Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to join my fellow colleagues in mourning the passing of the Honorable Jennifer Dunn. My friend and an honorable representative for the people of the 8th district of Washington passed away on Wednesday. I was greatly saddened when I was told the terrible news of her passing. This Chamber, and the State of Washington has lost a friend and one of our most capable and dedicated former Members. Words cannot fully express the sorrow that is felt by those who have known and loved Jennifer. My heart goes out to Jennifer's husband, Keith Thomson, her two sons, Bryant and Reagan Dunn, her stepson, Angus Thomson, and her two grandchildren during this difficult time. I will be keeping her memory and her surviving family in my thoughts and prayers. I pray for her former Washington, DC, and Washington State congressional staffers who served her and the people of the 8th Congressional District of Washington. Congresswoman Dunn was a highly-respected Member of Congress, dutifully serving six terms before she retired in 2005. She achieved an inspiring career of many firsts: first woman to chair the Washington State Republican party; first freshman woman to win a place in the House Republican leadership team; and the highest ranking Republican woman in leadership as the vice chair of the conference. More than anything, Jennifer will be remembered for her generosity and compassion for others. She is leaving us for a better place, but leaves behind a lasting legacy of service to this House. Words cannot fully express my sorrow in her passing. God Bless.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), one of the sponsors of this bill and the leader behind this effort.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding his time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this unnecessarily restrictive rule and to parts of the potentially unconstitutional legislation that the Democrat majority is bringing to the floor today. I would like to note at the outset of this debate that this legislation accomplishes a number of positive things, including making the Indian Housing Block Grant program more flexible and helping Native American tribes become less dependent on the Federal Government by giving them the tools that they need to exercise greater autonomy over their own affairs. I would like to commend my friend from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) for his hard work on this legislation on behalf of his well-represented constituents and for Native American tribes across the United States. However, this legislation does include language that places funding for Native Hawaiians at great risk because of its extremely suspect constitutionality. In 2000, the Supreme Court decided in Rice v. Cayetano that the current configuration of justices would likely strike down most Federal benefits flowing to Native Hawaiians as an unconstitutional racial set-aside, if given a chance. I am already aware of this problem because these exact same constitutional concerns plagued H.R. 835, the Hawaiian Homeownership Opportunity Act of 2007, which the Democrat leadership allowed to fail under suspension of the rules earlier this year. Title VIII of today's bill contains this same language and opens up today's legislation to all of the same concerns that were leveled against H.R. 835. I understand that my good friend from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) has submitted an amendment to correct this problem, and I look forward to hearing the debate on its passage later this afternoon. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned by the open-ended nature of this authorization. I understand that about $650 million has been appropriated annually for Native American housing over the last few years. Today's bill authorizes an unlimited amount of spending for the next 5 years for these programs. While I understand very well the need for funding in a number of impoverished communities across this country, I believe that in the current fiscal climate, a climate in which Democrats have proposed an enormous $26 billion of additional new spending over last year, that authorizing an unlimited amount of money for the program is simply irresponsible. Limits need to be set, Mr. Speaker, and it's the job of a majority to make tough decisions as to where spending is most needed and from which other programs it should be taken. By authorizing as much money as the appropriators care to spend, this legislation shirks its responsibility to provide guidance to an appropriate level of spending. As a fiscal conservative who is greatly concerned about runaway spending in this Democrat Congress, I believe this is simply wrong. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to oppose this restrictive rule that is not an open rule, despite Democrat claims to the contrary. I understand that they are in the majority and that the Democrat leadership has the ability to pressure their Members into supporting a resolution stating that Congress believes that two plus two equals five. However, that simply does not make it so and true. In this same vein, despite their protests when they came to the floor and the claim that this modified open rule is open, that too is simply not so. It restricts Members who have ideas about how to improve this legislation during the debate from having their proposals heard, and there is simply no denying that fact. I oppose this restrictive rule and the unconstitutional and irresponsible spending provisions included in the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, if I could inquire from my friend from Massachusetts about additional speakers that he may have, I do not have any additional speakers at this time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in heartfelt sorrow to mourn the passing of the Honorable Paul E. Gillmor, a true friend and a wonderful statesman for the people of Ohio. I was greatly saddened when I was told the terrible news of his passing this morning. The House of Representatives has lost a hardworking leader who was a friend to many on both sides of the aisle in this chamber. My heart goes out to his wife Karen, and their children Linda, Julie, Paul, Adam, and Connor during this difficult time. I will be keeping his memory, and his surviving family in my thoughts and prayers. I pray for his Washington, DC and Ohio Congressional staffers who have served him and the people of the 5th Congressional District of Ohio. Congressman Gillmor never forgot his roots and he was always a champion for the people who he represented in Congress. He won his first primary election for Congress by only 27 votes; the grit and determination that carried him to victory on that day never left him for the remainder of his service in Congress. When I first arrived to the House in 1997, I was instantly impressed with the plain-spoken gentleman from Ohio. He leaves behind a strong legacy of service to this House. I have lost a friend, and words cannot fully express my sorrow in his passing. God Bless.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike section 8020 of this legislation which would have the same anticompetitive effect as language already included in almost every other one of the Democrat majority's appropriations bill by preventing funds from being spent to conduct public-private competitions. In this case, it would prevent funds from being used to allow the private sector to compete against the government for commercial jobs by limiting the Defense Department's ability to spend money on this taxpayer friendly activity by putting arbitrary time constraints on the length of time that these studies can take place. While this policy may be good for increasing dues to the public sector union bosses, it is unquestionably bad for taxpayers and for Federal agencies because agencies are left with less money to spend on their core missions when Congress uses this opportunity to take competition away from them. In 2006, Federal agencies competed only 1.7 percent of their commercial workforce which makes up less than one-half of 1 percent of the entire civilian workforce. This very small use of competition for services is expected to generate a savings of $1.3 billion over the next 10 years by closing performance gaps and improving efficiencies. Competitions completed since 2003 are expected to produce almost $7 billion in saving to taxpayers over the next 10 years. This means that taxpayers will receive a return of almost $31 for every dollar spent on competition with annualized expected savings of more than $1 billion. This provision is obviously intended to stall public-private competitions for an entire fiscal year rather than allowing a proven process to work as it was intended, and it would harm taxpayers by denying the Department of Defense the ability to focus its scarce resources and funds and expertise on its core mission. This concerted effort to prevent competitive sourcing from taking place at the Department of Defense demonstrates that the Democrat leadership is hearing clearly from labor bosses that the Defense Appropriations bill represents simply another good opportunity to increase their power at the expense of taxpayers and good government. In this time of stretched budgets and bloated Federal spending, Congress should be looking to use all of the tools it can to find taxpayer savings and to reduce the cost of services that are already being provided by thousands of hardworking companies nationwide. I urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense, taxpayer- first amendment to oppose the underlying provision to benefit public sector union bosses by keeping cost-saving competition available to the government. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, could you please outline those options that are available to you and your thinking? Because we are in a circumstance where we believe an inoperable voting system is presently being----

Mr. SESSIONS. Point of parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SESSIONS. Point of parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, would it be correct to say that normal procedures of this House are not currently, as it relates to voting, in place and available to Members at this time?

Mr. SESSIONS. Point of parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, point of parliamentary inquiry. When the electronic voting system is inoperable or is not used, the Speaker or Chairman may direct the Clerk to conduct a record vote or quorum call as provided in clause 3 or 4; is that correct?

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, how am I recorded?

Mr. SESSIONS. It is my understanding that the Speaker may, has options available to him or her as it relates to electronic voting to where the Speaker could make a decision to have the Clerk record those votes manually by rollcall.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. You know, Mr. Speaker, we talk about this genuine desire to solve the problem, but the fact of the matter is we're about as close as midnight and noon in our thoughts and beliefs as parties for doing that. I hearken back to just a few days ago in the Rules Committee, where some of the questions from my good friends on the Democrat side are: Well, what about the constitutional rights of some of these people who live in other countries who are known terrorists, what about their constitutional rights? And we need to take those into account. Mr. Speaker, it's amazing how we're sitting here debating something that's in the best interests of this country, and some people are more concerned about the terrorists' rights than they are about protecting this country. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman from California for his words. Mr. Speaker, this Democrat majority has simply not lived up to the words that it spoke when it became the new majority. And it was a campaign promise that is reiterated on a regular basis all through this Chamber and all the committees. Most disappointing among these is the forgotten promise that Democrats promised to be the most open, honest and ethical Congress in history. And I will now quote Speaker Pelosi from page 24 of A New Direction for America, and I quote, ``Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.'' I further quote the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, Louise Slaughter, on November 12, 2006, just a week after election. She said, ``My fellow Democrats and I have long felt that the Rules Committee was failing its major obligations. We publically argued that it was being used to shut down the legislative process for partisan purposes. But now that the Democrats will control the committee we will have a chance to change all that.'' Mr. Speaker, they have not changed it. They've made it worse. We do understand right now, as we speak, we have a copy of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that evidently has only now been given to the minority. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, I would yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SESSIONS. I would yield to the gentleman if he will answer the question: Where is the copy of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that we're doing the rule on today that we're expected to vote on today?

Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I don't understand this. This new Democrat majority that comes to town, talks about open and honesty, ethics above reproach, all the things that they would do differently than what the Republicans have done, and they have not lived up to that.