Patrick McHenry

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address Iran's growing threat to our allies in the Middle East and to America's national interests. The Iranian president recently said Israel should be ``wiped off the map.'' This malicious language must not be ignored, especially considering Iran's long-standing support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah, and its unlawful nuclear ambitions. Terrorist groups supported by Iran are operating today in Gaza, the West Bank, and Iraq, undermining the region's quest for democracy and threatening the lives of innocent civilians. Iran's radical government seeks to develop nuclear weapons. If Iran gains nuclear capabilities, millions of innocent Israelis, as well as our allies in the Middle East, will be jeopardized and our hopes for Middle East peace will be lost. Mr. Speaker, we must not abandon Israel, leaving them to stand alone against this imminent threat. The United States must lead, with our allies, in eliminating Iran's support for terrorist groups and requiring Iran to fulfill nuclear nonproliferation agreements.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, the Mount Zion Missionary Baptist Church in Kings Mountain, North Carolina, will be celebrating its 125th anniversary on November 6th of this year. I wish to congratulate its Pastor, Reverend C.A. Feemster, its dedicated Deacons, and its faithful congregation on this joyous occasion. Built in 1880, the first Mount Zion Baptist Church building was located on Piedmont Avenue and was led by their very first pastor Reverend R.L. Veal. The church was relocated to King Street in 1916, where it stook proudly until November 3, 1974, when then Pastor Norris moved his congregation into their current building. Since that day, the Mount Zion Missionary Baptist Church has been blessed with such wonderful rewards as its first full time, and current, pastor Reverend C.A. Feemster, an informative church newsletter, and an active missionary program. Mr. Speaker, in recognition of the 125 years of faithful service to God, the community, and its congregation members, I wish to congratulate the Mount Zion Missionary Baptist Church on this truly blessed occasion, and I look forward to their continued service to the community.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support our House Republican leadership and their pledge to control government spending through deficit reduction. We must restore fiscal discipline to the Federal Government, ensuring our children and grandchildren live in a society based on opportunity, not dependence on a bloated Federal bureaucracy swimming in greater debt. It comes as no surprise to hear Democrats cry: raise taxes; spend more. I feel like Bill Murray in ``Ground Hog Day,'' that great movie. Regardless of the day, regardless of the problem, Democrats have no new ideas, just crying: more taxes; more spending. Higher taxes are a problem, not a solution, and always lead to larger, more intrusive governments, and larger budgets. As elected officials, Madam Speaker, we must make prudent decisions to reduce the deficit. I urge my colleagues to support deficit reduction and work constructively to control government spending.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, the Republic of China (Taiwan) will celebrate its National Day October 10, 2005. I wish to congratulate the President and the People of Taiwan on this festive occasion. Taiwan is a small island with few natural resources, yet it has prospered because of the opportunity provided by freedom and democracy. With one of the world's largest foreign exchange reserves, its 23 million people enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world. Politically, Taiwan is a full democracy, with free elections and a free press. Taiwan fully embraces the values of economic liberalization, democracy, rule of law, and respect for human rights. Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian recently stopped in Miami, Florida en route to Central America. Through a teleconference, President Chen was honored by the Congressional Human Rights Caucus in recognition of Chen's life-long campaign to promote and safeguard human rights not only in Taiwan but also in other parts of the world. In his teleconference, President Chen told Congressional members that Taiwan's democratic development is irreversible, that China could and should learn from Taiwan's history of democratization and that he would like to have direct talks with China's President without any prior conditions. I hope President Hu will take up President Chen's offer and move toward permanent peace in the Taiwan Strait based on personal freedom and individual liberty. Mr. Speaker, President Chen is a man of peace. For the good of his country and his people, he has been pleading with Chinese leaders to resume talks over cross-strait disputes. In the meantime, President Chen has been asking the international community, to set up a mechanism to ensure that there would not be unnecessary military conflicts over the Taiwan Strait. I believe that the United States should, at the very least, continue to impress upon the Chinese that we will uphold our commitment and defend Taiwan if it is attacked without provocation. On Taiwan's National Day, I join my colleagues in congratulating the Taiwanese people. We deeply appreciate our common bonds and friendship with them and look forward to strengthening our relationship in the future.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, tonight I want to commend our Republican leadership in the House for taking a bold move to actually look at ways to get our financial house in order. It is time that we move forward, that we move forward as a government and look at these programs that we have been spending more and more and more on every year. As a result of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita, we have had to spend a lot of money in the gulf coast region; but we have to do as a government what families do across America, and that is looking at the family budget and saying where should I spend and not spend. That is what we are going to do as Republicans in the House. I am so proud we have Republican leadership that is willing to take on this courageous fight to cut spending and keep returning every taxpayer's dollar back to them as much as possible. Mr. Speaker, I am happy about the leadership we have in the House, and I am glad we have bold leadership.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, tonight I think we need to speak about the partisanship that is not just encountered here in Washington, D.C., not from the people just here in this body, but the partisanship we have seen from a prosecutor down in Austin, Texas. It is part of a coordinated strategy that those on the other side in this House have. It is a coordinated strategy of character assassination. A couple of months ago I spoke before the House, and I outlined a few simple things. I said the Democrat leadership has led their party on a campaign against Republicans, against the Republican majority of this House, through a conspiracy of character assassination and misleading attacks. The U.S. News and World Report wrote back in April: ``Democratic strategists, confident that voters are increasingly fed up with the Republican establishment, are planning an all-out attack on what they call `the abuse of power' by the Republicans.'' I said at the time the liberal magazine, the New Republic, published an article entitled: ``How Democrats can Overthrow the House,'' this House, Madam Speaker, and I quote from that article: ``Democrats should consider fighting back by extra-parliamentary means, going beyond the standard parameters of legislative debate, and attacking Republicans not on issues, but on ethics, character. In other words, it may be time for Democrats to burn down the House in order to save it.'' Those are not my words, Madam Speaker. Those are the words of the liberal New Republic outlining the Democrat strategy to take the majority in this House. ``Burn down the House in order to save it,'' they say. Well, at the time, a lot of people thought that what I was outlining was something that was far off; that maybe it would not happen; that maybe we would have some high-minded individuals on the other side that would say enough is enough. This is not the right strategy for America; it is not the right type of political discourse we should have in this country. But, no, no, no, we saw this just a week ago with a partisan prosecutor in Austin Texas named Ronnie Earle. After impaneling seven grand juries, he was able to come up with one charge, conspiracy; conspiracy against our majority leader, our Republican leader in the House. Well, as it turns out, those charges, not only were they false but they also were based on a statute that was not in effect at the time that they claim these events happened. What we saw was a partisan prosecutor that was so focused on scoring political points that it did not matter what the law said; and so on Monday, he came up with a new charge based on new evidence, he claims. After going through seven grand juries, Madam Speaker, after going through 2 years of investigating our Republican leader, intent on taking him down, they said in 2 days they came up with new information and came up with a new charge. It is an amazing thing that has happened. The American people have heard it before by watching the TV. They know the details of this. But I want to outline what a former U.S. Attorney from the Southern District of New York, Andrew McCarthy, outlined. He said, ``Ronnie Earle, district attorney of Travis County, Texas, has no business wielding the enormous power of prosecution. A matter of national gravity is being pursued with shocking ethical bankruptcy by the district attorney, by Ronnie Earle. If Congressman DeLay did something illegal, he, like anyone else, should be called into account. But he, like anyone else, is entitled to procedural fairness, including a prosecutor who not only is, but also appears to be, fair and impartial.'' Those are the words of a former U.S. Attorney. Madam Speaker, I will enter this into the Record. Madam Speaker, also McCarthy adds, ``Ronnie Earle is a disgrace to his profession and has done grievous disservice to thousands of Federal, State and local government attorneys, prosecutors of all persuasions whose common bond is a good-faith commitment to the rules, but who will now bear the burden of suspicions fostered by Earle's excesses.'' Madam Speaker, you may say that is just a columnist talking. But what does the liberal Austin American Statesman say? It says: ``Ronnie Earle has created a circus-like investigation alleging Republican campaign funding illegalities, but he has not proven it.'' Madam Speaker, we see the Democrats' agenda is to burn down this House by attacking our leaders on baseless accusations, and they will stop at nothing until they bring down our majority. Madam Speaker, I include for the Record the article by Andrew C. McCarthy: Ronnie Earle Should Not Be a Prosecutor (By Andrew C. McCarthy) If there is one thing liberals and conservatives ought to be able to agree on, it is this: Ronnie Earle, district attorney of Travis County, Texas, has no business wielding the enormous powers of prosecution. I don't know Congressman Tom DeLay, the House Majority Leader. I certainly don't know if he's done anything illegal, let alone something so illegal as to warrant indictment. It doesn't look like it--and at least one grand jury has already refused to indict him (a fact Earle appears to have tried to conceal from the public as he scrambled to find a new grand jury that would). Yet experience shows it is foolhardy for those who don't know all the facts to hazard a judgment about such things. One thing is sure, though, and it ought to make anyone who cares about basic fairness angry. The investigation of DeLay, a matter of national gravity is being pursued with shocking ethical bankruptcy by the district attorney--by Ronnie Earle. For nearly 20 years, I had the privilege of being a prosecutor in the best law-enforcement office in the United States, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. Being a prosecutor is the world's greatest job because it is honest work for the highest cause--service to one's own community. And it is work that has precious little to do with politics. In their private lives, many of my fellow government lawyers were political independents, either by design (i.e., out of a conscious rectitude holding that law enforcement should be above politics) or because they were just apolitical. Most, as one would expect in New York, were Democrats. A large percentage, as, again, one would expect from a group of mostly young people educated in top schools, was proudly liberal. Over coffee or lunch, or dinner, they and we few, hardy conservatives would have spirited debates over all manner of issues. In the four corners of a case, however, none of that mattered a wit. Within those four corners, there were rules and responsibilities. There was recognition that prosecutors have breathtaking power over the lives of those they investigate. Power inarguably vital to the rule of law. But power which, if used recklessly or maliciously, can leave lives in tatters. The lives not only of the innocent and the guilty, but of the justice system itself. This was especially so in investigations of political corruption. We prosecuted Republicans and Democrats, in about equal measure. The cases were hard, but checking your politics at the door was never hard, for at least two reasons. First, there tends to be nothing ideological about the crimes committed by politicians. They are a stew of pettiness, greed and above-it-all arrogance over which neither party has a monopoly, and the offensiveness of which cuts across philosophical divides. Second, some wrongs are simply not intended to be crimes. Among them are political wrongs: sleazy abuses of power, cronyism, most acts of nepotism, half-truths or outright lies in campaigns, etc. In a free society, these get sorted out in our bumptious political system. Usually, absent shades of financial fraud, bribery, and extortion, prosecutors should stay their hands. There are too many real crimes to waste resources on that sort of thing. More significantly, the risk of criminalizing politics would only discourage honest citizens from participating in matters of public concern. The code prosecutors live by is not a liberal or conservative one. It is a code of ethics--of nonpartisan, non-ideological honor. Of course many prosecutors are ambitious. Of course prosecutors want to win. But even the ambitious ones who care a bit too much about winning quickly learn that success is intimately tied to doing things the right way. And not least because that is the norm their colleagues follow--as well as the standard by which the defense bar and the judiciary (populated by no small percentage of former prosecutors) scrutinize them. It is, moreover, the standard the public demands they meet. People want to see the guilty convicted, but they also want to feel good about the way it is done. The prosecutor is the public's lawyer, and his duty is not merely to get the job done but to get it done right. The second part is just as crucial as the first. They are equal parts of doing justice. No one expects perfection, which is unattainable in any human endeavor. But if the outcomes of the justice system are to be regarded as legitimate, as befitting a decent society, people have to be confident that if they stood accused, the prosecutor would enforce their rights and make sure they got a fair fight. So there are certain things that are just flat-out verboten. Most basic are these: to resist public comment about non-public, investigative information; to abjure any personal stake in the litigation that could suggest decisions regarding the public interest are being made to suit the prosecutor's private interests; and--if all that is not Sesame Street simple enough--to remain above any financial or political entanglement that could render one's objectivity and judgment suspect. In the profession, these things come under the hoary rubric of ``avoiding the appearance of impropriety.'' In layman's terms, they are about having an I.Q. high enough that you know to put your socks on before your shoes. This is bedrock stuff. It is central to the presumption of innocence, due process, and equal protection under the law that prosecutors owe even the most despicable offenders. It is foundational to the integrity of the system on which rest our security, our economy, and our freedoms. And Ronnie Earle has flouted it in embarrassing, mind- numbingly brazen ways. As Byron York has been reporting on NRO (see here, here, and here), Earle has partnered up with producers making a movie, called The Big Buy, about his Ahab's pursuit of DeLay. A movie about a real investigation? Giving filmmakers access to investigative information while a secret grand-jury probe is underway? Allowing them to know who is being investigated and why? To view proposed indictments even before the grand jury does? Allowing them into the sanctuary of the grand jury room, and actually to film grand jurors themselves? Creating a powerful incentive--in conflict with the duty of evenhandedness--to bring charges on flimsy evidence? For a prosecutor, these aren't just major lapses. They are firing offenses. For prosecutors such as those I worked with over the years, from across the political spectrum, I daresay they'd be thought firing-squad offenses. Attending partisan fundraisers in order to speak openly about an ongoing grand jury investigation against an uncharged public official. As a moneymaking vehicle. Penning a nakedly partisan op-ed (in the New York Times on November 23, 2004) about the political fallout of his grand- jury investigation of Delay, then uncharged. Settling cases by squeezing businesses to make hefty financial contributions to pet personal causes in exchange for exercising the public's power to dismiss charges. Secretly shopping for new grand juries when, despite the incalculable advantages the prosecution has in that forum, the earlier grand jurors have found the case too weak to indict. Ignoring the commission by members of his own party of the same conduct that he seeks to brand felonious when engaged in by members of the other party. Such actions and tactics are reprehensible. They constitute inexcusably dishonorable behavior on the part of a public servant, regardless of whether the persons and entities investigated were in the wrong. They warrant universal censure. If Congressman DeLay did something illegal, he, like anyone else, should be called to account. But he, like anyone else, is entitled to procedural fairness, including a prosecutor who not only is, but also appears to be, fair and impartial. Ronnie Earle is not that prosecutor. He has disgraced his profession, and done grievous disservice to thousands of Federal, State, and local government attorneys. Prosecutors of all persuasions whose common bond is a good faith commitment to the rules--but who will now bear the burden of suspicions fostered by Earle's excesses. The burden, but not the cost. That will be borne by the public.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has shown bold leadership. Prime Minister Sharon took a significant risk to both his political future and personal safety to organize the Israeli pullout of Gaza. Thousands of Israelis were moved from their homes in Gaza to give peace a chance. With no guarantees from the Palestinians, the Israelis moved all that was important to them, moved their home, their goods, including the remains of their families and friends. Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority must show leadership and root out radical terrorist groups like Hamas. Israel took the first step in the hope of developing a lasting peace with the Palestinians. Abbas must confront violence against Israelis, eliminate the terrorist infrastructure, disarm and arrest those involved in terrorist plots and institute democratic reforms in all Palestinian-controlled areas. Mr. Speaker, Prime Minister Sharon showed bold leadership and courage. Now the Palestinians must act.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall Nos. 385 and 386 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Hooley

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, since President Bush took office in January 2001, America has seen a recession that began before the administration was really up and running, the worst terror attacks in the history of the world, scandals that rocked the Fortune 500 companies and our financial markets, a war in Afghanistan, a war in Iraq, and the highest energy prices in recent memory. We have faced enormous economic challenges that should have devastated the United States; but, instead, we have seen 4 years of economic growth, the best housing market in American history, all more evidence that tax relief benefits the economy. And getting the government off the backs of the taxpayers actually helps our economic engine. The 2001 tax cuts and the 2003 cuts on capital gains and dividends have been the linchpin to our economic rebound. Federal tax receipts are up this year. State tax receipts are up this year. The economy is turning around, and we have reduced the deficit by $100 billion this year alone, all the work of tax relief and tight budgets, what we as Republicans believe, what we are fighting for, and they work.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly support H.R. 458, the Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act, and specifically to highlight Title II of this very important legislation. Title II is designed to protect our brave soldiers as they fight to defend our freedoms, by regulating all lenders that qualify as military lenders--including payday advance businesses, small loan companies, finance companies, or other types of creditors. I would like to thank Congressman Westmoreland, the sponsor of this bill, as well as Chairman Oxley and Chairman Bachus. We would not be able to eliminate unscrupulous lenders from offering these products without the leadership demonstrated by the House Financial Services Committee. As a representative from North Carolina, I am particularly concerned with protecting our military. North Carolina is the most military friendly State in the Nation. With bases such as Fort Bragg and Camp Lejeune, I am familiar with financial lenders that prey on our servicemen and women. These companies hurt our military by charging unjustifiable rates, using products with hidden fees, and refinancing loans to the detriment of military consumers. It often takes honest soldiers years to escape the financial hardships caused by these dishonest practices. Our soldiers, like all American citizens, have a variety of financial service needs and value having a wide array of choices and alternatives to fulfill those needs. I applaud many of these alternative financial services outlets, including payday lenders, for striving to protect military personnel by conforming to the best practices recommended by the Community Financial Services Association, a panel of distinguished retired military members. Rather than unnecessarily prohibiting lenders and limiting the options for our military, H.R. 458 cracks down on abusive practices while preserving access to credit. Title II mandates these necessary protections, such as disclosures and marketing and collection reforms, on a broad range of military lenders. Under Title II, all military lenders will be required to provide detailed disclosures on a variety of subjects. These mandatory disclosures include: Not requiring service members to complete agreements merely because they signed an application or received a notice; Advising military personnel, who are seeking short-term credit due to a family or other emergency, to consider applying through one of the Armed Forces' Relief Societies, the United Service Organizations or another base or military organization; Acknowledging that any credit extension is not sponsored or endorsed by the Armed Forces, the Department of Defense, or any Federal entity; That the lender may not contact the borrower's commanding officer or chain of command to collect the debt; and That the service member and his/her dependents may have additional protections which cannot be waived, even if suggested or required by the lender. Again, my sincere thanks to the financial institutions that pushed for these reforms and to Congressman Westmoreland for his leadership. I look forward to working with my colleagues and our partners in the private sector to eliminate abusive practices and protect the financial health and access of our military.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize a great American from my district who is here this morning. Dr. Ruffin Snow, who is the pastor of Tri-City Baptist Church in Conover, North Carolina, gave the morning prayer here on the House floor this morning. Dr. Snow is one of the strongest men of faith that I have come to know in western North Carolina. For 7 years he has headed the Tri-City Baptist Church and has worked in ministry since 1963. He has both a Master's of Divinity and a Doctorate of Ministry. I have been to Pastor Snow's church. It truly embodies what he strives for his flock to be, and that is an Acts 1:8 church, telling people about Jesus in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the uttermost parts of the world, essentially taking the message of Jesus to the world, not just to the community, but to the whole world. As part of that tradition, he is here today sharing his words with the Speaker and the Members of Congress. Over 3,000 people come to worship every week at Tri-City Baptist, and the Holy Spirit is doing wonders there in that body of believers. I thank Pastor Snow and his family for being here today to be a part of this and for serving as our guest chaplain.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the gentleman's leadership in the State of Colorado and here in Washington, D.C. on this issue, about fighting to protect our law enforcement officers. There is a growing problem in this Nation where criminals will commit violent crimes, including murdering law enforcement officers, and flee to nations that refuse to extradite to the United States those criminals because of our tough sentencing laws, including mandatory minimum sentences. This amendment is simple: it will not allow taxpayer funds to go to nations that refuse to stand with us against the vile act of murdering law enforcement officers. Law enforcement officers across this country are bravely fighting crime, responding to emergencies, and protecting our rights. We have an opportunity to stand up for them with this amendment here today. When countries do not extradite their criminals, it actually creates a twisted incentive to be even more violent in their crimes. The more violent the crime, the tougher the sentence here in the United States; and the tougher the sentence, the less likely they are to be subject to extradition. The Beauprez-McHenry amendment will apply the pressure that usually gets the best results, and that is withholding tax dollars to those countries. I, for one, think it is prudent and just that we require nations to extradite cop killers before receiving aid through this appropriations process. Again, I applaud my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez). I certainly appreciate his representation of his constituents in Colorado, I thank him for his leadership and friendship, and I urge my colleagues to vote for the Beauprez-McHenry amendment when the time comes and protect our law enforcement officers across this Nation.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, based on the kindness of the majority leader allowing for new Members to be involved in this process, the majority party's governance of the House, I would seek to outline for fellow Members what the majority intends to do next week in terms of the agenda. Normally this is what the minority whip would ask at this point; however, I certainly see him leaving the floor. Mr. Speaker, the House will convene on Monday at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour debates. At 2 p.m. we will move to legislative business. We will consider several measures under suspension of the rules. A final list of those bills will be sent to Members' offices by the end of the day. Any votes called on these measures will be rolled until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday and the balance of the week, the House will consider several measures under the rule: The Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006; the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006; and H.R. 2864, the Water Resources Development Act of 2005. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank the majority leader for his hard work on keeping our agenda on track here in the House. I certainly thank him for his leadership, and I want to thank the majority leader also for providing more opportunities for new Members of the House. Unfortunately, it seems that the minority whip did not see that as a good opportunity to broaden the base and allow others to have a role in this House.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. I shall, Mr. Speaker. I am Congressman Patrick McHenry, a new Member from North Carolina.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning hour debates.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, Social Security is going broke and we need to fix it. The question is how. When the baby boomers begin to retire in 2008 and 2009, the only way to save Social Security is then to cut benefits by 30 percent or raise taxes by $600 billion a year. The Democrats believe in tax hikes. In fact, the only Democrat proposal to reform Social Security is to raise your taxes. But the best way to reform Social Security is with personal accounts, to get a better return on our investments. And there are a lot of proposals out there. In fact, Ways and Means Committee leaders actually came up with a good plan yesterday that has personal accounts, that everyone paying into the system would get a personal retirement account by using the Social Security surplus that we have for the next few years. I like this idea because it means politicians cannot spend the money and it is a true lockbox for every citizen that pays taxes. We need to have personal retirement accounts, Mr. Speaker, not tax hikes. We need to support Social Security reform.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I may be new to Washington politics. I may be new to this partisan game played here. But it appears to me there is more politics masquerading in legalese and ethics today. The coordinated attack strategy by the Democrat leadership against our Republican leadership has been shown for what it is, once again. It is a political side show with partisanship as its base that is attempting to assassinate our good leaders' on the Republican side rights. Yesterday's National Review reports that Ronnie Earle, the Texas prosecutor who is the designated hit man for the Democrats, has been indicting several companies over alleged campaign finance violations. But he dropped those charges when they would pay and make contributions to his pet projects, his pet causes. An end for those charges, those contributions, have been made. Dollars for dismissal, Mr. Speaker. Pay off the left-wing prosecutor with big donations to pretty pink projects, and they might get off the hook. It turns out that the prosecutor has also been on a witch hunt against our leadership, and he has, in fact, appeared at Democrat fundraisers to brag about. It is more Democrat side show politics, and that is what this is all about.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman for the eloquence and the simplicity of his statement, and as a new Member here, I certainly respect my senior Member's opinions on this matter, and I do concur. With that, I would certainly appreciate the kindness of the House in voting for this amendment that would somewhat restrain our spending in the matter of printing here in Congress. And we are not going to eliminate jobs in this instance. I just think we need to fund security rather than paper and printing, and with that, I would urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as the designee of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), my good friend and fellow freshman Republican colleague, who unfortunately could not be here this afternoon to offer this amendment. One of his predecessors in the 10th District of Texas died tragically just a few days ago, Congressman Pickle, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul) did attend his funeral and could not be here today to vote nor could he be here today to offer this amendment. So I offer it in his stead. As a good conservative and someone who minds the fiscal house of the United States Government, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul) offered this amendment that would simply rein in the cost of printing, just much like the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) offered a few moments ago. This would simply take $2 million out of the printing budget for our legislative branch and give that $2 million to security. It would take care of security equipment and weapons for Capitol Hill Police. So at this time, I would simply like to recommend the House do accept this amendment that would rein in excessive spending. It is not that I am against printing or paper, or it is not that I am against ink either, but certainly I think we should restrain spending where it has gotten out of hand, and our printing budget is clearly out of hand. I think we and each individual Congressman's office can actually rein in that spending ourselves and actually print out the bills that we need. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. If the gentlewoman will yield, the gentlewoman outlined a few major pieces of legislation. We had 73 Democrats vote with our Republicans for bankruptcy reform. The leader on the left voted no. Class action lawsuit reform, we passed with 50 Democrat votes. Their leader, out of step with her own Members, voted no. REAL ID Act, 42 Democrats voted yes. Their leader voted no. Permanent repeal of the death tax. What happened? Forty-two Democrats voted yes. Their leader voted no. Continuity of government, bipartisan support for this, included 122 Democrats voting for it. They thought it was the right thing to do. Their leader voted no. The agenda on the left is all about no. No action, no results, no ideas. And we on the right, we the Republican majority, are acting. We are moving forward. We are trying to do what is right for all Americans, not just say no.

Mr. McHENRY. That is a wonderful way you put that. We are trying to take a consensus agenda on what the American people need and want and the direction this country wants to continue heading. And that is more local control, individual ownership and responsibility, keeping more of what they earn to help their families, help their communities, help raise their children and improve small businesses around this country. I certainly appreciate the gentlewoman from Tennessee taking the time to be here tonight to discuss our agenda, not a Republican agenda but an agenda for America, to do the right thing for all American people. That is what we are trying to do. My constituents back home in western North Carolina certainly have those same ideals in mind. I am sure yours do as well there in Tennessee. I thank the gentlewoman for hosting this hour.

Mr. McHENRY. I certainly appreciate the leadership of the gentlewoman from Tennessee here in Congress, and I know her constituents are well represented by her values here. We are talking about the GOP agenda here in the House, our conservative agenda, our agenda that has solutions, real solutions for the American people. We passed a conservative budget that reins in non-defense, non-homeland security discretionary spending by 1 percent. It is a start. It is a move in the right direction. It is the most conservative budget since Ronald Reagan was in office. However, at the same time it funds key priorities, like our national defense, our homeland security. It funds fire departments. It funds police officers. It does the right thing for the American people. We passed a good budget. We also passed class action lawsuit reform with bipartisan support. It reins in trial lawyers. It reins in these out-of-control lawsuits and lawsuit abuse. We passed bankruptcy reform that says you should make good on your bills. We have bankruptcy reform. It was bipartisan as well. REAL ID, Border Security Act. Border security, ladies and gentlemen. The Republicans in this Congress have taken on this challenge and some Democrats bought in. Death tax repeal, eliminating the death tax. A transportation bill that ensures that we have good roads in this Nation and funds priorities. We also passed pro-life legislation, reasonable pro-life legislation that does the right thing for minors and does the right thing for the unborn child as well. We have passed good legislation. The American people need to know that, Mr. Speaker. The American people need to know that we are a Congress that is focused on getting real results for people. We are not here about partisan rhetoric. We are not here to complain about the process. We all know the process here in Washington, D.C. is not what it should be. That is the way it has been for over 200 years in this Nation. But we are a free people with high ideals that we try to live up to as a Nation. And we are a Congress that respects those values. But I certainly appreciate the gentlewoman from Tennessee having this hour so that we can discuss the solutions that we have put forward, not just as Republicans but as Americans, working across the aisle on a bipartisan fashion. Before me is a chart, Democrats Running to GOP Solutions. They are buying into our agenda. They are buying into our agenda. Bipartisan Victories for America Expose House Democrat Leadership's Lack of Vision. We have had five major pieces of legislation pass the House with strong bipartisan support that has an impact on people's lives.