Patrick McHenry

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. If the gentleman will yield.

Mr. McHENRY. I certainly appreciate it. I thank my friend and colleague for yielding. I agree with you. USCIS should be fee-based and continue to be fee-based. However, in discussions with them, I realize we have a severe problem and they're not going to actually put in place this plan until 2013. And so the time frame I don't think is fast enough, and I think that is very deserving for us to appropriate funds so we can actually have a more efficient process. No matter where you are on the immigration debate, whether you want amnesty or border security, this actually is a pretty sensible thing from both sides.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, a major contributor to America's illegal immigration problem is the inability of the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service to process legal immigration applications in a timely manner. USCIS uses horribly antiquated systems for processing applications. So antiquated, in fact, they are still tracking immigration applications using paper and sending them around the country with the U.S. Postal Service. Every customer of a major bank in this country can track his or her accounts, payments, and transactions on line in real time. But the Federal Government is still using stone age technology, or paper age, rather, when it comes to the basic functioning of granting citizenship. Take, for instance, a constituent of mine, Mete Adan. Mete Adan actually was born in Turkey. He spent 16 years trying to become a United States citizen the right way, the legal way. My office has worked with him for a number of years in fact, helping him through this bureaucratic process and cutting through this outdated redtape. But due to the inefficiency of the current system, which processes over 7 million immigration applications per year using paper printouts, Mete's case has been a 2\1/2\-year debacle marked by mistakes, errors and blunders. The amendment I am offering today would prevent this sort of horror from continuing to happen in the future. A few years ago, USCIS embarked on a major technological overhaul for how it handles the millions of immigration applications it receives every year. The problem, though, is that they are not really putting this into place fast enough. That is why I am proposing that we take $30 million and apply it to carrying out the strategic information transformation through USCIS. Their plan includes on-line accounts that Federal agencies and applicants themselves can use to track their immigration status as it moves through the initial application process, to background checks, to adjudication and to final approval. It is a very commonsense way for us to track immigration applications. Beyond that, what we have to understand is USCIS estimates that it handles 7 million immigration applications using paper today. We should use Information Age technology to make sure that we have a fair process for those seeking to come to our country, and thereby reducing illegal immigration in the process. But the bulk of those 7 million applications, applications for citizenship and non-immigration residency, require up to 11 different forms apiece. That means the USCIS has to handle tens of millions of forms annually just to keep track of the people currently in the system. That is why there are just reported 15,000 pending cases from the 1986 amnesty plan passed by Congress and enacted into law. That is right, 21 years later there are still more than 15,000 unresolved cases. If we want people to immigrate to the United States legally and come to our country without sneaking across our border or breaking our laws or coming under the cover of darkness, then we must remove the barriers of illegal immigration. The $30 million I am proposing to devote to the USCIS strategic transformation will significantly aid that process. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, this past March, Burke County authorities pulled over an SUV in Morganton, North Carolina, packed with 11 illegal immigrants. Local law enforcement officials were forced to release the illegals after being notified that there were not enough Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents available to check on the group's immigration status, even though they admitted that they were illegal. Law enforcement officials, not the illegal aliens, were handcuffed that night on I-40. Our hands were tied by red tape and bureaucracy and underfunding. The 287(g) program is working efficiently in my home county of Gaston, and our sheriff there, Sheriff Cloninger, is doing a fantastic job of cross-training deputies to also enforce our immigration laws of this land and gives them the authority, the legal authority, to investigate, detain and arrest illegal aliens on civil and criminal grounds. It paves the way for local law enforcement to be a part of our homeland security.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. McHENRY. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. McHENRY. Reclaiming my time, I wanted to lay before the House what the three elements, as I understood it, are. And I have full faith. I know the gentleman is an honorable man. I am not questioning the integrity of any of my colleagues in this process. I certainly have the utmost respect for the majority leader and the Appropriations Committee chair. But I actually want to understand the agreement and the trust you have, and I want to make sure that the House understands what the agreement is.

Mr. McHENRY. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. McHENRY. Reclaiming my time, as I understand it, there are three elements to this agreement. I want to actually have on the record what this agreement is, not simply a discussion behind closed doors, because as we heard earlier today, Madam Speaker, as some of us heard earlier today, there was an agreement reached last night and then there was a change of heart from the majority and leadership on the majority side. And I want to ensure we have a proper understanding of what that was, instead of what we read in the papers and the rumors we hear.

Mr. McHENRY. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. McHENRY. Reclaiming my time, I certainly want to understand this agreement, and since it is a unanimous consent put before the House, we need to have unanimous consent to proceed with that. I want to understand the three elements of this rule and since the majority leader does schedule the floor, Madam Speaker, I want to make sure I understand the agreement since you actually control the floor.

Mr. McHENRY. Does the majority leader concur with that? I am happy to yield.

Mr. McHENRY. With all due respect to the minority leader, I was trying to get a commitment from the majority leader since they are in fact in the majority, but I would be happy to yield to my Republican leader.

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, I want to fully understand the agreement put forward. I ask the majority leader and the Appropriations Committee chairman, as I understand it, laid out through this colloquy and this series of questions, there are three separate issues at hand. First, the House rules under that unanimous consent agreement Monday night, the House rules will revert to the point of order that Republicans put in place in the last Congress, the Congress put in place, that Members can lodge a point of order against earmarks; is that the case?

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, my Democrat colleague is misinformed. We've had a big debate this week between Republicans and Democrats about the size and scope of government, whether or not there should be a secret slush fund for earmarks. And you know what? Today, what's happening here today is that this body is coming in the conservative direction. My voice is weary, but my spirit is strong because conservatives have a victory that we're very close to achieving here today because we've brought pressure on the Democrat leadership to free up, to make public, to be honest about the earmarks they have put in and a slush fund they have put into this appropriations bill. And the American people should be proud because finally conservatives are returning to their roots and talking about restraining government spending. I'm very proud of the actions that my conservative friends are taking on this House floor to hold the Democrats accountable for their slush fund, their secret earmarks and their pork-barrel projects. And I urge the body to move in the conservative direction.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman should address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I think we need to have a serious discussion here on the floor today, as we did yesterday. There have been some accusations about what we did when we were in the majority. But, look, let's face it, there is a new majority. There is a new regime in town. They called for a new direction. I guess there is a new direction. Congress' approval ratings are the lowest they have been in decades. Nothing has been achieved in this Congress. In fact, the Democrats' agenda, the Six for 06, the vaunted Six for 06 agenda, has been Zero in 06. Zero of these bills have been enacted into law. So it is wonderful for the Democrats to point at the Republicans. But, let's face it, the Democrats are in the majority, and it is their obligation to govern, and they have not yet done it. They spent 133 days in power, the new Democrat majority, and what have they done? Well, they had a lot of debate about whether or not to defund the troops who are in harm's way. They played politics with the troops. But yet they didn't take any time at all to review the earmarks in this bill. They have had 133 days. The chairman of the Appropriations Committee has had 133 days to review these earmarks, but yet he will not open it up to public scrutiny. All we are asking for these earmarks and for this Democrat excessive spending is for it to see the light of day so the American people can see what their money is going towards. So while they play politics with funding the troops, they do nothing when it comes to pork-barrel spending. They do nothing when it comes to earmarks. They do nothing to control spending. They do nothing to enact their vaunted Six for 06 agenda. Mr. Chairman, I think the American people need to understand what this new Democrat majority, this new direction, is all about. It is about politics. It is about politics. And what we are talking about here today, what Republicans and conservatives are saying is that we need to have those earmarks laid out for public scrutiny so the press and Members of this body can actually see what the chairman wants to insert at the 11th hour in this legislation. We want to see what is in that slush fund within this bill. We want to see where our tax dollars are going. But we also want to spend. Beyond that, we want to make sure this money is appropriated wisely. What the ranking member on this subcommittee has said is there is too much spending. We have got too many bureaucrats being thrown into the Department of Homeland Security. This money is not being spent wisely. It is not being spent in the right ways. We are not funding defense like we should. We are not funding border security like we should. We are not funding intelligence capabilities like we should. Yet there is a large increase in spending in this appropriations bill. Where is it going? Where is it going? And where is that money, that slush fund, going? I think the American people, not just my colleagues in the House, not just the committee chairmen, not just a committee, but all the American people deserve to see where their money is going. That's the right thing. That's what we're debating about here today and what we were debating about last night. And while the Democrats forced us to go into 2:00 a.m. voting on this House floor, in the middle of the night, voting on important matters of public policy, the Speaker sleeps. While we were forced to stay here until 2:00 a.m., voting on procedural motions to hold the Democrats accountable, the Speaker slept.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Texas. Mr. Chairman, the important part here is that we say very clearly to the American people that we should know where the dollars and cents that our Federal taxpayers are funding for their government is going. That includes the important programs of this government. But it very much is important to the American people to give scrutiny to these pork-barrel projects and earmarks contained within these billion-dollar bills. The bill before us today is $36 billion in spending. I think it is worthy and worthwhile that we spend a little time giving this legislation scrutiny.

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

Mr. McHENRY. I thank my friend and colleague from Ohio. This is about whether or not to restrain the growth of government. This is about ensuring the integrity of taxpayer money in this process. It's about ensuring that we know where our taxpayer dollars are going and that there is public scrutiny to that, not just scrutiny from a narrow few in this body. But while the Speaker slept last night, we were working on the floor to bring this issue to the American people. While the Speaker slept, we made the case to the American people that this is an important debate to restrain the growth of government, even within the Department of Homeland Security's bureaucracy. We want to make sure the taxpayer dollar is spent wisely, efficiently, and effectively. This is a healthy debate, because we on this side of the aisle want to restrain the growth of government while those on the other side want to grow and grow and grow the government in all the bureaucracy, especially here in Washington D.C. It's very important. It's very important for us to engage in this dialogue and debate, for the American people to have scrutiny over this process and through this process. While the Speaker slept last night, we worked till 2 in the morning, till past 2 in the morning, to make sure the American people knew what this new majority, what this new direction was all about.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from California, to reiterate my earlier point, which is, we need to lay clear these earmarks. We need to know what they are in the legislation so that the American people can judge for themselves the worthiness of the programs and the money allocated for them. Now, we just want a clear, open, transparent process which is what the new majority, what the new Speaker campaigned upon. Now, we had this long debate last night after 10 o'clock. We went on for hours and hours and hours about this process until after 2 in the morning. Now, I understand the Speaker went home to sleep and the rest of us sat here and debated, but that's a whole other issue. If the Speaker had been here, Mr. Chairman, they would know that this is an important debate for the American people to hear.

Mr. McHENRY. Let me just say this. The largest tax increase in American history, that is really the backdrop of these spending bills. The gentleman points out an interesting quandary, I must say. He says that Republicans are delaying the implementation of homeland security funding. The Department is funded through October 1. Beyond that, if it were important for us to put our priorities first, we would start, Mr. Chairman, with the Department of Defense, for national defense purposes. Instead, he's pulling a political game on us, Mr. Chairman, to simply say that we are harming national security because we're trying to restrain pork-barrel spending within this appropriation. He actually points out a very important thing the American people need to understand. If the Democrats wanted to focus on priorities, we would have started with homeland security and national defense on day one. Instead, the new Democrat majority played politics with our troops in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan. They played politics with that funding, Mr. Chairman. They played politics for 100 days. And they're continuing to play politics with the funding for our troops in harm's way, Mr. Chairman. And we should oppose that. And the American people are reacting to that. They don't want to defund our troops in harm's way. They don't want to do that. I would ask my colleague from Texas, to, if he would, yield for 15 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio for his comment or question, because that is much more generous than he did earlier. And I would love to respond to what he says or claims.

Mr. McHENRY. In just a second. In just a moment.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, people around the Nation may be wondering why the Speaker slept as we debated Democrat overspending and earmarks until 2 in the morning. But the Speaker slept. If last night were about pure partisan politics, we probably would have turned in early, but for House Republicans it was a matter of principle. That's why we stayed here and debated and fought the Democrat overspending plan and their secret earmarks and secret slush funds. And moreover, the American people expect a couple of basic things from their government. They expect to be protected, they expect politicians to be wise with their tax dollars, and they expect government to stay out of their way. And they expect us to accomplish this in an open and fair way. But maybe that was asking too much for the new majority, Mr. Speaker. So when people ask where were you last night, I will proudly say I was standing with my Republican brethren and the House Republicans fighting the Democrats overspending, all while the Speaker slept.