Patrick McHenry

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I raise a question of consideration against the legislation before us.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join with millions across our Nation who applaud the Supreme Court's recent decision to uphold the ban on partial-birth abortion. Partial-birth abortion is unrivaled in its gruesome brutality. There is no question it has caused the vicious destruction of viable, living, breathing babies whose only crime is inconvenience. The court's decision is a victory in the quest to restore the dignity of human life. No longer will the most vulnerable and innocent among us be subject to such cruelty as partial-birth abortion. It is also a victory for the Constitution, Mr. Speaker, which liberal activist judges have demeaned for far too long. It is encouraging to see the court's decision move towards our Founders' vision, a vision rooted in the commitment to not only protect, but to also respect human life. While this is a step forward, it is only one victory in the longer struggle to assure that the abolition of abortion altogether is achieved. Let us never forget our responsibility to hold the basic sanctity granted to us by our Maker.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 237 I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. I thank my colleague from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding the time. Mr. Speaker, today we are engaged in a very serious debate. It is a constitutional debate. Having served on the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, we actually passed this bill. I opposed it in committee on constitutional grounds. I offered amendments to actually fix what I feel are constitutional problems in this legislation, and there are constitutional ways to achieve what my colleague, the Delegate from the District of Columbia, seeks to do. There are constitutional ways to do that. Just as in the 19th century, the part of the District of Columbia that was part of Virginia was ceded back to the State of Virginia; likewise, the part of the District of Columbia that was Maryland could be ceded back for representation purposes to the State of Maryland. So there are constitutional ways to achieve what the Delegate seeks to achieve. But the Constitution clearly provides how Congressmen and Senators are allocated, and they are allocated to the States. The District of Columbia was provided for. The District of Columbia is a Federal city and it is not a State. Presently, D.C. has a Delegate who votes in committee. Actually, under the new Democrat rules, they also vote here on this House floor. I believe that is unconstitutional as well. But what this bill does is allow the District of Columbia to keep that Delegate vote and supplement it with another vote. Now, what I would submit is that the new Democrat majority is trying to pad their numbers on this House floor. That is why they gave Democrats who are nonvoting Members of this body the ability to vote on the House floor. That is also why, I submit, that this Democrat majority is submitting this bill for approval on this House floor, and keeping not only the Delegate vote, but adding another Democrat vote to this House floor. I don't oppose it for personal reasons. I oppose this legislation for constitutional reasons, and I would submit to the Delegate from the District of Columbia that we all must make a judgment on the constitutionality of legislation that we see before us on the House floor, and in that way, we must be constitutional scholars and study it. So, beyond that, let's think about what the Democrats are doing, Mr. Speaker. They are looking for a raw power grab. They not only want to add another seat in Democrat hands to this body, but they want to allow nonvoting delegates the ability to vote on this House floor. I think that is wrong and unconstitutional, and I think the American people need to understand what is happening here. It is a raw power grab by the new Democrat majority. Now, I think there are a lot of valid reasons for us to look at ways to allow the people in the District of Columbia to vote for Congress and for Senate, and I think the way to do that is to cede that part of Maryland that is now the District of Columbia back to the State of Maryland for voting purposes. And if they truly seek to do what they seek to do today, they could propose a constitutional amendment which has previously been rejected. I urge us to vote down this rule.

Mr. McHENRY. The gentleman used my name in his speech, so I would certainly like to yield for a question. So when the Founding Fathers created the District of Columbia, why then did they not grant the District of Columbia two Senators and a Member of this House?

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask those that are debating on the floor to address their comments to the Speaker, and that is according to House rules. I ask you to enforce those rules.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Well, if the gentleman seeks to perfect my amendment, that is a whole another deal. Through unanimous consent we could expand this to not just pension funds but all issues.

Mr. McHENRY. Well, I appreciate the chairman yielding, and I don't want to belabor this point. So the gentleman is saying he is willing to work for legislation that makes sure that all fiduciaries disclose--

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

Mr. McHENRY. Well, I certainly appreciate the Chairman's willingness, and although not pleased or happy about it but, you know, his willingness to work with me. And just in a final note, I was trying to actually get both of you, both my colleague from North Carolina and the gentleman from Massachusetts, in favor of this amendment and I actually accepted your arguments on broadening this. Once I accepted them, then you said it was on the fly. So it is circular logic that is very interesting.

Mr. McHENRY. All votes. And so the gentleman will be happy to work on legislation together on this.

Mr. McHENRY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McHENRY. I would be happy to vote for the legislation if my amendment passes because I think that furthers it, and if I have a commitment from the chairman to maintain it through conference.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate my colleague speaking to that, I would ask if you would be willing to write a letter to the SEC with me encouraging them, through the regulatory process, to do what you just outlined. I certainly appreciate what you are doing. I would like to have a vote on this because I think we should get on record saying this is the right move. But I would like to work with you all on this.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to offer this amendment under this semi-open rule. My amendment is simple and straightforward; and I know that is always a misnomer in this place. But it is simple and straightforward. It holds pension funds accountable to their member shareholders for their proxy votes. Really, the intent I believe the bill's sponsors had is for transparency, so shareholders can actually have their voices heard, and they are transparent in their corporate voting structure. This amendment requires a shareholder who is casting a nonbinding advisory vote to disclose to their beneficiaries whether such vote was cast to approve or disapprove the compensation. As we well know, pension funds hold stocks for others. I think it is important that the managers of those pension funds disclose to the actual owners of those retirement funds, those pension funds, how their managers cast their votes. And if the purpose of the Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act is to attain a greater level of accountability to shareholders, then my amendment simply must be adopted in order to fulfill that. Union leadership or pension fund leadership should have to inform their shareholders how they cast votes on their behalf. I think that is a matter of openness and transparency. As Members of Congress, this issue should hit close to home. Do you believe your constituents back home, the people you represent, should know how you vote? Well, that is exactly what we are offering here today, what I am offering in this amendment. It is a very commonsense thing about disclosure to those that it actually affects. Voting against my amendment sends a clear message to your constituents that you value secrecy over transparency. Why should only the mutual fund industry have to inform their shareholders how they cast their votes? So what we are doing is applying what is already done for mutual funds. Mutual funds are required to disclose to the owners of that mutual fund how the leadership, the management, casts proxy votes; and in this instance, it would be operational. They would have to disclose to their owners how they cast a vote. Well, let's apply that to the pension fund. Let's apply that to union pension funds, let's apply that to State-managed pension funds. I think it is a reasonable thing. What I find disturbing, though, is in some ways you are allowing activist shareholders to participate in this vote without actually having to disclose to those that own the pension funds, to those who actually own the stocks in this case, how they vote. I think it is a matter of disclosure, and it is what is necessary and fair. Political groups like big labor and huge pension funds will have the power to ransom business leaders with their votes. But what we are trying to do is hold them accountable for their actions and activities, and ensure that those people who own those stocks and have a financial interest in the pension fund have an idea of what their management is doing. Look, if we don't do this, it will create a situation where critical business decisions are being made by those least prepared to make them. In the name of fairness, transparency and accountability, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. Now I don't want to misstate what the chairman said when I offered this during committee and what some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said, but in many respects, they like the intent of this, and I know that the chairman is trying to keep this, his original bill, free and clear of any amendments. I understand that. I certainly understand that. But I think this is a proper addition to ensure that shareholders truly understand what those who are controlling their votes actually are doing. I think it is a necessary and proper thing to do. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to Mr. Campbell.

Mr. McHENRY. The gentleman certainly talks fast, and I will yield him 30 seconds.

Mr. McHENRY. In order to move this along because the reason I am allowing the gentleman from California to speak on my time is so I can have an opportunity to offer my amendment, and we are pushing up against a time limit.

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

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

Mr. McHENRY

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

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing complicated about this motion to recommit today. It simply says that anyone who has pleaded no contest or has been found guilty of a felony cannot receive Federal funding under this bill. I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to especially listen to the explanation of this motion to recommit, because some of them voted for a similar motion to recommit just weeks ago on this House floor. This motion to recommit is very simple. It says that Federal funding cannot under this provision of this bill go to anyone who has been found guilty of a felony or has pleaded no contest. If you vote against this motion to recommit, you are saying to your constituents back home that you don't care if these Federal funds go to convicted murderers, rapists, or kidnappers for that matter. Mr. Speaker, the new Speaker of the House pledged to have the most ethical Congress in our Nation's history. If you vote for this motion to recommit, you are sending a message that you are willing to reward good behavior by supporting ethical oversight of taxpayer funds. Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. The RECOVER Act is another massive Democrat spending spree. That is why I am opposed to it. The Congressional Budget Office states that the Democrats' bill will cost the Federal taxpayers $562 million over the next 6 years. It makes government bigger while creating new programs, positions and offices. It expands the role of government in people's lives. But I think we owe our taxpayers the common courtesy of saying these funds should not go to felons. And while I and many of my colleagues in the House are at odds with the Democrats' ideology of big government is good government, we all can agree that kidnappers should not receive Federal funds under this bill here today. And in this motion to recommit, we fix this error in the Democrats' drawing up of this bill; this omission that the Democrats have permitted to be in this bill here today before us. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this motion to recommit and reassure your constituents you actually care where their taxpayer dollars are going. And for those Democrats who voted for a similar motion to recommit on the Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act of 2007 just a few weeks ago, for those on the other side of the aisle, the 55 Democrats who voted for the motion to recommit on the Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act of 2007, they will recognize the language of this motion to recommit. It is very similar. It says, felons cannot receive these Federal funds. Felons, such as murderers, rapists, kidnappers, those are the type of people who would not be eligible for funds under this act, and I encourage those same 55 Democrats to cross the aisle and work in a bipartisan way to fix a Democrat mistake. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.