Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. McHenry

Amendment No. 123: Page 3, line 19, after the dollar amount

insert ``(increased by $17,000,000)''.

Page 3, line 21, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $17,000,000)''.

Page 38, line 17, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced

by $17,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. McHenry

Amendment No. 124: Page 2, line 16, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(decreased by $30,000,000)''.

Page 39, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $30,000,000)''.

Page 41, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $30,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. McHenry

Amendment No. 125: Page 2, line 16, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $34,000,000)''.

Page 48, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $30,000,000)''.

I thank my colleague from Alaska for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to my friend and colleague from North Carolina's bill, the Lumbee Recognition Act.

My position on this bill is very straightforward and fair. All groups seeking Federal acknowledgment as Indian tribes should go through the administrative process of the Department of the Interior's Office of Federal Acknowledgment.

This office is staffed with expert historians, anthropologists and genealogists. Their focus is to evaluate data provided by petitioning groups and determine the merits of a group's claim that it is an Indian tribe. This includes whether the group existed since historical times as a distinct political entity.

In this case, the Department of the Interior said the 1956 Lumbee Act prevents the Lumbee from going through this process. Congress should act and lift that restriction. Like other groups, the Lumbees should have the opportunity to attain Federal recognition as a tribe. I agree with that.

However, I cannot support this legislation which will allow the Lumbee or any other group for that matter to circumvent the process. This would be unfair to already existing tribes like the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians in western North Carolina who have a significant historical and cultural impact on my region of the State. They don't want to see their cultural identity undermined by legislation such as this.

Prominent genealogists have also raised serious questions about the tribal identity of the Lumbee.

Paul Heinegg, award-winning genealogist and author, whose work is recognized by the American Society of Genealogists, has concluded that the Lumbee are ``an invented North Carolina Indian tribe.''

Dr. Virginia DeMarce, former chair of the National Genealogical Society, has published her research on the history of the Lumbee, with findings that contradict H.R. 65, the bill we're debating today. Her research finds that many Lumbee families migrated to Robeson County, North Carolina, from other areas prior to 1,800.

Her research has been corroborated by other notable genealogists who refer to other self-identified Lumbee families as residing in other areas prior to any colonial settlement in Robeson County.

In fact, the name Lumbee is based, as the chairman mentioned earlier, on this group's proximity to the Lumbee River and is a modern creation that the group selected as its name in 1952. In fact, this Lumbee group has petitioned Congress numerous times under the names Cherokee, Siouan, Croatan and Cheraw, among others.

I, along with members of the North Carolina delegation, in bipartisan fashion, have sponsored legislation in this Congress and sponsored legislation in the last Congress that would fix this problem. They could actually have the Lumbee go through the normal process.

In fact, my colleague, Mr. Shuler, has authored legislation this time, which I'm a cosponsor of, that his predecessor sponsored as well, that would clear the way for the Lumbee to go through the normal process. I think we should accept that. In fact, Mr. Shuler, Mr. Walter Jones, as well as Mr. Shays and I offered the amendment that was ruled out of order by the Rules Committee. In fact, the Rules Committee would not let us offer that as an amendment here on the floor today. In fact, that's a responsible way to deal with the Lumbee issue.

Federal recognition matters get caught up in emotion, and let's face it, politics. So, rather than going through this legislative body, I think we should go through the regulatory process for the longstanding government-to-government relationships the United States has established with tribes.

We should take the politics out of Federal recognition and allow the experts at the Office of Federal Acknowledgment to do their jobs. I think that's a responsible way to deal with this issue.

And I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill so we can deal with this in a responsible and reasonable manner, going through the longstanding process that we have established as a Congress.

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

Yes, in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very fair and simple motion to recommit. This takes the emotion of politics out of the Federal recognition process and allows the experts at the Office of Federal Acknowledgment to do their jobs.

This amendment, Mr. Speaker, is something very familiar to the chairman as well as all of the members of the Interior Committee. They've seen it before. It's very familiar to the members of the Rules Committee as well because they've seen it as well. It's the very same form and shape that my colleague, Mr. Shuler, has filed, along with myself as a cosponsor, with me as a cosponsor I should say, and a number of our colleagues from North Carolina. It's a bipartisan bill as originally constructed.

And what this motion to recommit does is allow us to have a vote on this issue here on the House floor. It's the very same text as the amendment, I said that Mr. Shuler offered, as well as Mr. Jones and Mr. Shays, that we offered through the Rules Committee, and it was not allowed by the majority party through the Rules Committee process. In fact, there was a partisan vote on that issue, eight Democrats voting ``no,'' two Republicans voting ``yes,'' even though it was a bipartisan amendment to the bill.

In simple terms, this motion will put the Lumbees in the front of the Federal recognition process, in the front of that line, and it removes the bar on the Lumbees and other groups described in the 1956 Lumbee Act from petitioning for recognition through the administrative process.

It extends recognition to the Lumbees under the terms and restrictions of H.R. 65, this bill, only when the Secretary makes a final positive determination on the Lumbee petition. It's a very fair and balanced way to allow the Lumbees to be recognized as a tribe.

The Lumbees oppose the motion because it does not allow them to circumvent the process. But it is fair to the other 561 federally recognized tribes, including the Eastern Band of Cherokee in western North Carolina; all of whom went through the proper rigors of the recognition process.

Now, what is important about this is that we have a vote on it. My colleague from North Carolina, Mr. Taylor, originally wrote this bill that my colleague, Mr. Shuler, has refiled again in this Congress.

This bill is bipartisan, as I said. And this motion to recommit is the very same language of that bipartisan bill.

Now, what was wonderful is that, over the last 10 years, Congressman Taylor, my friend and former colleague here in this body, was able to prevent this Lumbee recognition bill from being put forth and, in essence, made sure that the Lumbees went through the Federal process.

It's unfortunate this bill has come to the floor today. It's even more unfortunate that this motion to recommit was not allowed as an amendment to this bill. And so what this bill does is allow it to go back to committee so that the committee can actually go through the normal process of marking up this bill and to hear from outside groups as well but ensures that we go through the normal process that my colleagues from North Carolina, many of my colleagues from North Carolina, on a bipartisan basis, seek.

And I think, Mr. Speaker, I think it's important that my colleagues vote for this motion to recommit because it is fair. It will be a bipartisan vote, I believe, and I'm very hopeful that it will be. And I think it's going to be the best thing for the Lumbees and the best thing for this process of Federal recognition of Native American tribes.

And I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit because it's the right thing to do. And it's the right thing to do on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for yielding.

The Speaker and I are on opposite sides of most issues, so I take great pleasure in the rare instance that we can find some common ground. The rule on this bill is one of those rare occasions. In fact, Speaker Pelosi and I completely agree when it comes to her public statements on the need for an open debate on lobbying reform. ``We urge you to immediately bring to the floor, under an open rule that permits unrestricted amendments and debate on the wide-ranging reform provisions contained in the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2006.''

Madam Speaker, those were your words on February 9 of last year, but, Madam Speaker, I'm hearing a different tune these days. Your words are different than your actions. Very different, I might say.

We should be debating this bill today under an open rule that you urged that permits unrestricted amendments and debates. Unfortunately we won't.

There were 48 amendments offered to the Rules Committee. Only five were allowed to be offered here on the floor today. I submitted one of those 43 amendments that the Democrat leadership didn't want to hear on, didn't want to have a debate on, and my amendment would require Members of Congress to make an accurate disclosure of their financial holdings, including their personal residence. We've seen in recent Washington scandals the results of this loophole that allows Members to hide ownership of properties. This is a bad thing, and we should close that loophole.

Unfortunately, the Democrat leadership didn't allow us to have this debate here today on that important amendment. They're allowing it to stay open.

Another quick point. The American people should realize that we're debating essentially a watered-down version, as my colleague from California said, of the lobbying bill that Republicans offered last Congress. Only eight Democrats voted for that tougher bill to reform rogue lobbying practices; 192 voted no.

Mr. Speaker, does the Democrat hypocrisy know no bounds? Does it? At the time, they said the bill didn't go far enough. We realize they're singing a different tune, a tone-deaf tune, Mr. Speaker, and I urge the defeat of this rule so we can have an open debate on lobbying reform.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Texas (Mr. Sessions) yielding time to me.

As a member of the Budget Committee, we worked very hard to craft a budget that was reasonable in previous Congresses and in this Congress as well. And I want to congratulate the ranking member on the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan from Wisconsin, on his hard work, and I also want to congratulate my colleague to the south, in South Carolina, for his leadership as chairman of the Budget Committee. But I respectfully disagree on this budget, and I will tell you why. The

Democrats are poised to pass a $217 billion tax increase on the American people. This is the second largest tax increase in American history.

A quick history lesson here. You might be wondering who holds the record for the largest tax increase. A Democrat Congress and President Bill Clinton, and they raised taxes by $241 billion in 1993, one year before the 1994 Republican revolution.

Back to the present day, though. The American people should know, when Democrats spend too much and future surpluses fail to materialize, a second tax hike triggers automatically. Therefore, the $217 billion tax hike could nearly double to $400 billion. In other words, the Democrats will eclipse Bill Clinton's record for the largest tax increase in American history. It is outrageous, and the American people need to know that. The Democrats said that they would raise taxes, and they actually are doing it, and as part of this $2.9 trillion Federal budget, again, the largest spending bill ever passed by Congress. So it is not just the largest tax increase, but it is the largest spending piece as well. It shows their priorities, that they actually want to take more from the American people.

Their tired old philosophy ignores the fact that tax receipts this month were $70 billion above the same month in 2006. Tax cuts have worked. In fact, this year government revenue is the highest it has ever been in the history of our country. Let me repeat that. The revenue to the Federal Government is the largest it has ever been in the history of our country. And, in fact, there is more government revenue coming in to our Federal Treasury this year than any time in the Earth's history for any government, period.

Yet, it is not enough for the Democrats. They want to spend more, they want to tax more, they want every American to pay more in taxes, and they are going to do it through this budget.

And that is why, Mr. Speaker, I think this tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend policy of the Democrat Party is the wrong thing for our economy, it is the wrong thing for our communities, it is the wrong thing for small business people who will be paying more taxes. It is wrong for the single mother who is trying to make ends meet, it is wrong for the American people and our economy. And that is why we should vote down this rule and vote down this budget.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to start by commending the ranking member, Spencer Bachus, and the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Frank, for the open dialogue that we've had in the Financial Services Committee and here on the floor. This amendment process I think has been a healthy one, and I appreciate the chairman engaging in this debate.

The amendment that I offer today builds on an amendment offered and passed in the committee during markup, which I participated in and which I voted for the amendments as well. It requires a GAO study to investigate the Affordable Housing Fund's effects on availability and affordability of credit for home buyers. That's what the amendment added to the bill.

Essentially the GAO study will tell if the costs of the funds are being passed on to home buyers. Some of us on this side of the aisle, many free market conservatives, believe that what is deemed the Affordable Housing Fund, the Housing Trust Fund, will be passed on straight to the mortgage consumers of America; in essence, a tax increase on those who have mortgages, especially middle income individuals.

My amendment takes what is in the bill and goes it one step further. If, as a result of the GAO's report, the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency determines that the Affordable Housing Fund is increasing mortgage costs for consumers, my amendment suspends the assessment of Freddie and Fannie. I think this is a healthy thing.

As the bill stands, Freddie and Fannie will allocate an amount equal to 1.2 basis points of their total portfolio to the fund for fiscal years 2007 through 2011. Over these 5 years, the fund will accumulate an estimated $3 billion for the purposes of these housing initiatives. But Fannie and Freddie are publicly traded companies, and as someone who analyzed the economics of this, I'm concerned that a 1.2 basis point assessment of the total portfolio will simply be a 1.2 percent tax increase on those that have mortgages.

And what I want to make sure is those costs are not going to be passed on to the consumer. What I'm concerned about is that it will be a mortgage tax increase, and that is the reason why I have concerns about the housing fund as it now stands.

So what my amendment does is alleviate those concerns, and if my amendment passes, I think it would be far easier to accept the housing fund as it now stands, and that is my big concern with the bill.

I want to commend the chairman for putting in much-needed reforms to Fannie and Freddie and the government-sponsored enterprises, and we want to make sure that middle income Americans, middle income home buyers will be able to have affordable access to mortgages. That's what Fannie and Freddie are there for. We want to make sure that this does not raise and increase the cost of home buying.

I would ask my colleagues to support my simple amendment that would alleviate some concerns that we, on this side of the aisle, a few on this side of the aisle, have with this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Texas for yielding. I want to thank my colleague across the aisle for his informative discussion. I respect him immensely. I appreciate him laying out his arguments against my amendment.

What I would say is that we both have the same intent, affordable housing for as many Americans as possible. That should be the intent with this legislation, and I think it does, in terms of the reforms implemented for the government-sponsored enterprises that we are talking about today. The concern that I have is that, in essence, we are going to be taxing the middle class, and those that are on, let's say, lower middle class, which the government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie and Freddie were provided to provide liquidity in the marketplace.

We are going to be taxing those mortgages to pass it on to people who, you said, don't have money. So it's a transfer from that middle- class group to some folks that are on the edges of society.

My concern with that is that rather than us designing programs to bring them into the mortgage marketplace, so that they can provide for themselves, that this simply will supplement additional government programs and further lock people into receiving government money, rather than receiving a help out.

So my concern is that we are going to be taxing those that can really afford to deal with additional taxes.

That is what a tax is. You are taking it from one group and giving it to another group. What this is 1.2 basis points on a portfolio. If you are talking about taking it from the shareholders, go ahead and raise the capital gains tax, because I know it is part of the budget that was passed today.

I know many of you all believe in that on your side of the aisle, some, probably, on my side of the aisle. But my point is, I don't think we should tax them. With this 1.2 basis points on a portfolio is, in fact, a tax.

What I would contend though is the 1.2 basis points on the portfolio is simply a tax on every mortgage that flows through Fannie and Freddie. If you are taxing the profits on Fannie and Freddie as originally designed, you can make the contention that you are taxing the shareholders of Fannie and Freddie.

But, with this design of the current bill before us, if, in fact, you believe in affordable housing, and encouraging more people into the middle class and moving people up, then what we need to do is ensure that we are not decreasing the affordability.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I don't want to speak to the dancing capabilities of any of my colleagues, whether it be a Kabuki dance or an Arthur Murray class or however else they want to dance.

But I would like to yield to my colleague from Illinois.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time. May I inquire how much time I have remaining?

At this point, I'd like to yield to the chairman of the Financial Services Committee for a question which is, I know the C-SPAN audience, Mr. Chairman, is very interested in my colleague's injury, and I know he circulated a Dear Colleague, but if you could explain your injury.

Offered By: Mr. McHenry

Amendment No. 14: Page 156, line 4, after ``Congress''

insert ``and the Director of the Federal Housing Finance

Agency''.

Page 156, after line 4, insert the following new

subsection:

(e) Determination and Suspension of Allocations.--Not later

than the expiration of the 3-month period that begins upon

the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (d),

the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency shall

review the report submitted pursuant to such subsection and

shall make an independent determination of whether the

requirement under section 1337(b) of the Housing and

Community Development Act of 1992 (as added by the amendment

made by subsection (a) of this section) that the enterprises

make allocations to the affordable housing fund established

under section 1337(a) of such Act--

(1) will decrease the availability or affordability of

credit for homebuyers of one- to four-family residences; or

(2) will increase the costs, to homebuyers, involved in

purchasing such residences.

If the Director determines that such requirement will

decrease such availability or affordability, or will increase

the costs of purchasing such residences, notwithstanding such

section 1337(b) or any other provision of law, the

requirement under such section to allocate amounts to the

affordable housing fund shall not apply, and shall not have

any force or effect, with respect to the year in which such

determination is made or any year thereafter.

Madam Speaker, I rise to join with millions across this 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 human life, babies, whose only crime is inconvenience.

The Court's decision is a victory in the quest to restore basic human dignity and human life. No longer will the

most vulnerable and innocent among us be subject to such cruelty.

It also is a victory for the Constitution, which liberal activist judges have demeaned for far too long. It is encouraging to see the Court's decision move toward our Founders' vision and intent to not only respect opinions and the vision for our country, but also to protect human life.

Let us never forget our responsibility to uphold the basic sanctity of human life granted by our Maker.

Mr. Speaker, April revenue showers. That is what the Wall Street Journal called the large government revenues received by this Federal Government in the month of April. It was $70 billion over revenue in 2006. It shows that tax cuts work. The Democrats, on the other hand, want to raise taxes. They want to raise the taxes that American people pay.

What we believe in and what the President has done in just the five short years he has been in office is to actually cut taxes that the American people pay, which, in the end, through greater economic growth, will lead to more government revenue.

A case in point: the capital gains tax cut and the dividends tax cut, those two things have resulted in a 30 percent increase in revenue under those two provisions. It shows that tax cuts work.

They are good for the economy and they are good for the American people, and we need to extend the tax cuts.

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

I thank the Chair.

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

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.

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. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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?