's interesting this revisionist history by the Republicans who promised open rules but have not produced a single open rule yet. That's just a fact, and we can spin it any way you want to, but you promised open rules, and we haven't seen a single one yet. Now, as far as the bill goes, H.R. 658, one of the reasons why we are concerned is because this is a job-destroying bill. We should be obsessed in this Congress about protecting jobs and creating jobs; yet, what we have seen is attention being given to everything else but jobs. A couple of weeks ago, we spent a whole week on National Public Radio, should we defund National Public Radio when people are out of work. And here you bring a bill, H.R. 658, to the floor that will destroy American jobs with $4 billion in cuts that will have dire consequences for our Nation's infrastructure, jobs and economy. The aviation industry, I will remind my friend, accounts for nearly 11 million American jobs and $1.2 trillion in annual economic activity. This Republican bill would cut the airport improvement grants for runway maintenance and safety enhancements by almost $2 billion, costing us 70,000 jobs, especially hurting small airports. The Senate measure, passed with a bipartisan majority, adds tens of thousands of jobs. Now, there are cuts in this bill that would also lead to a reduction in safety personnel and delay important air safety initiatives, a bad choice for the flying public as highlighted by the recent Reagan National incident. In February, the FAA administrator under President George W. Bush, Marion Blakey, stated that ``the prospect is really devastating to our jobs and to our future, if we really have to roll back to 2008 levels and stop NextGen in its tracks.'' This bill also eliminates essential air service for 110 rural communities needed to connect them with global commerce, support local jobs and spur economic growth. It's important to invest in our infrastructure in order to keep this economy strong. And this bill, as has been said over and over again, extends the assault on American workers, collective bargaining, and the middle class to workers in the aviation and railroad sectors by overturning a rule for union elections which, as with other elections, calls for a majority of votes cast to win. This continues this pattern, this assault on American workers. I ask my friends on the Republican side, when did the American worker become the bad guy? My friends on the other side go out of their way to protect Wall Street. Under their open process, when they brought up their H.R. 1, their bill that cuts all these essential programs, they wrote it in a way that it protected the taxpayer subsidies to big oil companies so we couldn't get at them. It protected all these special interest tax loopholes that are there for big business and big corporations. And after what happened to our economy, this mess that was created in large part by Wall Street, here we go again with this Republican majority attacking working families, workers. Well, someone has got to stand up for working families and workers, and I'm glad that there are Members on my side of the aisle that are willing to do that. This controversial provision should not be in this bill. This is a throwaway to the extreme right wing, and it should not be in this bill. Madam Speaker, let me close by saying we need to start talking about jobs and how we protect jobs and create jobs. This bill, because of the dramatic cuts in this bill, will destroy jobs. You want to find savings, go after taxpayer subsidies to the oil companies. You want to find savings, then if you're going to fight these wars, pay for it. You want to find savings, close some of these grotesque tax loopholes for the richest interests in this country. Instead, you go after things that help average American families, that go after American workers. This is wrong. I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule, which is not open, and I urge my colleagues to vote against the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell). (Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for his clarification. It seems like, to me, a little bit of revisionist history, but I guess later this afternoon we're going to rewrite the Constitution, so why not rewrite history? We were promised open rules. Under the definition of an ``open rule,'' we have not had one single open rule in this Congress. Again, this afternoon, we are going to be dealing in the Rules Committee with the demon and pass a bill. We had on this floor, not too long ago, the reading of the Constitution. I guess my friends on the other side of the aisle weren't paying attention, because what they are trying to do this afternoon, in my opinion, or, I think, in anybody's opinion, doesn't fit with the Constitution. It will be interesting to see whether or not that comes to the floor under an open process. My guess is it will be a very restrictive process, which we've become accustomed to. At this point, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Webster) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Instead of bringing meaningful legislation to create jobs to the floor of the House of Representatives, the new Republican majority continues to show just how out of touch they are. Two weeks ago, it was cutting off funding for National Public Radio. Yesterday, it was private school vouchers in Washington, D.C. But today's bill is even worse, because this bill will actually destroy jobs. H.R. 658 starts by reducing the Federal Aviation Administration's funding back to the Republicans' favorite sound bite number of FY 2008 levels. We know that every $1 billion of Federal investment in infrastructure creates or sustains approximately 35,000 jobs. That is 35,000 Americans who can pay their mortgages and stay in their homes, 35,000 Americans that can better afford to put their kids through college, 35,000 Americans that could help our economy to recover. Instead, H.R. 658 cuts almost $2 billion from the Airport Improvement Program, which provides grants to airports for constructing and improving runways and terminals. This provision alone will cost us 70,000 jobs over the course of this 4-year authorization period. H.R. 658's reduced funding levels will result in the layoffs of hundreds of safety inspectors, engineers and support personnel. These drastic cuts will also delay transitioning our outdated air traffic control system to the modern NextGen system. Without 21st century infrastructure and technology, the United States cannot keep up with our global competitors. It is just that simple. Mr. Speaker, in the past, the FAA reauthorization bills have garnered a great deal of bipartisan support. Unfortunately, this time is very different because, in addition to the inadequate funding levels, this bill continues an emerging and disturbing Republican trend toward destroying the collective bargaining rights for American workers. From Wisconsin to Ohio to Maine, we have seen how Republican politicians are attempting to destroy a century of hard-fought labor protections. This bill represents more of the same. This bill would reverse a National Mediation Board rule that allows a majority of those voting in aviation and rail union elections to decide the outcome. Instead, tea party extremists want to count workers who chose not to vote as automatic ``noes'' against the union. I wonder if my friends on the other side of the aisle would be willing to use that same standard in congressional elections? I wonder if they would agree that every registered voter who didn't vote, for whatever reason, last November would automatically be counted as a ``no'' vote against them? I doubt it, because in the 2010 midterm elections, 40.9 percent of eligible voters cast ballots nationwide. Under the standard in this bill, not a single current Member of Congress would have won election last year. Not one. Let me make this a little more clear. Neither I nor my colleague from the other side of the aisle, the new Member representing the Eighth District of Florida, would be standing here today if this undemocratic standard is enacted. In fact, my friend from Florida would have received only 23.1 percent of the vote, well below the 50 percent threshold included in this bill that he supports today. I ask my friend from Florida, where in the Constitution does it say that any registered voter who doesn't cast a vote in an election has their vote counted as a ``no''? If this standard doesn't make sense for Members of Congress, if we are unwilling to use it on ourselves, then it isn't fair for working people trying to organize. Mr. Speaker, this bill, unfortunately, abandons a long and proud tradition of bipartisanship on the Transportation Committee, which I am honored to say I once had the privilege of serving on, and I urge my colleagues to reject this rule. By the way, we have yet to have a truly open rule in this Congress. Notwithstanding the promises that we would see nothing but open rules, we have yet to have a single truly open rule. So I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, over the last few days, my office has been flooded with calls from constituents urging me to reject this bill and to continue to support programming on National Public Radio. My friends talk about the will of the American people. The will of the American people want us to reject what you are doing here today, and that's exactly what I will do today. I urge my colleagues to reject this closed rule and vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member for the time, and I rise in strong opposition to this closed rule and to the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, the process in this House is awful. On this bill, H.R. 1076, there were no hearings at all; and to top it off, we had an emergency Rules Committee called last night for consideration, an emergency. Do you think it was about jobs? Do you think it was about health care? No, it was about de-funding NPR. That's what this new majority thinks is an emergency, not jobs, not the economy, but de- funding the National Public Radio. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1076 is a horrible idea, and I hope everybody in this Chamber realizes that this bill doesn't cut $1, not one dime, not one penny from the Federal deficit. We all know what's going on here. The reason this bill is before us is that a discredited, right-wing activist recently made a selectively edited, misleading, 11-minute video of a 2-hour conversation. The target of his little sting was a fund-raising executive at NPR who no longer works there. Mrs. Blackburn from the Energy and Commerce Committee made it clear in the Rules Committee last night that their justification for this bill is that the American people should not be forced to subsidize content with which they might not agree. Well, that's a lousy way to make decisions, in my view; but if my Republican friends insist on going down this road, Mr. Speaker, then we should be fair and balanced in the way we do it. Over the past several years, it has become clear that the Fox News channel is widely biased. They continue to employ a talk show host who called President Obama a racist. They continue to employ several prospective Republican Presidential candidates as ``analysts,'' giving them hours and hours of free air time, and their parent company has donated millions and millions of dollars to GOP-linked groups. Yesterday, I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee to prohibit Federal funds, taxpayer dollars from being used for advertising on the partisan political platform of Fox News. If my friends on the other aisle want to strip funding from NPR because they believe wrongly, in my view, that NPR is biased, then we should be given the same opportunity. Unfortunately, my amendment was defeated on a party-line vote. Again, this is a closed rule. So much for the open process that we were promised. I also offered an amendment to determine how and where hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on television advertising, not particularly controversial. According to a Rand study, the Department of Defense alone spent over $600 million in taxpayer money advertising in 2007, and I believe we should figure out whether that spending is a good use of taxpayer dollars. That amendment was also blocked on a party-line vote. Again, this is a big fat closed rule that we're dealing with here. Mr. Speaker, this bill was rushed to the House floor again without a single hearing, without a single markup. So much for regular order.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. What is reckless and heartless about H.R. 1 is that it attempts to balance the budget on the most vulnerable in our country, making deep cuts in the low income energy fuel assistance program to help keep people warm in the wintertime; cutting WIC, the Women, Infants and Children program to help keep pregnant women healthy so they can deliver healthy babies which, by the way, in the long run saves us money. What is heartless and reckless are the cuts in nutrition programs and the National Institutes of Health, medical research, trying to find cures to diabetes and Alzheimer's and cancer. And what's protected are taxpayer subsidies for oil companies. What's protected is Donald Trump's tax cut. What's protected are our subsidies to big agri-businesses. And what's not even talked about is the fact that we are fighting two wars and we're not paying for it. Everybody wants to go to war in this Chamber, but no one wants to pay for it. It is wrong and unconscionable, and that is adding considerably to our deficit. And what's also adding to our deficit are tax cuts that are not paid for. So what's heartless about H.R. 1 is that it goes after the people who need government the most, and it leaves people who don't need any government or taxpayer subsidies alone. Mr. Speaker, 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, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think all of us are dedicated to eliminating excessive spending, wherever it may exist. The problem with H.R. 1 and the Republican approach is that all the tough choices and all the burden falls on the middle class and on the poor in this country. The fact is that Donald Trump got his tax cut. We didn't touch that. Big Oil companies continue to get taxpayer subsidies. They wrote H.R. 1 in such a way so we couldn't get at those subsidies. Big agribusiness continues to get its subsidies, and I go on and on and on: No-bid defense contracts in the Defense Department. All those special interests were protected. But they cut LIHEAP to help people heat their homes this winter. They go after the National Institutes of Health. You want to find a way to make Medicare solvent, find a cure for Alzheimer's disease. You don't find a cure by cutting moneys to the National Institutes of Health. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Well, there you have it. That is the difference between Democrats and Republicans in terms of how we approach this issue. They want to shut the government down. You know, what happens to Social Security checks and veterans' benefits and National Parks, and I could go on and on and on? There are consequences to being so rigid and being so ideological. I am going to say to my colleague from Georgia, he said H.R. 1 was not the will of Republicans; the House spoke. The House didn't speak. Three Democrats voted for H.R. 1. We have 192 Democrats in the House. It was not the House speaking. It was what Republicans wanted. So H.R. 1 is wholly owned by my friends on the Republican side. And I again will say that that bill represents some of the most reckless and heartless cuts that I have seen since I have come to Congress. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning, these little short-term continuing resolutions are no way to run our government. And beyond the social debates that we're having here on a variety of issues, the fact of the matter is that this 2-week, 3-week continuing resolution puts an incredible burden on our local communities and our States and on our Federal agencies. They can't proceed with initiatives that they thought they had the money for. They're not sure whether next week we might cut an entire program or the following week we might cut it or sometime down the road. So there's uncertainty, and that uncertainty is having an adverse impact on our economy, and it's having an adverse impact on economic development all across this country. And so we need to get serious about negotiating a compromise with the Senate and with the White House and get this year's business done. And, again, the United States Senate has put a number of offers on the table. The one that majority leader Reid put on the table the Republicans wouldn't let come to the floor. Mr. Speaker, one of my chief concerns about H.R. 1, which is, basically, the Republican continuing resolution, is that it has created a climate in Washington that makes it unfashionable to worry about the poor and the most vulnerable. Turning our backs on the most vulnerable in our country doesn't make them go away. There is a cost, and all of us pay that cost. We need to get serious about job creation, putting people back to work. That's the way you reduce the deficit. That's how we grow out of this economic crisis that we're in. And yet, here we are in March and nobody's talking about jobs. I mean, we've talked about everything else; but the Republicans have refused to talk about jobs or bring a jobs bill to the floor. And I would suggest to my Republican friends, rather than this ideological rigidity, this allegiance to this bill, H.R. 1, which is filled with reckless and heartless cuts, I would suggest to my colleagues that they understand that to get a deal here it requires some compromise. And I think I would urge them to get about that business. I would also echo what Mr. Pallone said earlier. We're going on vacation next week. Rather than a vacation, maybe we should finish the work of this year. Rather than having Members go back and go on CODELS overseas or go on vacations, let's finish the business of this year. Let's provide some certainty to our mayors and to our city managers, to our city councils and our boards of selectmen all across this country. Let us provide some certainty that some funding that they're depending on will be there. Having said all that, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, I would urge them to vote ``no'' on this closed rule, and I would also urge them to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, here we go again, considering yet another short-term continuing resolution. The last CR was for 2 weeks. This is a 3-week bill. So I guess the good news is that we're heading in the right direction, but that's about the only good news, Mr. Speaker. This is no way to run a budget process. It is no way to run a government. It is like water torture: drip, drip, drip. How are governors and mayors and city councils supposed to plan if we keep passing these short-term bills? How are the financial markets supposed to have any certainty if we're passing bills that go only for 2 weeks or 3 weeks? We all know what needs to happen. Democrats and Republicans in the House, the Senate, and the White House need to get together and figure out a sensible, bipartisan solution to this year's budget. And while it may, you know, be convenient to blame the Senate, I should remind my colleagues here that the majority leader in the Senate tried to bring up a bill, but the Republicans voted to not allow the bill to be considered. So it's not like there aren't alternatives out there. The time for rhetoric, Mr. Speaker, is past. The time for press releases and posturing is over. The time for finger-pointing must end, because despite what some on the other side of the aisle seem to believe, a government shutdown is not in our Nation's best interests. I look at today's Politico, and one of the leading Republican spokesmen, Representative Steve King, is quoted extensively in an article saying that defunding is worth a shutdown. I think the last thing the American people want is for us to shut down the government. You know, Mr. Speaker, I suppose we should also be grateful that the bill before us today does not include some of the policy changes that were in H.R. 1, such as blocking money for health care reform and Planned Parenthood, which they voted to eliminate in H.R. 1. H.R. 1, Mr. Speaker, took a meat ax to border security, to food safety, low- income heating assistance, medical research, and I could go on and on and on. And thankfully, thankfully the Senate rejected that approach last week. But make no mistake: H.R. 1 is what my Republican colleagues not only want but are demanding. Their ideological and rigid loyalty to H.R. 1 is what is holding up these negotiations, and the cuts in H.R. 1, Mr. Speaker, are not only egregious but they are reckless and they are damaging. According to former John McCain economic adviser Mark Zandi, the bill had the potential to lead to 700,000 lost jobs, exactly the wrong prescription for our recovering economy. And speaking of jobs, Mr. Speaker, where are the Republican jobs bills? Where is the legislation to encourage investment in new technology, in infrastructure, in education, and in medical research? It's been 11 weeks and we have seen nothing, not a thing from the other side of the aisle on jobs. Let me remind my colleagues that if you truly want to achieve deficit reduction focus on job creation. Put people back to work. We can help grow out of this deficit that we have. Mr. Speaker, we can and we must do better, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this closed rule. I remind my colleagues that we have yet to have a truly open rule in this House. This is a closed rule. Oppose the closed rule and oppose the underlying legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at the end of January, the United Nations reported that the cost of basic food commodities--basic grains, vegetable oils, sugar--were at their highest levels since the U.N. created this index in 1990. Two weeks ago, World Bank President Robert Zoellick announced that the Bank's food price index shows food prices are now 29 percent higher than they were a year ago. Zoellick warned the G-20 to put food first when they next meet. The World Bank estimates that these recent food price spikes have pushed about 44 million people into extreme poverty. That's under $1.25 a day. This is a global security crisis. The lack of food security contributes to political instability. Food was a primary reason people first took to the streets in Tunisia. Food and poverty were right at the top of the list in the squares of Egypt right next to the call for political freedom. In 2007 to 2008, the last global food crisis, there were major food riots in nearly 40 countries. In May 2008, my fellow cochair of the House Hunger Caucus, Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson, and I were briefed by the GAO about the lack of coordination and continuity in U.S. food and development programs. We started calling for a comprehensive approach to address global hunger and food insecurity. Now, thanks in large part to the efforts and leadership of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and USAID Director Raj Shah, the U.S. Government responded to that call and, over a 2-year period of time, initiated a comprehensive, government-wide approach to reduce global hunger and increase nutrition and food security--not because it feels good, not even because it's the right and moral thing to do, but because it's in our national security and economic interest to make countries' food secure, more productive, healthier, and more stable. This strategy is known as the Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative. It includes our bilateral programs and efforts with other governments and multilateral institutions. To be successful, everyone has to pitch in. Feed the Future is the signature program of the U.S. strategy. It works with small farmers and governments to increase agricultural production and strengthen local and regional markets in order to reduce hunger and grow economies. Other key elements include the McGovern-Dole Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program that brings kids to school and keeps them there by making sure that they get at least one nutritious meal each day at school. This program has proven to be especially effective in convincing families to send their daughters to school. And finally, there is our Food for Peace Program, which provides food to millions of women, children, and men caught in life-threatening situations brought on by natural disasters, war, and internal conflict. This program provides U.S.-grown commodities and locally purchased foods that literally keep people trying to survive in the world's most dangerous situations alive. Mr. Speaker, I have never heard anyone say that they would like to see more hunger in the world, that they would like to see children too weak from hunger to be able to learn, or young girls forced to work long hours because they no longer are being fed at school. But that's exactly what the budget cuts that passed the House 1 week ago would do. The House cut $800 million out of the food aid budget and over 40 percent from the development assistance, which is where Feed the Future is funded. If these shortsighted and, quite frankly, callous cuts are allowed to stand, we would literally be taking the food out of the mouths of over 2 million children. We would be depriving over 18 million people the food that keeps them alive in Haiti, Darfur, Afghanistan, Guatemala, Ethiopia, Kenya, and elsewhere. We would be turning our backs on countries where we made commitments to help boost the production of their own small farmers so they could finally free themselves of having to depend on U.S. and international food aid to feed their own people. Enough, Mr. Speaker, enough. This isn't a question of charity. It's an issue of national security, of what happens when desperate people can't find or afford food, and the anger that comes from people who see no future for their children except poverty and death. I ask President Obama to stand up for his programs and fight for them. I ask the White House to hold a global summit on hunger, nutrition, and food security. I ask the media to wake up and grasp the consequences of these shortsighted cuts. And I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to fund these programs so they can be successful. It really is a matter of life and death. [From the New York Times, Feb. 24, 2011.] The Food Crisis Food prices are soaring to record levels, threatening many developing countries with mass hunger and political instability. Finance ministers of the Group of 20 leading economies discussed the problem at a meeting in Paris last week, but for all of their expressed concern, most are already breaking their promises to help. After the last sharp price spike in 2008, the G-20 promised to invest $22 billion over three years to help vulnerable countries boost food production. To date, the World Bank fund that is supposed to administer this money has received less than $400 million. Food prices are now higher than their 2008 peak, driven by rising demand in developing countries and volatile weather, including drought in Russia and Ukraine and a dry spell in North China that threatens the crop of the world's largest wheat producer. The World Bank says the spike has pushed 44 million people into extreme poverty just since June. In 2008, 30 countries had food riots. That has not happened, at least not yet. Sub-Saharan Africa, in particular, has benefited from improved agricultural productivity. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization warns that Mozambique, Uganda, Mali, Niger and Somalia are extremely vulnerable to instability because of rising prices, along with Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan in Asia, and Haiti, Guatemala, Bolivia and Honduras in Latin America. Misguided government policies could make matters worse. Some countries are stockpiling food. When India did that last year, food ended up rotting in storages. Others are imposing agricultural export bans, which discourages investment in production. The world's wealthier nations must press them to rethink these polices and back that up with real help. The Obama administration has proposed worthy initiatives, but even when Democrats controlled Congress it had a hard time getting the money. The administration pledged $3.5 billion to the G-20 effort. So far, it has delivered only $66.6 million to the World Bank fund. It is now asking for $408 million for the fund--part of a $1.64 billion request for its Feed the Future initiative, which aims to bolster poor countries' food production capabilities. Congressional Republicans are determined to hack as much as they can out of foreign aid. The continuing resolution passed by the House cuts $800 million out of the food aid budget--bringing it down to about $1 billion, roughly where it was in 2001. The White House needs to push back hard. This isn't a question of charity. It is an issue of life or death for millions of people. And the hard truth is that if the United States doesn't keep its word, no one else will.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I wish to express my strong support for allowing states to have a say in the siting of liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities and Representative Wu's amendment #526 to H.R. 1. Mr. Chair, for years, there's been an ill-conceived proposal to permit an LNG facility in Fall River, Massachusetts. This is a densely populated urban area with more than 9,000 residents of southeastern Massachusetts and Rhode Island living within a one mile radius of the proposed site. Siting an LNG facility here comes with enormous security risks as 900 foot long tankers would need to be brought up the Taunton River and pass under four bridges. From day one, local residents have expressed their vehement opposition to this misguided and dangerous proposal. Current and previous Massachusetts and Rhode Island governors, local leaders and public safety officials have also fought against this irresponsible project. Unfortunately, the Republican energy bill of 2005 gave the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) the exclusive authority to site LNG terminals, overriding the role of states and local communities in these critical public health and safety decisions. In Fall River, FERC has ignored legitimate local concerns, despite Federal laws and regulations directing a preference for remote siting of LNG facilities away from heavily populated areas and directing the agency to consider local input. Mr. Chair, my constituents in Somerset, Swansea and Fall River have made their opposition to this project loud and clear. Fall River is not the right place for an LNG facility. Let me be clear--I am not opposed to LNG as an energy source but it should not be sited in an urban area. Off-shore siting is preferable. The Northeast is already in a good position for currently permitted LNG off-shore terminals. And, I firmly believe that states and local residents should have a say in the decision to locate a dangerous energy facility in their backyards. Furthermore, Mr. Wu's amendment is important because the City of Fall River deserves the right to plan its future and not have its economic development held hostage to a FERC permitting process that does not take local concerns into account. At a time when so many of my Republican colleagues are fond of saying that Washington has overreached its authority, Mr. Wu's commonsense amendment would restore the public's role in the siting of LNG projects and ensure that future energy decisions reflect community interests. I want to thank my colleagues Mr. Wu, Mr. Frank and Mr. Markey for their leadership on this issue. I urge a ``yes'' vote on Mr. Wu's amendment.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I wish to express my strong support for the Sustainable Communities Initiative and oppose any cuts to this important economic development program in H.R. 1. The Sustainable Communities Initiative illustrates a successful partnership among government agencies to invest in our local economies. At a time when there's so much talk of making government work better, this initiative is a shining example of cutting red tape and fostering collaboration among similar community interests. Through this initiative, the Departments of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and the Environmental Protection Agency award competitive grants to communities for innovative projects that connect the creation of good jobs, sustainable housing and efficient modes of transportation. In just the short time that this initiative has been in existence, it has awarded numerous competitive grants to communities across the country. In 2010, a total of 630 communities requested $1.2 billion in finding and HUD awarded 61 grants worth $69 million. Clearly, communities see the great potential benefits for the projects funded by this unique initiative. Although my hometown of Worcester, Massachusetts was not a grantee in the last round of awards, it earned the designation of ``preferred sustainability status.'' Eliminating funding for the Sustainable Communities Initiative would prevent Worcester and dozens of communities across the country from having the opportunity to receive grants to meet their multiple economic, environmental and community needs. Furthermore, language in H.R. 1 to rescind unobligated funds would threaten projects in communities that were recently awarded grants. Mr. Chair, cutting funding for the Sustainable Communities Initiative would be harmful to job creation efforts and would take away a vital tool to help communities transition to a 21st century economy. I urge my colleagues to support the Sustainable Communities Initiative and oppose any cuts to this program.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to any cuts to the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP, in this misguided Republican CR. Mr. Chair, cutting LIHEAP would literally leave thousands of families and seniors in the cold. My constituents in the 3rd congressional district and people across the country, are experiencing one of the coldest winters on record. The number of households served by LIHEAP has skyrocketed in recent years, jumping from 5.8 million in fiscal year 2008 to a projected 8.9 million in fiscal year 2011. In just this year alone, Massachusetts expects to see a 21 percent increase in the number of eligible applications. And, to make matters worse, the cost of home heating oil continues to go up this winter. Since November, the cost of heating oil has gone from $3.11 to $3.58 a gallon. This means that the average family living in New England is now paying about $30 more for home heating than they initially expected at the start of this winter. It is unconscionable that we would even consider cutting heating assistance at a time like this. My Republican colleagues seem to have no problem supporting tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires but, when it comes to families and seniors struggling to heat their homes, they have no problem saying ``so be it.'' I understand that we need to reduce our deficit and long-term debt but doing so by literally leaving thousands of Americans out in the cold is exactly the wrong approach. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose cuts to LIHEAP and oppose this CR.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Shrewsbury Youth & Family Services, the only private, non-profit social service agency in Shrewsbury, Massachusetts. Shrewsbury Youth & Family Services has provided programs and services to help Shrewsbury residents reach their full potential and has promoted the best quality of life for over 27 years. Shrewsbury Youth & Family Services was founded in 1983, and has since grown to serve over 1,500 children and families each year. They strive to provide a wide range of counseling, empowerment services and youth development programs in order to strengthen children, families and individuals in Shrewsbury. Shrewsbury Youth & Family Services is also committed to ensuring that no one, including the many low income families they serve, is turned away based on an inability to pay for services. On February 26, 2011, Shrewsbury Youth & Family Services will be holding their 7th Annual Fundraising Gala, and I would like to take a moment to recognize the individuals being honored for their service to the community: the Irving J. Donahue Family, recipients of the Harry S. Cutting Jr. Award; and Hannah Boudreau, John McBride, Sara Pederson and Leland Smith, recipients of the 2011 Outstanding Youth of Shrewsbury Awards. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the United States House of Representatives joins me in recognizing Shrewsbury Youth & Family Services for their dedicated and invaluable work in my district. I sincerely hope that they are able to continue their generosity and serve the Shrewsbury community far into the future.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about the need to be fiscally responsible. I tried last night to offer an amendment in the Rules Committee that would simply say that we should pay for the war in Afghanistan, that we should not continue to borrow the money. Last year, we borrowed $450 billion. That went onto the credit card. And that means our kids and grandkids will have to bear that burden. That amendment was not made in order. I couldn't offer that amendment. We talked last night about the giveaways to big oil companies and the need to get at those subsidies. The way the bill is written, we can't do it. We can't do it. So it's not so open. I yield 2 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 rise in very strong opposition to this rule and to the underlying continuing resolution. The spending bill that the Republican leadership is bringing before the House today is reckless, thoughtless, and heartless; and, most disturbingly, it's a jobs killer. I believe that the best way to reduce our deficit and long-term debt is to grow our economy, to help businesses create jobs. At a time when our economy is emerging from the worst recession in our lifetimes, when millions of Americans are out of work and millions more are struggling to make ends meet, this continuing resolution takes exactly the wrong approach. Instead of making needed investments in education, medical research, infrastructure, and other priorities, this bill takes a meat axe to them. Instead of strengthening the middle class on Main Street, this bill gives sweetheart deals for Wall Street. Instead of investing in our workers, it protects special interest subsidies for big oil companies and hedge fund managers. A few weeks ago on this floor, Republicans told us that veterans programs, education, child nutrition, and health care research would be protected. It is clear now that those were empty promises, Mr. Speaker. For veterans, the bill eliminates a program that offers housing vouchers for homeless veterans. In education, the bill decimates the Pell Grant program by reducing the maximum award by $800 and by cutting another $4.9 billion from other education programs. For child nutrition, the bill cuts $750 million from the Women, Infants, and Children's program. And the bill slashes $2.5 billion from the National Institutes of Health, jeopardizing important research into diseases like cancer and Alzheimer's and diabetes. It destroys the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a commonsense program to preserve and protect our natural resources and outdoor recreational space, helping local economies grow. Mr. Speaker, when we brought up the prospect of these cuts a few weeks ago, we were accused of demonizing the debate. Now that we have seen the numbers before us, I am sad to say it is worse than any of us could have predicted. I find the cuts in education funding to be particularly troublesome. As President Obama made clear in his State of the Union, we must invest in our children if we are to compete in the 21st century economy. In order to maintain our economic standing, in order to create the jobs of the future, in order to compete against China, we must have a well- educated workforce. So why on Earth would we slash Pell Grants, which help millions of families, 12,000 in my district alone, pay for college? We shouldn't. This bill will also decimate important lifesaving food aid programs to feed hungry children and refugees. It would literally take the food out of the mouths of some of the most vulnerable people around the world. Mr. Speaker, retreating from the global war against extreme poverty and hunger will undermine not just our moral authority but our national security as well. I also want to point out that this bill continues the same misguided policy under Republican and Democratic Presidents alike that borrows hundreds of billions of dollars to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we are truly serious about reducing the deficit, then those wars need to be ended or paid for. Along with my colleagues like Walter Jones and others, I'm going to continue to talk about this issue. These wars are bankrupting us, and we need to have a meaningful, thorough debate about them. So again, Mr. Speaker, I believe this continuing resolution contains exactly the wrong prescription for our Nation. We should be focusing on creating jobs and growing our economy. Instead, this Republican bill would lead to more unemployment, more unfairness, and more hardship with the American people. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and reject this underlying bill.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so that we can debate and pass real jobs legislation. The American people want us to talk about jobs and how to create jobs and protect jobs. This will do it. So I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and a ``no'' vote on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, Democrats very much want to eliminate wasteful spending. We are committed to making the tough choices to get this budget more balanced, to get our deficit reduced, and start paying down the debt. That's not the issue. The issue is where do you make those cuts. My friends on the other side of the aisle talked about shared sacrifice. Well, the only people that seem to be sacrificing under their approach are middle-income families and the poorest of the poor in our country. A few weeks ago, at their insistence, millionaires and billionaires got an extension of the Bush tax cuts at a cost of billions of dollars in terms of more borrowed money added on to our deficit. So the Donald Trumps of the world are not sacrificing. Big Oil is not sacrificing. Just to put it into perspective that BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell made a combined profit of over $1 trillion during this past decade, and yet taxpayers are subsidizing Big Oil companies. Why? And for all the talk about how open this rule is, we can't come up with an amendment that is germane or that will be made in order to go after the subsidies because they are protected. I mentioned, earlier, the war. We borrowed $450 billion last year. Our soldiers are sacrificing, their families are sacrificing, and we're not paying for the war. We're just putting it on our credit card. That is unconscionable, and yet an amendment is not eligible to be brought up to insist that we pay for this war. So where do they cut? Education, more than 200,000 kids kicked out of Head Start and thousands of teachers would lose their jobs. An $800 reduction per student in the maximum Pell Grant award. Innovation, 20,000 fewer researchers supported at the National Science Foundation trying to find a cure to cancer; a $1.4 billion reduction in science and energy research to spur a clean energy economy of the future; $2.5 billion in cuts to the National Institutes of Health, again, trying to find cures for diseases like cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's. If we found a cure for Alzheimer's, we would never have another problem with Medicaid again. Yet you are cutting back on those important investments. High-speed rail being cut back. A loss of 25,000 construction jobs if your bill becomes law. You're cutting cops and firefighters, and yet we're protecting the very wealthy in this country. We're protecting subsidies to major oil and gas companies. It is just wrong, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that I can offer an amendment to the rule to provide that, immediately after the House adopts this is rule, it will bring up H.R. 11, the Build America Bonds to Create Jobs Now Act. Unlike the irresponsible bill the Republicans want to bring up, which will cut jobs, threaten American innovation, and slash initiatives that create economic growth, this bill will spur job creation here at home by extending through 2012 the successful Build America Bonds to help State and local governments finance the rebuilding of American schools and hospitals, water systems and transit projects at significantly lower costs. It has been calculated that every $1 billion in Federal funds invested in infrastructure creates or sustains approximately 35,000 jobs and $6.2 billion in economic activity. Build America Bonds are broadly supported by American business, the construction industry, and President Obama, as well as State and local governments. And at a time of fiscal restraint, they're a good deal for the American taxpayer, wisely using small public investments to leverage significant private funds to rebuild America and create jobs. 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.