Patrick McHenry

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, Iran's self-proclaimed ambition to develop nuclear weapons is a grave threat to the United States and the world. Imagine the consequences of Iran developing nuclear weapons. It would destabilize the Middle East in an unprecedented fashion, ramp up the threat to our greatest ally, Israel, and give Islamic extremists the means to satisfy their gruesome goal, which is to bring chaos and death to our Nation and world. In confronting this perilous threat, the United States must employ every element of our national power to stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program. The House will take a strong step today in that direction by passing the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, which discourages investment in Iran's energy sector. Countering the Iranian threat requires a steady, rational assessment of the world around us. And when a country led by Islamic extremists vows to attack our greatest ally and our country, you better believe we will stand firm and stare down the enemy.

Mr. McHENRY

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

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I am happy that the Chair is accepting this amendment, but I would like to speak on it as an opportunity to speak about cutting government spending. Though it's just $50,500, that's far more than the median income in my district. I want the American taxpayers to know that this is an important step, and it's good that they're accepting a limitation on the rapid increase in spending within this legislation. There are a lot of good points that we have to consider here. We have to consider the totality of government spending when we're debating here on the House floor. The government spending for this fiscal year is over $2.7 trillion. To put that into perspective, Mr. Chairman, that is larger than all the economies of the world, except for two. It is far larger than even the Chinese economy, which is about $1.9 trillion. The reason why I bring this up is that when we're discussing each of these appropriations bills, we tend to focus on small parts of the appropriations process. We tend to focus on an amendment here, an amendment there, maybe increasing funding here and there and increasing funding in a particular appropriations bill. But we have to talk about what's that doing to the whole of the budget. And if we spend money here in the Department of Agriculture, we may not have that money to fund this SCHIP proposal that the Democrats are bringing to the floor at the end of this week. Now, to talk about that bill, what they're going to do is not simply cut government spending elsewhere in the budget, elsewhere in the government, reforming programs, eliminating programs that are ineffective and no longer cost-effective for the American taxpayers, but what they do is they go out and find new revenue and raise taxes under this SCHIP proposal. The Agriculture bill we have here today increases government spending, thereby forcing this new Democrat majority to go out and raise taxes for their new programs. And, Mr. Chairman, they've proposed a lot of new programs, this new Democrat majority, and what we have to do is focus on making sure we balance the budget. Now, balancing the budget, to me, as a fiscal conservative, does not mean going out and getting new revenue. It means doing things, sensible things, such as the Congressman from Georgia, Mr. Gingrey, my good friend and colleague, is doing here. It cuts 1 percent out of the administrative budget of the Department of Agriculture, just 1 percent. I have an amendment that I would like to perfect. If 1 percent was acceptable to the Chair, I would like to see if maybe 2 percent would be acceptable and see where we can actually draw the line in cutting government spending, where the breaking point is in this House of Representatives. To that end, I think it is important that we have a discussion on what that proper number is. I know my colleague from Georgia may have another amendment similar to this next up, I hope, at which point I would like to see if we can actually go a little bit further in cutting government spending. Let's talk about not just the Agriculture appropriations bill, which is the key focus of today, but also the long-term consequences of our just having a narrow, myopic focus on the current bill on the floor. Let's talk about the totality of government spending, ways that we can reform the government, limit the government, and actually get back to what is sensible. We have a big debate going on right now about the war in Iraq. We have a big debate going on about children's health care. We have a big debate about whether or not the farm bill that we passed last week was the right thing to do and whether or not you should actually have a massive tax increase in order to implement the new programs within that formula. Many of us agree that that wasn't the right thing to do, but, unfortunately, the majority in the House did vote for that massive tax increase. It is important that we have a discussion on health care and agriculture and the long-term consequences of these issues going forward. Certainly, the bill today and the chairman's willingness to accept a 1 percent cut in the administrative budget is a step in the right direction. We can be thankful for that. I hope, as we go on in the debate, the Chair will be willing to accept other amendments that limit the rapid increase of funds going to the Department of Agriculture and we can actually rightsize the government. There are many on this side of the aisle who want to cut the size and scope of government. I know that the chairwoman has been willing to examine programs and reform those programs. I hope that she will be willing to accept many of the amendments we have here today. I also know my colleague from Georgia has a number of amendments like this. It is important that we discuss the long-term consequences of our failure to limit the growth of government. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is pretty simple. As the previous speaker said, the debate that we have had ongoing here on the House floor may cost taxpayer dollars. If we are going to have a debate about cutting spending, I am going to offer a second-degree to make sure the spending is a greater number to save the taxpayers more money so we can continue to have this debate. I appreciate the applause from one Member on the other side of the aisle. Two Members. So we have two members of the Democrat Caucus who wish to cut spending. Thank you both. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank them both. At this point, I yield to my colleague, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan from Wisconsin.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I offer a second-degree amendment.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague Dr. Price for offering this amendment. Certainly the American people can relate to this amendment. It simply says that we will not spend 1 percent of the bill as currently written, 1 percent. Well, that equates to $500 million, a substantial sum of money even in the context of the Federal budget. What we have in Washington, D.C., is a spending problem. We don't have a problem with income to government. The government will receive about $2.7 trillion this year on a Federal budget that actually spends $2.9 trillion. What is absolutely fascinating about this is that there are only two countries on Earth with whole economies that are larger than the Federal Government here in Washington, D.C., and that is the governments of Germany and Japan. When we talk about China and the growing threat of China's economy, well, look at the size of the Chinese economy. The whole economy of China is $1.9 trillion. What we have here in Washington D.C. is certainly a spending problem. What this amendment proposed by Dr. Price says is that we should be able to slip off just a little bit of that spending, just a little bit, show the American taxpayers that we can tighten the belt just ever so slightly, which means, instead of eating that whole cake, which is what the Democrat leadership proposes for dessert, eating that whole cake, we are just going to take off just a little bit of the icing, just a taste of the icing, rather than eating that whole cake. Now, certainly we can do that. Certainly the American people understand the Federal Government could save 1 percent. Every family budget across America can save 1 percent. I urge my colleagues, even the liberal Democrats on the other side of the aisle, my friends from the other side of the aisle who said that we want to spend more and more and more. They certainly can say we will, when we are increasing spending so rapidly, what the Democrats are doing here, we could say that just 1 percent, we will take off 1 percent right off the top. So I urge my colleagues to support this reasonable and commonsense measure that shows some level of restraint, even with bloated Democrat spending in Washington, D.C.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, tax receipts are up, and the deficit is down. Pro-growth policies are working. The President's tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 have had an enormous impact on our economy and on government revenue. The Office of Management and Budget announced today that the Federal deficit is actually $205 billion, the lowest since 2002, the lowest since the tax cuts went into effect. What this shows is that with pro- growth policies, the economy grows. And when the economy grows, tax receipts to the government go up as well. When that happens, we can balance this budget if we have the reasonable approach of restraining spending and keeping in place the tax cuts that were put in place in 2001 and 2003. I urge my colleagues to continue this pro-growth policy of keeping taxes low and helping the American economy grow and prosper.

Mr. McHENRY

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

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague and friend from Arizona for offering this amendment. It gives me an opportunity to explain the importance of this project and this funding to the Members of this body. I am actually very much in favor of transparency through the appropriations process. I have spoken a number of times here on the House floor about that. I think it is important that Members can judge for themselves the funds that we are spending as the Federal Government. It is a very serious business we are in of spending taxpayer dollars, and I don't take that lightly. I am thankful for the opportunity to talk about the Mitchell County Development Foundation and the problems and challenges that Mitchell County is going through, but their hope and the solution they are putting forward. Mitchell County, as the amendment sponsor mentions, is a very hard- hit county. If you look at this graph of manufacturing jobs in North Carolina, we have been hard hit over the last 20 years in the loss of manufacturing jobs due to Federal trade agreements, to a large degree. We are going through a transition period of manufacturing jobs in North Carolina. Furthermore, in Mitchell County, which was a manufacturing county, you can look at this listing of the job losses they have had over the last 10 years. In the last 5 years, Mitchell County has lost 2,500 jobs. Now, that may not seem like much to big city folks, but to a small, rural Appalachian county with a workforce of 7,500 people, it is devastating. It is absolutely devastating. When you are in a rural community, you have to figure out ways to innovate, to actually keep your people making a living. What Mitchell County has done through their development foundation is come up with a way to do that, to take these craftsmen who worked in textiles and furniture, to actually help them create a small business. And through this project, 51 small businesses have been created, two-thirds in my district. But this is a small, rural county, and they are trying to do the best they can through an innovative process. This small amount of Federal money will help them in a number of ways, such as access other grants and bring in more knowledge about this process and about what is happening in this county, to bring more funding and resources to bear for this county. Mitchell County has the third highest unemployment rate in the State of North Carolina. It has a 38 percent dropout rate in their high schools. And what they're trying to do through this business incubator is create small businesses so that those unemployed can find employment. Beyond that, they are also trying to use the resources that they gain from selling their products to provide scholarships for these high school students, to encourage them to stay in school. This is a good project and is a worthy use of Federal taxpayer dollars and I'm proud to stand in the well of this House and to defend this and tell my colleagues that it's worthwhile for the taxpayers to spend this money. With that, Mr. Chairman, I retain the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. If the gentleman will yield, I just wanted to correct the chairman on what I said over those torturous 3 days, in your words, on this House floor. I was simply asking for earmarks to be public.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. McHENRY. I thank the chairman. To close on this matter, Laura Bush, the First Lady, decides what the theme is for the White House Christmas, and she decided this last Christmas it would be the Year of the Perfect Christmas Tree, the Gloria Houston book that we're discussing here. Gloria Houston, who grew up in the mountains of western North Carolina, my district, who gave her book to this community for their business incubator, and it's unfortunate that there's so much discussion here on the House floor about this business incubator, but it does bring to light what is important for this community. Laura Bush, the First Lady, said at the time: ``This is a very wonderful American story. They all worked together, the people in the town, to figure out a new industry for themselves.'' I'm trying to assist in that and I think the taxpayers should assist in that. And I'll tell you why. Mitchell County has been broken by trade agreements made here by the Federal Government. And when the Federal Government breaks it, they should help fix it. And that's all we're trying to do. This small amount of taxpayer dollars can help enormously. I submit for the Record the USA Today story about Mitchell County and their recovery. [From USA Today, Dec. 5, 2006] Town Hangs Hope on Holiday Trees Project Spruces Up Morale After Layoffs (By Kathy Kiely) Washington.--In Gloria Houston's 1988 children's classic, The Year of the Perfect Christmas Tree, a combination of pluck, tenacity and never-say-die optimism salvages the holidays for an impoverished little girl. This year, residents of a small town in the same Appalachian hills that inspired Houston's story are hoping to reproduce its magic for their hard-luck community. During the past four years, closings and layoffs at local textile and furniture mills have eliminated more than 2,500 jobs in western North Carolina's Mitchell County. ``We have lost one-third of our manufacturing base,'' says Shirley Hise, director of the local Chamber of Commerce. ``It has been devastating for our county.'' Even so, the people of Mitchell County are experiencing what local congressman Patrick McHenry calls ``a glimmer of hope.'' Houston's generosity and Hise's hard work are helping county residents tap a vein of creativity and find new ways to make a living. And this holiday season, Americans can help them out--and, at the same time, decorate their homes in presidential style. Last week, when she hosted the annual unveiling of holiday decorations at the White House, first lady Laura Bush went out of her way to give a plug to the handmade ornaments provided by Mitchell County artists. ``This is a very wonderful American story,'' she said. ``They all worked together, the people in the town, to figure out a new industry for themselves, and they came up with making these wonderful ornaments.'' The media-savvy first lady even provided some direction for the TV crews on hand: ``When you're in the west reception hall or in the visitors' reception room on the east side, I hope you'll be able to get there to get some B-roll of those trees and see these beautiful, handmade ornaments.'' Mitchell County's contribution to the White House holiday decor is the result of a brainstorm Houston had in 2003 after being invited to be grand marshal of the Christmas parade in Spruce Pine, Mitchell's county seat. After hearing about the community's problems, Houston donated the rights of her book to Spruce Pine and suggested local officials market the town as ``the home of the perfect Christmas tree.'' Last year, the community cut the ribbon on a retail store featuring handcrafted items inspired by the book. They're all made by local artisans. These aren't amateur holiday fair items: The curvilinear red, green and walnut Carolina ``snowflakes'' hanging at the White House are the creations of Billie Ruth Sudduth, a basket weaver whose work is displayed at the juried Smithsonian craft show. The White House trees also feature handblown glass ornaments by Virgil Jones, whose work is on display in galleries in Asheville, N.C. Sudduth taught several local women how to make the snowflakes so they could help her keep up with demand. At a basket-weaving class she taught to raise money for the local homeless shelter, ``I saw some talent,'' she says. No one is suggesting a few cottage industries will replace the thousands of manufacturing jobs that once powered Mitchell County's economy. McHenry, who called the project a glimmer of hope, also notes it's not a light at the end of the tunnel. But project participants say it has helped lift the gloom that enveloped Mitchell County after all the layoffs. ``This project has really turned the county upside down with excitement,'' Sudduth says. Patti Jensen, who manages the retail outlet in Spruce Pine, says her biggest problem initially was persuading local craftspeople to provide her with enough inventory to keep pace with sales. ``They were so skeptical . . . that anyone would want to buy what they make,'' Jensen says. After one of Marquitta Holdsclaw's art glass plates sold for $600 at a local silent auction, Jensen says she found the artist in the parking lot in tears. ``It just blew her away that anyone valued what she was doing,'' Jensen says. Holdsclaw's plates are available for as little as $39.50 through the Home of the Perfect Christmas Tree store. An online catalog can be found at homeoftheperfectchristmastree.org. Working on their own poses challenges that employees of big companies never face, the artisans concede, especially ``the very real problem of health insurance,'' says Sudduth, 61. She says it costs $700 a month to maintain her coverage. Jim Buchanan, a woodworker who built the interior of the Perfect Christmas Tree shop and designs items for the catalog, estimates he's making half of what he did before the Henredon furniture plant where he worked was shuttered in 2004. But there are other compensations. ``I'm making the type of furniture I like to make, so it's more enjoyable,'' Buchanan says. Mike Queen, a local metal worker who is trying to grow his artisanal blacksmithing business, agrees. ``I'm enthused about it,'' says Queen, who employs several people laid off from local plants. ``It's good for the community. There's so many small towns in the country that seem like they're dying.'' The idea went by the book Gloria Houston, whose book inspired the Home of the Perfect Christmas Tree store in Spruce Pine, N.C., says research she did as a graduate student prompted her to suggest the project. Houston, a former Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings scholar at the University of South Florida, says she was researching the namesake of her fellowship when it struck her that Rawlings had inadvertently thrown a lifeline to her tiny Florida hometown, the setting for her classic novel, The Yearling. ``I realized Cross Creek would have long since disappeared had it not been for The Yearling,'' Houston says. ``Everything there had something to do with it.'' Years later, she decided to see whether her 1988 children's book, The Home of the Perfect Christmas Tree, could do the same for her North Carolina Appalachian home. Houston's parents operated a country store in western North Carolina for more than 50 years. In writing the book, she was inspired by stories of their circumstances (her father told her about once giving up his Christmas dime so his sister could have a doll). Not wanting the same crushing poverty to reappear in the region, Houston donated rights to the book to Mitchell County, and the Christmas tree store project was born. ``I'm so proud of the people here and their many skills and talents,'' she says. ``Now they're being put to work in their own county.'' In closing, I want to tell you, Mitchell County is going through struggles, and I appreciate this opportunity to bring attention to this. It is a worthwhile project. It is a worthy project. And I think worthy projects that have a Federal element to it should be funded by the Federal Government, and we should be interested in doing that. Not overspending, but spending wisely and allowing Members to step forward and publicly say what they think is a wise expenditure of taxpayer dollars. I care very much about that. And I care very much about helping Mitchell County rebound, to bring down that dropout rate in their high schools, to get businesses growing and to reduce their unemployment rate. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. There's already been a real influx of interest in giving grants to this. Right now there's about three or $400,000 that is contingent upon this to a large degree.

Mr. McHENRY. Absolutely.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. I thank my colleague from Ohio for offering this amendment. We're debating now on a 3.5 percent across-the-board cut to an appropriations bill. It's an amazing thing in Congress; with one vote, we can slash $1.3 billion out of an appropriations bill. What we're debating here is not simply a small cut. We're debating on whether or not the American taxpayers can depend on the Bush tax cuts from 2001 and 2003. We're trying to determine what kind of economic growth we'll have as a Nation, based on how much the government spends in taxes. This is more than a debate about spending. This is a debate about the size and scope of government. Well, let's put the facts on the table. The American Government costs $2.7 trillion a year. That is the largest government on Earth. And further perspective here: It's the largest government in the history of mankind. Now, to put this further into perspective, there are only two economies outside of the United States that are equal to the size of our Federal spending. That's Germany and Japan. And what is amazing about this, what is absolutely amazing about this, is that we have a Federal Government that's larger than most economies on Earth. In fact, our Federal Government spends more than the whole of China's economy. Now, that's simply amazing. I think it shows that, while we're debating on extending the Bush tax cuts, the American people understand that we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem here in the United States. This Congress is addicted to spending. In fact, in just a week's time, they appropriated $100 billion. Now, that's fast work even for Washington, DC. The American people, Mr. Chairman, understand that we need to tighten our belt. A 3.5 percent across-the-board cut is a good start. That'll save $1.3 billion of the American taxpayers' hard-earned money. I commend my colleague for offering this amendment, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. I want to thank my colleague from Texas for putting together a great bill. I know he has been a long-time advocate of the best care possible for our veterans in this country. And as a military general, I want to commend him for the great work he has done on a bipartisan basis. And I thank you for that, Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to bring attention to the shortcomings of the Department of Veterans Affairs in addressing the infrastructure needs of community-based outpatient clinics. These clinics provide convenient care to our veterans on an outpatient basis. There are currently 64 pending clinics that have received approval from the VA either in fiscal year 2007 or fiscal year 2008. One of those clinics is set to be established in my district in Hickory, North Carolina. When opened, this clinic will serve approximately 10,000 veterans on an outpatient basis annually. However, since the VA Mid- Atlantic Health Care Network announced last June that the clinic in Hickory would open in January of this year, there has been nothing but delay after delay after delay. Now, veterans in western North Carolina are frustrated with these delays, as many of us are, and there seems to be this common issue throughout the system. This particular clinic has been in the works in some way or another for roughly 12 years, Mr. Chairman. The time is up for delays, and veterans of these 64 regions are entitled to answers. Last month, my two North Carolina colleagues in the Senate and I formally requested an update about the status of the outpatient clinic in Hickory. Unfortunately, we have yet to receive a response to our inquiry. Our veterans, I believe, deserve better. I would ask that as this bill moves forward to the Senate and to conference, the chairman and the ranking member work to get answers from the Department of Veterans Affairs, answers to why we have these continued delays for pending outpatient clinics. Veterans in Hickory, North Carolina, and across the country have sacrificed too much for our country and deserve to have, at the very least, convenient health care. They deserve a proper explanation and progress report as well. I also want to finish by commending the chairman for his, again, hard work on increasing funding for our veterans. I know that on both sides of the aisle we are very pleased with the work you've done, both the chairman and the ranking member, and we are looking forward to passage.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Reclaiming my time, actually the final question would be: Is it the intent and the commitment from the majority that future appropriations bills, save by tradition the legislative branch appropriations bill, would come to this floor under an open rule?

Mr. McHENRY

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

Mr. McHENRY. I thank my colleague from Kentucky. In closing, Mr. Chairman, when we have 15,000 pending cases from the 1986 amnesty plan still stuck in the system, I think we have a flaw in the system. We need to update that and use current technology so that we can fairly bring legal immigration to this country.

Mr. McHENRY. I thank the chairman. Reclaiming my time, to address the issues raised, I do think USCIS actually has a good plan in place for moving forward to an electronic or digital age level of technology. What concerns me is this bureaucracy that deals with 7 million applications each year, tens of millions of pages of paper each year, doesn't move to technology sooner than 2013, which is their current plan. And so I would like to start that process, give them the money to begin earlier on moving to the information age. With that, I would be happy to yield to the ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. McHENRY. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. McHENRY. I would actually like to have a vote on this so that we can begin that process. I do think that they have a good plan in place to go into the information age and finally get out of this sort of 1950s mentality of paperwork being shifted around. I would like to at least take a step forward in the process. But ongoing after that, I would certainly like to work with the chairman, because I know he very much cares about efficiency of the money appropriated.

Mr. McHENRY. I spoke last night about a lack of competence within some of our bureaucracies, even those led by Republicans, my fellow Republican brethren. I see a failure in the bureaucracy and an unwillingness for them to step forward and make this happen faster. And you are correct, it is a much larger price tag. However, limited by the offsets available to me within this legislation and the confines of the rules, $30 million would be a good start in this process and hopefully pull that date closer to being enacted.