Patrick McHenry

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. I appreciate my colleague from Texas for yielding. I want to respond to my colleague and friend from Ohio. He does a wonderful job at oratory. His facts are a little off, Mr. Chairman, I must say. He forgot in his list of these wonderful things the Democrat Congress has done, because, let's face it, it is a nice long list of things that they have said that they would do. Actually, they haven't implemented many of the things that he claims, Mr. Chairman. The one thing on his list he forgets, though, is the largest tax increase in American history. I don't know why he doesn't brag about that. But he actually points out something that is very important to realize. The Democrats have done part of what they've said. They campaigned on increasing the size and scope of government, Mr. Chairman, and they've done that. They're working to do that.

Mr. McHENRY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to my colleague from Florida. What she said was factually incorrect. The Republican Congress put in a strong earmark reform so the American people can see what we are spending here on this House floor. It's a matter of transparency and openness which the Democrats campaigned upon. What they have done in this whole process is put those earmarks back in the shadows, in the shadows of the chairman's pocket, and the chairman can divvy them up as he sees fit. That is not the direction we should be moving in, and we are not delaying this bill. What we are doing is having a debate on the size and scope of the government and whether or not we should allow pork- barrel projects to invade our appropriations process or whether or not we should have openness and restrain the size and growth of government. That's what this debate is about, and it's a good debate. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague and friend from Kentucky for the remainder of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague yielding. There's a simple fact. We had a strong earmark rule in the last Congress, and we're asking you to reinstate the earmark rule.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. I thank my colleague from Nebraska for yielding. Let me answer the chairman's questions, because I do appreciate my colleague's leadership, and he has crafted, largely, a good bill. My disagreements are oftentimes with my Republican administration, my colleague in the White House who is of my same party. What they have requested here is a good bit more bureaucracy at the top. Let's face it, they have mismanaged the Department of Homeland Security. Look at the response to Katrina. I agree wholeheartedly with my Democrat colleagues. But I am of the opinion that simply because they have mismanaged does not simply mean you add to their budget. I appreciate my colleagues' clapping. I appreciate my colleagues on the other side of the aisle clapping for me. That is so wonderful. I am excited about that. I am hopeful they will vote for my amendment, especially my good friends back there. But let me tell you something. What I am attempting to do is get the numbers back to last year's spending level, to make sure we maintain this. My colleague from North Carolina said he spoke with the administration and realized that they wanted this amount of money. I have spoken with the taxpayers. They want some more of their money back. They don't want to deal with tax increases. We need to get back to closer to last year's spending levels on management of the bureaucracy. We saw how the border is still porous. Let's put that money into the border. We see how FEMA was mismanaged. Let's pour that money into getting people out there with supplies when catastrophic events come. But let's not spend on our bureaucracy here in Washington. Let's bring those numbers back closer to last year's budget levels.

Mr. McHENRY. I would like to hear from my colleagues on whether or not $8.9 million, $8,961,000 is the right amount to cut from this $36 billion bill. I'd love to hear this debate. Some may say it's 10 million, others may say it's 6 million. Let's have this debate. It's only 10 minutes till 10:00 tonight. We have plenty of time to continue this debate. The American taxpayers can watch us here on C-SPAN and see what good work we are doing here in Washington and see if we are being effective with their dollars.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us today is a second- degree amendment to my colleague from North Carolina's amendment to the bill. This second-degree amendment is very simple, very straightforward. Instead of striking $1,241,000 from this legislation in the Secretary of Homeland Security's personal budget for his office, we've increased that number to actually $8.9 million. What this amount difference is a result of the debate we've had here on the floor. What is very good is that we've had an open debate, an open rule, one of the rare that we've had in this new Democrat majority, Mr. Chairman. This open rule has allowed a free form of debate, which has allowed all my colleagues to engage in this discussion about decreasing the size and scope of government and curbing the excess of the growth of bureaucracy here in Washington. As a result of this debate, I've analyzed the last amendment debates we had. My colleague from California (Mr. Campbell) offered an amendment that would take the Secretary's budget back to the 2007 level. His amendment would reduce the spending by $9,961,000. Well, that amendment failed, unfortunately. I'm very happy, though, that my colleague from California offered it, though, because the House got to vote on fiscal discipline, and 201 Members of this body voted in favor of striking that $9,961,000 from the bill. Unfortunately, though, 221 voted ``no,'' so the amendment failed. Well, watching the last series of votes, I also noticed that our colleagues voted to strike $79,000 from the Secretary's budget, as well as $300,000 from the Secretary's budget, which through this debate I really analyze that. I really had to think about those votes and see what the will of the body was on restraining government spending and the rise in growth and the bureaucracy here in Washington. What I realized is that maybe my colleagues weren't ready to cut $9.9 million. But perhaps, just perhaps, we could try this out and see if my colleagues would cut $8.9 million. Now, it's not quite as much as I would like to cut from the fat of the Secretary's budget, but it's close. It's a savings to the taxpayers. So let's try this out. Let's have a vote on this; let's have a debate on whether or not we can cut $8.9 million from a budget, if I may state, from a budget as proposed in this Chamber of $36 billion, if I have that correct. Can we cut $8.9 million from a $36 billion budget? Well, my colleagues, 221 of them said ``no'' to this cutting $9.9 million. Let's see if they will cut $8.9 million; it's close, and it's $1 million. The American taxpayers understand the difference in $1 million. But if we could cut $8.9 million, I think we would be happy. It would be a step in the right direction. I hope my colleagues concur. My colleagues would say ``yes'' to cutting $300,000 from this $36 billion bill. They cut $300,000. They cut $79,000. But I wonder if my colleagues would, instead of cutting $1.2 million, which my colleague from North Carolina seeks to do, if they would cut $8.9 million. Let's try this out. Let's have a debate on whether or not $8.9 million is enough money to cut from this $36 billion bill. Let's see if we can return that money to the taxpayers. Let's see if we can reduce the deficit so we can balance this budget. Let's see if we can cut spending so we can continue the tax cuts and continue the economic growth that we have seen over the last 5 years. Let's see if we can make sure that the American taxpayers get to keep more of what they earn. Let's see if we can cut off some fat, even just a little fat from the Department of Homeland Security. Let's see what we can do to reduce bureaucracy here in Washington. I am not sure if $8.9 million is the right amount, but I would like to hear from my colleagues to see if they agree or if they disagree.

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

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. We've had a long discussion tonight about my colleague from North Carolina's amendment. I certainly thank her for offering it. I think we've had a healthy debate about the size and scope of government. I think what the American people understand, Mr. Chairman, is that we should have this debate on the House floor. Mr. Chairman, our colleagues should have this grand debate about whether or not to increase the size and scope of government, even in areas of grave national importance. This is a serious debate. This is a very serious debate, and I think the American people should be proud of the kind of debate we're having today on the House floor. As a conservative, I can see that there's waste, fraud and abuse in all areas of government, even in the Department of Homeland Security. I think we should be wise with how we spend the taxpayer dollar, even in the Department of Homeland Security. Even if this President requested tons more money, billions more money, as a conservative I would say, no, Mr. President, we don't need those billions of dollars in new spending. And I must tell you, as a conservative I've been outspoken, trying to hold this President accountable when it comes to spending. Yet my Democrat colleagues, Mr. Chairman, would say the President requested money, more money for the Department of Homeland Security. I think that was valid in this time of war, in this time of great national security issues. The President requested more money for intelligence spending; yet this Democrat majority in this House, Mr. Chairman, said no to the President's increase when it came to intelligence spending. Instead, Mr. Chairman, the majority decided to spend intelligence money on this debate about climate change, about global warming. I'm not exactly sure, Mr. Chairman, what this majority was thinking when they allocated intelligence resources, intelligence money to the debate on global warming, but they did. They said that was just. When the President requested more money for homeland security, a $3 billion increase over last year's funds, the Democrats said that is not enough, and they went $2 billion over that. Mr. Chairman, even in Washington, D.C., $2 billion is a lot of money. We know that the Department of Homeland Security's well funded, and what we're having a debate on here today, tonight, Mr. Chairman, is whether or not we should lard up the Department of Homeland Security with more bureaucrats at the top level; not people that are screening the airports at the lowest level, not people who are out gathering intelligence at the lowest level, but they're larding it up for the Secretary's budget, for the management's budget. They're not allocating money to get it out on the streets. They're allocating money for more bureaucrats here in Washington, D.C. And as a conservative, even if it's a Republican in the White House and a Republican administration, I will say no to that. We don't need more bureaucrats here in Washington, D.C. We need more agents out on the streets tracking terrorists. We need more intelligence capabilities out in the streets, catching the bad guy, finding out what they're doing, how they're plotting and planning against us. That's the debate we should have here on this House floor, Mr. Chairman. That's the debate the American people want and deserve. Mr. Chairman, this is an important debate about how we're going to allocate our homeland security dollars. Should we put it with more bureaucrats sitting in an office in Washington, D.C., or should we spend that money in a better way, to make sure when you go to the airport you have an airport screener, somebody to get you through that line effectively, people that are well-trained to track the bad guys through our intelligence capabilities, that actually have good plans in place if, God forbid, heaven forbid, we have another attack? We don't need more money for bureaucrats in Washington. We need more funding to get the bad guys. Mr. Chairman, we have a serious debate here tonight, and I think this has been a very worthy debate of this House. My friends and colleague, Mr. Chairman, have all stated their opinions tonight, and I think there's a good consensus from the American people, good consensus from the American people that we need to cut spending to a greater degree.

Mr. McHENRY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. McHENRY. And Members should be reminded that discussions of debate on the floor should abide by decorum and direct their comments to the Chair.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the last word. I appreciate the opportunity to speak before the House, and I appreciate the fact that we are taking this amendment up under an open rule which allows for a wide-ranging debate on the important issues of the day. Now, this amendment is very simple. It saves the taxpayers money. It saves the taxpayers money, Mr. Chairman, and I think that is what is very important for us to understand here on this House floor. If we do not spend this money in the appropriations bill, it will reduce our deficit. As the chairman of the full committee said in his speech here on the floor a few minutes ago, he believes Republicans are simply filibustering. Well, he is in the wrong Chamber for filibustering; it is across the hall in the Senate. What we are doing here today is bringing out the fact that we as Republicans, our side of the aisle, we actually want to reduce spending and balance the budget. We have had some tough times since 2001, since this war began, when we were attacked in 2001. But, Mr. Chairman, what we have to do is understand as a nation, we have to cut this deficit and balance this budget and start paying down the national debt. We have to make sure that we have a balanced budget. How do we begin that process for a balanced budget? It is not by raising taxes, which the other side of the aisle already proposed and actually adopted through their new budget that they put in place this new Congress. They made it clear that they want to roll back to the prior level of taxation, the very high level of taxation that we as Americans faced. But what we believe in as conservatives, and on this side of the aisle especially, is that the way we balance the budget is not by raising taxes on the American people. We have plenty of income coming into the government, but we have a spending problem here. So with this amendment we are taking a small step, a very small step, but a step nonetheless, that will help us reduce spending. The chairman of the full committee said they have been very busy spending for the Iraq war, the supplemental vote. Well, as we well know, within that Iraq war funding bill they have plenty of pork barrel spending, plenty of earmarks. Well, we believe over $20 billion in earmarks was in that final version of the bill. They were too busy spending on special interest projects to actually put in the details of this legislation so the American people can see what kind of pork barrel projects they have tucked into the legislation before us. So first of all, the process is wrong. Second, the spending is too high. The American people understand that, and they want us to do something about it. As conservatives, we need to take that first step. That first step is offered by my colleague from Iowa, Mr. King, who has offered a very reasonable, very simple, very straightforward amendment that is good for the taxpayer and is good for Americans. We all care about homeland security, Mr. Chairman. We believe it is in the interest of our government to fund homeland security and national defense effectively, but not blindly. Not simply because a number is put forward, do we have to accept it. And that is what the debate is about here today, about whether or not we are simply going to accept a high level of spending and look the other way while the deficit increases, while the American people are asked to spend more on government through their taxes. But we have to take that first step. A small step, but a very good, very important step, nonetheless. I will be proud to vote for the King amendment when we get that chance here in a few minutes. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to come forward with a consensus that these important spending matters deserve an open, honest, fair debate. It is not simply about getting it done quickly. We know that legislation takes awhile to craft. We should have an open debate and allow a real exchange of ideas about how to best spend our homeland security dollars. Mr. Chairman, the American people understand that their government costs too much. So let's support my colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), his amendment here today, that allows us to take a step in the right direction.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to urge my colleagues to support my good friend from Washington's amendment. It is a good amendment because, as a sheriff, he knows, firsthand, homeland security. And what he also knows is the most important thing we can be doing in this time of war is funding our intelligence capabilities domestically and internationally. And what this legislation does is reduce our capacity to gather intelligence through this homeland security appropriation. Mr. Chairman, I think what my colleague from Washington has offered is a very sensible thing. This bill actually has $23 million less in funding for intelligence resources than the President requested. And what my colleague does is restore the funding level to the prior year's funding for the intelligence-gathering resources of the Homeland Security Department. I think overall what we have to discuss as a Congress is whether or not we are going to fight an offensive war. Are we going to do the necessary things, the intelligence gathering that we need to do as a country and as a nation to make sure that we are safe and secure when we are dealing with these very complicated threats both internationally and domestically. We saw what has happened over the last few years with intelligence- gathering capabilities that during the 1990s were decimated. Our intelligence-gathering capabilities were decimated. And what we have to do as a nation is make sure we have the proper funding so we don't have those threats, we don't have those scares, that we don't have that level of war here at home. So, Mr. Chairman, I commend my colleague for offering this amendment. I urge its adoption. And I think we can do this on a very bipartisan basis to ensure that we have a strong homeland and have the proper intelligence-gathering resources funded by this United States Congress. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield to my colleague from the great State of New Jersey.

Mr. McHENRY. I thank my colleague for his comments.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. We do have some concerns on this side about the legislation put together, as we would have on any large bill that spends billions of dollars, but I want to commend my colleague from North Carolina for his fair work and his hard work on this legislation. With that, I would like to yield to my colleague from California.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the rules of the House state that all discussions must be directed towards the Chair.

Mr. McHENRY. And so, therefore, since he has already spoken on the secondary amendment, he may not speak a second time on the secondary amendment.

Mr. McHENRY. The secondary amendment is before us here now. That is the operational motion.

Mr. McHENRY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, under House rules, only a Member can speak one time on each amendment.

Mr. McHENRY. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, the disastrous effects of our Nation's dependence on foreign oil are being seen in every new tank of gas and every cent we send overseas to pay for Middle Eastern oil. Rising gas prices are a product of rising demand and not enough supply. The time is now to revolutionize the way we produce and consume energy. That's why I am proposing a 21st Century Manhattan Project to spur the ingenuity of our American private sector, to deliver free market solutions for our Nation's energy problem. I am introducing legislation to create a $1 billion prize, the Independence Prize, as I call it, that will go to Americans who develop revolutionary products that substantially reduce our dependence on foreign oil, eliminating our dependence on foreign oil. The Independence Prize provides incentives to American entrepreneurs to get transformational innovation to consumers, and more importantly, put Americans on a path to energy independence. Independence is the key. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. I object.