Patrick McHenry

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California. Mr. Speaker, we have an interesting bill before us here today. It appropriates $100 million for shrimp, it appropriates $100 million for citrus growers, it appropriates $74 million for a particular type of peanut storage and $25 million for spinach. It even appropriates $50 million for a Capitol Hill power plant. And they do this in the name of funding the troops. I think this is, again, Washington hypocrisy at work. The most egregious part of this bill, I find, is that there are billions of dollars in this bill for livestock, which the American people, Mr. Speaker, should know is literally pork for pork. And it is all about getting votes together to fund the troops in harm's way, but instead of funding the troops in harm's way, they are funding pork-barrel projects here in the United States. I believe, Mr. Speaker, this is wrong for our troops in battle, but it is a great gift for Washington Democrat politicians who are in power here in the House today. This is a failure to understand what ``emergency'' means, what ``war'' means and the fight we have going in Iraq.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, how is it in order to continue to consider H.R. 1591 when rule XXI, clause 9 of the House clearly states that, and I quote, ``it shall not be in order to consider a bill or joint resolution reported by a committee unless the report includes a list of congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits and limited tariff benefits in the bill or in the report, and the name of any Member, Delegate or Resident Commissioner who submitted a request to the committee for each respective item included in such list, or a statement that the proposition contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits or tariff benefits''?

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, is there a list of congressional earmarks with this?

Mr. McHENRY. Point of order. House rule XXI, clause 9 states, and if I shall repeat, or if the gentleman would, if the Speaker would look at House rule XXI, clause 9, is there not cause for action?

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. $120 million for shrimp, how does that help our men and women in harm's way? $100 million for citrus growers, what does that do to help our fighting men and women? $74 million for peanut storage. That may be grand for some Washington politicians and peanut growers, but how does that help and protect our American way of life and our men and women in harm's way? $25 million for spinach. Even kids don't like spinach, but Washington politicians do, so they can take that pork- barrel project home. But here is the kicker in this supplemental appropriations bill: Billions for livestock. That is the kicker because livestock is literally pork for pork. It is the most hypocritical bill we have seen in decades here on the House floor. It is wrong for our troops in battle, but it is a great gift for Washington Democrat politicians. All the while we debate here on the floor, the Speaker of the House goes to raise money with fat cats in New York City. That is wrong for America, and the American people should know it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Today, I rise with a heavy heart. Recently a good friend of mine, Sheriff Gary Clark of Caldwell County, passed from this Earth. Caldwell County lost a true leader and public servant, and many of us lost a dear and beloved friend when Sheriff Clark went home to be with his Lord after a brief, but valiant, fight against cancer. Those of us who knew and loved Gary grieve the loss of his friendship. We are also grateful to know that he is no longer in pain and no longer suffering. Sheriff Clark cared deeply for the needs of families and relentlessly pursued drug dealers and criminals in Caldwell County. He made a career of that. It was Sheriff Clark's passion for fighting against the scourge of methamphetamine and drugs that brought the White House drug czar to Caldwell County. His progressive innovative vision for law enforcement will create enormous benefits for years to come, not just in Caldwell County, but across western North Carolina. Caldwell County lost a hero and heaven gained a treasure. My prayers are with his family and with his friends in this time of loss. He lived a determined life, a proud life. And the legacy he leaves continues on because the good a man does lives long after he is gone. Mr. Speaker, we mourn the loss of Gary Clark, a great public servant and leader in North Carolina, a true law enforcement leader and a hero to those of us from western North Carolina.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, under the operational rule of the House today, it says, the rule specifies that notwithstanding the previous question. The previous question has already been ordered on this legislation. Therefore, the pertinent rule the Speaker is specifying is not operational under this rule; is that not correct?

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, additional parliamentary inquiry. Why am I incorrect?

Mr. McHENRY. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. This an Iraq war and an Afghanistan war supplemental bill to fund the troops in harm's way. Now let me get this straight. The majority has put together a bill that will help defeat Islamic extremists in Iraq and Afghanistan by funding $283 million worth of pork barrel spending for a milk program, a domestic milk program in the United States. They believe the key to victory in Iraq is setting aside $74 million for peanut storehouses in Iraq. No, I'm sorry, not Iraq, Georgia. They believe they can defeat Islamic extremists by $25 million worth of spinach subsidies for United States farmers. Beyond that, they think that we can fund the war by spending $25 million for United States livestock. Now, Mr. Speaker, the American people know what this is about. This $25 million of livestock is literally pork for pork. It is the most ironic thing in this bill. I would say that the failure of the majority is they don't understand ``emergency'' and ``war spending.''

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I object. I ask the Clerk to read the resolution.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, House Democrats and the Speaker of the House arranged for a conference room in the Capitol to be used by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, an Islamic advocacy group which refuses to disavow terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. CAIR officials have been charged with, and some convicted of, offenses related to the support of terrorism, including a CAIR fundraiser, Rabih Haddad, as well as a founding board member and a former CAIR civil rights coordinator. Most notably, the CAIR fund-raiser Haddad was deported to Lebanon in 2003 after being arrested in a raid on an Islamic charity that Federal officials said, ``provided assistance to Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network and other known terrorist groups.'' Apparently, the Democrats live in some parallel universe where it is okay to set up a meeting in the Capitol for a group with known terrorist ties. The American people must ask about this colossal failure of judgment. With friends like these, imagine our enemies.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, yesterday afternoon in western North Carolina, a routine traffic stop netted 11 illegal immigrants. How do we know they were illegal? Because when they were asked for identification, they presented their Mexican voting card; and when asked by the sheriff's deputy whether or not they were illegal, they said, ``yes.'' The sheriff's deputy called the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency in Charlotte, North Carolina, to which the reply was, ``We are sorry; we can't pick them up.'' So the sheriff's deputy let them go on their way. According to the illegal immigrants, 11 in the car, they were going to New York City to get a job. This shows in real form the need for real border security and real border enforcement. It also shows the need for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency to get with the times, to get rid of this bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., that is hamstringing the agents in the field, to increase their budget. And, Madam Speaker, I call on the House of Representatives to act to make sure that we have more border enforcement agents and Customs agents in this Nation to make sure a travesty like this never happens again.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. In the current form, I am.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

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

Mr. McHENRY. Reclaiming my time, I would like to in particular talk to my 13 colleagues on the Democrat side, Mr. Speaker, and they realize that a motion to recommit is not a procedural motion; it is actually policy. And when those 13 Democrats voted for the recommit on the card check legislation, they said clearly they understand the underlying policy in a motion to recommit. We are talking policy here today, Mr. Speaker. In this House, if the Democrat majority was truly elected and is committed to severing the link between legislation and lobbyists, they will vote for this motion to recommit. This motion to recommit is a gut check for Congress, especially the new Members of this body who have not been here before this last election cycle. It is gut check time for them, for them to explain to their constituents that they like the idea of limiting lobbyists' influence, and whether or not they are willing to fulfill that vote here on the House floor today. This truly is an insurance policy that guarantees this bill won't simply be a kickback to K Street by this new majority. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit would reinforce existing Federal law by making it clear that none of the funds authorized in this act would be used for lobbying or to retain lobbyists in order to attempt to influence Federal, State or local governments or officials within said governments. This motion to recommit is an insurance policy that guarantees this bill won't be a kickback to K Street. This majority was elected on ending the K Street Project. In House Resolution 6, section 202, they changed rule XXIII to ensure that the K Street Project is ended. If those words on opening day are to become a reality, I encourage the majority to support this motion to recommit that ensures that a K Street-type project would not be further propagated in this legislation. There is a simple principle here; put plainly, I am asking the Members of the House to follow their own rules set up on opening day. From time to time, it is important to challenge Congress's words by calling them to action. And if this new majority is to live by the words they set up by opening day, then they should support this motion to recommit. I would like to yield to my colleague from Georgia, Congressman Price.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, national security should be the highest priority of the U.S. Congress. I talk to my constituents in western North Carolina a lot about the situation in Iraq. We understand the challenges. I think the American people understand the challenges of this war. But we also know the consequences of quitting are too dire and too dangerous. We know that leaving an unstable Iraq endangers Israel, other Western democracies, as well as our own national interests and our constituents here in the United States. The President put forward a plan that he and his generals believe will lead to a safe, secure, and stabilized Iraq. Let me repeat that: he put forward a plan, a plan of action and a plan for success. The Democrats, in response, put forward a nonbinding resolution. Now, this is Washington-speak for legislation that does not have the force of law. Now, the disturbing thing is not that it is a nonbinding resolution; but the message that this legislative tool sends, it sends not only to our American people, not only to the troops in the field, but our allies around the world, and it also emboldens our enemies. This resolution says that this time the Democrats are not prepared to offer a new direction, a plan or a solution for the challenges we face in Iraq. I offer this bit of wisdom to the Democrats: you must be the change you want to see. If the Democrats are serious about developing a new plan, then the right thing to do is submit it. That is a true test of leadership, to submit solutions, solutions; and in order to effect change, you have to put forward ideas for that change. I ask the American people to imagine what it would be like if their Representatives used this time to hammer out ideas and positive solutions. That is the American ingenuity that we should focus on as a Congress. This is the American way. The Democrats say this debate is to send a message to the President. Well, I will tell you, I think he has heard you loud and clear. But let me give you a message from the battlefield from a friend of mine in Iraq. He says the argument over what got us to this point is a diversion. The problem set is the present. The terrorists and would-be terrorists that have flowed into Iraq will not stand at the border and wave us good-bye and good luck. They understand our politics, our systems, and our weaknesses. They believe that it is a war of endurance, and that we have shown historically and repeatedly that we don't have the national will for prolonged engagement. Unfortunately the political grandstanding has endorsed their belief and ensures the terrorists' continued bloody engagement until November 2008. The bottom line, we need reinforcements to set the conditions for success, and we need political support for the endurance to continue this fight. That is from my friend in the battlefield. And I say to my colleagues, the American people need better than this. We need a plan of action for results and success in Iraq. And I say, ``Madam Speaker, you have made your points. Now where is your plan?''

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. After months of campaigning against ``Stay the Course,'' the Democrats are proposing just that, a stay-the-course resolution here on the House floor. Their Iraq resolution does not have the force of law, and in fact, this nonbinding resolution is simply a mealy-mouth attempt to appease their Democrat leftist base. Democrats have held 52 hearings on Iraq since taking control of Congress. So let me get this right. The Democrats have held 52 hearings so they can show one resolution on the House floor that has no bearing on the President's policy, does not have the force of law, does not advocate the withdrawal of troops, and does nothing except have a tantrum here on the House floor. So please explain this new direction, Madam Speaker. This is not a new direction, it is political posturing of the worst kind. Madam Speaker, where is your plan? Where is your plan for victory in Iraq? Where is your plan for success and national security?

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. I thank the Congressman from New York for yielding, but don't you think a jet that is a 757 and can seat 42 people, flying one person is contributing to global warming?

Mr. McHENRY. Thank you so much, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. The question is, if we want to combat global warming, why should we, as an institution, allow one person to use a 737 for a $300,000 transcontinental flight? That is the question I pose to the Science Committee, Mr. Chairman.

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