Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

In its current form.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing complicated about this motion to recommit today. It simply says that anyone who has pleaded no contest or has been found guilty of a felony cannot receive Federal funding under this bill.

I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to especially listen to the explanation of this motion to recommit, because some of them voted for a similar motion to recommit just weeks ago on this House floor.

This motion to recommit is very simple. It says that Federal funding cannot under this provision of this bill go to anyone who has been found guilty of a felony or has pleaded no contest. If you vote against this motion to recommit, you are saying to your constituents back home that you don't care if these Federal funds go to convicted murderers, rapists, or kidnappers for that matter.

Mr. Speaker, the new Speaker of the House pledged to have the most ethical Congress in our Nation's history. If you vote for this motion to recommit, you are sending a message that you are willing to reward good behavior by supporting ethical oversight of taxpayer funds.

Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. The RECOVER Act is another massive Democrat spending spree. That is why I am opposed to it. The Congressional Budget Office states that the Democrats' bill will cost the Federal taxpayers $562 million over the next 6 years. It makes government bigger while creating new programs, positions and offices. It expands the role of government in people's lives.

But I think we owe our taxpayers the common courtesy of saying these funds should not go to felons. And while I and many of my colleagues in the House are at odds with the Democrats' ideology of big government is good government, we all can agree that kidnappers should not receive Federal funds under this bill here today.

And in this motion to recommit, we fix this error in the Democrats' drawing up of this bill; this omission that the Democrats have permitted to be in this bill here today before us.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this motion to recommit and reassure your constituents you actually care where their taxpayer dollars are going.

And for those Democrats who voted for a similar motion to recommit on the Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act of 2007 just a few weeks ago, for those on the other side of the aisle, the 55 Democrats who voted for the motion to recommit on the Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act of 2007, they will recognize the language of this motion to recommit. It is very similar. It says, felons cannot receive these Federal funds. Felons, such as murderers, rapists, kidnappers, those are the type of people who would not be eligible for funds under this act, and I encourage those same 55 Democrats to cross the aisle and work in a bipartisan way to fix a Democrat mistake.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

I yield to the gentleman from California.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to offer this amendment under this semi-open rule.

My amendment is simple and straightforward; and I know that is always a misnomer in this place. But it is simple and straightforward. It holds pension funds accountable to their member shareholders for their proxy votes.

Really, the intent I believe the bill's sponsors had is for transparency, so shareholders can actually have their voices heard, and they are transparent in their corporate voting structure.

This amendment requires a shareholder who is casting a nonbinding advisory vote to disclose to their beneficiaries whether such vote was cast to approve or disapprove the compensation.

As we well know, pension funds hold stocks for others. I think it is important that the managers of those pension funds disclose to the actual owners of those retirement funds, those pension funds, how their managers cast their votes. And if the purpose of the Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act is to attain a greater level of accountability to shareholders, then my amendment simply must be adopted in order to fulfill that.

Union leadership or pension fund leadership should have to inform their shareholders how they cast votes on their behalf. I think that is a matter of openness and transparency.

As Members of Congress, this issue should hit close to home. Do you believe your constituents back home, the people you represent, should know how you vote? Well, that is exactly what we are offering here today, what I am offering in this amendment. It is a very commonsense thing about disclosure to those that it actually affects. Voting against my amendment sends a clear message to your constituents that you value secrecy over transparency.

Why should only the mutual fund industry have to inform their shareholders how they cast their votes? So what we are doing is applying what is already done for mutual funds. Mutual funds are required to disclose to the owners of that mutual fund how the leadership, the management, casts proxy votes; and in this instance, it would be operational. They would have to disclose to their owners how they cast a vote.

Well, let's apply that to the pension fund. Let's apply that to union pension funds, let's apply that to State-managed pension funds. I think it is a reasonable thing.

What I find disturbing, though, is in some ways you are allowing activist shareholders to participate in this vote without actually having to disclose to those that own the pension funds, to those who actually own the stocks in this case, how they vote. I think it is a matter of disclosure, and it is what is necessary and fair.

Political groups like big labor and huge pension funds will have the power to ransom business leaders with their votes. But what we are trying to do is hold them accountable for their actions and activities, and ensure that those people who own those stocks and have a financial interest in the pension fund have an idea of what their management is doing.

Look, if we don't do this, it will create a situation where critical business decisions are being made by those least prepared to make them. In the name of fairness, transparency and accountability, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.

Now I don't want to misstate what the chairman said when I offered this during committee and what some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said, but in many respects, they like the intent of this, and I know that the chairman is trying to keep this, his original bill, free and clear of any amendments. I understand that. I certainly understand that. But I think this is a proper addition to ensure that shareholders truly understand what those who are controlling their votes actually are doing. I think it is a necessary and proper thing to do.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

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

Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

Well, I certainly appreciate the Chairman's willingness, and although not pleased or happy about it but, you know, his willingness to work with me.

And just in a final note, I was trying to actually get both of you, both my colleague from North Carolina and the gentleman from Massachusetts, in favor of this amendment and I actually accepted your arguments on broadening this. Once I accepted them, then you said it was on the fly. So it is circular logic that is very interesting.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank my good friend from Georgia, Dr. Price. Thank you for your leadership and for being here on the floor and being so active. Your constituents should be proud of you. And I thank them for electing you.

Madam Speaker, here on Tax Day, in 2007, I hearken back to the words that Ronald Reagan said. He said, our Federal Tax Code is, in short, utterly impossible, utterly unjust, and completely counterproductive. It reeks with injustice and is fundamentally un-American and has earned a rebellion, and it is time we rebelled.

That is a quote from Ronald Reagan in 1983.

Well, I think it is high time we rebel. Today is one day in every American's life where they realize how complex and how horrible our Federal Tax Code is. The Tax Code stands at an astonishing 16,485 pages in length, and there are 1,638 different tax forms on the IRS's Web site. That is outstandingly horrible for the American people.

In 2006, the average taxpayer spent 37.8 hours crunching numbers to complete even the most basic tax form, Form 1040. That is nearly an entire work week spent in filing taxes. Even worse, small businesses spend about 80 hours in preparing their tax returns. That is a 2-week vacation for the average working American family.

And, in total, the American people in a recent poll think the Tax Code is obscene. Eighty percent think the Tax Code is too complicated while only 3 percent believe the Tax Code is just fine the way it is. I concur with that 80 percent, Madam Speaker.

Although just empowered a few months, the new Democratic majority in the House with our new Speaker, they have proposed the largest tax increase in American history. The largest tax increase in American history. They propose a $2,066,675,000,000 tax increase. What does that mean for the average American? Well, the average American, a family of four making $50,000 a year, will see a tax hike of roughly $2,092 this year. What is worse is that my constituents back home in North Carolina will see an average tax increase of $2,671 per year. That is money they could be spending on education. That is money they could be spending on their kids. That is money they could be spending in their community. Instead, the Democrats want that money to come here to fund the bloated bureaucracy in Washington, D.C.

Now, you understand the Republicans have cut taxes over the last decade, and that is very positive. Actually, as the Republican majority for 12 years, we proposed a tax cut every year. Every single year we proposed that. Now, Democrat President Bill Clinton didn't support it, but once we got George Bush in office in 2001, he proposed a massive tax cut.

What has that done? Well, the Democrats say that it is not enough money coming into government. Well, they are wrong. They are absolutely wrong. The Democrats are wrong when they say government doesn't have enough money.

Just this last year, government income amounted to over $2.4 trillion. Now, let's put this in historical context. That is the largest income to any government in the history of the planet. Now, let's think this thing through. $2.4 trillion, is that enough to fund our Federal bureaucracy? According to the Democrats, the answer is ``no.'' They want more. They want the American people to give more to the Federal Government.

Let's put that $2.4 trillion in context. Well, there are only two countries on Earth that have economies larger than our Federal Government. Aside from ours, Germany and Japan are the only countries on Earth that have economies larger than our Federal income. Now, the scary part is that Germany only barely beats the Federal Government with its roughly similar size economy.

There is a lot of talk about how the Chinese economy is booming and it is on the rise. Well, it is true and it is a big threat to our jobs here in the United States, and it is a big economic concern for us as a nation. But the Chinese economy, though booming, is only $1.9 trillion, and that means it is a half trillion dollars smaller than our Federal income. The total gross domestic product of China is smaller than the income to our Federal Government.

So, Madam Speaker, if we look at a recent poll by Pew Research, people were asked what they thought was the best way to reduce the Federal deficit, and in that poll the result was pretty simple. Only 9 percent said that tax increases were the best way. A combined 69 percent said they would rather see government reduce spending. Now, not only do I agree with the 80 percent of the American people that say the Tax Code is too complex, that it is obscene; I also agree with that 69 percent that say the way to reduce government is to reduce spending. That is pretty simple. It is common sense to the American people.

Madam Speaker, I urge this Democrat majority to rethink their tax increase strategy, because it is going to raise taxes on every American who pays taxes. And, furthermore, those that are in the low income of our economy are actually going to see their taxes increase as well because they are going to roll back all the Bush tax cuts over the last 7 years. I think that is the wrong thing for the American people. It is the wrong thing for my constituents of western North Carolina. And I think that that is something that is going to harm our economy, the strength of our growing economy. So I

think the Democrats should rethink their tax increase strategy and do what is right for the American people. Reform the Tax Code. Cut taxes at the very least, but reform the Tax Code so we can actually inject more capital into the marketplace and allow people to keep more of what they earn because it is good for their families and good for our economy, and I think it is generally good for America.

With that, I thank you, Congressman Price, for hosting this important hour, especially on such an important day to the American people when they have to go file those tax returns. We know how frustrated they get because we have to file those same tax returns, and it is important that we remind our constituents that we are subject to the same laws that they are, and that is a very good thing and a great motivation for tax reform.

Offered By: Mr. McHenry

Amendment No. 7: Page 3, line 18, strike the close

quotation marks and following period and after such line

insert the following new paragraph:

``(3) Disclosure of vote to pension fund beneficiaries.--A

shareholder who is casting the vote permitted under this

subsection on behalf of the beneficiaries of a pension fund

shall be required to disclose to such beneficiaries whether

such vote was cast to approve or disapprove the

compensation.''.

Madam Chair, of all of the budgets before Congress, this one hits the taxpayers the hardest.

Over 5 years, the Progressive Caucus budget will raise taxes by $949.3 billion. Over 10 years, the Progressive Caucus budget will raise taxes by $2.4 trillion. Over the next 10 years, they will essentially double the budget.

There is nothing progressive about Democrats raising taxes. That has been their only fiscal strategy over the last 70 years. This budget spends $643 billion over 5 years and new entitlement spending over and above what the President has asked.

It also spends far less when it comes to military spending on our national defense. It drastically cuts military spending by $781 billion over 5 years. This is unconscionable.

Beyond that, it says that Iraq and Afghanistan and our global war against Islamic extremists is the largest single waste of U.S. taxpayer money. That is coming from their budget. Their budget assumes a dream world where we are not fighting a global war on terror. It is the ostrich approach, where you stick your head in the sand and hope everything goes away. It is ridiculous, and it is not safe for the American people.

Alternatively, the Republican budget that we propose here today takes Social Security off-budget, stops the raid on Social Security, and achieves balance while not raising taxes. It is a huge difference between what Republicans are proposing and the liberal left of the Democrat Caucus is proposing here on the House floor.

Beyond that, what the Democrats are saying with their full budget on the floor, as well as this Progressive Caucus budget, that they are going to punt on entitlement reform. Every known economist says we must reform entitlements. I oppose this budget.

I thank my colleague from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, this is a landmark day in the House of Representatives; and records are being broken. In fact, they are being shattered here on the House floor.

Democrats are poised to pass a $392.5 billion tax increase to this Federal budget and a spending increase to match it. And, you guessed it, it sets the record for our Nation's history, the record of the largest tax increase in American history.

Now, they should be proud, because they have outdone themselves from their budget in 1993, which was then the largest tax increase in American history. One hundred and fifteen million taxpayers will see their taxes increase by $1,795; 48 million married couples will see their taxes increase by $2,899; 17 million elderly individuals will see their taxes increases by $2,270. This isn't chump change for the American people. It is real money. It is real money the Democrats believe the American people owe them.

And why do Democrats feel entitled to this money? Because it is what they do. It is what they do. They tax and they spend. They spend and they tax. It is what the Democrat Party here in Washington does. And why is that? Well, I think it is because they haven't had a new idea in 70 years with the advent of the New Deal.

But as a side note, for the American people listening today, Mr. Chairman, I think it is very interesting, very striking, the level of hypocrisy in this budget. Because it also does something very interesting with this budget today. It accepts the President's funding levels for the troops in Iraq through 2009.

Well, this is pretty interesting, because just last week the liberal majority voted to cut off funds in 2008, right before the general election, didn't they? I think this is a high level of hypocrisy out of this budget. And what they said last week is ``we are standing against the war in Iraq. Get our troops out in 2008.'' What they are saying with this budget here today is, ``we will fund it a little longer.'' It is a level of hypocrisy here in Washington, D.C., Mr. Chairman, that the American people need to know about. They say, forget about last week.

This Democrat party is the party of consistent inconsistencies.

Another glaring error is, in their first majority budget in 13 years, they don't tackle the entitlement programs. They don't tackle reforming entitlement programs to make sure Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security can last for generations. We need entitlement reform.

Republicans, when we were in the majority, we had $280 billion worth of entitlement savings and reform to preserve Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and all the entitlement programs. But the Democrats ignore the looming entitlement crisis.

I think what we have to go back to is this is the tax-and-spend party, and we must oppose them. I urge my colleagues to vote against this budget.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrats are setting some records this week, but these are not landmarks we should be proud of. In fact, it won't make the Democrats famous, but it will most certainly make them infamous.

The Democrats are poised to pass a $392 billion tax increase on this House floor, the largest tax increase in American history. Rewind to 1993, the last time the Democrats had control of this House Chamber, and what did they do? They proposed the largest tax increase in American history. They're one-upping their own history.

It's amazing, Mr. Speaker. That means 115 million Americans will see taxes increased on average by $1,795. This isn't chump change. It's real money to the American people.

And why do Democrats feel they're entitled to this money? Because that's what they do. They're Democrats. They tax. They spend. It's not a new idea. They've been at it for 70 years. If it weren't so infuriating, it would just simply be so sad.

$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. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

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. Speaker, I make a point of order.

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

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. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, at what time would it be timely for consideration?

Further parliamentary inquiry.

Am I correct to interpret the Chair's statement to mean that even if an earmark is clearly present in the bill under consideration today, that the mere inclusion of a statement certifying that there are no earmarks within the provision effectively neuters the rule?

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, it is a fact, not a hypothetical. This bill contains earmarks. And the rule under the House is that----

Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it simply takes a waiver submitted by the chairman to make this rule, this no earmark rule, in fact, noneffective; is that not correct?

Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.

How does the Chair understand the definition term of ``earmark'' as it relates to rule XXI, clause 9?

Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.

Under the rules of the House, what is an earmark?

Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, according to the definition of an earmark, as I interpret it, because the Chair won't provide a definition, how does section 2101 of the legislation before us today----

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, is a point of order in order against page 87, the subsection appropriating $35 million to NASA, which I believe to be an earmark?

Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, according to the definition of an earmark under rule XXI, clause 9, the section 3103 of this legislation which appropriates $35 million to spinach growers, does this not qualify as an earmark under rule XXI, clause 9?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, according to the definition of an earmark under rule XXI, clause 9, which the Chair recognizes from the House rules, how does section 3104, which appropriates $20 million to a particular agricultural interest in a particular district, not qualify as an earmark?

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.

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.

Parliamentary inquiry.

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?

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

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

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.

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.