Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I believe it to be correct, but the fact of the matter is, whether it's a 6-percent increase or a 4-percent increase as the gentlewoman subscribes to, we believe that is not the proper way to grow this government.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this unnecessarily and uncharacteristically restrictive rule. On Wednesday night, despite the protests and objections of Republicans on the committee, the Democrat majority on the Rules Committee did its level best to solidify the committee's status as the Graveyard of Good Ideas in this House by passing out the most restrictive rule for a Legislative Branch appropriations bill in recent history. Last year, when the Republicans ran the Rules Committee, we reported out a rule for consideration of the 2007 Legislative Branch in which we made in order all seven, that's seven out of seven, amendments submitted by Members of this body so that they could be considered and debated on this House floor. These amendments included four sponsored by Democrats and three sponsored by Republicans, making the rule and that process a completely inclusive and bipartisan product. The year before that, the Republican-run Rules Committee, nearly half of the 11 amendments submitted in it were made in order under the rule, with both bipartisan and Democrat- sponsored amendments allowed to be debated there on the House floor. Madam Speaker, I wish I could claim to be stunned by the majority's enormous departure from the Republican-led precedent to increase inclusiveness and dialogue in the House on this particular appropriations bill which is, by convention, the only bill to come to this floor under a closed process. However, rather than honoring this tradition, on Wednesday the Democrat Rules Committee produced the most restrictive and closed rule in recent history. Earlier this week, 24 Members of this body submitted thoughtful and earnest proposals to improve this legislation to the Rules Committee. Additionally, Members tried to have their constituent voices be heard also by the committee, but they were turned away at the door because their amendments were submitted shortly after the arbitrary deadline. And out of these 24 amendments, only three were given the opportunity to be debated on the floor. In passing this rule, Democrats made a calculated decision not to make every single amendment in order like Republicans did the year before. They even voted to abandon the more relaxed standard of 2 years ago, when half of the amendments were made in order. So instead of making 100 percent of their colleagues' amendments in order, or even 50 percent of the amendments in order, this rule makes only 12 percent of the amendments submitted in order. This seems pretty meager in comparison to the grand promises made during last year by Speaker Pelosi to run the ``most honest and open Congress'' in history. Among the amendments rejected by the committee on Wednesday were two amendments offered by someone with more knowledge of the legislative appropriations than perhaps any other Member of this body, my friend and the former chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Georgia, Jack Kingston; an amendment by a Member of the Democrat majority, Mr. Cleaver of Missouri, that was made in order last year by the Republican majority, not this year; and a number of friendly taxpayer amendments by my good friend and colleague from Texas, the gentleman, Mr. Hensarling, that would have reduced the overall cost of this bill to the taxpayer. Madam Speaker, I do understand that the majority Democrats outnumber Republicans and have enough Members on the committee to win every single vote in the Rules Committee. And I understand that, as the majority, it is their responsibility to run the committee and the floor as they see fit. So all things being equal, I will not take exception to their new, heavy-handed approach to shutting down debate. However, the second-ranking member of this body, the majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, crowed to the media on December 5 that Democrats would ``have a Rules Committee that would give opposition voices and alternative proposals the ability to be heard and be considered on the floor of the House.'' Obviously, that is not happening. I believe every single Member of this body and, more importantly, the American people who send us here every 2 years have the right to know that when these grand promises are not being lived up to that those things will be noted on the floor. And they are, again, today. So while my service in the Graveyard of Good Ideas in the House may prevent me from being surprised when these campaign pledges are broken on a daily basis by the Democrat majority on the Rules Committee at the direction of Democrat leadership, I hope that the American people are still shocked and appalled that promises delivered in November and December were promptly forgotten in January, and that they continue to be ignored today. Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to send a message to this new Democrat leadership that this restrictive debate in the people's House is completely unacceptable. Join me in voting ``no'' on this rule so that the Rules Committee can live up to the standards set by the Democrat leadership and pass out a rule that allows for debate on the issues and ideas of every single Member of this body, not just the ones that the Democrat leadership find politically convenient. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from San Dimas, California, the Honorable David Dreier. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, this Republican minority is intensely interested in making sure that we do the right thing for the country, but it should be noted that these bills should not be about economic development, they should be about solving water problems that we have with the dollars that are generated by the taxpayer to solve problems with water, with flooding and with the various elements of ensuring we have clean and better water that is available. This should not be an economic development spending bill. I disagree with the gentleman from Ohio, and it is my hope that this body will recognize this economic development spending bill for what it is, as opposed to a water resources bill. I am disappointed to hear that it's characterized that way. And that is why we support the gentleman from Georgia with his amendment.

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

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike section 105 of this legislation which as drafted would prevent the funds spent by this bill from being used to conduct public-private competitions or to direct A-76 conversions for any Army Corps of Engineers program, project, or activity. This underlying language would present an enormous setback for competition in government sourcing, costing the Federal Government millions of dollars a year by preventing private sector contracting in the Army Corps of Engineers for everything from janitorial and food services to the engineering and design of locks and dams which private sector contractors have done competitively for years at the Federal, State, and local levels. 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 these agencies will have less money to spend on their core missions if the opportunity to use competition and private sector efficiencies is taken 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 5-10 years. Competitions completed since 2003 are expected to produce almost $7 billion in savings for taxpayers over the next 5-10 years. This means that taxpayers will receive a return of about $31 for every dollar spent on competition, with an annualized expected savings of more than $1 billion. At the Corps, in 2006 three public/private competitions were competed, involving IT support, financial services, and public works. The largest of these, dealing with IT support services, has a projected savings of $960 million over a 6-year period. By introducing competition and leveraging the government's size to reduce equipment maintenance and replacement, the government will now be able to save almost $1 billion, but without my amendment, similar future efforts will be impossible. Mr. Chairman, 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 very easily can be found in the Yellow Pages. I insert into the Record at this point a letter of support for this amendment from the American Society of Civil Engineers and a letter of support for the amendment from the Council on Federal Procurement of Architectural and Engineering Services. American Society of Civil Engineers, Washington, DC, June 19, 2007. Hon. Pete Sessions, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Sessions: The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) is writing to support your amendment to H.R. 2641 that would strike language prohibiting the U.S. Army Corps of engineers from conducting any public-private competition or direct conversion under OMB Circular A-76. ASCE believes that section 105 of the bill as reported effectively would stop the USACE from employing engineers in the private sector. Such a provision is contrary to sound public policy. We think federal, state, and local government agencies responsible for major civil engineering works must maintain professional engineering expertise within their organizations by employing civil engineers and providing for their professional development. Nevertheless, public sector engineering projects that can be accomplished more efficiently by private engineering firms should be contracted out with proper oversight by the public agency. The ratio of in-house engineering to contracted engineering services should be based upon an assessment of the agency's continuing project and policy requirements rather than on rigid rules or percentages fixed by legislation or regulation. We urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on the Sessions amendment to strike section 105 from

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the 46th annual YMCA Youth Governor's Conference that began in Washington, DC, this past weekend and continues throughout this week. I am pleased to have the distinct honor of being one of the congressional hosts for the YMCA Youth Governor's breakfast with my House colleagues this Wednesday morning. The YMCA Youth Governor's Conference brings together some of the most outstanding youth leaders in America. YMCA Youth and Government is a nationwide program that allows thousands of teenagers to simulate State and national government. Madam Speaker, I would like to personally recognize each of this year's YMCA Youth Governors for their dedication and service to America's youth: Lillian Wilson of Alabama, Emile Gordon of Arizona, David Murdter of California, Alex Chandler of Colorado, Samantha Free of Connecticut, Anna Galati of Delaware, Bradley Pough of Florida, Kristin Graham of Georgia, Tiana Maruyama of Hawaii, Elise Marchant of Idaho, Sean Tompkins of Illinois, Martin Turman of Indiana, Will Webb of Louisiana, Jay Gobeil of Maine, Arnell Limberry of Maryland, Alexis Morin of Massachusetts, Trenton Swank of Michigan, Dilara Uskup of Michigan, Eric Kunkel of Minnesota, Josh Travis of Missouri, Olaniyi Solebo of the Model United Nations Program, David Colaco of New Jersey, Matthew Scarvie of New Mexico, Matthew Vigliotta of New York, Tucker Piner of North Carolina, Stuart Downey of Oklahoma, Gregory Murray of Oregon, Jeff Mitch of Pennsylvania, Neel Mehta of South Carolina, Matt Robinson of Tennessee, Tyler Thomason of Tennessee, Dave Harris of Texas, Marco Leung of Virginia, Erik Ashida of Washington, Damien White of the District of Columbia, Caroline Kitchens of Wisconsin. I wish all of the 2007 YMCA Youth Governors a very successful conference here in Washington, and encourage them to continue their sincere devotion to leadership and public service in this and their future endeavors.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I continue to reserve my time, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to inquire upon how much time is remaining on both sides, please.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, 5 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule and to this seriously flawed underlying legislation. While the process involved with bringing bills to this floor is very slightly improved over this past January when the Democratic leadership bypassed long- standing bipartisan regular order and used their rules package to create a closed process that skipped even bringing their flawed stem cell bill to the Rules Committee for its consideration, it is still overwhelmingly flawed and directly contradicts widely reported Democrat campaign promises to run the most open and ethical Congress in history. Yesterday, the Rules Committee met and the majority Democrats reported out two completely closed rules, one which will completely lock down this important debate today regarding the Federal funding of stem cell research upon which a great deal of honest and heartfelt moral and scientific disagreement exists on both sides of the aisle. In this exclusive and rushed process, it feels very familiar for the Members. If it does, it should. Because, back in January, the Democrat leadership forced a similar hastily written and politically motivated stem cell bill through the House without any input from the Members. Their purpose then was the same as it is today: to attempt to score some political points at the expense of sound science, openness, and transparency, not to mention feedback from its Members. Because they knew that their crass political move would never pass the Senate, today we are forced again to take up yet another flawed stem cell bill for political purposes under yet another completely closed rule that provides no Member of this body with the opportunity to amend or improve it. Worst of all, rather than taking this second chance to work in a bipartisan fashion to create a bill that balances cutting-edge medical research with the serious ethical implications created by stem cell research, this rule simply advances the Democrats' cynical agenda to send a flawed bill to the President for his veto, despite the legislation not even achieving a veto-proof majority in the Senate. Unfortunately, judging by their performance on recent supplemental funding measures for our troops, it seems like the Democrats need to be vetoed once or twice before they realize that they simply cannot pander to their liberal blogs. They actually need to work together to reach across the aisle to deliver workable bills that are in the interest of the American people. Mr. Speaker, not only is this a bad way to handle this process, I think it is an embarrassment to the institution that the Democrat leadership would fail to work openly with the over 400 duly elected Members of this legislative body to find common ground that balances the multiple grave concerns surrounding this legislation. This legislation forces taxpayers to fund research requiring the destruction of human embryos rather than seeking a middle ground on which researchers can be provided with the embryonic stem cells that they need to advance science while not violating the sanctity of life. This legislation fails to specify whether these embryonic stem cells that will now be eligible for Federal funding can be taken from embryos that still retain the potential for implantation or if they would be taken from embryos that no longer have the potential for further cellular division. This lack of clarity is not a function of a lack of ideas or debate on the matter. A compromise measure, introduced in the Senate by Senators Isakson and Coleman, already exists which provides for research only on those embryos which no longer have the potential for cellular division. Here in the House my colleagues, including my friend from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, also offered a thoughtful amendment that was rejected by the Democrat Rules Committee which would have provided for the Federal funding of pluripotent stem cells which can specialize in any bodily tissue but cannot develop into a human being. And despite the near-certain protests to the contrary that will be made by some Members of this body, this legislation also fails to contain language to prohibit or even propose ethical regulations for cloning or egg farming. Finally, rather than allowing science to progress based on merit, this legislation picks winners and losers in the research community by choosing which research methods would be funded. It diverts research funds from very promising areas, such as adult stem cells and cord blood, despite the fact that adult stem cells have already been proven to work over and over. But don't take my word for it. James Thompson, the first scientist to derive stem cells from a human embryo, was quoted in The Wall Street Journal saying, ``I am not entirely convinced that embryonic stem cells will, in my lifetime and possibly anybody's lifetime for that matter, be holding quite the promise that we desperately hope they will.'' Mr. Speaker, this debate has been so politicized that the American public can no longer even hear above the political fray about the miraculous and leading-edge technologies and therapies being derived today from adult stem cells, amniotic fluid and human umbilical cords, all without the moral and ethical controversies created by this bill. Treatments for injuries and chronic illnesses as diverse as spinal cord and heart tissue regeneration, bone marrow and vision therapies and diabetic management are all emerging as we speak, and this Congress should not be in the business of politically allocating scarce resources away from these technologies and methods as researchers continue to perform scientific miracles, such as creating embryonic- like stem cells without using eggs or destroying embryos, like the scientists at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, have already accomplished in laboratory tests. The point, Mr. Speaker, is that the process provided for under this rule does not allow for debate on the central issue: Does a middle ground exist that can provide scientists with the stem cells that they need to continue their cutting-edge research while at the same time respecting the sanctity of life? Unfortunately, once again, the graveyard of good ideas in the House, the Democrat Rules Committee, has provided this body with a rule that allows none of this debate. Instead, Members of this body are being asked to vote up or down on a very blunt measure that fails to recognize the vast complexity of this issue. This is no way to run the people's House, Mr. Speaker, and it is certainly no way to run a self-proclaimed most open and ethical Congress in history. I urge all of my colleagues to defeat this rule and the underlying legislation so that the House can have a real and meaningful debate on this issue and not allow something as important as the fate of stem cell research to be determined by bumper-sticker politics. This House does deserve better and the American people deserve better. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider a change to the rules of the House to restore accountability and enforcement to the earmark rule. Mr. Speaker, before I yield back the balance of my time, I want to say thank you very much for your cautious and careful rulings and administration today as the Speaker. I appreciate and respect the way you have conducted yourself in this debate. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party, this President, is completely in favor of spending money in doing stem cell research. We, however, are not in favor of putting an olive branch out that is unproven, untested, and up to today has produced no results from embryonic stem cell research. The real problem with it is that it takes someone else's stem cells and puts them into someone else's body and there is a rejection rate. We know what works best is when a researcher uses stem cells from a person's own body and puts them back into their own body. This is called stem cell research for adults. This is what will lead this country to where it needs to go. We are simply saying, rather than spending Federal money on untested and unwise decision-making processes that have not led forth to any research that is meaningful, we should spend the money which will yield the best results. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material into the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Welcome Home a Hero program at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. Every day, more than a hundred troops come through DFW on their way home from Iraq and Afghanistan for Rest and Recuperation. Since Welcome Home a Hero's inception in 2004, coordinated volunteers have gathered at the airport each day to greet our brave men and women serving our country and to make sure they receive the warm homecoming they have earned. Welcome Home a Hero is a result of the dedication of the North Texas Commission, the employees at DFW International Airport, the USO, the Boy Scouts of America, local businesses and thousands of volunteers. This program is one of the largest and most effective community initiatives in north Texas, and its positive impact on the morale of our troops has not gone unnoticed. As the 500,000th soldier arrives at DFW International Airport this month and the program approaches its 3-year anniversary, I want to thank all involved in this valuable effort. The dedicated and selfless participants of this valuable program are what make our country great. The North Texas Commission, DFW Airport employees, the USO and all of the volunteers should be proud of their leadership and accomplishments. I am extremely grateful for their dedication to our troops and our country, and I applaud the people of north Texas for taking the initiative to create this program.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the accomplishments of Timothy J. Craddock, Marguerite Gabriele, Jessica E. Shay, and Avi M. Wolfson as the recipients of this year's Undergraduate Research Fellowships at the University of Texas at Austin. They have been selected to receive scholarships to pursue research in their respective areas of interest. The University of Texas in Austin offers financial support for students who undertake scholarly research projects through Undergraduate Research Fellowships. Since its inception in 1996, the fellowship has remained committed to enriching academic experiences by providing 236 students with over $200,000 over the past 10 years to support efforts in their area of study. After competing in a rigorous application process that included resume submissions, itemized budget proposals, and faculty recommendations, these four outstanding students from the 32nd District of Texas were selected. They were chosen with the anticipation that their efforts would assist in future studies of the field and contribute to the researchers' disciplines. The high caliber of these students' achievements is truly impressive and for that I wish to acknowledge them to my congressional colleagues. It is my honor to recognize these students. The people of the 32nd District of Texas are proud of their successes. I wish the recipients the best of luck in both present and future endeavors.