Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the Land of Enchantment, New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying legislation, which spends $3.2 billion more than last year's Republican-crafted legislation. It also spends $2.8 billion, almost 6 percent, more than requested by President Bush for this year's transportation and housing funding. Madam Speaker, I insert for the Record the President's Statement of Administration Policy pledging a veto of this legislation due to its fiscal irresponsibility. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 3074--Transportation. Housing; and Urban Development. and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2008 The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3074 because, in combination with the other FY 2008 appropriations bills, it includes an irresponsible and excessive level of spending and includes other objectionable provisions. The President has proposed a responsible plan for a balanced budget by 2012 through spending restraint and without raising taxes. To achieve this important goal, the Administration supports a responsible discretionary spending total of not more than $933 billion in FY 2008, which is a $60 billion increase over the FY 2007 enacted level. The Democratic Budget Resolution and subsequent spending allocations adopted by the House Appropriations Committee exceed the President's discretionary spending topline by $22 billion, causing a 9 percent increase in FY 2008 discretionary spending. In addition, the Administration opposes the House Appropriations Committee's plan to shift $3.5 billion from the Defense appropriations bill to non- defense spending, which is inconsistent with the Democrats' Budget Resolution and risks diminishing America's war fighting capacity. H.R. 3074 exceeds the President's request for programs funded in this bill by $3.4 billion, part of the $22 billion increase above the President's request for FY 2008 appropriations. The Administration has asked that Congress demonstrate a path to live within the President's top line and cover the excess spending in this bill through reductions elsewhere, while ensuring the Department of Defense has the resources necessary to accomplish its mission. Because Congress has failed to demonstrate such a path, if H.R. 3074 were presented to the President, he would veto the bill. The President has called on Congress to reform the earmarking process that has led to wasteful and unnecessary spending. Specifically, he called on Congress to provide greater transparency and full disclosure of earmarks, to put them in the language of the bill itself, and to cut the cost and number by at least half. The Administration opposes any efforts to shield earmarks from public scrutiny and urges Congress to bring full transparency to the earmarking process and to cut the cost and number of earmarks by at least half. The Administration would like to take this opportunity to share additional views regarding the Committee's version of the bill. Department of Transportation (DOT) Federal Highway Administration. The Administration strongly objects to increasing funds for the Federal Aid Highway program based on adjustments determined through a revenue aligned budget authority (RABA) mechanism. At authorized levels, the Highway Account is spending beyond its means and will be insolvent by 2009. Providing additional funding through RABA adjustments only exacerbates the situation, making the highway account oversubscribed by an additional $500 million before the end of the SAFETEA-LU authorization in FY 2009. Further steps will ultimately be needed, but withholding RABA is an important first step to avoid the threat of gas tax increases or a raid on the general fund. Amtrak. The Administration strongly objects to providing $1.4 billion for Amtrak, which will perpetuate a flawed model for intercity passenger rail. While the bill provides some funding for Intercity Passenger Rail Capital Grants, which will help encourage sustainable, demand-driven service, the bill fails to include reform provisions proposed by the Administration to improve accountability and encourage competition. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The Administration is disappointed that the Committee did not adopt the President's proposal to align FAA's budget accounts with its lines of business and to delineate the specific uses of the General Fund contribution. These proposals would provide greater transparency, improve management of resources, and complement the reforms proposed by the Administration in the NextGen Financing Reform Act of 2007. Aviation Insurance Revolving Fund. The Administration opposes the one-year extension for the war risk insurance program for domestic air carriers, which crowds out private sector mechanisms for diversifying risk. The Administration has proposed reforms in the NextGen Financing Reform Act that ensure that air carriers more equitably share in the risks associated with this program. US.-Mexico Cross-Border Trucking Pilot. The Committee report highlights a number of issues related to the U.S. Mexico Cross-Border Trucking Pilot. The Administration assures the Committee that the pilot will be conducted in compliance with the conditions and reporting requirements set forth in P.L. 110-28. However, the Administration would strongly oppose any amendment that is intended to delay or restrict the pilot program. Reduction Proposals. The Budget proposed reductions in some programs, such as DOT's Essential Air Service program, FAA's Airport Improvement Program, and the Federal Transit Administration's Capital Investment Grants. These reductions are programmatically justified and would reduce Federal spending. In addition, the House should consider reductions to unrequested items, such as the Rail Line Relocation and Improvement Program. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) The bill exceeds the request for HUD programs by more than $3.5 billion. The President's Budget provides increases for high-performing and high-priority programs, ensures effective implementation of HUD programs, and reduces funds for lower performing programs. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). The Administration objects to the $1 billion increase for the CDBG program through a formula that is long outdated and, in many cases, provides more money to wealthier communities than poorer ones. The Administration urges Congress to pass the CDBG legislative reform proposal that was transmitted on June 5, 2007, which improves targeting to the neediest communities and provides incentives to expand economic growth more strategically. In addition, the Administration recommends eliminating the $180 million in funding for congressional earmarks. HOME/American Dream Downpayment Initiative. The Administration objects to the more than $200 million reduction to the request for the HOME Investment Partnerships Program. In spite of the growing need for affordable housing, the House bill would cut this high-performing program with an effective track record of housing production for low-income families and flexibility for communities to tailor housing assistance to their unique needs. Moreover, the Administration objects to the lack of funding for the American Dream Downpayment Initiative, which provides crucial assistance to increase first-time homeownership. Tenant-Based Rental Assistance. The House bill reflects support for the Administration's proposal to reform the Housing Choice Voucher program. This includes tying Public Housing Authority (PHA) administrative expense payments to the number of assisted families, maintaining rental assistance to the 2007 allocations based on the prior-year's actual expenditures, and providing incentive funds for smaller PHAs to consolidate. The House bill should also eliminate the cap on the number of families PHAs can assist to unlock PHA funds to permit greater housing assistance. The Administration's request would aid significant numbers of additional families and renew approximately 1.9 million vouchers currently in use, without the Committee's addition of $330 million in unrequested funds. Reducing Chronic Homelessness. The bill supports the Administration's goal of reducing and ending chronic homelessness; however, the House should also fund the Prisoner Re-Entry program. Federal Housing Administration (FHA). The bill supports the Administration's proposal to increase multifamily loan limits in high-cost areas and lift the statutory cap on the number of Home Equity Conversion Mortgages that HUD can insure through the end of FY 2008. However, the Administration would prefer to permanently lift the cap to allow HUD to continue assisting the market in providing this financial vehicle. The Administration also is concerned that the Committee report purports to direct HUD to reverse its implementation of certain recently enacted asset disposition reforms for FHA multifamily programs, which would increase the deficit by $38 million in FY 2008. Other Housing Programs. The Administration's request provides a program base funding level for public housing that can be sustained in future years and, hence, the Administration does not support the substantial increases for these programs in the reported bill. The Administration also objects to the funding provided for the HOPE VI program. HOPE VI has accomplished its original goal. The Administration also opposes the unreasonably high amount of new section 202 and 811 housing unit construction in the bill, which simultaneously reduces resources dedicated to tenant services, threatens future preservation, and exacerbates a large and growing fiscal responsibility. Working Capital Fund. The Administration strongly objects to the $95 million reduction. HUD has made significant improvements in strategically and responsibly investing its IT system resources, with demonstrated success The requested funds are needed to continue to improve HUD financial management and provide proper program delivery and compliance. In addition, the requirement for Committee approval of E-Government funding transfers should be removed. These systems support HUD's core mission and operations. Lower Performing Programs. The Administration opposes the funding provided for lower performing programs such as section 108 loan guarantees, Brownfields, and Rural Housing. These programs are duplicative, lack long-term outcome measures, and have been unable to produce transparent information on results. Exemption from Credit Reform. The Administration opposes section 218, which would prohibit using funds provided in this or any other act to implement the requirements of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 beyond those already being implemented by the Government National Mortgage Association. Congress enacted credit reform in 1990 to more accurately budget for the full cost of credit programs and to bring greater transparency to credit programs in the budget process. This provision of the bill begins to unravel this important reform by setting a precedent that could undermine ongoing efforts to accurately estimate and report the costs of credit programs in the Federal budget and Federal financial statements. Employment Eligibility Verification System The Administration supports the use of the Employment Eligibility Verification System, previously known as the Basic Pilot Program, but urges the Congress to provide for a transition period to permit agencies to effectively implement acquisition policies and procedures. Constitutional Concerns Sections 405 and 406 purport to require approval of the Committees prior to Executive Branch action. Since these provisions would contradict the Supreme Court's ruling in INS v. Chadha, they should be changed to require only notification of Congress. This year House Republicans proposed an alternative budget that would have achieved balance by 2012 and ended the raid on Social Security without raising taxes, simply by raising a strong economy, reforming currently unsustainable entitlement programs and exercising accountability in government spending. Unfortunately, this proposal was rejected by the majority of Democrats who have, instead, chosen to pass a budget containing the second largest tax increase in history and one that spends more than $22 billion more than President Bush had proposed for our Nation's priorities. While today's legislation does find a number of worthy projects across the country, it also spends $1.4 billion, or $600 million above President Bush's request, for a program that has proven to be one of the Federal Government's worst fiscal black holes, Amtrak. For the last few years, I have worked to address the rampant cost overruns and fiscal mismanagement in Amtrak by offering amendments and legislation to cut funding for the 10 worst money-losing lines and to competitively source some of Amtrak services so that the private-sector efficiencies could be used to help fix this broken system. This week I am going to take a much narrower approach to fixing the fiscal disaster at Amtrak by offering a very simple amendment to cut funding for the most fiscally wasteful train line in the country, the Sunset Limited, which runs from New Orleans, Louisiana, to Los Angeles, California. If a passenger were to ride the Sunset Limited from New Orleans to Los Angeles, it would take 46 hours and 20 minutes to complete the journey, assuming, of course, the train runs on time, which is highly unlikely, as this happens only 10 percent of the time. According to Amtrak's most recent performance report, the Sunset Limited ranks as the third most delayed route in 2007. Perhaps because of this poor performance, this route lost a staggering $117 million between 2003 and 2006, losing an average of $29.27 million a year for the last 4 years. Taxpayers across the country are being asked to subsidize the fares of each passenger on this train by a whopping 57 cents per mile for each passenger. In 2006, the Federal Government spent $524 per passenger getting these passengers from New Orleans to Los Angeles, meaning it would have been far cheaper, and, I'd add, faster, if we would just buy each passenger a plane trip ticket for their travel. The Federal Government could come out way ahead. If my amendment were approved last year, Congress would have saved taxpayers $20.4 million. I believe it is not too much to ask for Congress to show a small bit of common sense and fiscal restraint by prohibiting funds to continue to be spent on the absolute worst line in Amtrak's system. Madam Speaker, I look forward to debating this amendment and many others that have been proposed on the Republican side of the aisle to pare down the excessive spending contained in this bill and to bring some fiscal sanity back to the appropriations process that will ultimately increase discretionary spending by $82 billion, or a whopping 9 percent increase in spending if all the new spending proposed by the Democrat majority is signed into law. This Congress must do better, especially for a large group of people who have been jumping up and down talking about how spending money and balanced budgets are important. But, once again, I know what happens here on this floor of the House of Representatives. Democrats want to tax, and they want to spend. What they want to do is they want to grow the Federal budget, and what I want to do is keep it from encroaching on family budgets and taxpayers from my home State of Texas and those all across the United States. I oppose this rule and the underlying legislation as it's currently drafted. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, under the agreement that we just had with the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), I'm going to go ahead and close, and then we are now through with our speakers and allow the gentleman to do the same thing. Madam Speaker, I will be asking for a recorded vote on the previous question for this rule. Our country is facing a very serious problem that must be addressed before the House adjourns in August, and, to date, the majority Democrats have not shown a commitment to deal seriously nor quickly enough with one of the most serious threats facing America. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that clarifies one very simple and critical thing; 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. The Director of National Intelligence, Michael McConnell and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, 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. Today our Intelligence Community is forced to obtain warrants to listen to terrorists outside of our Nation, and, as a result, ``We are actually missing a significant portion of what we should be getting.'' I'll say it in my own way: The things that we would expect our government to know and be prepared for. We simply cannot allow ourselves to be deaf and blind to terrorist communications that threaten our very existence because of a law that is woefully outdated. All of us have heard public reports from the Department of Homeland Security that terrorist chatter is at record levels that we have not seen since 2001. We have to open our ears, we have to open our eyes to keep this Nation safe. It can be done tonight with our part of this, Madam Speaker. If my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are serious about facing down the threat, they will join me in defeating the previous question so that the House will be able to address this very real and very serious threat immediately. I ask unanimous consent to include my amendment and extraneous material in the Congressional Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut. I also rise with my colleagues who are here from El Paso, Texas, and also the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Tom Lea's birth. As a person who lived in El Paso, Texas, for a number of years, I also became aware of Tom Lea from living in San Antonio. Much of his artwork was displayed in San Antonio on a regular basis. Tom Lea for many years painted pictures of the mountains and beauty that surrounds not only west Texas, but southern New Mexico also. El Paso is the beginning of what is called The Pass of the North, where two great countries come together, the history of Mexico and the history of the United States, and where these two great countries meet at the Rio Grande River. Tom Lea spent a lot of time writing, talking, thinking, pushing forward thoughts and ideas about these two great nations, and embodied a lot of that in artwork that I have several copies of. I have bought Tom's books over the years. So today it is right and fitting that the United States Congress in its looking back, as we do on a regular basis, over many great Americans who have added not only to the artwork of America and the thought process, but also to the lives that they lived. Tom Lea, a great Texan and American, who added not only a spirit to the men and women who fought for this country in World War II, but also brought that beauty forward in artwork, the Franklin Mountains and places in New Mexico with just stunning beauty that have sustained so many people. It gives us an idea about why America is a great Nation and why we must continue to protect her. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in support of this 100th anniversary of Tom Lea, a great man from El Paso and a great community, and people who loved him a great deal and miss him even more. It is a great day to say thank you to Lady Bird Johnson and Tom Lea, both great Texans, on a beautiful day in Washington, D.C.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Chairman, my amendment would strike section 111 of this legislation, which, as drafted, would have the same effect as language already included in a number of the Democrat majority's other appropriations bills which prevents funds from being spent to conduct public-private competitions. While this policy may be good for increasing dues payments to private 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 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 10 years by closing performance gaps and improving efficiencies. Competitions competed 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 competition, with annualized expected savings of more than $1 billion. Specifically at the Department of Labor, since May 2004, 27 public- private partnerships have competed, involving over 1,000 positions. And thanks to a 10 percent protection clause, 24 of these competitions have been won by the government. This overwhelming track record of government success in competing with private sector begs the question, why would the Democrat leadership insist upon preventing Federal agencies from running their operations in the most efficient manner when they have been successful in the past? I think the answer is clear, Madam Chairman, that when this appropriations bill cuts the budget for the Office of Labor Management Standards, which monitors union compliance with Federal law, and prevents competitive sourcing from taking place, that the Democrat leadership is clearly hearing from labor bosses that this bill represents a good opportunity to increase the power of labor bosses at the expense of taxpayers and good government. In this time of stretched budgets and bloated spending, Congress should be looking to use all of the tools it can to find taxpayer savings and reduce the cost of services that are already being provided by thousands of hardworking companies nationwide. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense taxpayer-first amendment to oppose the underlying provision to benefit private sector union bosses by keeping cost-saving competition available to the government. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise to acknowledge Holy Cross Lutheran School and their recognition by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Recently the Achievements in Stratospheric Ozone Protection: Progress Report, a publication by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, highlighted the school's assistance in encouraging Sun safety. The United States Environmental Protection Agency raises awareness about the effects of ozone depletion on public health. It also works to educate young children about the harmful effects of ultraviolet rays and how to reduce the risk of skin cancer as a result from over exposure to the Sun. The efforts of the United States Environmental Protection Agency would not be possible without the volunteer assistance of schools like Holy Cross Lutheran School. I know I speak for all of Dallas when I say that we are very proud to have such an outstanding school in the 32nd District of Texas. The school is an example to all and I wish to thank them here on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives for all of their hard work.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, the gentleman now seems to want to duck what Republicans have done for 12 years, and that is, take responsibility for that, which they should do. The fact of the matter is we're here asking for and we're in the Rules Committee asking for the ability to be able to debate these. We're not blaming anybody, except to say that we believe there should be a debate, an open and honest debate that would be good for the American people, which would avoid the gentleman having to be concerned about who is blaming who. Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp). (Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, we are quite open about what we wanted today. We wanted the rule to match the promise that the new Democratic majority had made. They asked for the ability to lead this country and to make this the most open, honest Congress in history. Yet we find at this time that the Rules Committee does not do that. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. SESSIONS. If I could inquire of the time remaining on both sides, please.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, the Republicans are here today to say we believe the process should equal what the Democrats had said they would do. It did not. Secondly, we have problems with the bill because of the more than 7- percent increase in spending over last year's level. We believe that that is excessive, at a time when we thought both sides agreed that fiscal sanity would be in order, especially in dealing with this body. So, the Republican Party is here today to say we think that is too much money. Madam Speaker, I will be urging my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that I may amend the rule to make in order the very thoughtful amendments of my Democratic colleague from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver), which was made in order by the Republican-controlled Congress in the Republican Rules Committee last year. The amendment would encourage House Members to lease hybrid and other more economical vehicles. In this time of high gas prices and our need, the national desire, the need to reduce the reliance on foreign sources of energy, this House should have at least have the opportunity to debate such a thoughtful amendment. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and the extraneous material printed just prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. SESSIONS. If the gentleman will yield, we were advised that the gentleman did not have any additional speakers.

Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate that.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, without getting into an argument with the gentlewoman, we would just state the facts of the case. It is over $4 billion additional spending, this year over the last, and $4 billion is a lot of money to run this ship.

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