Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and to the woefully incomplete conference report that the Democrat majority is bringing to the House floor today. Despite the repeated campaign promises made by Democrat leaders to the American people that they would take action on all of the remaining 9/11 Commission recommendations, that is not what is being done and not what is being brought to the floor of the House today. It now appears that those claims were nothing more than just a hollow campaign promise because, as anticipated, they have failed to address a key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. While the Senate included a simple sense of Congress that congressional operations should be streamlined so that overlapping and duplicative oversight issues could be addressed, even this simple symbolic measure was dropped from the final legislation. The 9/11 Commission stated: ``Of all our recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important. So long as oversight is governed by current congressional rules and resolutions, we believe the American people will not get the security they want and need.'' It went on further to say: ``Congress should create a single, principal point of oversight and review for homeland security.'' In the 109th Congress, House Republicans provided the responsible leadership needed on this issue by making the Committee on Homeland Security a standing committee, but there are still 10 other House committees that have overlapping and redundant oversight over the Department of Homeland Security. House Democrats could have enacted this change with a simple rules change at the start of the 110th Congress. They failed to do so then; and with this legislation, they are once again ignoring this important issue entirely, including a campaign promise. Thankfully, Mr. Speaker, this conference report is not a complete failure. Thanks to the leadership of President Bush and House Republicans, two important provisions were fixed in this conference report that will help keep Americans safe and improve our ability to combat terror at home. First, this legislation wisely does not contain a mandate that collective bargaining rights be required for the Transportation Security Administration screeners. This dangerous provision was originally buried in the House Democrat leadership's version of this legislation; and thanks to President Bush's veto threat, it has been removed from the legislation that we are considering today. The 9/11 Commission did not recommend collective bargaining for TSA screeners. In fact, to the contrary. The commission stressed the need to improve airport security and screening procedures. Collective bargaining would have prevented implementing fluid operations for protecting our country by requiring TSA management to consult with union bosses before making critical homeland security decisions. As Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff explained, ``Marines don't collectively bargain over whether they're going to wind up being deployed in Anbar province in Baghdad. We can't negotiate over terms and conditions of work that go to the heart of our ability to move rapidly in order to deal with the threats that are emerging.'' Secretary Chertoff also noted that the proposed negotiations with unions would have seriously threatened operations such as the interception of the London bombing plot or a response to Hurricane Katrina. Thankfully, in what may be the first missed opportunity for increasing the power of labor bosses this year in the House, good sense prevailed and this provision did not survive the legislative process. Additionally, good sense and Republican-proposed policy prevailed in this conference through the inclusion of a provision to protect vigilant observers who support suspicious terror-related activity. By including these John Doe provisions, my good friend, the Homeland Security Ranking Member Peter King, won a great victory on behalf of the American people. As Congressman King recently noted, in a post-9/11 reality, vigilance is essential to security. Despite the Democrat opposition to this Homeland Security measure, common sense has prevailed and heroic Americans who report suspicious activity will be prevented and protected from frivolous lawsuits. The American people were heard, and our country is safer because of it. I commend Congressman King and other Republicans that served on this conference committee for insisting that Congress not let trial lawyers and the fear of litigation get in the way of promoting one of our best and most dynamic lines of defense against domestic terrorism, having everyday Americans report potential threats and terrorist activities to the proper authority. While the Democrat party may not trust American men and women to use their good sense in reporting suspicious activity, I know as Republicans that's what we will do, and I really do appreciate Pete's efforts for this hard work. I also appreciate all the hard work that was put into developing the conference reports on both sides of the aisle. I am also pleased to note that this conference report represents the first time that labor bosses and trial attorneys have been denied their every wish on this House floor. Unfortunately, I am not confident that we will see another commonsense bill that puts the safety and well-being of the American people over these special interests any time soon. I also appreciate the Democrat leadership's attempt at almost fulfilling one of their many unfulfilled campaign promises by bringing this legislation back to the House floor today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage the gentlewoman, if I can, since she is an expert on this important piece of legislation if she would. And the question I would like to ask the gentlewoman: Republicans tried our very best, other than demanding, that the terrorist watch list would be applied to trains and passengers for people like on trains and Amtrak. And I wonder if the gentlewoman can tell me whether that was added in this conference report.

Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, people stand up and talk about what a great job they are doing to protect this country, but they fail to get the essence because it might be a privacy concern. The fact of the matter is that all the people that are on our trains, Amtrak, that we are spending billions of dollars that are being spent for more security officers; and yet the Democrats fail to do the simplest thing, and that is, at the time you buy a ticket, seeing if you are on the terrorist watch list. It is incredibly arrogant that this Congress would stand up and say we are doing all we can do, and yet we do not even apply the terrorist watch list to people who would be on our trains. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes at this time to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a recorded vote on the previous question for this rule. If the previous question fails, I will ask the House to amend the rule to provide for the separate consideration of H.R. 3138, which would amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to update the definition of electronic surveillance. Mr. Speaker, our country is facing a serious problem that must be addressed before the House adjourns in August. And to date the Democrat majority has continued to shirk their responsibility to keep America safe by ignoring the seriousness of this threat. Today the Rules Committee met to pass a rule for the Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act; however, this Democrat leadership cannot seem to find time to schedule consideration of legislation that clarifies one very simple and critical thing, and that is that the United States Government will no longer be required to get a warrant to listen to foreign terrorists who are not even located in the United States. Mr. Speaker, repeatedly Members of this House have come to the floor for weeks and weeks and weeks asking for that ability to make sure we can get this done to protect the American people. The Director of National Intelligence, Michael McConnell, and the Director of the CIA, Michael Hayden, have testified to Congress that under current law their hands are tied. As Director McConnell recently testified, FISA is outdated and has been made obsolete by technology. I might also say, and the laws governing that. And today our intelligence community is forced to obtain warrants to listen to terrorists outside our Nation, and as a result we are actually missing, we are missing, a significant portion of what we should be getting. Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to be asleep; it is a different thing not to even wake up and see what you need to do. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are serious about facing down the threat, they will join me in defeating the previous question so the House will be able to address this very real and serious threat immediately. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include my amendment and extraneous materials in the Congressional Record.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida, the ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Mica.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to know how much we're protecting this country and what's included in this bill. I think what the gentlewoman also forgot to say is that in committee they denied CBP the ability to even look at passengers' names who are coming in on rail from other countries to the United States. Once again, another failure from this Democrat Congress. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.

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

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

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

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. SESSIONS

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.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to an aviation legend who recently announced his plan to retire next May. Herb Kelleher is a founder of Southwest Airlines and currently serves as its Executive Chairman, a position that he has held since the spring of 1978. From the fall of 1981 to the summer of 2001, Kelleher also served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Southwest Airlines. Southwest started its operations in 1971 with just three airplanes. Today, it operates a fleet of 489 airplanes with orders for many more 737s. Home-based at Dallas Love Field, I am proud to represent many Southwest Airlines employees that live in the 32nd Congressional District of Texas. Southwest Airlines has been profitable for 34 consecutive years, a feat that is impressive for any business, but for an airline to be profitable for 34 consecutive years, given all of the challenges and tough competition in the aviation industry, is truly impressive. Southwest Airlines prides itself on never having furloughed an employee during its history. Kelleher's vision for Southwest Airlines was not to produce a company that would just return profits to its shareholders--but for a company that has the respect and admiration of those who purchase the tickets and go to work everyday for the company. For the 10th year in a row, Fortune magazine honored Southwest Airlines in its annual survey of corporate reputations. Furthermore, among all industries in 2006, Fortune has also ranked Southwest Airlines as number three among America's Top Ten most admired corporations. I have had the pleasure of knowing and working with Herb for many years, and I wish him all the very best for a well-earned retirement next year. However, knowing Herb, he will continue to work very hard for Southwest Airlines until the day that he leaves the office for the last time. He may be leaving the airline that he helped to create, but his legacy will never leave the spirit that is Southwest Airlines.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that President Bush has selected a man of great integrity and one of our former colleagues who served in this Congress to lead the Office of Management and Budget, Jim Nussle. His chairmanship of the House Budget Committee gave us an opportunity to witness the expertise and responsible use of taxpayer dollars that he will bring to the OMB. During his tenure in this body, Chairman Nussle's work made a positive impact on countless Americans. Without his hard work and leadership, the Family Opportunity Act, which provides badly needed medical care to children with disabilities, would never have become law. To recognize Chairman Nussle's incredible talents, one should look no further than the very kind comments made by Chairman Nussle's former colleague across the aisle, my friend, Chairman John Spratt. He said, ``Jim was a fair and honorable chairman. In selecting Jim Nussle to succeed Rob Portman, the President is replacing one able and knowledgeable man with another.'' I congratulate President Bush on this astute choice. I wish Chairman Nussle the very best during his confirmation hearing today at the Senate Budget Committee.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It would provide an additional $6 million to the FBI, and to reduce the Economic Development Administration account to offset this cost. I think that Congress must do all that we can do to provide appropriate resources to the hardworking men and women serving at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Every day these brave public servants stand on the front lines of our Federal law enforcement efforts and on the domestic front on the war on terror, and they need and they deserve all the support that Congress can give. Many of my colleagues know that I have a real and very personal appreciation of the organization of which my father served as Director of the FBI between 1987 and 1993. I have nothing but the greatest respect for all the sacrifices that these agents make on behalf of our country, and I am happy to be able to come to the floor today with this amendment to support that great work. As the report to the bill notes, since September 11, 2001, the FBI has undergone a significant transformation. They are being asked to make hard choices about resource allocation as they track domestic terrorist threats, arrest suspected drug kingpins, and ensure that criminals, from bank robbers to corrupt businessmen to tax cheats, are brought to justice. Even with an increase of around $500 million in this bill, the FBI's salary request still faces a deficit. While I wish this amendment could go further, I understand the constraints of the budget authority and the outlay rules that Congress must follow. Regardless, I believe that this is an amendment that will send a clear and unmistakable signal to the men and women of the FBI that we support them, that we support their hard work, and that we support all that they are doing to keep us safe. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to show your support for these brave men and women. 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. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike section 213 of this legislation which, as drafted, would have the same anticompetitive effect as language already included in a number of the Democrat majority's other 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 at the Bureau of Prisons or Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated. While this policy may be good for increasing dues payments 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 takes the 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 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 savings for taxpayers over the next 10 years. This means that taxpayers will receive a return of about $31 for every dollar spent on competition, with annualized expected savings of more than $1 billion. This provision, included by the Democrat Appropriations Committee, directly contradicts a number of legislative provisions recently passed on this issue by the House, including: The conference report for the 1997 omnibus appropriations bill, which specifically directed the Bureau of Prisons to undertake a prison privatization demonstration project; also, the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, which directed the Bureau of Prisons to rehabilitate D.C. inmates in private prisons; and since 2001, every Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill has directed the Bureau of Prisons to contract for prison services. I think the answer is clear, Mr. Chairman, that when the Democrats claim that these services are ``inherently governmental,'' despite numerous citations in the A-76 circular that these activities are exempt from this definition, and prevent competitive sourcing from taking place, that the Democrat leadership is clearly hearing from labor bosses that this bill represents 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 its tools it can to find taxpayer savings and reduce the cost of services that are 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 yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very straightforward. It would eliminate funding for the absolute worst performing line at Amtrak, the Sunset Limited, which runs from New Orleans to Los Angeles. In 1997, Congress passed the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act, which required that Amtrak operate without any Federal operating assistance after 2002. Despite this commonsense requirement that they cease their fiscal irresponsibility and mismanagement, since Amtrak was supposed to be operating free of Federal subsidy, it has, instead, cost the taxpayers $3 billion in operating expenses. Mr. Chairman, people tuned in on C-SPAN to watch this debate may be wondering what exactly this $3 billion in taxpayer funding is paying for. Well, in the case of the Sunset Limited, it is being used to subsidize the travels of a very few passengers who want to take a train from New Orleans to Los Angeles. The trip is scheduled to take 46 hours and 20 minutes to complete, that is, assuming the train is running on time. This occurrence is, however, exceedingly unlikely. According to Amtrak's most recent monthly performance report, the Sunset Limited was only on time 11 percent of the time. This makes the Sunset Limited the third worst on- time performer for any of Amtrak's 33 routes during 2007. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, taxpayers should be happy when the train is not running, though, because when it is, the route loses an average of almost $30 million a year. This means that Amtrak and the American taxpayer lose $0.57 per mile for each passenger on this train. For 2006, it cost the Federal Government $524 per passenger on that route, more than revenue that was brought in. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is the first step to instilling just a small measure of fiscal discipline at Amtrak. Failure to do so will only allow Amtrak to continue misusing and wasting taxpayer dollars. This amendment is supported by the National Taxpayers Union, Americans for Tax Reform, and Citizens Against Government Waste. I hope that all my colleagues will join me and those taxpayer advocates in saving the taxpayers from throwing more good money after bad on the Sunset Limited. I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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