Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, as the entire country is focused upon California fires, the disasters that are occurring and the heroic efforts of the firefighters, the people who live in California are working together, community activities, the entire country has been called into action. And I'm sure every single one of us, as not only Members of Congress but just as proud Americans, want to respond in a way that is appropriate. The gentleman who represents a vast area that is included within those wildfires is with us now. He's the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis). I would like to yield him 10 minutes at this time.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman, my friend from Oregon, the distinguished gentleman from Oregon for trying to get more information out of it. That's right, a closed rule says that the committee, the Rules Committee, would make a determination about what would be made, what we call in order, which means what would be debatable and anything outside of that order, even if you had a good idea sitting on the floor of the House of Representatives, you could not engage in the debate. You could not put an amendment forward.

Mr. SESSIONS. In fact, reclaiming my time, the gentleman would be correct. Mrs. Pelosi has stated, it is on her Web site tonight, has been, that this new Democrat majority would be the most open, honest majority in the history of Congress, and yet, they lead already a new record in terms of closed rules

Mr. SESSIONS. I think that the question that you raise is, do I believe that someone who said that they were going to not do that, that they sold to this House and their membership that that was the wrong way to run the railroad and that they would think of better ways, yes, I think that they did say that. And I think it's interesting, as the gentleman may remember, just 2 weeks ago, we had a bill that came from the Financial Services Committee, one in which the gentleman from Massachusetts, the gentleman, Mr. Frank, as the chairman, had worked very closely with his members about talking about what they would make in order, and then working, can I say that word ``bipartisanship'' down here? They worked in a bipartisan fashion in the committee, only to come to the Rules Committee and the chairman of the committee to ask and to say, it's okay. We've worked these through. As a matter of fact, the gentleman from Massachusetts said, I feel comfortable enough as chairman of the committee that you could make, Rules Committee Chairman Slaughter, you could make any amendment that you choose to in order, and I believe I have the ability and our committee has the ability to work forth to where we could prevail on any issue. Whereupon we found out no, that's not the way it's going to be.

Mr. SESSIONS. I'm not doing that.

Mr. SESSIONS. Yeah, it was another closed rule. And I think the gentleman makes a point. So I think the people on the committee have now figured out time after time after time after time when they're voting for a record number of closed rules that, in fact, I wonder what it was they meant when they said we were going to do that? I think they're questioning what was the intent they said one thing but they're doing something else.

Mr. SESSIONS. Still up on the Speaker's Web site. And once again, new record. I think we'll have a new record virtually every time another rule comes out, a new record in this House that I think we have said openly, and the gentleman from Oregon is aware of this, that the Republican party has said we do recognize that there are times that you need to have closed rules. We support that. But if you're going to sell that you're about openness, then at least live up to what you say.

Mr. SESSIONS. An example of one of these might be, let's just think back to a bill that might be about homeland security. And in homeland security, we know that there was a fight that took place that said, and the Democratic Party was very open about it, that they did not want to have Amtrak passengers to have to go through what is called Customs and Border Protection Database that looked at what would be like the TSA no fly list; in other words, someone that might be considered a terrorist or have terrorist ties, they would not allow any matching of a database against potential terrorists for anybody that used Amtrak. And so we said we believe that what should happen is that every single person, we're not talking about going in New York City, riding the subway. We're talking about Amtrak, that Amtrak would be allowed to have that database.

Mr. SESSIONS. And I thank the gentleman for asking about that. What's interesting is that in the Rules Committee, January, February and March, we heard our new colleagues, who are brand new freshman on the Rules Committee, in lockstep with Speaker Pelosi and lockstep with the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter). And they attempted to justify everything they did by saying when we really get outside of our six for '06, which was their political agenda, you're going to start seeing lots of open rules. You will see lots of debate.

Mr. SESSIONS. You know, we have not. And I thank the gentleman for asking that question. Have we seen this change from January, February, March, April or May? And the answer is no, we have not.

Mr. SESSIONS. In fact, the gentleman is correct. While there may not be any procedure with an open rule, there generally have been, and it's what Republicans always allowed, a motion to recommit. And that means that we were able to, or whoever's in the minority is able to say I'm going to take a, just a piece part of this bill and try and include our ideas to better the bill.

Mr. SESSIONS. At least live up to what you said. And it's our job to try and point those factors out. I would also say that there's been a lot of frustration because what's happened is, in this process, Republicans, and I believe the number is 17, perhaps 18 now, motions to recommit that we have been accused of coming down and sabotaging their political agenda.

Mr. SESSIONS. We were accused of sabotaging the privacy of millions of Americans, accused of sabotaging their political agenda.

Mr. SESSIONS. Well, the gentleman is correct. In fact, it is the Republican Party position, and continues today with FISA, that we're trying to gain as much information as we can to avoid a next attack, not just be attacked and then figure it out.

Mr. SESSIONS. It appears to me as though that is really the Democrat Party's position. The Democratic Party leadership in this House is trying on take away the ability that people have to be able to know to thwart an attack. Now, that's off the subject that we are trying to get into tonight, but it's germane in that these are the things that we're trying to do to have with motions to recommit better ideas.

Mr. SESSIONS. Shutting down debate and amendments and making those in order. And so it's interesting that what has tried to be done here, with the fairness doctrine is actually, in this Member's opinion, a silencing. The fairness doctrine would silence talk radio, would put those that might be like Sean Hannity or might be like Rush Limbaugh or back home in Dallas, Texas, Mark Davis of a local radio station that we have in Dallas, it would mean that they would be required, if they're going to talk about a subject, that they would be required to have an opposing side to come and speak about that also. And I think that puts a chilling effect not only on free speech, one which I think is unconstitutional, but perhaps, more importantly, it is an intrusion upon the free thought processes of America and Americans. And so tonight, what the gentleman is doing is correctly saying that we, in this body, the House of Representatives, believe that signing on to H.R. 2905 says that we're not going to go and step backwards in this country. We want free speech to continue and to flourish, and for talk radio and thought processes to be alive and well. Now, I know, and I assume the gentleman from Oregon knows this too, that what's happened, what would happen as a result of this, or what is happening as a result of this is that Mrs. Pelosi and others recognize that talk radio talks about the Democratic agenda, the Democratic Party's agenda, raising taxes, more rules and regulations, more rules and regulations to where, on a regular basis, I feel compelled to tell the truth about the Rules Committee, that the Rules Committee seems to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the AFL-CIO, that it appears as though the Rules Committee receives their instructions directly from union central, John Sweeney, telling them exactly which bills will be made in order. We've had so many bills which are under the construct of trying to say it's about worker safety or it's about making things fairness in the workplace, but in fact it is about further unionizing and empowering unions in this country against consumers and against the working people of this country with powerful unions. And lastly, that the Republican Party will speak very openly about how dangerous we believe single-payer system to health care would be to this country. And so, there are, the Democratic Party in this country does not want those debates to take place. They want us to, talk radio and Republicans, if we're going to be heard, to allow the other side to have a chance to dispute everything we say. And I would say let the Democratic Party have their talk shows and let them speak freely about raising taxes, more rules and regulations, and empowering the unions in this country to become, once again, more powerful, and to talk about how the free enterprise system is something that they don't support, that they believe that raising taxes is the right thing to do. Let them have their own talk radio show. But I would say, equally, that they need to make sure that they are not intruding on the Constitution and people in this country who choose to stand up and speak about the things which we believe are important. I thank the gentleman for allowing me time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Actually a little bit more than two to one. It's 9 to 4, so it is a bit more.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank you for not only taking time, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) for taking time to lead in this Congress the debate and the discussion on not only the fairness doctrine, which we oppose in this United States House of Representatives, perhaps, more importantly, a vision about what we are trying to have in this country, for not only free speech, but also the ability to speak fairly and freely about the things which we hold dear, not only in our hearts and in our minds, but also in this country and in America. The gentleman from Oregon has already outlined previously that what happened is that prior to about 1987 we did have something that was called the fairness doctrine. The fairness doctrine essentially says this, that if you are on talk radio in this country that you would have to give the same time, the fair time, equal time to an opponent, someone who had an opinion different than your own. As a result of the fairness doctrine, which I believe and others believe, and perhaps the Supreme Court believes, would be illegal, what has happened is that talk radio and the ability for the American people to speak freely, openly, without fear that what they are saying would be, they would be taken to task for. What has happened is that talk radio has flourished all around the country. Talk radio has flourished not only about thoughts and ideas, but about the greatness of this country. I do believe that what the gentleman is talking about is the right thing to do. That is why I signed on as a cosponsor of H.R. 2905. The gentleman from Oregon also talked rather freely and openly about my service and the service of three of my other colleagues who are Republicans on the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee is that body that is interested in making sure that the debate that comes to the floor of the House of Representatives has a chance, first of all, to be heard and all thoughts and ideas are debated. We have rather openly, and the gentleman from Oregon knows this, whoever is in the majority, whoever is in the majority has a very difficult time as a result of the rules of the House with germaneness of amendments and the things which we do of trying to have a balance about hearing good thoughts and ideas, making in order amendments, without killing the general intent of what legislation is for. I think that that is part of what this fairness doctrine might be about from their perspective and where we disagree with the fairness doctrine, but being able to openly talk about things. The fact of the matter is that the Rules Committee yesterday, or today, heard a discussion, and I think it was last week that the Democratic Party has a new record of closed rules, today a new record on closed rules to where they don't want any debate.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a local community conservation organization of which I have been a volunteer and supporter, For the Love of the Lake. This group of enthusiastic and dedicated volunteers generously gives of its time and effort to help preserve and enhance White Rock Lake Park in Dallas, Texas. As a member of this local community, I understand the desire to ensure White Rock Lake stays clean and beautiful. I also labor alongside many volunteers as an Adopt-a- Shoreline Leader by picking up litter and recyclables to maintain this urban oasis so that it can continue to be enjoyed by families, local citizens, and visitors. These regularly scheduled weekend clean ups help build a strong sense of community and civic duty, essential to the American spirit. Beyond preservation, For the Love of the Lake has also sought out innovative opportunities to enhance and renovate White Rock Lake Park. They have built partnerships with the Dallas Parks and Recreation Department to implement new programs such as the White Rock 'n' Roll Run and, have created ``Litter-free Louie,'' a mascot to help educate others on the importance of keeping our lake clean. I am proud to be associated with this valuable organization and am grateful for all that they do for White Rock Lake Park and the city of Dallas. Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in recognizing their passion and hard work.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that there is anything even left to say about the depths to which the House has sunk under the ``broken promise'' Democrat majority. Today, once again, the American people are being forced to endure the results of yet another evening spent in the ``broken promise'' Democrat Rules Committee, with nothing to show for it except for yet another closed rule, which was referred to today as a ``traditionally closed rule'' on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this completely closed rule, which denies the minority even with a basic substitute amendment in this process, and to the fiscally irresponsible underlying legislation. I also rise with great regret to report to the American people that, once again, as I have been forced to report on multiple occasions over the course of this year, the Democrat leadership is bringing legislation to the House floor which stacks the deck in favor of big labor bosses at someone else's expense. Today, that expense is on the American taxpayer, who is being targeted on behalf of big public sector union bosses to the tune of $2.2 billion, to be exact. I would like to take a few minutes to discuss a number of the myths that will be discussed surrounding this legislation and provide my colleagues and the American people who are tuning in on C-SPAN with some of the facts about the real effect of this special interest legislation and what it would mean to the taxpayer. In 2004, Congress gave the IRS the ability to utilize the best practices and advantages created by the private sector to address its growing backlog of unpaid debt. Today, it is estimated that $345 billion of these unpaid taxes exist. That means that every year the average taxpayer who plays by the rules must pay an extra $2,700 to cover taxes not being paid by those who should legally be paying their taxes. This new program, which began as a small pilot program that grows as it continues to succeed, is estimated to bring in about $2.2 billion in its first 10 years. And under this agreement, the IRS would get the first 25 cents of every single new dollar to hire new collections professionals, a provision that would have a positive, compound effect by helping to bring in even greater amounts of this uncollected revenue for the government into the future. The program, even in its beginning stages and despite numerous attempts by the Democrat majority to kill it before it could succeed, has been hugely successful, bringing in over $30 million worth of unpaid taxes. It has received a 98 percent rating from the IRS for regulatory and procurement accuracy, as well a 100 percent rating for professionalism. Additionally, less than 1 percent of the taxpayers contacted by these private agencies have filed complaints with the IRS, none which have ever been validated. Despite this program's track record of success on behalf of taxpayers who do play by the rules and pay their designated share, not to mention the increased revenue that it brings in to fund the Democrats' other new, big-spending legislation, there are many opponents on the other side of the aisle that want to prevent it from continuing to work, supposedly to protect the dues of the big government union bosses. They have claimed, despite the fact that 40 out of the 50 States in America already use these same contract services, that this is something that only the government can do. You don't have to take my word for it that this is untrue. Even the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, the GAO, has found that ``the IRS may benefit from using private collectors, and it is reasonable to assume that the IRS could learn from their best practices as it works to resolve long- standing problems with its debt collection activities.'' Opponents have also incorrectly claimed that private debt collectors do not follow the same rules as IRS collectors. Well, this one is partially true, because these private collection agencies are subject to both Federal and State laws that are collectively more restrictive than the laws that Federal employees must follow. Private collectors follow the same privacy protections, undergo the same background checks and are subject to the same penalties if they violate any of these laws. Opponents have also claimed that allowing for private debt collection would cost untold union jobs, a statement which is also based in an alternate reality. The private collection agencies working in this program did not and do not replace a single IRS worker. As of this past July, over 51,667 ``cold cases'' that the IRS was incapable of collecting were given to private agencies, resulting in over 5,300 full repayments to the Treasury and almost 2,000 agreements to repay these debts incrementally. This means that the government received over $24 million of gross revenue that it would not have received otherwise, of which only about one in eight went to pay for these otherwise nonexistent services. In fact, the IRS has publicly stated that no government employee will lose his or her job as a result of this highly effective private contracting. Instead, they will benefit from the opportunity to focus their talent, expertise and resources on high priority, more complex cases. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to understand all of the facts regarding this legislation before they are influenced by the scare tactics of a few Members who are determined to kill this highly- effective program that has already proven to be cost-effective in closing the ``tax gap'' of unpaid, hard-to collect taxes. I wish I could say they would have plenty of time to learn all the facts surrounding this legislation that is being rushed to the floor today under a completely closed process. Unfortunately, last night in the ``Graveyard of Good Ideas in the House of Representatives,'' the majority Rules Committee Democrats voted three times along party lines to prevent any amendment authored by a Republican from being considered today. Despite numerous campaign promises by the highest ranking Democrats in the House to run the most ``transparent, open and honest'' House in history, this Democrat majority once again has provided the House with something which is a rule that is none of the above, which is the historical tradition. Instead, we have what is referred to as a closed rule. I wish I could say I am surprised by the Democrat leadership allowing politics to triumph over policy or fair procedure. Unfortunately, this is precisely what we have come to expect from the new ``broken promise'' Democrat majority. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this ill-conceived and costly legislation, and I encourage all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up for taxpayers by voting against this rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we continue to hear arguments from my good friends about how this just won't work. But for 10 years it has worked very well, with a 99 percent accuracy, in providing billions of dollars to the taxpayer. The bottom line is that Treasury simply focuses their activities on major accounts, and the others on smaller accounts, which is who have been handling these accounts and been very good at it, which is what we are asking to continue today. What is happening is that we found out the unions simply don't like that. They don't like somebody else perhaps getting something that they in fact never wanted to work on themselves. So we are trying to say to the American people today, don't take away this stream of revenue. Don't take away this opportunity. Because the private sector is working on these accounts. They are not given any advantage. The people who really end up winning is not only the Treasury Department, but, more specifically, the taxpayer. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier), the ranking member of the Rules Committee. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we have had a good debate here on the floor. We talked about from the Republican perspective, we're trying to follow the rules, not only of the House, but also the statements that have been made by our new Speaker, the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, who said she would have the most honest, open and ethical House in history and that that would also extend to processes of amendments. We are here on the floor of the House saying today, that's not happening, has not happened all year, and I would predict to say today probably is not about to happen. Still on the Web site for the Speaker it says this. The American people are waiting for this promise to be made. Today, we are debating a rule and a bill that would say to the American taxpayer that the IRS and their ability to collect taxes on behalf of the American people is going to be changed, changed from accounts that the IRS has no reasonable reason to believe that they will be chasing after or trying to collect. And that's why in the first place we said from doing audits, you've got all these accounts, please pass them to someone who will do it on behalf of the taxpayer. Because if you're not trying to collect these bills, it means that people will never pay. The result has been over $30 million worth of uncollected taxes that never would have been collected, not by the IRS, and they're done by someone, these private collection agencies, that receive a 98 percent rating by the IRS for regulatory and procedural accuracy, as well as a 100 percent rating for professionalism and less than a 1 percent complaint rate of which not one has turned out to be validated. Mr. Speaker, this is an assault on not just the taxpayer. This is an assault on really good and effective and proper government, where the IRS utilizes best practice. They're utilized by over 40 State governments today to have help in collecting money that is owed not just to the government but to the taxpayers of this Nation. And today, despite the success, overwhelming success, that is occurring, the Democrat majority, with nine cosponsors plus the chairman, is interested in taking away this opportunity for the taxpayers, I will assume, because the taxpayer union of the Treasury Department does not like this happening. Mr. Speaker, we need to have best practices. The President is right. He will veto this bill. This is a valiant effort by this Democrat majority to pay back AFL-CIO and the labor unions for their support, but it is not in the best interests of not only the taxpayer but of good and proper government. The Republican Party is here on the floor of the House today saying that what has happened with best practices that is happening today should continue. We should have these private services that work in concert with the IRS. We should continue to give the IRS and those particular departments that do go after this money to receive directly more money that is collected that would help them hire more tax collectors, but we should not stop this process dead in its tracks because not only is it successful, but it is working as a best practice would for other people to see how important a public/private partnership is. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material to appear in the Record just prior to the vote on the previous question.

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