Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Further point of parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SESSIONS. Is it in order for any member of the minority to call up a long-term FISA modernization bill that would strengthen the Nation's intelligence capacities while protecting the civil liberties of Americans during the call of the committees?

Mr. SESSIONS. Further point of inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SESSIONS. H.R. 5440, the House counterpart to this bipartisan Senate legislation, was introduced by Congressman Fossella on February 14. Would it be possible for Mr. Hoekstra, the ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, to call up this bill under his committee's jurisdiction or for any of the 21 members of the Democrat majority who signed a letter to Speaker Pelosi on January 28 asking her to move this legislation to ``ensure a strong national security apparatus that can thwart terrorist attacks across the globe and to save American lives here in this country,'' for them to call up this bill?

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman for letting us know that it's up to the chairman or the Speaker.

Mr. SESSIONS. I understand that the procedure that the Chair just went through is known as Calendar Wednesday. Is it correct that any bill reported by a committee and placed on the Union or House Calendar could have been called up by the chairman as the committee name was read?

Mr. SESSIONS. A further point of parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SESSIONS. On February 12, a bipartisan majority in the Senate passed S. 2248, a responsible bill to provide long-term authority for our intelligence community to help detect and prevent acts of terrorism. For a month now, it has been sitting at the desk in the House awaiting action. Would it have been in order for the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence or the chairman of the Judiciary Committee or their designee to call up S. 2248 at this time?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to congratulate the Highland Park Girls Swimming and Diving Team on winning the title of UIL 4A State Champions. In his first year coaching at Highland Park, Jess Cole led the girls to their eighth consecutive win in the UIL Texas State Championship on Saturday, February 23, 2008. Those who competed at the state meet include Allison Arnold, Megan Arnold, Hannah Ferrin, Bolton Harris, Delaney Rolfe, Katy Streepey, Katy Tye, and Alex Weber. Their continued success can be attributed to their hard work, dedication, passion for swimming and a strong sense of team spirit. In addition to claiming the title of State Champions, the Highland Park Girls Swimming and Diving Team now holds the longest state record in UIL swimming and diving, matching Class A Booker's record in girls golf as the longest in Texas high school sports since record keeping began in 1910. Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in congratulating the members of the Highland Park Girls Swimming and Diving Team for their well-deserved victory and wish them all the best in future endeavors.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to congratulate the Highland Park Girls Swimming and Diving Team on winning the title of UIL 4A State Champions. In his first year coaching at Highland Park, Jess Cole led the girls to their eighth consecutive win in the UIL Texas State Championship on Saturday, February 23, 2008. Those who competed at the State meet include Allison Arnold, Megan Arnold, Hannah Ferrin, Bolton Harris, Delaney Rolfe, Katy Streepey, Katy Tye, and Alex Weber. Their continued success can be attributed to their hard work, dedication, passion for swimming, and a strong sense of team spirit. In addition to claiming the title of State Champions, the Highland Park Girls Swimming and Diving Team now holds the longest State record in UIL swimming and diving, matching Class A Booker's record in girls golf as the longest in Texas high school sports since recordkeeping began in 1910. Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in congratulating the members of the Highland Park Girls Swimming and Diving Team for their well-deserved victory and wish them all the best in future endeavors.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, today on the floor of the House of Representatives we are considering the issue of mental health parity. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues have clouded this important issue with extensive and over-burdensome regulations. As a supporter of mental health parity it is regrettable that I can not support the bill at hand. With over 50 million adults suffering from mental disorders it is necessary that there is access to mental health services. The Senate has passed legislation on parity that will allow access to these needed services, and I applaud and support their efforts. As a long time supporter of the Genetic Information Non- Discrimination Act, it is disappointing that this legislation was coupled in with the over regulated mental health parity bill. Congress has taken great strides over the last few years towards adequately protecting an individual's genetic information an encouraging lifesaving genetic testing. Attaching this legislation to the flawed parity bill puts those efforts to shame. Congress should take up the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act on its own and allow those, like myself, to vote in favor of the bill.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman for giving me this time. I am shocked and stunned that we financed overutilization and that is why we are doing this. Yet we understand that utilizing these physician hospitals, these new hospitals, saved the government money and are all about patient choice and are all about making sure that people who utilize these new hospitals don't get infections, don't get sick, don't check into a hospital to have surgery where other sick people are. It is a concept that keeps America not only the leading health care provider in the world; it is done in an efficient and cost-effective way. I am surprised that we find out it is overutilization. Mr. Speaker, rather than taking this opportunity to bring parity to our health care delivery system, the Democrat leadership today is using this legislation as a vehicle to restrict future health care choices for Medicare patients. That is what this is about. It is to further own the opportunity for Medicare patients to be able to get the choices that they want, and the Democrat leadership is taking that away. Instead of using this opportunity to focus on mental health parity, the Democrats have decided to pay for this bill by pushing patients and limiting their options that they can receive for their own care. Mr. Speaker, we will be real honest about this. According to HealthGrades, which is a nationwide study to look at hospitals and how efficient they are and how safe they are, three of the Nation's top 10 cardiac programs and three of the Nation's top 10 programs for joint replacement are at physician-owned hospitals. And despite the fact that these physician-owned hospitals make up only 3 percent of the Nation's hospitals, they are among the most efficient and the safest hospitals for people, our seniors, to go in and receive care. What will happen here today is an absolute mistake. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the Statement of Administrative Policy on this issue and I will quote from that: ``First, the bill would place new restrictions on physician-owned hospitals. This administration opposes this provision, which is unnecessary and could restrict patient choice without decreasing Medicare costs.'' That is right, it is going to be more expensive to argue about overutilization. Incredibly silly. Statement of Administration Policy--H.R. 1424--Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007 The Administration supports passage of mental health parity legislation that does not significantly increase health coverage costs. However, the Administration has concerns with H.R. 1424, which would effectively mandate coverage of a broad range of diseases and conditions and would have a negative effect on the accessibility and affordability of employer-provided health benefits and would undermine the uniform administration of employee benefit plans. For example, the bill's confusing preemption provisions could be read to add a patchwork of remedies that vary from State to State. Therefore the Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1424 or any legislation that expands benefits and remedies beyond what is included in the Senate-passed S. 558. H.R. 1424 also includes two provisions to offset the approximately $3 billion in on-budget costs associated with the bill. First, the bill would place new restrictions on physician-owned hospitals. The Administration opposes this provision, which is unnecessary and could restrict patient choice without decreasing Medicare costs. HHS already has administrative policies in place to address concerns about physician-owned hospitals, including disclosure of physician ownership, patient safety measures, and revisions to Medicare's payment systems to better reflect patients' severity of illness and the resources needed to treat patients. Second, the bill also would increase the Medicaid drug rebate. The Administration objects to any offset that would legislatively mandate an increase to the rebate percentage. As CBO has noted in its 2007 analysis of budget options, it is unknown how this change would impact non-Medicaid beneficiaries and other payers. The Administration is concerned that the proposal would have an adverse impact on private purchasers, including the uninsured, further distort the market for prescription drugs, and discourage innovation in the drug development process. The Administration urges Congress to offer meaningful protections to American workers and their families by eliminating the disparities between mental health benefits and medical and surgical benefits, without broadly mandating new benefits. The Administration believes the Senate bill strikes the necessary balance of treating mental illness with the same urgency as physical illnesses without significantly increasing health care costs. The Administration would also urge the House to preserve uniformity in health plan administration as has been done in S. 558. Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act The rule requires that the provisions of H.R. 493 as passed by the House be added to the Mental Health Parity bill after the House passes H.R. 1424. While the Administration strongly supports passage of legislation to prevent the misuse of an individual's personal genetic information and believes such legislation is critical to realizing the full potential of genomic medicine, the Administration has both substantive and process objections to the rule. The Administration is strongly opposed to the lack of a clear ``firewall'' between title I of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), which addresses genetic discrimination in health benefits provided by health insurers and plans, and title 11 of GINA, which addresses genetic discrimination in employment. The Administration is concerned that the bill fails to ensure that health benefits disputes are properly brought under the appropriate remedies in ERISA, the Public Health Service Act, or the Internal Revenue Code and that it could unintentionally permit ``forum shopping.'' The Administration also is concerned that unless the legislation is clarified, the bill could be construed to have the unintended effect of prohibiting health plans and issuers from using information about the manifested disease of a dependent covered under an individual's plan for appropriate and routine insurance purposes. The Administration also believes it is important that the legislation's relationship with other provisions of law, such as Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, be clearly defined. Finally, the Administration looks forward to working with Congress to address these concerns and pass Mental Health Parity and Genetic Nondiscrimination legislation this year.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, my good friends on the other side of the aisle are hiding behind a cloak that I believe is unfair. They're blaming the President of the United States for protecting this country. They're blaming the President of the United States for something that he is doing to protect this country to make sure that we have the flexibility to make sure that we can listen to enemies who are trying to do us harm. The President, as well as intelligence officials, have fought for the last 3 years to make sure that we can hear those things that were intercepts on the battlefield and turn them around to protect our troops. Make no mistake about it, my good friends the Democrats today are here on the floor of the House of Representatives saying that they don't want to be a rubber stamp for protecting this country. I want to be a person that says that every single person should understand that today the lawful use of the ability to be effective and efficient in protecting not only our troops but this country has been taken away. Yes, we can still listen, but it's got to go through another process, back through FISA, that takes a month's worth of work through a bunch of judges that help protect this country. We need to get this done. Quit hiding behind some bit of blaming George Bush.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and in favor of a bipartisan permanent solution that closes the terrorist loophole. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. This bill is real simple. It's real simple. For several years there was a negotiation with HUD to look at the best practices across this country from people who are in the housing industry to determine best how to go about and manage assets of housing units. This bill is all about taking away the best practices that exist for nongovernment housing, the rest of the industry, because it will take money away from people who don't engage in best practices. Of course it will take money away from them. But what this is all about is to try to take a negotiation that has happened for about 7 years from what the previous Congresses have passed to say we think that public housing needs to raise its standards to where we do have proper public housing, public housing that works, public housing that can pass the smell test of asset management. Now my good friends, led by our Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, want to say forget the standards. Forget the standards of the industry. If they have to live up to those standards of proper management, of best practices, do you realize what that would mean to us? We couldn't pass those audits; so we will lose our money. So this rule and this new change that we are having here that's called the Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act of 2007 is all about trying to say forget trying to do something that's better. Forget following standards that have been established in the public sector. We don't want those to apply. So now we're going to pass a rule and a law that says you don't have to do that because if you did, you would lose money. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition. I rise in opposition not only to the rule, which I believe is unnecessarily restrictive, but also to the provisions in this bill and the underlying legislation that unilaterally and at the last minute seeks to abuse the Congress's power and to undo specific parts of a process that have previously been carefully negotiated over years with the private sector best practices and brokered over the last decade to make public housing more accountable for its spending and more accountable to the public housing units that we don't want to go into disrepair in the United States of America. In 1998 Congress passed the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act, which among other things required a deliberate and negotiated rule-making process to bring asset management at our Nation's public housing administrations up to a reasonable standard. What we are here to do today is to say we don't want that standard. And you're right. The gentleman from Florida is right. Public housing units that cannot meet the standards would lose money. That's why we talk about waste, fraud, and abuse. People that do not use the money that has been given them by this Congress, by the taxpayer to work in the best interests, we thought, I think, as we vote to spend money, of people who are in public housing, who, through some sometimes no fault of their own, have to end up in public housing and find out they are in a rat-infested, bad housing project because asset management standards aren't followed. Amazing. By adopting widespread private sector common practices such as project-based budgeting and accounting to ensure that costs are known, managed, and maintained at a reasonable level, which is what the current bill is about, which is what we're going to undo, Congress wisely gave public housing administrations the tools they needed, and just like private sector tools, to manage their own finances better, bringing them into line with every other operator of subsidized housing in this country and ensuring that spending moneys to support their tenant and tenants remain the highest priority. We are going to do away with that today. That's what we are going to do away with, and we call that new and approved. I call that a sham and disrespectful of the residents whom we are trying to help. Today's legislation would overturn these longstanding negotiations and turn back the clock for public housing administrations nationwide by eliminating any restrictions on the amount of management fees they could charge, promoting inefficiency, reducing the level of funding available to tenants, and decreasing oversight and accountability. In other words, making sure that these public housing agencies stay on the watch list for waste, fraud, and abuse rather than using private sector standards of best practices to make them better. Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why this self-proclaimed most honest, ethical, and open Congress in history would use this time today to bring this legislation to the floor to make financial management of mid-sized public housing administrations less transparent, less responsive, and not even following the standards established by the private sector and by unilaterally overturning a lengthy and fairly negotiated rule-making process. But here we are. In fact, if Speaker Pelosi really wanted to demonstrate her commitment to honest, open, and ethical government, she could be using this time instead to take up a resolution that I and over 150 of my Republican colleagues have cosponsored, authored by my good friend, Representative Jack Kingston from Georgia, which is a continuation of House Republicans' long-term commitment to reform the earmark process. Congressman Kingston's bill would create a Joint Committee on Earmark Reform to conduct a full study of the earmark practices of the House, the Senate, and executive branch. Upon completion of this study, the joint committee would file a report of its findings and its recommendations. Most importantly, until this report is filed, the House would put in place an immediate moratorium on the consideration of all earmarks. By the way, that's the people's money. That's the people's money that people really back home are worried about. Instead, Mr. Speaker, this House, which recently tied the record as the most closed Congress in history, with 49 closed rules so far in the 110th Congress, will consider this legislation that will impede the successful transition to, and implementation of, asset management by overturning a long negotiated process that is consistent with proper standards of the private sector. I know that other bills like the bipartisan Senate legislation to give our Nation's intelligence services tools that they need to protect Americans against terrorists is also trying to be taken up by the House. But, instead, this Democrat leadership has chosen to miss yet another opportunity to provide Americans with greater security by instead allowing the Protect America Act to expire. If there is any question as to why the public holds Congress in such low regard, with only about one in five Americans approving the job that this House is doing, one need not look any further than the congressional calendar this week, again, this week, and examine what both the Democrat leadership and the House are doing and what we are neglecting to do. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to insert in the Record a Statement of Administrative Policy explaining their strong opposition to H.R. 3521's passage. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, February 12, 2008. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 3521--Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act The Administration is strongly committed to the successful transition to and implementation of asset management for Public Housing Agencies (PHAs). Asset management will adopt widespread private sector practices, including project-based budgeting and accounting, to assure costs are known, managed, and maintained at reasonable levels--ensuring public housing tenants are the first priority. However, the Administration is deeply concerned that H.R. 3521, as reported by the House Financial Services Committee, would severely undermine PHAs' long-awaited conversion to asset management and the adoption of conventional business practices. For the reasons that follow, the Administration strongly opposes House passage of

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize Darrell L. Fant, Director of the Highland Park Department of Public Safety (HPDPS). After thirty-two years of dedicated service, Darrell will be retiring from HPDPS on February 29, 2008. The Town of Highland Park has been privileged to have such a devoted public servant working on their behalf to ensure Highland Park stays a safe and family friendly area in the heart of Dallas. He has served in various roles such as Public Safety Officer, Lieutenant, Assistant Shift Commander, and Captain before taking on the leadership role of Director. His colleagues affectionately refer to him as ``Chief'' as he has earned their respect and demonstrated exemplary performance. In addition, he has received numerous commendations, thank you letters, and awards such as the 1984 Firehouse magazine Heroism and Community Service Award. I know his vision and leadership will be greatly missed and difficult to replace. The legacy he leaves speaks loudly of the impact he has had on Highland Park. Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in expressing our heartfelt gratitude for his hard work and dedicated service.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, which strikes the prohibition of the demolition-only grants from the HOPE VI, allowing HUD to retain its current authority to issue these grants as conditions warrant. The original goal of HOPE VI was to eliminate severely distressed public housing, and demolition-only grants continue to play an important role in achieving this goal. Currently, HUD is allowed to grant demolition-only grants only when necessary and in instances that benefit the community. That means it will be done in consultation with the community. As a result, HUD provides these grants with great discretion. In fact, a demolition-only grant has not been issued by HUD since 2003. Clearly, despite what the opponents of this legislation may claim, HUD has not covertly abused this power to tear down public housing units without reason and, I would suggest to you, without being asked to participate. However, sometimes public housing authorities have already put together their own financing to redevelop housing, but they lack the funds to tear down the existing distressed facility. In instances like these, common sense dictates that a demolition-only grant under HOPE VI would be appropriate, once again, working with the existing local authority to make sure that what they want is accomplished. As an added bonus, a cleared site also attracts more Federal and private resources for revitalization efforts, meaning that when local people ask for the support, then it can and would presumably be granted, making the site better. Another instance in which demolition-only grants make sense is when a severely distressed public housing site is simply not a viable candidate for redevelopment, either because it is only partially occupied or completely vacant, once again, working directly with the local housing authority. In these cases, other forms of housing assistance, like section 8 vouchers, may be more beneficial to community members simply than reconstructing a new building, in particular on the same site, once again, at the discretion of local housing authorities. The question that every Member should be asking themselves before they vote to eliminate this authority is, if there is no demand for public housing in a certain area, as evidenced by its partially or completely vacant status, and if the local housing authority is seeking this help, then why on Earth would Congress mandate that HUD create an unwanted supply? It makes no logical or fiscal sense to inefficiently direct these taxpayer dollars where there is no reason or demand to build. Prohibiting demolition-only grants almost guarantees this type of waste would occur. Additionally and finally, Mr. Chairman, let's not forget that the ultimate goal of this program is to empower people to eventually get off public housing and become self-determined, not simply to create more public housing units. I would submit in the greater scheme of things, it is also to have the Federal Government, through HUD, have the flexibility to work carefully and closely with local housing authorities to make sure that the right thing happens. By preventing HUD from having the authority to remove dilapidated housing without also rebuilding new units as Congress, we are certainly failing to live up to the spirit of this philosophy. I encourage all of my colleagues to support what I think is a commonsense amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman. What he said is let's take away the flexibility, notwithstanding that he has a disagreement with what the Clinton and the first term of this President has done. I think what we are doing is taking a tool away from the toolbox rather than flexibility. I believe it is local people who would ask for this to be done, anyway, and then the Federal Government can participate. But simply to say we have a house and we ought to keep it no matter what, is, in my opinion, a bad argument. It is a bad argument because keeping up something that is bad and needs repair and can't take care of itself, we need to get rid of those. We need to rebuild. That is what HOPE VI is all about. I hope you vote for my amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from Florida yielding me the time. I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments, specifically as they relate to really the author of HOPE VI, who is Jack Kemp, at that time in the early nineties the Secretary of Housing in the United States of America. I think that today, as we talk about HOPE VI and the wonderful attributes that HOPE VI has brought not only to inner cities but to thousands of people who live in these new areas as opposed to a large housing complex, it is a testament to the dream that, as Secretary, Jack Kemp brought to our great Nation. Madam Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this restrictive rule and to a number of the provisions included in the underlying legislation in its current form. This legislation, which alters a successful public-private partnership and housing program that encourages public housing authorities to work with the private sector to create more livable public housing, has a number of avoidable, and I repeat, avoidable shortcomings; and I hope that there will be at least some of them that will be corrected during this restrictive rule process as is provided for by the rule. One of the provisions in this bill particularly threatens the continued participation of private developers in the program, which jeopardizes HOPE VI's continued success. I believe that is part of the success, the public-private partnership, in creating mixed-financed and mixed-income affordable housing. By mandating compliance with privately developed green building rating systems, rather than providing market-based incentives to reach these goals, this legislation creates additional cost burdens for green compliance and adds further impediments to an already complicated financing structure which could discourage developers from undertaking future projects. Further, because the legislation makes specific reference to only one green building rating system, this legislation federally mandates winners and losers and stifles future innovation and technology advancement in all aspects of green buildings. I think it would be a flaw to say that the one standard that has been developed in 2007 and 2008 would be the only model as we move forward in public housing. I certainly would not want that in the free market where, as a user of the free market, I would be told one standard that was developed this year is what we will use. The future is bright, and I wish that our friends on the other side would recognize that there will be many, many more technological advances made in the future; and mandating one standard today is a flaw in this bill. Thankfully, my former Rules Committee colleague and friend from West Virginia, the gentlewoman Shelley Moore Capito, has an amendment to this legislation that will require minimum green building standards, in other words, the floor, not the ceiling, that will make mandatory graded sections of HOPE VI application, requiring a minimum standard for green building, and allowing for developers who build to a more stringent green standard to receive even greater credits. That means that we could exceed the one standard. For instance, if you lived in a very cold area, or very hot area, you could exceed for maximum utilization the opportunity to build the house, up front, properly. So our friends on the other side who are telling us the one standard is like a one-size-fits-all rather than a minimum standard, however, if a determination is made in the section of the country that might artificially or might otherwise be able to take advantage of a different standard, a different way that might improve economical standards of efficiency, it wouldn't be included. By utilizing this market-based approach, rather than the one-size- fits-all standard of our friends in Washington of a heavy-handed government mandate, this amendment achieves the goal of building green without stifling innovation for new and improved green building standards. I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, because it will take our friends who are Democrats if we are going to pass this, to please support this commonsense fix to the legislation. Another aspect of this legislation which requires improvement is the elimination of HUD's current authority to award demolition-only grants, which would prohibit the demolition of unsuitable public housing without the replacement of those units. Mr. Speaker, clearly there may be instances when demolition-only grants are appropriate; for instance, when public housing authorities may have already assembled a financing package to fund redevelopment and replacement housing activities, but are lacking the funds for the demolition itself. Additionally, because of their age and denigration, it is certainly possible that some distressed public housing sites would not be viable candidates for redevelopment. There are lots of places in this country where something was built 15, 20, 30, 40 years ago that might not be easily accessible to the modern conveniences of today. And these sites, though only partially occupied or completely vacant, because they put a demand in a particular area, would be excluded. In these instances, other forms of housing assistance such as section 8 vouchers may be more appropriate in a community than public housing. To address this flaw in the legislation, I have introduced an amendment to allow HUD to retain this commonsense authority, rather than trying to tie their hands by taking some of the options that had previously been available to them off the table. For their part, HUD has noted that these grants have provided housing authorities with resources to raze, or to tear down, distressed developments and relocate impacted families. The result is a cleared site that more readily attracts Federal or private resources for the revitalization of the property. I encourage all of my colleagues to once again support this commonsense amendment to allow HUD to retain the flexibility to respond to individual cases, particularly in those cases where a public housing authority does not even have a HOPE VI renovation grant, leaving it with fewer options in revitalization in its most distressed or otherwise not as easily used sites. Mr. Speaker, in the last five budget proposals to Congress, this Bush administration has advocated the elimination of the HOPE VI program, citing the completion of the program's mission and ongoing inefficiencies within the programs. These programs have been assessed by the administration's objective Program Assessing Rating Tool, what is called PART, which has deemed HOPE VI to be not performing, inefficient, and more costly than other programs that serve the same population. In addition to these fundamental problems, the PART assessment notes that ``the program has accomplished its stated mission of the demolition of 100,000 severely distressed public housing units.'' I include a copy of this assessment as well as a Statement of Administration Policy on this matter for insertion into the Record. Program Assessment: HOPE VI--Severely Distressed Public Housing The HOPE VI program revitalizes distressed and obsolete public housing, usually replacing it with less dense housing combining a mixture of public and privately owned housing. The program awards grants through a competitive process to State and local public housing agencies for this activity. NOT PERFORMING: Ineffective The program is more costly than other programs that serve the same population. It also has an inherently long, drawn- out planning and redevelopment process. The program has accomplished its stated mission of demolishing 100,000 severely distressed public housing units. The program coordinates effectively with related programs in designing a comprehensive program to improve the community. We are taking the following actions to improve the performance of the program: Implementing changes to complete projects more quickly. The average time to complete a project after award is being reduced from 8 years to 7 years with further improvement anticipated. Reducing the average cost per unit of the project. (The average grant award has been reduced from $30 million to $20 million to improve project management.) Terminating the program since it has completed its mission. The remaining balance of over $2 billion will be spent during the next several years to complete funded projects.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I think we've said enough. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. I want to thank the gentleman, my friend from Vermont, for yielding. And, Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. ``I rise in strong opposition to this martial law rule and in opposition to the outrageous process that continues to plague the United States House of Representatives. We have before us a martial law rule that allows the leadership to once again ignore the rules of the House and the procedures and the traditions of this House. Martial law is no way to run a democracy no matter what your ideology, no matter what your party affiliation.'' Madam Speaker, those are not my words nor are they the words of my Republican colleague from the Rules Committee, Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart, who spoke these same words on the floor on Monday. They are not the words of my staff or some journalist who is covering the Democrat majority heavy-handed floor tactics. No. These are the clear and clever words of the gentleman from Massachusetts, our Rules Committee colleague, Jim McGovern. He spoke these words on several occasions last year regarding what was then eloquently called ``martial law rule.'' I will also use this opportunity to point out another comment that the gentleman from Massachusetts made about martial law rules. His quote is particularly interesting because it was given to each of us on this floor last year on December 6, just a month before the Democrats took control of the House of Representatives, well after the election. He spoke about how the Democrats proposed to run the House, which today stands in sharp contrast to what they are actually doing. About 1 year ago, the gentleman from Massachusetts said, ``Mr. Speaker, there is a better way to run this body. The truth, Mr. Speaker, is that the American people expect and deserve better. That is why the 110th Congress must be different. I believe we need to rediscover openness and fairness in the House. We must insist on full and fair debate on the issues that come before this body.'' Now, I and all of my Republican colleagues must ask, a year into the new Democrat majority, where is the openness and fairness that Mr. McGovern spoke about? Where is the openness on the energy bill rule where over 90 amendments were prevented from being considered on the House floor, including a Republican substitute? Where was that openness when we considered SCHIP reauthorization and, what, we had a closed rule? I can help my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to find out because I know exactly where it is; they left it off on the campaign trail. This, like their promises to disclose earmarks and to run the most ethical and open Congress in history, was an empty promise. It is an empty promise which is becoming more and more evident from the opening day of this new majority, when the Democrats wrote into the rules of the House closed rules for consideration of the first six bills that we were to take up, in effect, discharging the Rules Committee from its duties and setting a new partisan tone for this Congress. Not much has changed since then, Madam Speaker. Lacking the courage of their convictions to change what they perceived to be problems with how Republicans ran the House, the Democrat remedy for changing unfair practices in the Rules Committee was to have no Rules Committee at all. And that trend of closing down the House to Members that started back then, sadly, continues to this day. Madam Speaker, there is a better way to run this body. The truth is is that the American people expect and deserve better. That's why the 110th Congress must be different. I believe we must and we need to rediscover openness and fairness in this House. We must insist on full and fair debate on the issues that come before this body. Oh, by the way, following the rules of the House of at least presenting a bill 24 hours before it comes to the House floor would be a great place to start, because I know it's on the Speaker's Web site saying that that's the way we should operate. We're still waiting. Madam Speaker, a year ago at this time, despite the House passing all but one of our spending bills, Democrats were on the campaign trail railing against Republican leadership, calling it a ``do-nothing'' Congress. Well, if last year was a failure because of Congress' ability to get all but one appropriations bill to the President for his signature on time, then what does that mean that this year we should think about Democrats when Democrats have failed to get more than one to the President after holding back popular bipartisan bills like veterans funding for their own political partisan gamesmanship? Madam Speaker, I agree with the Democrats of 2006, not the Democrats of 2007. So, I rise in opposition to this martial law rule. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.