Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer), a member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. H.R. 3236, introduced by Congressman Boucher of Virginia, to promote energy efficiency improvements in buildings and appliances was reported by the Energy and Commerce Committee on August 3, 2007, and placed on the Union Calendar. Would it be possible for Mr. Dingell, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, to call up this bill under his committee's jurisdiction to help the Speaker to implement her secret plan to reduce gas prices by diverting less of America's energy supply to buildings and appliances, or for any other membership of the Democrat majority to help their leadership to call up the bill?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. We will reserve our time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Yes, ma'am, I am. Madam Speaker, today I will be asking each of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question to this rule. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to make it in order for the House to consider any amendment that would actually do something to reduce our high gas prices that we have in this country, to help consumers, and to require the Speaker of the House to submit her secret plan to lower gas prices. Back on April 24, 2006, over 2 years ago, Speaker Pelosi issued the following statement, which I quote, ``With skyrocketing gas prices, it is clear that the American people can no longer afford the Republican rubber stamp Congress and its failure to stand up to Republican big oil and gas company cronies. Americans this week are paying $2.91 a gallon on average for regular gasoline, 33 cents higher than last month, and double the price that it was when President Bush first came into office.'' Madam Speaker, most Americans would consider it a blessing if we were only paying $2.91 today for a gallon of gasoline and the only thing they really couldn't afford is this head-in-the-sand Democrat Congress that refuses to consider or to do anything to solve the problem. In that same press release, Speaker Pelosi went on to claim, ``Democrats have a commonsense plan to bring down skyrocketing gas prices.'' Well, I am not sure what they are waiting for, because even after passing the no-energy energy bill through the House a number of times, the cost of the Pelosi premium price increase continues to rise, with the average cost of gasoline over $3.62, hitting consumers at the pump every time they go fill up their cars. In fact, Madam Speaker, as yesterday's Politico article Gas Prices Fuel Effort to Jam GOP makes clear, rather than seizing the opportunity to create opportunities to do something about these high gas prices, to bring in commonsense, bipartisan, supply-side solutions to the problem that help consumers, the Democrats are using them as a wedge issue, as they see it, to score political points, which does nothing to bring down the high cost of gasoline and only contributes to the Congress' abysmal low ratings. Madam Speaker, I would suggest to you that it really might secretly be this secret plan. This secret plan, even though Speaker Pelosi said it was to bring down gas prices, I think it is all about raising gas prices closer to $5 a gallon. Of course, we know what this does. This causes an American transfer of payments to overseas places, just like Dubai. It is American consumers that are paying for and building Dubai. And the reason why is because the Democratic policies have taken off- limits the opportunity for Americans to be self-independent, because we can't do our own drilling in this country, where billions of barrels of oil reside. By voting ``no'' on this previous question, Members can take a stand; a stand against the statements that we have heard about trying to increase gasoline prices, but while only taxing oil companies. We demand to see this ``private'' and ``secret'' plan to reduce gas prices that the Democrats have been hiding from the American people since taking office and control of Congress. I for one would love to see this plan. But I am afraid that, much like their other campaign promises to run the most open, honest and ethical Congress in history, it simply does not exist. Madam Speaker, American consumers cannot handle the high prices at the pump. We are demanding to know what this secret plan is to reduce gasoline prices below the level of 2 years ago. We need help. Americans all across this country will stand behind those that vote ``no'' to do something now about the problems, rather than trying to blame it on somebody else. If it was Congress' problem 2 years ago, it certainly should be Congress' problem today. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material placed in the Record just prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 10 minutes to the lead cosponsor from the Republican side, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I do want to thank my friend from New York, the gentlewoman and chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time to discuss this proposed rule for consideration of H.R. 493, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. Like my colleague, I too rise in support of this rule which would allow the House to agree with the Senate compromise and pass H.R. 493, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, or GINA. As the gentlewoman knows, this legislation has a long history. She's worked on it for a long, long time, as we heard in testimony given to the Rules Committee yesterday and the accolades that were given the gentlewoman for her support of this, as well as the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert). First introduced in 1995, it has been cosponsored by 224 of our colleagues in this Congress. The House overwhelmingly passed this legislation last April, and with the Senate's recent approval and President Bush's pledged support, I look forward to seeing this legislation signed into law quickly. Madam Speaker, genetics are extremely important to determining the health of every single individual. Each of us carries a handful of genetic anomalies, some of which might cause us to be affected by genetic conditions or affect the health of our children. There are currently 1,200 genetic tests that can diagnose thousands of health conditions. This number has grown exponentially from just around 100 genetic tests a short decade ago. Every day scientists are learning more about the genetic causes of many devastating diseases. Stopping these debilitating illnesses will require the voluntary participation of hundreds of thousands of Americans in the clinical research area needed to identify, test, and approve effective treatments. This information is invaluable to managing our country's health and bringing down the overall cost of health care. Currently, a few States provide protections for genetic information, but most provide none. This leaves Americans with little to no certainty about how their genetic rights are protected from State to State. Additionally, genetic information is not properly covered under the current HIPAA regulations. It is necessary for Congress to provide legal protection for genetic information and clinical trials so Americans can get tested for health care concerns without fear of misuse or discrimination. This legislation ensures that all will be protected. Currently, the fear of misuse of genetic information is preventing people from getting these important genetic tests done. The refusal to utilize effective genetic tests hurts individuals, researchers, and doctors alike. Lack of testing denies individuals important medical information that they could otherwise use to be proactively managing their health with their doctor. The information garnered by these tests also helps doctors to prescribe treatments and lifestyle changes with increased success. The same information can be used by researchers to effectively create targeted drugs and develop treatments. Fear of discrimination has also caused a large number of people to opt out of clinical trials. With fewer participants in clinical trials, we will see slower development of treatments and beneficial drugs. In addition, clinical trials provide patients in late stages of the diseases with access to breakthrough treatments that might otherwise be unavailable. This House has correctly recognized this issue by protecting those who obtain genetic tests in addition to those who volunteer to participate in clinical research for genetic diseases. I would like to commend my colleagues Sue Myrick, Kenny Hulshof, and Dr. Tom Price for leading the efforts to protect the importance of these clinical trials. But none of this would be any good today, Madam Speaker, if the American public did not overwhelmingly support the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. About 93 percent of Americans believe that if someone has a genetic test, their employer should not have the right to know the results. Republicans and Democrats want to see their genetic information protected. I rise in support of this rule and the underlying bill and look forward to its passage. I once again want to thank the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) and the gentlewoman from New York, the chairman of the Rules Committee, for their hard work. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. I encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I would like to notify the gentlewoman from New York that we do not have any additional speakers at this time, so we will continue to reserve our time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, we will reserve our time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member, Mr. Ehlers.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. David Davis).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from New York for yielding me the time for this important proposed rule for consideration of H.R. 2830, the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act of 2008. Unlike my colleague, I rise in opposition to the structured rule, and I would like to quote a colleague whose opinions on these matters I respect to explain why. On September 15, 2005, my Democrat Rules Committee colleague from Florida, Congressman Alcee Hastings, correctly stated that the modified open rule under which the Coast Guard was last reauthorized was insufficient in living up to how this House should be run. While that Republican rule permitted Members who preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record to offer those amendments, he noted his disappointment ``that the preprinting of amendments was even required. Despite the majority's claim, this legislative process which they call open is actually restricted. It is not an open rule because every Member is not permitted to offer any germane amendment.'' Mr. Speaker, as imperfect and insufficient as that rule may have been to Mr. Hastings in 2005 and his minority Democrat colleagues, today's rule pales and fails in comparison--despite the often-repeated Democrat promises to run the most open, honest and ethical House in history. This rule, which is even more restrictive, makes in order a majority of Democrat amendments and strips every Member with a new, good and germane idea of how to improve this legislation of the ability to come to the floor and even to offer it. While the Democrats on the Rules Committee may have been following the wishes of their committee chairman by reporting out this rule, they have once again directly contradicted their campaign promises of their own leadership to run an open House of Representatives, instead choosing to become the most closed Congress in history. Mr. Speaker, while this rule and this standard of recurring policy of closing down the legislative process is bad for the House, the effect of this legislation is even worse for American consumers. It continues the same flawed ``no-energy energy policy'' that Democrats have followed blindly for the last 17 months. A provision included in this legislation would essentially shut down the development of new LNG plants which seem counterintuitive given today's energy crisis. Natural gas is one of the most clean-burning fossil fuels, and passing this provision would only further reduce our energy supply while moving us further from energy independence for which Republicans have consistently advocated. Time and time again this Democrat leadership has consistently promised to deliver a ``commonsense'' energy plan to reduce the cost of gasoline. However, since my friends on the other side of the aisle have taken control of Congress, the average price of a gallon of gasoline has risen more than a dollar, from $2.33 in January 2007 to just over $3.51 this week. I have supported a number of this Congress's bipartisan efforts to reduce demand--like legislation to increase CAFE standards. But Americans literally cannot afford for Congress to continue to ignore the supply-side issues and problems associated with this overall issue. Specifically, that this Democrat majority continues to pursue a national energy policy that does absolutely nothing to increase our ability to produce more energy. Without a supply-side response, prices will continue to rise. It is a fact that enough oil exists in deep waters off America's coasts and in our Federal lands to power 60 million cars for 60 years. Yet these domestic resources remain off-limits to exploration because of the Democrat policies that pervade this House. In 1995, the Clinton administration vetoed the bill that would have allowed environmentally sound domestic exploration in Alaska. During this debate, opponents of the legislation argued that the benefits would be at least 10 years away and would not be worth it. Well, it is now more than 10 years later and the cost of crude oil has gone from just under $20 a barrel to nearly $120 a barrel and we are no closer to energy independence than we were 13 years ago. Mr. Speaker, I hope for the sake of American consumers, and for the sake of their paychecks, that it does not take this Democrat majority another 10 years to realize that now is the time that we should focus on ways to utilize our own energy resources. It is called energy independence. For prices to fall, Congress should be considering legislation that increases supply and reduces demand, not legislation like today's, that simply reduces the supply of one of the planet's cleanest fossil fuels. These are basic commonsense economic principles that should be part of a commonsense plan. I encourage all of my colleagues to recognize that now is the time to stop ignoring our untapped domestic supply. I oppose this rule.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the gentleman from New York does not have any additional speakers at this time. We have no further speakers on our side.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman. I believe that what the gentleman from California is saying is this: Is that we need supply- side answers to a problem when America needs the energy the most right now. And supply-side answers is what we would get if we defeat this rule. We reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, back on April 24, 2006, almost 2 years ago to the day, now Speaker Pelosi released a statement, which I quote, ``Americans this week are paying $2.91 a gallon on average for regular gasoline, 33 cents higher than last month, and double the price when President Bush first came into office.'' Speaker Pelosi went on to claim, and I quote again, that ``Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.'' Mr. Speaker, the Pelosi petroleum price increase continues to rise, with the average price over $3.50, hitting consumers at the pump every time they fill up their car. By voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members can take a stand against these high prices and demand to see the secret plan that Speaker Pelosi has to reduce gas prices that Democrats have been hiding from the American people since taking control of Congress 17 months ago. I for one would love to see it, but I am afraid that, much like their promises to run the most honest, open and ethical Congress in history, it simply does not exist. I submit for the Record the Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 2830. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 2830--Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2008 The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 2830 in its current form because it would adversely affect homeland security, protection of the marine environment, and maritime safety and would unreasonably intrude upon the Commandant's authority and discretion to command and control the Coast Guard. Cumulatively, these provisions would compromise the organizational efficiency and operational effectiveness of the Coast Guard; ultimately, they could diminish its effectiveness in carrying out its safety, security, and stewardship missions. Notwithstanding the other provisions of the measure that would enhance Coast Guard operations, the Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 2830. The Administration urges the House to modify the problematic parts of the bill, including the following: First, the section of the bill that would require the Coast Guard to provide security around liquefied natural gas terminals and vessels should be eliminated because it provides an unwarranted and unnecessary subsidy to the owners of private infrastructure that is contrary to the existing assistance framework and would divert finite Coast Guard assets from other high-priority missions, as determined by the Commandant. If H.R. 2830 were presented to the President with this provision, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill. Second, the Administration strongly urges the House to adopt the Administration's proposal to introduce organizational flexibility into the Coast Guard command structure and alignment with the other armed forces, rather than the language of Section 210. This section as currently worded would exchange one statutorily-mandated command structure for another, thus defeating the purpose of the Administration's initiative. Third, the Administration urges the House to substitute the Administration's recently transmitted proposal for the regulation of ballast water treatment for the existing language of title V. The Administration's substitute language would provide for the effective and efficient implementation of ballast water treatment standards and for the development of enforceable national uniform standards to control discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels without the use of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Absent such language (or a decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals), as of September 30, 2008, discharges incidental to the normal operation of upwards of 13 million vessels--including recreational vessels, towboat vessels, commercial fishing boats, barges, and large ocean- going vessels--will be prohibited by the Clean Water Act unless NPDES permits covering such discharges are in place. As well, the Administration urges the House to delete those provisions of the bill that would adversely affect Coast Guard missions. Specifically, the Administration urges the House to delete those provisions that would: (1) diminish the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Commandant concerning how leadership positions within the Service will be graded or placed; (2) reduce or eliminate the Coast Guard's capacity or authority to carry out and adjudicate its merchant mariner licensing mission and support other vital security adjudications of the Department of Homeland Security; (3) establish an interim work authority for a newly hired seaman on an offshore supply vessel or towing vessel, as such authority would open a dangerous security loophole and undermine the security objectives of the Transportation Worker Identification Credential; and (4) prescribe contracting and acquisition practices for the Deepwater program, as these practices would increase the costs of, and add delay to, the Deepwater acquisition process and circumvent review and approval authority of Coast Guard technical authorities. Similarly, while the provision that would alter admission procedures for the U.S. Coast Guard Academy may ultimately be acceptable, this provision has not previously been shared, or even discussed, with the Administration. The Administration, therefore, urges the House to delete this provision. Finally, the Administration strongly urges the House to adopt the Administration's proposal to protect seafarers who participate in investigations and adjudication of environmental crimes or who have been abandoned in the United States, and thus facilitate the Government's ability to investigate and prosecute environmental crimes. Similarly, the Administration strongly urges the House to restore the much-needed authority to prosecute those who would smuggle undocumented aliens into the United States by sea (Maritime Alien Smuggling Law Enforcement Act). The Administration looks forward to working with Congress to address these concerns and other problems with the bill previously identified in letters from the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to place the text of the amendment and extraneous material in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we just heard an argument. That is okay. I can understand that people want to blame President Bush for things. But the fact of the matter is that the pressure on this issue comes directly to the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party that absolutely cuts America off from being energy independent. They are the people, not OPEC, that have caused America to have to go to OPEC to get our oil. And in the time when there is competition for this oil because we don't produce our own here in the United States, of course you're going to pay more money. To blame this on George Bush, when in fact it is the Democratic Party that has shut off America from energy independence, from the ability that it has to go, just one case, to the Arctic Wildlife Reserve to be able to get millions and millions of barrels of oil that reside within our own United States. We are the ones, as a result of the Democratic Party, that have to go to OPEC to buy the fuel we need. It is an absolutely ridiculous argument to blame George Bush when in fact it was Bill Clinton as President who vetoed the bill which would have given us millions of barrels of oil back in 1995, available to consumers today. It is the Democratic Party and the ability from the Speaker, the current Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, to follow what we have with their public policy to make sure that Americans are paying more at the pump today. But you can't blame George Bush. Let's put the blame where it really is, and that is America is not energy independent. We have to go to other places, we have to get oil, and the world wants the same thing from that marketplace. So rather than throwing insults at each other, why don't we do something about it.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman. What we need to do is have a real live debate on this floor where we figure out that America should become energy independent. That means we would be able to not only produce the oil and the energy from this country, but we would be able to have the jobs that come from that. I believe the charge that is equally fair today is to say that it is Ms. Pelosi's public policy that built Dubai. We should quit building Dubai.