Patrick McHenry

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Absolutely. And I appreciate my colleague yielding. The intent is, if you're going to raise $50,000 from 5,000 people, it has to be a low-cost basis of doing that; and the traditional broker- dealer model is not efficient at those lower cost basis fundraising opportunities or equity-raising opportunities.

Mr. McHENRY. Yes. The idea is that, with the traditional broker- dealers, they're not in this market. So our intent with these low- dollar issuances, that has not been a traditional part of the action on Wall Street, not in the modern era, and so we're trying to carve out this opportunity for small business folks.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Reclaiming my time, I ask my colleagues, do you want to allow small businesses that are starved for capital to raise capital? Do you want to allow that to happen? Then vote this down. Let's get to final passage. Let's get this economy moving. We can't wait. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McHENRY. Will the gentleman withdraw, yes or no?

Mr. McHENRY. We have had two subcommittee hearings on capital formation. This issue was not raised. We had a subcommittee legislative hearing. This issue was not raised. We had a subcommittee markup. This issue was not raised. We had a full committee markup where we incorporated every Democrat idea into this legislation. It is outrageous for the minority party to stoop to this level of taking our important national security issues-- Through hours of debate and crafting a bipartisan bill, I thought they were better than that. I did. I thought we could get through this and pass this bill. The President announced his support. A statement of administrative policy says, Pass this bill. He says, We can't wait. And what does his party in Congress do? Offer an amendment that is already existing law. It is outrageous to play this political stunt with something so important as our national security. I ask my colleague to withdraw this motion to recommit so we can get to final passage and get going. Will my colleague withdraw?

Mr. McHENRY. I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to an amazing young lady from my district that was taken from us far too soon and far too young. Jennifer Rose Cernuto was a resident of Mooresville, North Carolina, in Iredell County in my district, and had just graduated from high school in May. She was looking forward to beginning college as part of the honors program at High Point University in the fall. Jennifer and her twin sister, Stephanie, served as interns in my district office in Hickory last year. My staff still talks about them and the great work that they did and their wonderful personalities and their real gift for service. Both Jennifer and Stephanie's interest and passion for learning the inner workings of government and the district office and the political process were far beyond their years. But it was in dealing with constituents and helping people that both Jennifer and Stephanie truly blossomed. In fact, the Cernutos had an ability to speak to constituents, many of whom were upset about a problem that they were having or an encounter they had with a government agency or perhaps that their veterans benefits or a similar program weren't working for them. Calmly, they would document their issues and take good care with a thoroughness that most lifelong caseworkers would envy. It was as if they had been on the job for years. It was no surprise that Jennifer excelled in this type of work. Whether at school, at church, in everyday life, helping people was a hallmark of Jennifer Cernuto's life. In fact, she and Stephanie had just returned from Peru with a group of their fellow graduates from Southlake Christian Academy, where they helped build classrooms and held Bible study classes for indigent children. Jennifer and Stephanie, you know, they come from a great family. I have known their parents, Jeff and Lisa, for several years, and I am honored to count them as friends. They are some of Mooresville's most outgoing and most charitable people. And with fine parents like these, it's no wonder Jennifer, Stephanie, and their older sister, Samantha, turned out to be the fine young women that they did. Incredible, special, young ladies. But tragedy struck this family and the entire Mooresville community over the July 4 weekend when Jennifer and Stephanie were involved in an automobile accident. Sadly, Jennifer was taken on that day and Stephanie was injured. But, thankfully, thank the Lord, she survived. Thousands later turned out for Jennifer's memorial service and funeral. People asked, why did so many people, thousands of people, come out to this extraordinary 18-year-old young lady's funeral? It was, I think, put in the best words by the head of school at Southlake Christian Academy, Wayne Parker. He said, ``Jennifer was full of joy that easily drew others, as she allowed her love of the Lord to shine through her.'' Jennifer Rose Cernuto was a fine young lady, an impressive individual, and I was honored to know her. My staff still has the highest praise that they got to work with her. I say to Jeff and Lisa: You did a wonderful job raising that fine young lady. And I say to not just Jeff and Lisa but to Samantha and especially Stephanie, that the lives that Jennifer affected you can never count, but she had a wonderful and amazing impact in her brief time on this Earth. Her service will not be forgotten. With that, I want to pay great honor and to remember Jennifer Rose Cernuto for the wonderful person and the wonderful individual she was in her brief time on this Earth. I want to say thank you for the opportunity to have known her. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. McHENRY

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

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 513, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Amendment Offered by Mr. Amash

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 373, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourn today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McHENRY. Does the gentleman support the President's war on Libya?

Mr. McHENRY. I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question.

Mr. McHENRY. Why didn't the gentleman do it when he was in the majority? And I would be happy to yield back the balance of my time. Why is this not in ObamaCare? It's just everything else.

Mr. McHENRY. I'm going to finish up here, my friend. Madam Chair, in this discussion, there are lots of questions but little substantive action--no policy proposals--to make sure that Medicare is there for the next generation, much less for the end of the Greatest Generation. I would ask my colleagues to come forward with a substantive plan, not just to take up time here on the U.S. House floor, not to take away time from these important amendments that we have under this open rule here on the House floor. I would ask my colleagues to do something real and substantive rather than to push us to a debt crisis, which their policies and their spending are pushing us towards. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. In reclaiming my time, I would ask, does the gentleman favor the Medicare part D prescription drug benefit, which has a lower cost basis than what your colleagues proposed at the time of enactment?

Mr. McHENRY. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey. Madam Chair, I would ask my colleague, where is his plan on entitlement reform?

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I've heard my colleagues give volumes of words here today, but I've seen little action. In the 4 years they controlled the U.S. House, they proposed nothing in the way of meaningful entitlement reform: nothing to preserve Social Security, nothing to preserve Medicare, nothing to improve Medicaid and ensure that it's there. Madam Chair, I ask, where is the plan of these House Democrats who are speaking today? Where is their plan for entitlement reform?

Mr. McHENRY. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow for morning-hour debate and noon for legislative business.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. McHENRY. I would say that you read a quote from the Special Inspector General from TARP, Mr. Barofsky: ``The basic idea of a well- run government program is to have clear goals, have a plan to meet these goals, measure progress along the way against these goals, change your program when necessary so you can still achieve those goals. ``But this is how the TARP has been implemented and, in particular, this program within TARP: set goals. Ignore goals entirely. Hope for the best. When the best is different, change your goals and say you never really meant it when you had those goals. Pretend that the program is a success, even though it is not meeting these goals.'' That is Mr. Barofsky's analysis of Treasury's implementation. I would ask my colleague, if that is in keeping with his expectations for a new government program, then, I would submit, that is what they will come up with. This Treasury has defended TARP and defended HAMP, and in particular HAMP, which has been roundly criticized even by La Raza, which has been a tried and true liberal activist for a long time. But Treasury has been defending it. Why? I'm not sure. But instead of reforming the program, instead of fixing the program, they refuse to do it; and so we must end it. I yield back the balance of my time.