Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the Republican minority is very aware, as a result of Speaker Pelosi's Web site that is called Congress Working for All Americans, WWW.SPEAKER.GOV, that the Speaker has announced very publicly her intention to follow regular order for legislation. I would like to quote from that Web site at this time: ``Members should have at least 24 hours to examine a bill in a conference report text prior to floor consideration.'' Madam Speaker, just minutes ago, we began the debate on this rule. Just before we began debate, as we began debate on this rule just hours ago probably, but as we began, we received the text of one of the most important bills to come to the floor of the House of Representatives at the time we began debate on the rule, which seems absolutely, just completely backwards from what the Speaker describes on her Web site. Number two, the Suspension Calendar should be restricted to noncontroversial legislation. Madam Speaker, here we are today on the floor of the House of Representatives not only with a bill that we had not seen the text to until we began debate but, secondly, the Suspension Calendar has very controversial legislation that we are handling today. I would have to make a motion if we were in Rules Committee, and we did, we tried, that we should receive all of these bills. And, of course, we have not. Very interestingly, part of the debate about this bill that we are on with foreign intelligence surveillance activities, there was a discussion just days ago in the Rules Committee whereby a Member of the Democrat majority, as part of the conversation, asked a Republican that was there: ``So you're asking to basically reduce probable cause and just basically throw probable cause out as a reason that we are trying to change the FISA rules?'' The Republican answered: ``You shouldn't be having to get a warrant to listen into phone conversations between someone from Saudi Arabia calling somebody in Sudan, when neither one of them are Americans.'' The response from the Democrat was: ``Well, I don't know if I agree with that.'' Madam Speaker, we are here on the floor today to also talk about the directions we are headed, the directions we are headed for protecting this country. And today, we are on the floor of the House of Representatives with the language only just given to us. On top of that, it is one of the most controversial items that has come to the floor of the House of Representatives in the years that I have been here. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Continuing my dialogue with either gentleman, in as much as the Mollohan earmarks were approved by the entire Appropriations Committee, does the gentleman know whether the appropriation Members on both sides of the aisle have been advised about the reasons for canceling funding for the projects which they have overwhelmingly approved with the knowledge that it was appropriate at the time?

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

Mr. SESSIONS. I am going to continue asking you questions, and I will continue yielding to you. I appreciate the gentleman. Did anyone on the Rules Committee inquire as to whether Mr. Mollohan's certification of no financial interest had been proven in any way deficient or inaccurate?

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the chairman.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, another question which I wish to ask is whether the Rules Committee could advise Members seeking to remove Member-supported earmarks from other pieces of legislation, whether they might take advantage of the precedent we are setting here today and whether they might expect the Rules Committee to look favorably on similar requests for self-executing provisions in the future? Mr. Speaker, the reason why we ask these questions is because the self-executing provisions of this rule are highly unusual and I believe raise lots of questions. We look forward to asking these questions and hope we get forthright answers.

Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time and continuing my dialogue with the gentleman, in other words, you had figured out that they were inappropriately inserted?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this highly unorthodox rule and the unnecessary limiting process that is being proposed and that was even talked about here on the House floor today. Mr. Speaker, today, for the first time since my service in Congress, the House is considering a rule for the Agriculture appropriations bill that is something other than an open rule. It is also the first time since I began my service that the Rules Committee reported out a limited rule for an appropriations bill that self-executes amendments and revisions to the base text of the bill that may not have withstood the scrutiny of this Congress. One of the self-executing amendments of particular concern that was inserted late last night in the Rules Committee is included in part A of this rule. It is described as adding a limitation, and I quote, to effectively eliminate three West Virginia earmarks from the committee report accompanying the bill. Upon further review, it turns out that these three earmarks total more than $1.5 million and were requested by Congressman Alan Mollohan and would benefit the Canaan Valley Institute, a nonprofit established by Congressman Mollohan. This highly irregular inclusion of this self-executing provision of the rule is particularly troubling, because the Canaan Valley Institute is currently under investigation by the FBI. In March, when he requested this funding, Congressman Mollohan certified that he had no financial interest in any of the earmarks and affirmed the worthiness of each project. I strongly believe that this late-night maneuver was not properly vetted through the regular order processes. As a result of that, several serious questions have arisen. I would like to engage the Democrat Member of the Rules Committee, my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), on a few questions about this process. The first question that I would yield to the gentleman on is, who asked the Rules Committee to take this highly unusual action and what explanation did they provide to justify the removal of Representative Mollohan's earmarks?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask what time remains.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike language included on page 3 of this legislation, which would have the same anti- competitive effect as language already included in almost every other one of the Democrat majority's appropriations bills, 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 jobs by limiting the Agriculture Department's Chief Financial Officer's ability to spend money on this taxpayer-friendly activity until he provides a redundant report back to Congress on the Department's contracting policies. While this policy may be good for increasing dues payments to 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 takes the opportunity to use competition and takes that ability 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 savings of over $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 savings for taxpayers over the next 10 years. This means that taxpayers will receive a return of about $31 for every $1 spent on the competition with an annualized savings of more than $1 billion. This provision is obviously needed 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 Agriculture the ability to focus its scarce resources and expertise on core missions. This concerted effort to prevent competition sourcing from taking place at the Department of Agriculture comes just a week after the House passed an agriculture bill that goes way beyond the Federal scope and strips States of their ability to use competitive sourcing to improve their own food stamp programs, demonstrating that the Democrat leadership is hearing clearly from labor bosses that the Agriculture appropriations bill represents yet 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 the tools it can to find taxpayer savings and reduce the cost of savings that are already being provided by thousands of hardworking companies nationwide. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record letters of support for this amendment from the Fair Competition Coalition. The Fair Competition Coalition, August 2, 2007. Hon. Pete Sessions, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Sessions: The Fair Competition Coalition supports your efforts to remove from Title I the anti-A-76 language from the Fiscal Year 2008 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (H.R. 3161). We are writing to express our strong opposition to the language in Title I under the Chief Financial Officer section, which would stop all funding of the Department's FAIR Act Inventories and all A-76 competitive studies. On behalf of the thousands of companies and hundreds of thousands of employees represented by the associations listed below, we urge adoption of this amendment. The Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act was enacted during the Clinton Administration, and received strong bi-partisan support in the Congress as well as union and industry support. The law simply requires each Federal agency to publish an inventory of all its commercial activities. This prohibition will hinder the agency's ability to identify and access the best and most efficient sources for the performance of its commercial activities. All relevant studies have shown that the competition process itself, regardless of outcome, results in savings exceeding 20%. The prohibition on identifying and studying these positions is thus highly inappropriate and unfortunate for the taxpayer, as well as a restriction on the ability of any President to manage the Federal government. FCC supports adoption of your amendment to remove this harmful language from HR. 3161. Sincerely, Aerospace Industries Association, American Congress on Surveying and Mapping, Airport Consultants Council, American Council of Independent Laboratories, American Council of Engineering Companies, American Electronics Association, American Institute of Architects, Associated General Contractors of America, Business Executives for National Security, Construction Management Association of America, Contract Services Association of America, Design Professionals Coalition, Electronic Industries Alliance, Information Technology Association of America, Management Association for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors, National Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds, National Defense Industrial Association, National Federation of Independent Business, Professional Services Council, Small Business Legislative Council, Textile Rental Services Association of America, The National Auctioneers Association, United States Chamber of Commerce. I urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense taxpayer first amendment to oppose the underlying provision to benefit public union sector bosses by keeping cost savings competition alive to the government. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I believe that the case that we are making here today is a smell test, and that is that if the new Democrat majority wants to have closed rules, not have openness with regular order, not present bills before they would be voted on to allow people enough time to see what is in them and to be transparent about what is in the bills and who is getting the money and who is spending the money, you have not passed the smell test. And thus we are asking that you not do what you are doing. We oppose the Democrat majority. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, the new Democrat majority promised the American people and those Republicans who are now in the minority that this would be an open and transparent new way of doing business by Democrats. We were told back in January and February, oh, the only reason we're doing closed rules is because we've got to do them to get our agenda through quickly, because we're not going to allow anybody to stop that. Six in '06 has to be done. Well, Madam Speaker, there were no hearings even done on this with the text of the bill that the committee could look at. Last night, 30 minutes before we went into Rules Committee, we had an opportunity to see the language. On top of the $200 billion Medicare cuts, the Democrats have now slipped in extra hospital funding for powerful Democrat districts. That means where Democrats are they've slipped in these brand new earmarks, right there for them. We have not had an opportunity to look at the bill, we don't know whether the proper notification has been done, and so what we're saying now today is that what we should do is take a few minutes and sit back and look. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, while the CBO estimate in the report from the Committee on Ways and Means does not identify any unfunded mandates, it's important to note that there are and that there is no such estimate for the amendment self-executed by the closed rule reported in the dead of night by the majority's Rules Committee. We have no way of knowing whether these new provisions, which we did not see before midnight last night, will impose strict new intergovernmental mandates on our State and local governments. Furthermore, this new language appears to be littered with earmarks for hospital-specific projects. We do not have a list of the Members requesting those projects, and we do not know if the proper certifications have been filed with the authorizing committees. Therefore, Madam Speaker, it is essential that we stop, take a breather and put off consideration of this hastily drafted legislation, which was totally rewritten in the dead of night, behind closed doors. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the question of consideration. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, last night in the Rules Committee we had an opportunity to see firsthand what this new Democrat majority is all about. And not one time, not one time, was the word let's make health care better for America, not one time was it about trying to make things better for doctors and hospitals and patients. It was a slam dunk, hit 'em out of bounds, the doctors, who they claim make all this money, who it's all about the doctors making money. And I had an opportunity to engage those people who represented the Ways and Means Committee and the Commerce Committee, and I said, hey, during your hearings, that you talk about you having all these hearings, did anyone ever bring up that specialty hospitals are those many times joint ventures with hospitals where they're trying to take care of patients who come for elective surgeries to get them out of hospitals that are full, emergency rooms that are backed up, and then we've got a problem with health because of bacteria in the hospitals. And these hospitals are safer and offer elective surgery to get people in and out that is much cheaper and safer and better. They acted like it was a foreign concept. They acted like they had never heard about the marketplace before. I yield to the gentleman from California.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to yet another closed rule and to the ill-conceived underlying legislation. While I do not support this bill nor the way it has been brought to the floor without a single legislative markup, I would like to thank the Democratic leadership for one thing: By cramming this bill through the House, they are giving every single Member of this body the opportunity to go on record regarding which vision for the future our Nation's health care system should take. Madam Speaker, for that, I truly appreciate and respect what the Democrat leadership has done. The first vision for our future, for them, is to slowly shift as many Americans as possible into a one-size-fits-all government program. You know what it has been called in the past: Socialized medicine. I congratulate the Democrat leadership, because that vision is ably embodied in the bill today, H.R. 3162. Rather than using this bill as an opportunity to cover children who cannot obtain coverage through Medicaid or the private market, this bill uses children as pawns in their cynical attempt to make millions of Americans completely reliant upon the government for their health care needs. And you know what they say, Madam Speaker: If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free. Democrat advocates of bureaucrat-run, Washington-run health care fails to disclose how they would achieve this vision. Republicans who actually care about covering children created SCHIP so that children who had no insurance coverage through Medicaid or the insurance market could get it without bankrupting the Federal Government or dislocating a healthy marketplace. H.R. 3162 turns this innovative vision on its head by increasing government spending exponentially, leaving taxpayers holding the bag for these increased costs. This bill has no income limits for eligibility, no annual authorization limit, and allows States to determine who qualifies, despite the fact that the Federal Government is on the hook 100 percent of the time. This is on top of a current system which we know that some States already abuse. Minnesota spends 61 percent of its children's health care insurance on adults, while Wisconsin spends 75 percent of its children's health care money on adults, taking scarce resources away from the intended target, children. But the real losers under this big government vision are patients. For 100 children who are enrolled in the new SCHIP proposal, 25 to 50 children will leave private insurance, according to the Congressional Budget Office; 77 percent of children at between 200 and 300 percent of the Federal poverty level already had insurance in 2005. As we all know, being a part of the government-run health care program does not mean better quality. Since most SCHIP programs reimburse at Medicaid rates, many of these new SCHIP enrollees will encounter significant difficulties accessing care. American Medicaid patients, for example, are currently waiting as long to see a specialist or to have surgery as patients in Canada. If Democrats were serious about ensuring that every American has access to inexpensive and high-quality health care, we would be taking a different vision and a different direction for our health care; one that tackles the system's real underlying problems and revolutionizes and gives incentives to our health care system to provide better results. All families should have access to tax exemptions up to $15,000 a year for health care, not just those who work for large employers. Congress should spend its time passing a law to give Americans the ability to purchase health insurance across State lines, because health insurance options should not be limited by your zip code. Congress should be working to ensure that those who can't get insurance on the market have access to coverage through high-risk pools and low-income tax credits. Madam Speaker, I am not here to oppose the idea of SCHIP. It was a Republican-controlled Congress that created SCHIP. I do support its true mission. But H.R. 3162 is a camouflaged attempt at slowly siphoning Americans away from insurance plans into a big, Washington, D.C. government-run system. To pay for this flawed, big government vision, this legislation robs seniors by forcing many of them out of their existing Medicare coverage at a time when our Nation is looking for better ways to sustain Medicare's future. Medicare part C is an innovative plan that is working well by bringing choices into Medicare. After these seniors are harmed in the long run, it is the taxpayers who will be stuck with the rest of the bill for this incredible expansion of government and intrusion into our lives in taking away our choices. Republicans have already proven this would be a positive, innovative vision that can work. Two years ago, Members from both sides of the aisle came together to pass the Dylan Lee James Family Opportunity Act, or FOA. We learned that many children with disabilities fell into a catch-22 circumstance in which their families made too much to qualify for Medicaid but could not afford or access private coverage, so these children often went without coverage. FOA was a commonsense solution which filled a void and provided coverage for these children up to 300 percent of the poverty level. Madam Speaker, we have two serious issues facing our Nation that we are dealing with right now: Medicare's future, and making our Nation's health insurance system more affordable and accessible for all Americans. By focusing the wrong vision for our future, the bill does nothing to address either problem. It ignores the fact that our Nation produced the greatest health care advocates in the world, many of which come as a result of a competitive insurance market. The American survival rate for leukemia is 50 percent. The European rate is just right at 35 percent. For prostate cancer, the American survival rate is 81.2 percent. In France, it is 61.7 percent, and in England, it is 44.3 percent. Rather than trying to emulate the European socialized, outdated approach, we should be working on a vision to give every single American an opportunity to take part in our competitive insurance market. Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to oppose this closed rule and the underlying legislation to drag America into a one-size-fits-all model of defeatism. Returning the balance of power, once again, to Washington, D.C. to run our health care plan is what the new Democrat majority is all about. Madam Speaker, I oppose that. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier), the ranking member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Ennis, Texas (Mr. Barton). (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes for the gentleman.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the ranking member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).