Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman from Oregon, who not only has persuasively brought forth arguments that he sees in his home State of Oregon, but also who amplified the Republican vision, smaller, smarter, commonsense government, almost something you can find in a Scout handbook, or a merit badge, versus the Democrat agenda, which is ineffective, wasteful, intrusive government, allowing not only for thousands of people to lose their job, but mismanagement of the natural resources that has been given to this great country that Lewis & Clark found out so much about, that we tout as not only the Teddy Roosevelt answer to the way America would be, but also how we are going to bring her on in the future. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Oregon not only for his time, for his dedication, but also for the things which he believes in. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing us to be on the floor this evening to talk about very important issues. And of course the House of Representatives, in recess right now, is beginning to prepare for the funeral for our colleague, Jo Ann Davis of Virginia, who passed away. Today, our colleagues came to the floor one by one to not only acknowledge the service that Jo Ann Davis gave to the United States of America, but also in her representation of her congressional district Jo Ann will be missed. Jo Ann courageously fought cancer. Jo Ann courageously went back home day after day, week after week, after serving the United States Congress, making sure that she talked about those things which she did in her job and her representation of people from Virginia, but perhaps more importantly, with the strength and character and courage that Jo Ann, even in the midst of adversity, brought to this body was an inspiration to Republicans and Democrats alike. It is with a heavy heart that we all will miss her, and we say to her family, how much they know they will miss her, too, and to her constituents, they were well served. Mr. Speaker, we will miss Jo Ann Davis from Virginia. Mr. Speaker, tonight I come to the floor of the House of Representatives to talk about the things which I believe are important for so many people to understand, not just about what is happening here in Washington, DC between the two parties, the Republican Party and the Democrat Party, as we talk about public policy issues that are demanding on both parties, and certainly our President and the American people who want to, and do, recognize that America's greatest days lie in our future, but rather, not just understanding the philosophies which are talked about here, but they want to know more about them. What would those policies lead to? And tonight it is my intent, with several of my Republican colleagues, to talk about the Republican vision, the Republican vision that would be of a smaller, smarter, commonsense government versus the Democrat agenda, which is ineffective, wasteful and intrusive government. The Republican Party for so many years has been really the party of the free enterprise system, the free enterprise system which has made America the envy of the world, which has made the Republican Party and this great Nation to not only grow in stature, but to provide dreams, dreams to Americans and dreams for people around the world. Mr. Speaker, just in March of this year, the Financial Times out of London put forth a pretty interesting editorial where they talked about that the EU, now 25 combined nations of the EU has a GDP that equals that of the United States of America, or at least where the United States of America was 25 years ago; meaning that Europe consolidated all of their resources to the EU, the European Union, to these 25 nations, and when they combine all that they have equal that of the United States GDP 25 years ago. What is interesting is that they also look at the amount of spending that would take place within their medical system and within research and development in medicine, and both those lag 25 years behind the United States. The United States of America has a strong and vibrant system, the free enterprise system, as a result of not just the United States Congress and tax cuts and making sure that we have the greatest health care system in the world, but it comes as a result of what you're going to hear tonight of a public policy that is ennunciated from a Republican vision. And certainly, as we look at what has made America great, you would want to look at, well, why has Europe lagged so far behind? I mean, after all, Europe could do the exact same things that America does. They have education. They have wonderful people. They have innovate ideas and opportunities. I would submit to you it is because of the public policy. And the public policy that they have in Europe really has three basic tenets that are entirely different than the United States has, our free enterprise system. And that was pretty much ennunciated by what you saw tonight; we're talking about health care, where it's a State-run program. This is what the Democratic Party is pushing for their public policy. They want a State-run, single-payer health care system, just like Europe. We also see rules and regulations. Europe is completely covered up with rules and regulations that tell not only employers but also employees exactly how they will be treated. Forget the free enterprise system, forget innovativeness, forget the new opportunities that people might have to bring new products and services. You've got to look up the union rule book; you've got to find out what you can do. And lastly, the third tenet that separates the United States of America from the European model is taxation. Taxes began as a battle point under Ronald Reagan here in this country. And we recognized that back under Ronald Reagan, and the President recognized it, that our taxes were not just too high, they were stifling innovativeness and the free enterprise system. They were stifling the ability that we had to grow our free enterprise system in favor of giving the money to the government, to grow the size of government. And as our President, Ronald Reagan, said, he hoped that he would change that to where America once again would be the shining city on the hill. In fact, that did take place. As we cut taxes, as we became prepared for the future way back when Ronald Reagan was President to be prepared today, and for the last few years, for America to propel itself forward. Mr. Speaker, the Financial Times was right when they said in March that the European Union could not compete against the United States economically because of the three tenets that make the EU different, and that is, high taxes, more rules and regulations, and single-payer system for health care. Tonight, you are going to hear members of the Republican Party talk about how that is virtually exactly what the Democrat Party agenda is for this great Nation. And tonight you're going to hear Republicans talk about smaller, smarter, commonsense government whereby we not only balance budgets, where we have tax reform, where we have health care that works on behalf of people to where we can maintain the greatest health care system in the world. We will talk about agriculture; the gentleman from the great State of Oregon (Mr. Walden) is here to do that. We will talk about intelligence and homeland security. And lastly, we intend to talk about education. It is with great honor tonight that I am joined by a dear colleague who is from the State of Oregon, the gentleman from Oregon, and I would yield to him at this time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio and enjoy working with her. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question so that I may amend the rule to allow for consideration of H. Res. 479, a resolution that I like to call the Earmark Accountability Rule. During last year's campaign and again at the beginning of this Congress, promises were made to the American people and to the new minority about the Democrats' supposedly new and improved earmark rules. As the year has worn on, however, I have noticed that while the Democrats' rules changes may sound good as a cynical sound bite for the evening news, they haven't actually accomplished much since the majority has repeatedly turned the other way when it comes to their own actual enforcement. We continue to see nondisclosed earmarks appearing in all sorts of bills, and even the House Parliamentarian has determined that the hastily drafted and passed Democrat earmark rule ``does not comprehensively apply to all legislative propositions at all stages of the legislative process.'' I will insert this letter from the House Parliamentarian, John Sullivan, to the Rules Committee chairman, Louise Slaughter, into the Record at this point. House of Representatives, Office of the Parliamentarian, Washington, DC, October 2, 2007. Hon. Louise McIntosh Slaughter, Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairwoman Slaughter: Thank you for your letter of October 2, 2007, asking for an elucidation of our advice on how best to word a special rule. As you also know, we have advised the committee that language waiving all points of order ``except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI'' should not be adopted as boilerplate for all special rules, notwithstanding that the committee may be resolved not to recommend that the House waive the earmark-disclosure requirements of clause 9. In rule XXI, clause 9(a) establishes a point of order against undisclosed earmarks in certain measures and clause 9(b) establishes a point of order against a special rule that waives the application of clause 9(a). As illuminated in the rulings of September 25 and 27, 2007, clause 9(a) of rule XXI does not comprehensively apply to all legislative propositions at all stages of the legislative process. Clause 9(a) addresses the disclosure of earmarks in a bill or joint resolution, in a conference report on a bill or joint resolution, or in a so-called ``manager's amendment'' to a bill or joint resolution. Other forms of amendment-- whether they be floor amendments during initial House consideration or later amendments between the Houses--are not covered. (One might surmise that those who developed the rule felt that proposals to amend are naturally subject to immediate peer review, though they harbored reservations about the so-called ``manager's amendment,'' i.e., one offered at the outset of consideration for amendment by a member of a committee of initial referral under the terms of a special rule.) The question of order on September 25 involved a special rule providing for a motion to dispose of an amendment between the Houses. As such, clause 9(a) was inapposite. It had no application to the motion in the first instance. Accordingly, Speaker pro tempore Holden held that the special rule had no tendency to waive any application of clause 9(a). The question of order on September 27 involved a special rule providing (in pertinent part) that an amendment be considered as adopted. Speaker pro tempore Blumenauer employed the same rationale to hold that, because clause 9(a) had no application to the amendment in the first instance, the special rule had no tendency to waive any application of clause 9(a). The same would be true in the more common case of a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text for the purpose of further amendment. Clause 9(a) of rule XXI is inapposite to such an amendment. In none of these scenarios would a ruling by a presiding officer hold that earmarks are or are not included in a particular measure or proposition. Under clause 9(b) of rule XXI, the threshold question for the Chair--the cognizability of a point of order--turns on whether the earmark-disclosure requirements of clause 9(a) of rule XXI apply to the object of the special rule in the first place. Embedded in the question whether a special rule waives the application of clause 9(a) is the question whether clause 9(a) has any application. In these cases to which clause 9 of rule XXI has no application in the first instance, stating a waiver of all points of order except those arising under that rule--when none can so arise--would be, at best, gratuitous. Its negative implication would be that such a point of order might lie. That would be as confusing as a waiver of all points of order against provisions of an authorization bill except those that can only arise in the case of a general appropriation bill (e.g., clause 2 of role XXI). Both in this area and as a general principle, we try hard not to use language that yields a misleading implication. I appreciate your consideration and trust that this response is to be shared among all members of the committee. Our office will share it with all inquiring parties. Sincerely, John V. Sullivan, Parliamentarian. Mr. Speaker, even the nonpartisan House Parliamentarian acknowledges what Republicans have been saying since January: that the so-called Democrat earmark rule has more holes than a bowl of Cheerios and that earmark abuse by the broken promise Democrat majority continues to run rampant. This rules change would simply allow the House to debate openly and honestly about the validity and accuracy of earmarks contained in all bills, not just appropriations bills. If we defeat the previous question, we then can address that problem today and restore this Congress' nonexistent credibility when it comes to the enforcement of its own rules. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material appear in the Congressional Record just prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this modified closed rule that waives important portions of the Congressional Budget Act. Last night in the Rules Committee, we learned that this special rule finds yet another way for the majority to break regular order. By waiving section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act, this rule undermines the integrity of the budgeting process by allowing legislation within the Budget Committee's jurisdiction to be considered by the House without the Budget Committee's review. My friend from Pasco, Washington, Doc Hastings, asked the acting chairman of the committee, Mr. McGovern, if the rule being considered does indeed waive this budget rule that protects taxpayers and Members of this House of Representatives. The answer came back simple and clear: Yes, the rule waives this commonsense provision. I wish that I could say that I am surprised by the Democrat leadership's decision to find yet another way to toss House rules and procedures out the window. Unfortunately, this is precisely what has come to be known as, and to expect from, the new broken promise Democrat majority. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us has the noble goal of strengthening and clarifying the authority, tenure, resources, oversight and independence of the Inspectors General in the various Federal Departments and agencies. Many of the issues addressed by the legislation today enjoy bipartisan support and are of great importance to me and a huge number of my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle. The bill establishes a council to identify, review and plan to promote efficiency and address waste, fraud and abuse. It provides for greater integrity by establishing a new committee to investigate allegations of wrongdoing and to report on their efforts to the executive branch and to Congress. It requires reports to Congress on the cooperation of all Federal agencies with the General Accountability Office and requires that semiannual inspection and evaluation reports, in addition to audit reports, be submitted to Congress. Despite all of the noble goals of this legislation, I do regret that this bill was not crafted in closer coordination with the administration to resolve some of the outstanding issues that prevent it from being signed into law. Like me, the administration has publicly stated its strong support for the work of Inspectors General and their overall mission to improve agency performance and to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse. However, the administration strongly objects to some of the provisions included in this legislation that are likely unconstitutional. The end-run contained in this legislation around article II of the Constitution, which our Founding Fathers provided to the executive branch to ensure that all of our Nation laws are faithfully executed, guarantees that this bill will not only be vetoed by the President but would also be overturned by the Supreme Court if this bill were ever passed by the House and the Senate. Also, by requiring Inspectors General to circumvent the long-standing and constitutionally based budgeting process that currently exists, without even including the House Budget Committee in the decisionmaking process, is a thinly veiled political stunt intended to draw a veto threat from the President and to create a false disagreement over this bill when it is clear that both Republicans and Democrats support reducing waste, fraud and abuse at each of our Federal agencies. Mr. Speaker, I insert in the Record a copy of the administration's statement of policy regarding their position on this legislation. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, October 1, 2007. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 928--To amend the Inspector General Act of 1978 to enhance the independence of the Inspectors General, to create a Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, and for other purposes The Administration appreciates the work of inspectors general (IGs) and their mission to improve agency performance and eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. IGs play an important role in Executive Branch efforts to measure and achieve success in program performance. Each agency's Office of Inspector General (OIG) fills a vital role in these efforts by reviewing operations and making recommendations for improvements and corrective actions. By providing objective information to promote strong management, decision-making, and accountability, OIGs contribute to the success of each agency and the Federal government as a whole. The Administration strongly supports efforts to ensure that IGs have: the skills and training they need to perform their duties; fair pay; findings and recommendations that are transparent to the public; and access to necessary legal advice. H.R. 928, the ``Improving Government Accountability Act,'' would further some of these objectives. However, the Administration strongly objects to provisions that are inconsistent with these goals, and with broader policy considerations and constitutional requirements. If H.R. 928 were presented to the President in its current form, the President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill. H.R. 928 would permit the President to remove IGs only for cause. The Administration strongly objects to this intrusion on the President's removal authority and his ability to hold IGs accountable for their performance. The responsibility to ``take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed''--which Article II vests solely in the President--includes the responsibility to supervise and guide how IGs and other executive branch officers investigate and respond to allegations of wrongdoing within the executive branch. IGs already have the independence necessary to perform their investigative functions with respect to individual agencies, because agency heads generally may not supervise IGs' conduct of investigations. H.R. 928's attempt to extend this current independence to include independence from supervision by the President does not enhance the function of IGs and raises grave constitutional concerns. The Administration also strongly opposes provisions that would authorize IGs to circumvent the President's longstanding, and constitutionally based, control over executive branch budget requests by allowing IGs to submit their budget requests directly to Congress and by requiring the President to include each IG's request as a separate line item in the President's annual budget request. Since its inception, the current executive branch coordination process has worked well for both the President and the Congress. The process is deliberative and results in an agency and government-wide coordinated submission that accounts for long-range planning and priorities. IGs have been a part of this process since their creation in 1978, and there is no evidence that the current process results in budgets that fail to enable appropriate IG performance. The Administration also objects to provisions that would establish within the Executive Branch a freestanding, independent Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. A similar council already exists under Executive Orders. Statutory codification of such a council would impede the President's ability to react swiftly and effectively to problems with IGs or with the Council itself. Furthermore, the council provisions in H.R. 928 raise constitutional questions because they restrict the President's authority to nominate individuals to serve on the Council and contain ambiguous definitions of offices and their respective roles and responsibilities. Finally, it is critical that disclosure protections regarding the Witness Security Program apply to the Department of Justice's Inspector General's internal investigative procedures and release of information, since the release of specific information related to the program could endanger the program's means and methods, personnel, and the continued safety of the program's protected witnesses. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the majority's unwillingness to work with the administration in a bipartisan way to create a bill that all Members of this body can support and that would also pass constitutional muster. I also oppose the Democrat leadership's willingness to once again subvert regular order for political purposes and to prevent my colleague from The Woodlands in Texas, Congressman Kevin Brady, from having an opportunity to offer his amendment to provide additional review of the work product of our Federal agencies. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentlewoman engaging me at this time. Mr. Speaker, I would inform my colleague that I do not have any additional speakers.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the ranking member from California for not only putting together this Special Order tonight, but also talking about the Rules Committee which I think is so important. I have had an opportunity to serve on the Rules Committee for 9 years. For 9 years previous to this, I have seen the Rules Committee as being part of the process to make sure that the agenda of policy is done properly by the Speaker of the House through this committee. I would like to note to the gentleman from California, as he remembers that, Republicans utilized this committee to make sure that we balanced the budget, to make sure that we had responsibility and the opportunity to make sure that the American people benefited from that which we did here in Washington, D.C. by cutting taxes. Republicans balanced the budget when they said it was not possible in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. We went in and we balanced the budget. We utilized the Rules Committee to make sure that we had responsible government. I have now seen during the last 10 months that we have been in the minority that it is also true that the new Democrat majority utilizes the Rules Committee to do things that I don't think that the American people can completely understand, and that is that they want to raise taxes, they want to raise spending, and they want to make sure that what happens is that loopholes are there in place for them to do earmarks despite the debate that has taken place on this floor. So I am pleased to join the gentleman from California tonight in summarizing that the Rules Committee is a very difficult place for all Members. It is a difficult place whether you are in the majority or the minority, but it is still the place where the political work gets done, and nothing has changed. The Democrat Party is still here to raise taxes and raise spending and to take away from the American people that which they earn, and that is called their hard-earned money.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, once again the Republican team that is on the floor today wishes to continue our voice of representation of millions of Americans for better ideas, to be included not only on this floor but in the Rules Committee for consideration and agreement to debate and vote on these good ideas. We know that last night that there were 13 amendments that were made in order, all Democrat amendments, no Republican amendments. We know that several Republican amendments were rejected based upon being just minutes late, even though they had been electronically submitted. So as a result of that, we are here on the floor today doing appropriately, properly, what we should be doing; we are talking about the good ideas that we have. You heard already a good idea from the gentleman from New Jersey. You heard already a good idea from the gentlewoman from Michigan. At this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I heard the gentleman say that he had spent time working with the chairman of the committee on this inequity to make sure that if you brought forward that amendment, that he would not oppose it.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question to give the Democrats yet another opportunity to live up to their broken promises and amend the rule to allow for consideration of H. Res. 479, a resolution that I like to call the ``earmark accountability rule.'' Mr. Speaker, this Congress continues to see nondisclosed earmarks appearing in all sorts of bills. These rule changes would simply allow the House to openly debate and be honest about the validity and accuracy of earmarks contained in all bills, not just appropriation bills. If we defeat the previous question, we can address that problem today and restore this Congress's nonexistent credibility when it comes to the enforcement of its own rules. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material appear in the Record just before the vote on the previous question.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, part of what our last three colleagues who have been to the floor spoke about was that as members of the Committee on Financial Services they worked very diligently, not only in their States, not only within their delegation, not only within the committee, but also with the chairman on trying to make sure that these good ideas might be included. Now, the Rules Committee, which I have only served on for 9 years, always finds itself in a difficult position. Always. That is part of the dilemma of being on the committee, in particular when a committee chairman and a member show up before the Rules Committee and they talk about working together, finding a bit of compromise, working together to get a bill and thoughts and ideas to where they are not only germane, but to where they better the bill. The Rules Committee just sits back and we say, boy, that is such a wonderful thing. We are so happy and so pleased, Republicans and Democrats. Something has happened, something has happened since January that has poisoned that well. Not only time after time after time did we see yesterday when Republicans showed up and said to the committee, oh, I have worked very carefully with my Governor, or I have worked very carefully with people back home, I've worked with the administration, I have put in a lot of time, this is a thoughtful amendment, I've tried to gain the concurrence of working through the committee; and, oh, by the way, I have even worked with my committee chairman, which says something also about the committee chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who yesterday on his own standing said, by and large, look, I understand every issue that is related to this. I don't mind if any amendment, as long as they are not duplicative, and as long as they have substance, I think they ought to be made in order. Once again, one of those times when the members of the committee, Republicans and Democrats, say, boy, that is great. Thank you so much, Chairman Frank. Something's happened, however, where people who were from the committee working with the committee chairman come and agree, and all of a sudden every single Republican amendment was rejected. It wasn't because they were duplicative; it wasn't because they didn't have substance. I don't know what it is. We have tried this morning to have several people who have come to the floor to say I'd like to engage the new Democrat majority, Rules Committee members, to find out--what is it--Why was every single Republican amendment rejected while 13 Democrat amendments were made in order? What is it? There's a change. I don't think it's open, I don't think it's transparent, and I question some other things behind the decisionmaking that is being made. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) also took time to not only have thoughtful amendments, he not only sits on the committee, but also came to the Rules Committee, is here today also, because he believes, we believe, as Republicans we may get shut out, as we were in the Rules Committee; but we are still going to come to the floor and stand for the things which we believe in that would better the bill. I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise again today in strong opposition to this unnecessarily restrictive rule that completely closes down the legislative process to every single Republican amendment that was offered in hopes of bettering this bill before the Rules Committee. This modified closed rule is being offered by the broken-promise Democrat majority, is wrong on both process and on policy. Yesterday evening, in the Rules Committee, the place where democracy goes to die in the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) stated that he welcomed debating any substantive amendment so long as the committee did not make in order multiple amendments with similar goals. Despite the chairman's wishes to allow for a fair and open debate on substantive amendments to this bill, Rules Committee Democrats, once again, instead chose to further solidify our committee's growing reputation as ``the graveyard of good ideas'' in the House of Representatives by rejecting five times each time, along straight party lines, attempts to improve this rule by including substantive amendments offered by Republicans. Chairman Frank also testified that no amendment had been offered to the legislation that reflected the administration's opposition to this legislation, an inaccurate statement that I would like to clear up. First, my good friend from Georgia, the gentleman, Dr. Tom Price, electronically submitted a timely amendment to this bill that dealt with the substantive concerns raised by the administration. Dr. Price was then turned away from the Rules Committee and denied the opportunity to even offer this amendment when the paper copies reached the Rules Committee door 5 minutes after the arbitrary deadline that was set by the Rules Committee staff. Next, Mr. Speaker, when it became obvious that the Rules Committee was going to silence Dr. Price, my good friend and Texas colleague, Congressman Jeb Hensarling, modified one of his amendments to address the substantive concerns over the addition of wind coverage to the National Flood Insurance Program that he shared in common with Dr. Price and President Bush. Unfortunately, Mr. Hensarling, too, has been shut out by this rule. 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 has once again provided the House with the rule where none of this would be available. Out of 26 amendments offered to this legislation, not one of the seven Republican amendments offered is made in order under the rule. It can't be for lack of time. There is simply no good reason to rush reauthorization for this legislation which doesn't even expire until next year. And the Democrats certainly found time enough to provide 13 Democrat amendment sponsors enough time to come to the floor to try and change this legislation. It can't be because these Republican amendments are not substantive. The Hensarling and Price amendments would have addressed the most substantive and contentious part of this legislation: the inclusions of wind coverage into a flood insurance program. However, the Democrat majority, once again, decided that political expediency is more important than allowing the representatives of half of this country to be heard. I wish I could say that I was 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. What is worse, Mr. Speaker, is that this bill's real-world impact is as bad or worse as the process that brings us here to the floor today. It would expand the flood program to include a new risk before the effects of this policy have even been studied. Both the GAO, the Government Accountability Office, and the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, have reported to us that the program is already not financially sound. That means that, as the program exists that the new Democrat majority wants to put in place, we already know that it is not financially sound. And the addition of this new and untested liability threats to derail much of the much-needed reforms of this program, while vastly increasing taxpayer exposure for losses from natural disasters unrelated to flooding. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule. I oppose its exclusion of every single Republican amendment that was offered to improve it in the Rules Committee. I oppose the raw, political gain represented by the ill- conceived underlying legislation that puts our National Flood Insurance Program in jeopardy. Most of all, Mr. Speaker, I oppose the new earmark loophole, uncovered last night, that provides the broken-promise Democrat majority with yet another opportunity to waive their already loose earmark rules on every bill as they see fit. While this new development made here to the strict letter of the smoke-and-mirrors earmark rule the Democrats rushed sloppily through the House at the beginning of the Congress, it certainly does not meet the spirit of that rule either. I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in opposing this rule, particularly Chairman Frank, who argued so eloquently for the inclusion of substantive amendments so that the new rule can be passed that would finally keep the Democrat promise of openness and inclusion alive. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, once again, in line with what we have stated earlier, that the 13 Republican amendments, which were presented to the Rules Committee, of course, there were others that were rejected because they were 1 or 2 minutes late, need to be discussed. The Rules Committee voted on a party line not to let them be on the floor today. But our Members represent important not only States, but important districts and important ideas. Another one of the persons who was denied the opportunity to have his amendment to be made in order is here with us today. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) for that purpose.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, if I could inquire from my colleague from California if she has finished with her speakers.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, the minority leader, Mr. Boehner.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question so that I may amend the rule to allow for consideration of H. Res. 479, a resolution that I call the ``Earmark Accountability Rule.'' It seems like we need a lot more accountability. We had to learn today that through a loophole that evidently we don't have to have all earmarks to be accounted for in the bills that come to this floor of the House of Representatives despite what we were told just a few months ago. Last night in the ``Graveyard of Good Ideas,'' which is the Rules Committee, I made a motion that would have the Democrats enforce their own earmark proposal by allowing points of order regarding earmarks to be raised on this legislation. As expected, the vote failed along party lines with every Democrat member present voting to waive their own earmark rules for this bill. I am greatly disappointed in that outcome. So today I am giving the entire House, not just the nine Democrat members of the Rules Committee, whose word we are expected to take that this legislation contains no earmarks, an opportunity to correct that mistake. This rules change would simply allow the House to debate openly and honestly about the validity and accuracy of earmarks contained in all bills, not just appropriations bills. If we defeat the previous question, we can address that problem today and restore this Congress' nonexistent credibility when it comes to the enforcement of its own rules. I ask unanimous consent to have the text of this amendment and extraneous material appear in the Record just before the vote on the previous question.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, today, once again, we have a rule that is on the floor of the House of Representatives that is neither open nor I think passes the standard of accountability to the American people nor fairness that they spoke about. Last night, the Rules Committee and minority received this bill just 1 hour and 15 minutes before the Rules Committee was to meet. It involved no feedback from Republican Members, especially those who have jurisdiction over this from the Energy and Commerce Committee. I am disappointed. I am disappointed that, once again, we have to come to the floor of the House of Representatives after asking a straightforward question last night to the chairman of the Rules Committee, ``Are there any earmarks in this legislation? We think we found three,'' only to come to the floor today and find out, oops, no, we got a loophole, had to find a loophole. This is crass. It is really politics over policy. I know many people want the United States House of Representatives to be higher in the polls. We are at 11 percent right now. People scratch their head and wonder why. Well, with the way that this House is running, not living up to their word, even the word in committee among colleagues who have been with each other for 9 years that I have been on the Rules Committee where a person looked right at me and said, ``There is nothing in that bill,'' I think we can do better. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from San Dimas, California, the ranking member on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) 6 minutes. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Cousins Properties, TIAA Realty, and the Towers at Williams Square for winning the coveted 2007 International The Office Building of the Year (TOBY) Award. The Towers at Williams Square made Dallas Building Owners and Manager Association, BOMA, history as the first local association to win an International TOBY in the over 1 million square feet category. After losing to The Crescent at the local level in 2001, the Towers at Williams Square re-entered in 2007; this time winning at the local and regional levels before advancing to the international competition. The TOBY Award recognizes excellence in building office management and operations worldwide and speaks loudly of the value and contributions that Cousins Properties and TIAA Realty have brought to the Towers at Williams Square and the surrounding local community. It is home to the ``Mustangs of Las Colinas'' sculpture and museum and was originally created as the symbolic center of Las Colinas. The Greater Irving--Las Colinas Chamber of Commerce will gather members of the local community to celebrate this prestigious honor that has bestowed on the Towers at Williams Square. Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in congratulating them.