Patrick McHenry

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I would invite the Speaker of the House down to this floor to answer these important questions. I think this would be something the body would appreciate. I think that would be a very helpful proposition, if the Speaker of this Chamber comes to the floor to answer these questions.

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

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, our Speaker loves to fly and it shows. Today, we are debating a key provision in this important bill before us, the first open rule of the 110th Congress. We are glad that the majority could get around to it in the second month we are here. But today it is important that we discuss a revolution in biofuels, an idea that we can look at ways to relieve the burden of global warming. We know the Democratic majority is very focused on researching this idea of global warming, the idea that fossil fuels are warming the Earth and that the burning of fossil fuels are warming the Earth. It is ironic that the highest officer of this body seeks a large jet to fly across country that could seat 42 people, perhaps some of the Speaker's friends and allies and supporters, some here in this body, some, oh, perhaps downtown, large contributors, I am not sure, although that has been denied by the Speaker in the request for those people to fly along, this plane, that are contributors and campaign supporters. But let us talk today about a few important provisions. After the Speaker made a promise to the American people that they would be the most ethical Congress ever and after including the ban on the use of corporate jets in her lobbying reform bill, Speaker Pelosi asked for carte blanche access to one of the most extravagant and luxurious airliners in the military arsenal. It seats 42 people and has an office. It has a bedroom. Plenty of her cronies could fly along. But the Speaker decided she, her family, her friends, her staff, her Democratic friends from California deserved to fly in style. This is not a matter of security, Mr. Chairman. It is a matter of, well, whatever is convenient for the Speaker as an individual. But this is a bullet point to a larger value for this Democrat majority. It is about the Democrats' abuse of power since they have taken office just a short month ago, and it began when this Speaker denied minority rights to Republicans and continued with Tunagate which the Speaker, throwing a sop to her home constituents headquartered in her district, allowed American Samoa to be exempt from the minimum wage bill. Now they are seeking a matter of personal convenience and luxury. Well, I believe the Speaker deserves security, not luxury; security, not convenience. As the New York Post reported today, the conventional view is that emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, are a major factor in global warming, and the jet Pelosi is demanding produces more than 10,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per hour, far more than the commuter plane the previous Speaker used. If the Speaker is so concerned about global warming, maybe the Speaker should consider the same mode of transportation her colleagues took to the retreat this past weekend. They took a train. It is very important that this House debate this important provision that the Speaker's request from the American military, and I think it is important that we discuss in terms of our research that we are trying to put forward on new fuels, new forms of transportation, new modes of powering our economy, and in terms of the global warming debate that is a large issue the American people are concerned about. Let us talk about this luxury airliner and let us see what my Democrat colleagues say about the Speaker using it.

Mr. McHENRY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Further parliamentary inquiry. Operationally, may a committee Chair simply sign and attest to the Parliamentarian that there are no earmarks within said legislation?

Mr. McHENRY. Further parliamentary inquiry then.

Mr. McHENRY. We just had a vote on this floor about rule XXI, section 9. Just for clarification, for the body's purposes going forward with this new rule, in essence, this is the parliamentary inquiry, if I may state it. The summary of rule XXI, section 9 is that as long as the legislation states that there are no earmarks, there may be thousands of earmarks within that legislation, but only operationally must the legislation include text that states that there are no earmarks. Is that the ruling of the Chair? I would be happy to give the Speaker numerous examples of earmarks in this.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McHENRY. Wait a second, Mr. Speaker. I asked for a division vote.

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

Mr. McHENRY. Under the new House rules, there is an anti-earmark rule that governs the House, which the rule governing this bill does not waive that rule of the House; and sections of this legislation actually go forward and violate that anti-earmark legislation. Therefore, I rise to make a point of order against H.J. Res. 20, as title I, section 101(a)(2), violates rule XXI, clause 9, of the House rules, stating, ``There shall be no Member-directed earmarks,'' which this legislation does possess.

Mr. McHENRY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McHENRY. The gentleman will not yield for the question.

Mr. McHENRY. Yes. I wish to speak further.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is stating, simply because legislation states that there are no earmarks, that you can contain thousands of earmarks after that statement. It defies logic and defies reason. And, furthermore, your section explaining that there shall be no congressional earmarks is further on in the legislation. Therefore, it is not operational over the violation that I am stating in section 101. Therefore, under the legislation here, it is not operational. Therefore, it is a very crafty way, and I have got to compliment the gentleman for putting together a very crafty piece of legislation to try to slip this by. But under these House rules, this is a clear violation of the anti-earmarking provision that is very important to the rules of debate, even when the minority is not able to offer any amendments, even when the minority has no other means of removing congressional earmarks.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair. Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Obey

Mr. McHENRY. Division. I ask for a division vote, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McHENRY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. What is an earmark? Under House rules, what is an earmark?

Mr. McHENRY. I appreciate the Speaker operating in such an unbiased way. It is very kind of you.

Mr. McHENRY. Further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McHENRY. Rule XXI, section 9, states that a bill or joint resolution reported by a committee, unless the report includes a list of congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, limited tariff benefits in the bill or in the report and the name of any Member, Delegate or Resident Commissioner who submits 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 limited tariff benefits. Does this legislation state that and conform to rule XXI, section 9?

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, Speaker Pelosi put forth this promise on November 13, 2006, regarding her intentions to govern the House in a bipartisan, well-mannered fashion: ``We will restore civility to our debate. We will restore bipartisanship to the administration of the House, reestablish regular order, and ensure the rights of the minority are heard. The voice of every American has a right to be heard, and that is what the American people expect and deserve.'' Those are the words of Speaker Pelosi. But the actions of Speaker Pelosi and this Democrat majority are very different. And it is no surprise that this week, just like last week and the previous week, the Democrats are railroading legislation through this House. This time it is a $460 billion spending bill that won't see a committee hearing, won't see a committee markup, that won't see the light of day, Madam Speaker, and will cost every taxpayer in America $3,500 apiece. The Democrats believe that regular order is still out of order. They also believe that campaign promises are not worth keeping. I believe the American people deserve better, and I think we should vote down this continuing resolution that spends $460 billion of our own taxpayer money.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. I thank my colleague. Madam Speaker, today the House Democrats continue their abuse of power. They are pushing forward a measure to allow the territory Delegates, nonvoting Members of Congress traditionally, actually, not Members of Congress on a technical basis because they don't represent States, their constituents don't pay Federal income taxes, they are going to allow these individuals to cast votes and even preside when the Chamber meets. So let's have a quick Q&A on this; let's talk questions and answers here. Why would the Democrats do this? Because 80 percent of the territory Delegates are, hold for an answer here, they are Democrats. They want to cushion their numbers. Why is this an abuse of power? Well, there is this little thing we Americans call the Constitution. It says, ``The House shall be comprised of Members chosen by the people of the several States,'' not territories, not mayors of cities allowed to vote on this House floor, not any individual, but ``comprised of Members chosen by the people of the several States,'' not non-State territories. But plainly the Democrats are cushioning their numbers and abusing their power. The Democrats' power grab is a continuation of the abusive policies and actions they have taken since day one in this institution. Since day one they have shut down all debate. Since day one they have shut down the committee process. They held open a vote to change the outcome because they were losing on the vote. They ran through the Speaker's special interest project affectionately known as TunaGate, and all without fulfilling their pledge of working a 5-day week. In fact, in 3 weeks we only worked 40 hours in this House. That is a new Democrat majority, that is a continuation of the abuse of power. What we have to do today is vote down this legislation that is, first, unconstitutional, and second, an abuse of power by the Democrat majority. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this measure.

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, I demand the question of consideration.

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