Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 91.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the tremendous work accomplished by the U.S. Merchant Marine during World War II.

Those who served on ships in the Merchant Marine risked their lives and welfare during World War II to protect our country. Like our other service members, the Merchant Marine members served in both theaters of war. They faced enemy fire, floating mines and other dangerous conditions. Unfortunately the risks faced by these brave men have often been forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, one of my constituents, Jacena Brahm, wrote me a letter to tell me about her husband, Vernon Lee Brahm, who served in the U.S. Merchant Marine. I'm proud to recognize Mr. Brahm and all the brave men who served in the Merchant Marine during World War II. These men committed their lives to America's cause by leaving their families and their homes and putting themselves in harm's way to help win the war. I commend these brave souls for all that they did to ensure our freedom. The Merchant Marine helped lead us to victory.

The sacrifices of our veterans have been appreciated throughout the history of our nation, and that demonstration of respect should not be denied to those in Merchant Marine who also defended our nations' interests in World War II.

I thank the gentlelady from Alabama for yielding time, and I thank my colleagues for coming to the floor of the House tonight to stand with us as we have a discussion with the American people--an honest and open discussion. That's what we were called to do in November of this past year with the great election that brought this majority to this Chamber, because we were sick and tired of the smoke and mirrors, of the gamesmanship and of the political rhetoric of yesterday.

We are here today to lead. We are here today to talk in an honest and open fashion about not talking points generated from a political party but a philosophy that will bring America back to be the land of opportunity, not only for us but for our kids and for our grandchildren.

You know, I love hearing the stories that my colleagues are offering about constituents from their home district, about people that are suffering and that are looking for jobs, that are in the ranks of the unemployed. But I also think of the people that are presently in a job, people like Brad Pfister and his wife, Tammy, who are raising a beautiful young girl by the name of Alexa, and they sit in their living rooms, watching their daughter play with the family toys, the Slinky, all the things that, you know, we think of as the American Dream, the things that we enjoy with our families. And what he's worried about is will he have a job, not just tomorrow, but will he have a job 6 months from now? Will he have a job a year from now?

That uncertainty, that fear is something that the men and women and

children of America should not have to live in because we are the strongest Nation on the face of the Earth. We are the land of opportunity. So, when you hear us talking here tonight, it is not about political posturing. It is about articulating a philosophy to America that we, each of us, hold dear, and the philosophy can really be summed up in four points.

You hear us talk a lot about the national debt, and I've been asked at town hall meetings on a regular basis, why is that such a fundamental issue? Why, other than the threat that it presents to us as a Nation, because everyone gets that, why is it so important that we get the national debt under control? And my response has always been that if you're going to create the confidence in the American market in the people that are going to expend millions, billions of dollars to create that new manufacturing base in America, they've got to have the confidence that the American market, that the fiscal house of the United States Government, is in order so that they can make that investment in a safe and secure market. So that's issue number one.

Not only do we have to balance the books and get our fiscal house in order, we have to have an honest conversation about removing the excessive regulations that are being promulgated out of Washington, D.C., and in our State capitals throughout the entire Nation. And when we talk about that, what we're talking about is not going in and repealing all regulation. It's about having commonsense, reasonable regulatory oversight, but not going to the point that we're seeing out of Washington, D.C., that is letting go of common sense and regulating, in my opinion, for the sake of just regulating. That is not good government.

We also believe that our Tax Code in America needs to be reformed. We have talked greatly about it, not only because it's the right thing to do, but also to create a marketplace in America that's going to be competitive worldwide because we are in the world economy. That is the reality of our world, and we need to recognize it, and we need to give our private sector those tools or that environment that allows us to compete on the world economic stage.

The fourth point that I think many of my colleagues here tonight hold near and dear, just like I do, is that we have to adopt and commit our Nation to a comprehensive, domestic orientated energy plan. Why is that important? Not only because of the national security interests that so many people can inherently latch on to--you know, we are importing about 9 million barrels of oil a day, coming from countries and sources that are publicly adverse and sworn enemies of the United States of America. So it just doesn't make sense. But a second issue that needs to be articulated on the energy plan is that if we can grow a domestic, stable source of energy here in America, we will create a marketplace in America that can rely on long-term, stable, low-cost sources of energy.

I can tell you as a small developer myself, when I looked at putting a project together, there were always three things I looked at in the private sector. I said, what are the taxes, what are the insurance costs, and what are the utility costs? And as a mayor of a small city, the city of Corning, my hometown in New York, when I met with developers who were looking to locate into our community, utility costs were always in the top three of concern.

So, if we can adopt and commit ourselves to a domestic orientated, comprehensive energy plan, I am confident we can lower those costs so the American market can become competitive again. That means bringing back our manufacturers. That means building things here in America. And as my colleagues have articulated over and over again, government is not here to create jobs. That is not what our Founding Fathers envisioned. What the Founding Fathers envisioned was a government that preserved and protected the right to have the opportunity to succeed in one's life, not a guarantee to succeed, not one where the government is the one signing the front of the paycheck, but, rather, the individual is going out and earning that paycheck without interference from the government and from sources in the private sector.

I am so happy to be here with my colleagues this evening, and I join you proudly in this fight, in this philosophy of leadership that we have brought to Washington, D.C., and will continue this fight and continue the leadership out of this House Chamber to stand for America, for our kids and our grandchildren, and make it again the land of opportunity that we have all enjoyed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 100 year anniversary of the International Business Machines (IBM) Corporation. For the last century, IBM has been on the cutting edge of collecting, quantifying and analyzing information and has served as a bright example of American ingenuity. In 2010 alone, IBM received 5,896 U.S. patents, the 18th consecutive year it has topped the list of the world's most inventive company.

In addition to IBM's long history of technological innovations and computing, the Corporation has a rich history of community service, which needs to be recognized. Thomas Watson founded IBM with the purpose of not only attaining profits, but also with the goal of creating a socially responsible organization that aided its local community. Through its impressive contributions, I believe IBM has honored the goals set out by Mr. Watson.

For example, to celebrate their centennial, members of IBM's staff donated more than 2.5 million hours of skills based volunteering in more than 120 countries over the past several months. More astoundingly, IBM recently surpassed more than thirteen million hours of service to our country and the world. In addition to skills-based donations, IBM has also delivered hundreds of new service grants to support employees' volunteer activities.

IBM provides an exceptional model of a corporation that exemplifies what it means to be a civically responsible organization, and I applaud how IBM has chosen to celebrate their Centennial.

I'm proud to have IBM headquartered in my home State of New York. I look forward to witnessing the technological innovations and volunteerism that I know will continue to flow from IBM in their next 100 years of business.

[From Democrat and Chronicle.com, June 15, 2011]

After 100 Years, Innovation Remains Key to IBM's Success

(By Sarah Bradshaw)

Cellphone 3-D imaging. Batteries powered by air. Reusing

supercomputer-generated heat to power air conditioners.

These aren't the stuff of science fiction, but the

innovations that International Business Machines Corp.--which

celebrates its 100th anniversary Thursday--is aiming for as

it begins its second century.

The Westchester County-based provider of computer services

received 5,896 U.S. patents in 2010, marking the 18th

consecutive year it topped the list of the world's most

inventive companies.

This is the company whose engineers and scientists

developed many of the building blocks of modern information

technology, including the memory chip, the mainframe, the

personal computer and even new fields of mathematics.

IBM is a notable part of the Rochester-area economy,

operating a 190,000-square-foot data center in Greece that

employs 550 people at the Canal Ponds Business Park. The

company is in the midst of a $40 million upgrade of that

facility over the next couple of years.

IBM also has given more than $1.75 million over the past

decade to the University of Rochester and nearly $500,000 to

Rochester Institute of Technology in the form of IBM Faculty

Awards and Shared University Research Awards. In 2008, IBM

also opened a software Innovation and Collaboration Lab at

Mr. Speaker, on May 10, 2011, I was unable to be on the House floor to vote for the three amendments to H.R. 1229. Had I been there, I would have voted as follows: rollcall 299: Polis amendment: ``nay''; rollcall 300: Garamendi amendment: ``nay''; rollcall 301: Markey amendment: ``nay.''

Also, I regretfully inform you I was detained during a vote on May 11, 2011. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: rollcall 312: Connolly amendment: ``nay.''

Finally, in addition, I was detained during a vote on May 25, 2011. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: rollcall 338: Foxx amendment: ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 287 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, the question before the House is: Should the House now consider House Resolution 287?

While the resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, the committee is not aware of any points of order. The waiver is prophylactic in nature. Specifically, the Committee on Rules is not aware of any violation of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act nor has the Congressional Budget Office notified the Rules Committee of any violation of the act. Additionally, the open rule before the House today allows any Member of Congress to amend or strike any provision of the bill, which is the ultimate failsafe.

In order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for the day, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will note that each of the comments that have been offered from the other side are not relevant to the point of order.

Yet, in response to the comments that have been tendered by my colleagues from the other side of the aisle, I would say that Republicans are not here to destroy Medicare. They are here to save Medicare.

We have put forth a responsible plan that has been openly and continuously debated in the public forum and in this Chamber about how we're going to move forward with the problem that we have in Medicare. It is a problem we cannot deny. Both sides of the aisle know that Medicare is on a path to bankruptcy. We have put forth a plan. We have put forth a plan that guarantees that we can deal with the problem in such a way that those who are on Medicare are not impacted and that those within a generation of retiring into Medicare are not impacted. Yet we're villainized by the other side for allegedly throwing grandma off the cliff--for taking away Medicare.

That is not being honest with the American public. We will be honest with the American public. We recognize the problem in Medicare. We put forth a plan. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have not put forth a plan to deal with the problem. They want to engage in electioneering, politicking, and looking at the reelection efforts for 2012.

Well, we are here as members of this caucus and as Members of this body to deal with the problems of America in an honest and open fashion, and that is what we will do.

The House-passed budget guarantees that seniors will have coverage that is affordable. The House-passed budget guarantees seniors will be able to find a plan. It does not end Medicare as we know it. It does not throw our seniors off the cliff. It is a responsible plan that leads us to a situation that deals with the problem of Medicare that is a known problem. If we want to continue to live in denial and not be honest with the American public, then I tell the American people: follow the Democratic proposal of engaging in name-calling rather than sitting down and engaging in problem-solving. That's what we're about.

At this point in time, I urge my colleagues to continue the consideration of the underlying rule and reject this point of order.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 287 provides for an open rule for consideration of H.R. 2017.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 287, to provide the rule for H.R. 2017, the Homeland Security Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2012. I am proud to be managing this rule, the first truly open rule since July 31, 2007, an Agriculture appropriations bill in the 110th Congress. The 112th Congress has made it clear that it supports an open process, and this rule exemplifies this initiative. For 119 Members of the 112th Congress, this is their first experience with an open rule, including six members of the Rules Committee. I am proud to be part of this body and this conference that is engaged in this transparency in government and this open process. Throughout the entire 111th Congress, only 810 amendments were considered. Only 6 months into this, the 112th Congress, 437 amendments have been considered.

The leadership of this Congress is directly listening to the American people and their call for an open and transparent process. In addition, this bill also follows the promise that we have made to the American people in that it does not include any earmarks either in the underlying bill or in the conference report. This commitment is what Americans desire and deserve, and this will continue the process in this Congress that we have committed ourselves to the American people to do.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he my consume to the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from New York, I would just like to make it clear that in our House-passed budget, on page 58, lines 8 and 9, it is clearly articulated there that current Medicare benefits are preserved for those in and near retirement without changes.

I would also note for the record, to clarify and make sure the record is very clear, that the budget that we are talking about is not going to be presented to the President and enacted into law. What we are talking about here is nothing about ending Medicare as we know it.

At this point in time, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the chairman, Mr. King from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind my colleagues from the other side of the aisle that the budget

that they so referenced went through an open process. It was subject to debate. It was amended in this Chamber and passed by this body. And if they are so disinclined to approve that budget or stand with that budget, I would ask them to reach out to their colleagues in the opposing Chamber over in the Senate who have not passed a budget for the last 762 days and take the matter up with them.

At this point in time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), chairman of the Budget Committee.

I would like to submit section 501 of House Concurrent Resolution 34 for the Record as we seem to be commenting about it to a great extent this afternoon. I just want the record to be clear.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Mr. Speaker, I feel it is necessary to again correct the record that what we have done in the proposal that has just been referenced by my colleague from California is not to destroy Medicare; it is to save Medicare. In an open and honest way, it's to deal with the problem that we all know Medicare faces. It clearly states in the document, in the resolution that was passed, that any senior who is in Medicare, on Medicare or within a generation of retiring into Medicare will not be impacted by anything that we do in that budget.

I would also remind my colleague from California that we stand here today under a proposed open rule, where this body, this Chamber, will be able to express its will in an open and traditional process of open amendments.

Let me make clear to the American people what that means. That means that any elected Member of this Congress can come down and speak the voice of his or her constituents and offer amendments that can be debated on the floor of this House in an open and transparent manner-- on TV, in their living rooms--so that the American people know what we are doing in this Chamber.

I applaud you, Mr. Speaker, for honoring that commitment that you set forth when you assumed that chair.

At this point in time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Southerland).

(Mr. SOUTHERLAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Yoder).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify for the record again that this proposed resolution that we are debating, this rule on Homeland Security appropriations, that is Homeland Security funding, it is but a simple resolution. It is not law. It will not become law. That is clearly articulated in the parliamentary guide entitled ``How Our Laws Are Made'' on pages 8 and 9.

So I again feel compelled to clarify the record to assure that this rule will not end Medicare. And even as our budget clearly states, Medicare under our budget will be saved. Not one senior on Medicare will be impacted by any action in that budget.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time both sides have.

I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

We have had a spirited debate on the floor of this Chamber over this rule. I applaud that debate because that's what the American people sent us here to do, which is to have the debate in an open process on TV in front of the American people. And that's what this rule does.

This rule is a true open rule where any Member of this Chamber-- Democrat or Republican--can come down and submit an amendment, debate it in front of the American people, and have it voted on by each and every Member of this House so that this House will speak its will. I applaud our Speaker for accomplishing that clear goal he set out.

But as we have this debate, Mr. Speaker, I remind all my colleagues that America also sent us a message last November that we need to be honest with the American people. It means that we do not play games in this Chamber. And nothing could be further from the truth than the constant arguments that we had to stand up and clarify that this rule kills Medicare as we know it.

This rule has no legal effect. This rule will not be presented to the President for signature and become law of the land. And mind you, the reference to the House Republican budget, the ``Paul Ryan'' budget, the provision that has been talked about here to great extent clearly states that it is the policy of this Chamber, the policy as set forth in that budget, that all those on Medicare will not be impacted by that budget. All those seniors who are within 10 years of retiring and becoming eligible for Medicare will not be impacted by that budget.

We are acting in a responsible manner on this side of the aisle. And we are dealing with dire times. I was a little disappointed that we didn't have a more spirited debate on the actual substance of the rule that guides the bill upon which it applies, and that is the Homeland Security appropriations bill.

We live in dire fiscal times in the United States of America. And we're going to be honest with the American people: We have to make some tough choices. But this should send a message

to every man, woman, and child in America that the days of reckless spending have caught up to us because we do have to have the debate of where we're going to cut. And we are talking about cuts in the areas of homeland security. We better wake up as a body and as a Chamber and recognize that if we don't get our fiscal house in order not only will we jeopardize our national security, we will go bankrupt. That ends America as we know it. And also, it will destroy the American market that we are trying to ignite in our private sector because if we do not send a message that we've got our fiscal house in order, then people are not going to invest in America, and that will not put people back to work and put people back onto a payroll.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding, but I believe the gentlelady from Alabama controls the time.

I appreciate that. I appreciate the gentlelady yielding. And I appreciate joining my colleagues, fellow freshman members of the Republican class who have come here to Washington, D.C., with the same philosophy that I believe I bring to the table. And that is exactly the point that we have been articulating here tonight. We need to get our fiscal house in order.

So many people ask me why is that so critical to our future? And when I go to my town hall meetings, and I go and talk to my constituents back in New York, I tell them there are two reasons. One, we all know that if you run a business at the debt levels that we run this government at, it will go bankrupt. And we are talking about the bankruptcy of America. That is not acceptable to me. It's not acceptable to my colleagues here tonight. And we're going to work day in and day out to prevent that.

But second, and more in the short term, we need to get our fiscal house in order so that we send a message to all of the world markets that the American market is alive and well. And you can invest your capital, you can invest your millions of dollars back here in America and put people back to work. It's not about creating jobs that are government jobs. It's about creating wealth. It is about creating a private sector that is strong, that is putting people to work day in and day out, putting food on their tables, feeding their families, providing for their education, and giving that way of life that we here have enjoyed to their children, to our grandchildren, and to generations that have not even seen the face of the Earth.

So for those two reasons, it is time that we honor Senator Barack Obama's quote that we need to stop shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I call on the President to put forth a plan to deal with this problem once and for all.

I thank the gentlelady from Alabama.

I was struck by something my colleague from Arkansas said about a plan. Let's be clear about the proposed plans that have been allegedly floated by our President up to this date and what we voted on today.

You know, we get knocked a lot for not engaging in a bipartisan practice, but let's be clear what the record showed and in this Chamber today and in the Senate last week. President Obama put forth and requested a clean debt ceiling, an unconditional debt ceiling, just raise it $2 trillion.

Bipartisan support tonight rejected that proposal. That's the status quo proposal that we can no longer afford. Last week, President Obama's budget, 97-0 in the Senate, was soundly rejected. I believe President Obama's quote from 2006 is completely accurate. His words predicted exactly where he is at. America has a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues this morning to deliver a simple message, and that message can be summed up by reading a quote from our President when he was a former Senator dealing with the issue that we will face in the upcoming months when it comes to raising our debt ceiling. As then-Senator Barack Obama stated on the floor of the Senate: ``Leadership means that the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.''

Mr. Speaker, I stand firmly here today to tell you that I do believe over the next 90 days that this will be the critical moment of this Congress, that this will be the critical moment in our Nation's history when we either succeed or we fail. And I will heed Senator Obama's words because the buck will stop here in this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, the question we face with raising the debt ceiling is a very

serious question. We cannot kick the can down the road any longer. We do not have any more road to kick it to.

So what I ask of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is let us set aside politics. Let us not worry about a reelection campaign. Let us not worry about our own personal interests. Let us come together as one Nation and deal with this problem because it is a serious threat and a clear and present danger to our very existence as a country.

Let me also be very clear that what we need to do with handling this debt is to send a message that we have answered the call and send a message to the world and to all the markets that America is strong; America is the place that you can invest in again. And by that investment, we will put people back to work. We will provide for families for generations, not only now but for generations we do not even see. This is about putting people back to work and being the voice that leads this Nation to greatness once again.

I have no doubt we will succeed in this effort, but it will take true leadership. There is no doubt in my mind that I join my colleagues on this side of the aisle and say no more of the petty political bickering. It is time to stand and lead, and we shall.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 338, had I been present, I would have voted, ``aye.''

Stated against:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 754.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join with my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm), to offer an amendment honoring the brave members of the intelligence community for their role in the mission that killed Osama bin Laden on May 1, 2011.

As we all know, Osama bin Laden was killed on May 1 by members of the SEAL team 6. The heroics of this SEAL team have been well documented in the press over the past weeks, but the work of other professionals in the intelligence community is less well known and has received less attention.

Bringing Osama bin Laden to justice was the result of over 10 years of hard work and dedication. This historic operation was truly a team effort and an achievement shared by members of every intelligence agency and our entire Armed Forces.

The diligent, painstaking work of our intelligence services made possible the recent successful action carried out by our military against Osama bin Laden. For this reason, Mr. Grimm and I feel the intelligence community is also deserving of recognition as a whole. They worked long hours in distant parts of the world, far from their families, far from their friends, to keep our country safe.

When the members of the American intelligence community do their job, no one really knows about it. They are silent warriors who keep us safe. They are deserving of our deepest gratitude.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment does exactly that. It commends our intelligence community for a job well done in bringing Osama bin Laden to justice. Thanks to the diligence of these intelligence professionals, the world is a safer place without Osama bin Laden.

Mr. Chairman, even though Osama bin Laden has been brought to justice, the war on terror is not over. This amendment commends the men and women of the intelligence community for committing themselves to defeating, disrupting, and dismantling al Qaeda and all terrorist organizations that will do harm to our great Nation.

This amendment also reaffirms our commitment to using the capabilities and skills of the intelligence community to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat terrorism once and for all from the face of this earth.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I am glad to yield such time as he may consume to my great colleague from New York (Mr. Gibson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Chairman, I want to again, in closing, offer my support for this amendment. But I want to make sure the record is extremely clear.

When Mr. Nadler, in his comments, commenting on his support of this amendment, indicated that the Rules Committee was going to rule his proposed amendment out of order for being non-germane, as a member of the Rules Committee, I know that the chairman of the Rules Committee had indicated that he was more than willing to accept Mr. Nadler's amendment, germane amendment, but that amendment was withdrawn by Mr. Nadler.

So I want the record to be very clear that we on this side of the aisle were ready and very eager to support the amendment offered by Mr. Nadler. And Mr. Grimm and I sought to make sure that this amendment was brought to the floor of this House, because it is right to stand here on this floor to recognize the intelligence community that had such a great success in the taking and bringing to justice of Osama bin Laden.

So we ask that the record be clear on the issue and that all of our colleagues rise today, and across the Nation, and take a moment to recognize and applaud the efforts of our intelligence community; that the men and women who work day in and day out in silence, with little recognition, are recognized for at least one moment here on the floor of the House and in the official records of this great body for the great work that they do, and we applaud and we will always remember and honor that work on a regular basis in our thoughts and in our prayers.

So I urge my colleagues to join us and support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank my colleague from Texas for the opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for H.R. 754, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011.

Mr. Speaker, the intelligence community works long hours in distant parts of the world to keep our country safe. But the thing about the United States intelligence community is that when they do their job right, no one knows about it. When they are successful in that diligence that they perform every day of the week, 24 hours a day, every day of the year, we often do not hear about that success.

I stand here today, Mr. Speaker, to commend the diligent, painstaking work of the United States intelligence officials for all that they do. And in particular, I stand today to recognize the hard work of our intelligence community which resulted in capturing and killing the man who masterminded the multiple attacks which killed thousands of Americans, bringing him to justice this past week. Thanks to the intelligence professionals who work for our country, the world is a safer place without Osama bin Laden.

I have an amendment with my colleague from New York (Mr. Grimm) that will be discussed on this floor tomorrow, and hopefully supported and voted upon in a bipartisan fashion, to recognize the efforts of those intelligence officials.

Mr. Speaker, I rise also today to commend the work that is being done here in this Chamber, that is being led by this side of the aisle in having an open dialogue, in having an open process. We have nine amendments that are going to be considered under this rule and in this Chamber tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, that is a direct change from the history that has been demonstrated here for years prior to us coming here. It is time that we on this side of the aisle recognize that we are going to listen to the American people. We are going to have an honest conversation with the American people about the issues that we face on a day-to-day basis. And as such, I stand today and urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this rule and ``yes'' on H.R. 754.

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, I had the privilege of visiting the Republic of Korea through their Congressional Member Exchange Program. In just 3 busy days, I was able to meet and converse with top officials in the Korean Government, my counterparts in the Korean National Assembly, business leaders, Korean War veterans and members of the Armed Forces.

My father was a veteran of the Korean War, so it was particularly touching and meaningful for me that I was able to visit the Korean War Memorial and Exhibition, lay a wreath and to meet with officials at the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs. My visit to the War Memorial served as a sobering reminder of the cost of freedom that was paid 60 years ago through the service and sacrifice of all Korean War veterans.

I had similar chills the next day, when our delegation visited the Demilitarized Zone and the Joint Security Area. It is difficult, if not impossible, to describe the flood of emotions I felt looking out across the DMZ and realizing what life is like in North Korea, a country with one of the world's most oppressive governments and, because of that, one of the world's poorest populations.

While these two occasions were strikingly memorable, they provided an important framework for when I had the opportunities to meet with Korean business leaders about trade, investment, and tourism.

Prior to my election as a Member of Congress, it was my great privilege to serve as mayor of Corning, New York, and of course Corning is part of the 29th congressional district that I am honored to represent. Corning is home of Corning Incorporated, a Fortune 500 company with interests and facilities across the globe--including in South Korea.

While in Korea, I was taken on a tour of Samsung Corning Precision Materials and was given a very informative briefing about the company's activities which are critical to my district. I also had an opportunity to do one of my favorite things--talk about the great wines produced in the Finger Lakes region of New York. Korean consumers are quite discriminating wine drinkers and, as you might expect, have developed a taste for fine wine from the United States, especially from New York wineries.

Currently, however, American wine exports to Korea are subject to a tariff that puts them out of the reach of many potential buyers. There is a glimmer of hope on the horizon, though, once the Congress ratifies and implements the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA).

The KORUS FTA reduces Korea's tariff on U.S. wine imports to zero. That will be good for New York vineyards. There are more than 60 family-owned wineries in the area around my hometown, and many of them will benefit immediately from this new tariff-free situation.

In addition to the meetings with business leaders, I also had important discussions with Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Sung- Hwan Kim, Deputy Minister for Trade Seok-Young Choi, and National Security Advisor Yung-Woo Chun, as well as with Kyung-Pil Nam, chairman of the Unification, Foreign Affairs, and Trade Committee of the Korean National Assembly. Additionally I met with U.S. Ambassador Kathleen Stephens and President of the American Chamber of Commerce in Korea Amy Jackson.

All of these government leaders were strong advocates of the U.S.- Korea Free Trade Agreement. They did not have to do much to convince me, as I share their advocacy and appreciate their leadership and efforts to consolidate our alliance partnership overall.

Today, Korea has the world's eleventh-largest economy, known for its high-technology industries. It is the seventh-largest trading partner of the United States, the fifth largest market for agricultural goods, and the third largest destination for U.S. foreign direct investment in the Asia-Pacific region.

Bilateral trade between the Republic of Korea and the United States averages about $80 billion each year. The KORUS FTA represents the largest and most commercially significant free trade agreement ever signed by the United States in over a decade and since the ratification of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

This free trade agreement will ultimately eliminate tariff and non- tariff barriers, create better jobs, enrich consumer choice, boost industry and enhance overall welfare for both nations. It will immediately eliminate tariffs on almost two-thirds of U.S. agricultural exports worth over $1.9 billion.

Overall, the KORUS FTA is expected to boost the more than $80 billion in annual two-way trade between South Korea and the U.S. by $10 billion to $20 billion about 5 years after ratification. The reasons for swift approval by the Congress of the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement are numerous and compelling.

In closing, I wish to extend my sincere gratitude to the Government and people of Korea for their tremendous hospitality during my visit 2 weeks ago. In particular, I wish to thank and recognize Korean Ambassador Duk-Soo Han for all his help and support that paved the way for a successful and productive trip. He is a great advocate for his country and I appreciate our mutual friendship.

Mr. Speaker, I came away from my visit emboldened and excited by the opportunities that lay ahead with respect to benefits of the KORUS FTA. On this note, I respectfully urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important agreement. I hope to see it brought up for consideration very soon, so that it can be ratified and implemented at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services may have until 5 p.m. on Tuesday to file its report to accompany H.R. 1540.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 257 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 257 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 1231. The rule makes in order eight amendments, all of which comply with the rules of the House. Of the eight, seven are Democratic amendments.

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating H.R. 1231, the Reversing President Obama's Offshore Moratorium Act. This legislation, which will have profound impacts on our domestic energy supply, our national security, and our economy, is ripe for consideration by this body. It is no secret that Americans are feeling the pain at the pump. In my congressional district in western New York, my constituents, my family, my wife and I are routinely forced to pay in excess of $4 per gallon for gasoline for automobiles. We need to develop policies that will lessen our dependence on foreign fossil fuels, create stability in the financial markets, and provide relief to our constituents. In addition, this piece of legislation will create American jobs.

We must get our financial and energy priorities in order. We can no longer be held victim to instability in the Middle East and across the world. The United States must develop our own energy solutions which will reduce our dependence on foreign fossil fuels.

Most importantly, this will create American jobs. H.R. 1231 is one more example of our conference's commitment to developing domestic natural oil and gas resources. It adopts a philosophy that we need to drill smart, drill where the resources are, and produce our own energy.

Drilling for oil and natural gas can be done safely and responsibly. There have been millions of wells drilled in the United States. There is a strong record of sound environmental practices. Total petroleum industry spillage has decreased consistently over the last 40 years.

H.R. 1231 does two things. First, the legislation requires that in developing a 5-year offshore leasing plan for drilling the Outer Continental Shelf, that each 5-year plan must include leases for sale in the areas containing the greatest known oil and natural gas reserves. For the 2012-2017 plan being written by the Obama administration, this would mean targeted lease sales only in those areas estimated to contain 2.5 billion barrels of oil or 7.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. At least 50 percent of those areas must be made available for leasing in the 2012-2017 plan.

Second, this legislation requires the implementation of production goals during the 5-year plan being written by the Obama administration. For this period, the goal would be 3 million barrels of oil per day and 10 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day from American domestic sources of energy. This increase in oil production equates to a tripling of current American offshore production and will reduce significantly foreign imports by nearly one-third. Most importantly, this will create American jobs and protect our national security interests.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record an editorial from the Wall Street Journal by former Democratic Member Harold Ford.

[From the Wall Street Journal, May 11, 2011]

Washington vs. Energy Security

(By Harold Ford, Jr.)

Even former President Clinton calls the Obama

administration's deep water drilling policy `ridiculous.'

When President Obama introduced his energy plan in March,

he pointed out that the U.S. keeps going ``from shock to

trance on the issue of energy security, rushing to propose

action when gas prices rise, then hitting the snooze button

when they fall again.''

It's true that since the Nixon administration U.S. leaders

have all made the same commitment to cutting our reliance on

foreign oil, finding reliable sources of clean energy, and

keeping energy prices low. Yet Americans keep hearing only

short-term solutions and narrowly focused rules and

regulations. The U.S. still imports more than half its oil,

gasoline prices are at historic highs, and consumers are

paying the price.

One bipartisan policy tradition is to deny Americans the

use of our own resources. President George H.W. Bush took

aggressive steps to keep off-limits vast supplies of oil and

gas along the coasts of California and Florida. Since then,

the build-up of restrictions, limitations and bans on

drilling (onshore and off) have cost the U.S. economy

billions of dollars while increasing our dependence on

foreign sources of energy.

In the year since the Deepwater Horizon spill, the Obama

administration has put in place what is effectively a

permanent moratorium on deep water drilling. It stretched out

the approval process for some Gulf-region drilling permits to

more than nine months, lengths that former President Bill

Clinton has called ``ridiculous.''

Then there's tax policy. Why, when gas prices are climbing,

would any elected official call for new taxes on energy? And

characterizing legitimate tax credits as ``subsidies'' or

``loopholes'' only distracts from substantive treatment of

these issues. Lawmakers misrepresent the facts when they call

the manufacturing deduction known as Section 199--passed by

Congress in 2004 to spur domestic job growth--a ``subsidy''

for oil and gas firms. The truth is that all U.S.

manufacturers, from software producers to filmmakers and

coffee roasters, are eligible for this deduction.

We won't achieve energy security by restricting our own

companies from drilling or singling them out for punitive

taxes. We're talking about an industry that provides millions

of jobs and, for the foreseeable future, the power for our

economic growth.

So our focus right now has to be to find ways to encourage

domestic energy supplies, even while we encourage new sources

of energy. President Obama is right that this isn't a long-

term solution. But we can't lose sight of what the country

needs today.

Here are a few steps to take:

First, let's conduct a comprehensive review of existing

policies, rules and restrictions and root out any that

needlessly hamper energy production at home. Do the existing

environmental rules, for example, accurately reflect the

industry's technological advancements in the ability to

safely recover oil and gas supplies?

Second, let's develop the skills we need to find new and

better ways to recover domestic supplies of energy--and to

develop next-generation fuels to secure the future. That

means encouraging more students to study math, science and

other disciplines this industry needs.

And third, let's stop demonizing Big Oil to score political

points. It does nothing to encourage the new talent, new

ideas, and new entrepreneurs who are most likely to make

breakthroughs in new sources of energy.

The kickoff of the presidential campaign season and the

spike in fuel prices offer an opportunity to constructively

debate a comprehensive national energy strategy. Effective

policies will ensure sufficient domestic production and the

healthy operation of U.S. companies abroad, which together

will provide the secure, affordable energy supply that

Americans need.

At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Texas (Mr. Flores).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, can I respectfully ask how much time remains on each side?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At this time, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from California (Mr. Denham).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Southerland).

(Mr. SOUTHERLAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on this rule and on this bill, I think this side of the aisle is demonstrating to all of America that we are listening.

Right now, with gas prices going through the roof, right now, with people suffering high unemployment across the Nation, we have before us a rule and a bill that will undoubtedly create jobs, 1.2 million jobs, according to economist Dr. Joseph Mason.

We have a bill and a plan that is going to bring us closer to less dependency on foreign energy supplies. It will reduce foreign oil imports by nearly one-third.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the aisle are going to deal with the American people in an honest fashion. We are not going to scare the American people. We are going to have an open and honest conversation with the American people. We will lead. And what we are doing here is answering a call that the American people have reached out to us to do, and that is to commit to our domestic supplies of energy so that we have energy supplies that will allow manufacturers in the private sector to create the new opportunities for generations of Americans that are yet to come.

This is not a bill that is about protecting Big Oil. This is not about tax subsidies. I take great disagreement with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle when they say we are fighting for tax subsidies for Big Oil. What they are talking about is intangible drilling costs. They are talking about basic tax policy where there are income and expenses that are being calculated and deducted off income taxes. It goes back to my life in the private sector when I read income and expense sheets. All we are talking about are expenses, not tax subsidies.

If we want to engage in rhetoric, that's fine. But we are focused on the substance of the issue, and that substance is getting Americans back to work, 1.2 million jobs under this proposal. We will generate $800 million in revenue over 10 years, and we are going to lead.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule and support the underlying legislation by voting in favor of both.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.