Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman from California, and the gentleman from California also, speaking about this very important issue. And I do appreciate the gentlewoman accepting this amendment. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time with the knowledge that will be done.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay special tribute to Mr. Jose Santos, an outstanding individual from Dallas and recent recipient of the Fulbright award. Mr. Santos was chosen to receive the prestigious award to study, lecture or conduct research abroad during the 2006-2007 academic year after demonstrating high academic achievement studying Anthropology at Southern Methodist University. Sponsored by the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs, the Fulbright Award is America's leading international exchange program. Congress established the Fulbright Program in 1946 with the intention of fostering mutual understanding between United States citizens and the rest of the world. The Fulbright Program has since provided avenues of academic exchange with over a quarter of a million people in more than 150 countries worldwide. Surely the recipient of such an esteemed award does not lack merit. Mr. Santos was chosen for his high academic and professional achievement, as well as his exemplary leadership in his field. Mr. Santos' accomplishments thus far have been truly impressive and for that I wish to recognize him here on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. It is my honor to recognize Mr. Santos as the recipient of the Fulbright award, and I know I speak for all of Dallas when I say that we are very proud of his successes. I wish Mr. Santos the very best in all of his endeavors both at home and abroad.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida, a member of the Rules Committee, who I look up to and is a great mentor. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in strong opposition to this rule, which completely shuts out the minority from offering any amendments to improve this legislation. Last night, the Rules Committee met to consider the 14 amendments offered by Members to improve this legislation; and the Democratic majority voted along party lines to prevent any amendments offered by a Republican from being considered. I wish I could say that I was surprised by this outcome, but this is nothing new. This new Democratic majority decided to break its campaign trail promises to open up legislative process for all Members. Instead, they have chosen, once again, to play party politics and to help the Rules Committee to solidify its position and reputation as the graveyard of good ideas in the House of Representatives. I offered one of the Republican amendments that will not be considered by the House today because of the partisanship in the Rules Committee. My amendment would have struck section 303, which mandates the automatic annual recertification of successful small businesses, whether this recertification is necessary or not. Section 303 will create an administrative nightmare for small businesses who wish to contract with the Federal Government. Mandating this annual recertification creates a disincentive for businesses to contract with the government, because filing this unnecessary paperwork takes time, takes money and takes manpower, proving that the actions we take here in Congress actually do have real-world consequences. The Small Business Administration already has the discretion to determine how frequently small businesses must recertify, and the SBA studied and rejected this annual recertification because it would create, as they call it, an unnecessary burden for small business. The SBA has already passed a recertification rule that goes into effect in June of this year. This rule will protect small business contracts without the added costs and headaches associated with the Democratic majority's heavy-handed proposal. Congress should have allowed the SBA rule to take effect before mandating this new, unnecessary statutory paperwork. The failure of the Democratic majority to include my amendment proves that this bill is more about politics than it is about policy. Yesterday, person after person from both parties talked about how great it would be for us to help the great engine of this economy, small business. Yet we find out, when it really comes down to it, they want to put rules and regulations on small businesses, whether they are needed or not. Mr. Speaker, I ask to insert in the Record the Statement of Administrative Policy for the bill which specifically states that the bill would impose additional detailed reporting requirements on agencies and prime contractors that would increase costs without clear benefits. Statement of Administration Policy, H.R. 1873--Small Business Fairness in Contracting Act (Representative Braley (D), IA and 29 cosponsors) The Administration supports efforts to increase opportunities for small businesses to compete for Federal government acquisitions. The Administration, however, opposes H.R. 1873, because it would impose broad, burdensome statutory restrictions on Federal agencies' ability to conduct acquisitions and establish unrealistic small business procurement goals. Although the Administration appreciates the efforts of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to address some of the Administration's concerns, its reported bill contains many of the same objectionable provisions as the introduced bill and the bill as reported by the House Small Business Committee. Among its objectionable provisions, H.R. 1873 would impose costly and time-consuming requirements on thousands of agency acquisitions through an overly-expansive definition of ``contract bundling'' that would include construction contracts, new procurements not previously performed by or considered suitable for small businesses, and task and delivery orders under existing contracts even when bundling justifications were already performed under such contract. These requirements would be in addition to existing rules that already require review of all agency procurements for small business opportunities. Additionally, the bill would establish unrealistic government-wide and individual agency small business procurement goals that could undermine the small business procurement goal process. Moreover, both the increase in goals and the restrictions on allowing a small business to be counted for only one preferred small business contracting category raise constitutional questions by establishing new race- and gender-based Government preferences without presenting a strong basis in evidence that these preferences meet constitutional standards. The bill also would overturn a recently issued small business regulation that guards against the abuse of small business preferences while allowing an affected small business a reasonable period of time to take advantage of such preferences during performance of a Federal procurement contract. Finally, the bill would impose additional detailed reporting requirements on agencies and prime contractors that would increase costs without clear benefits. The Administration would strongly oppose amendments to require the Office of Management and Budget intervention in individual agency acquisition decisions, thereby removing the discretion and flexibility that agencies must have to accomplish their missions by contracting for needed supplies and services. The Administration also would strongly oppose any amendments that require individual agency goals to be no lower than government-wide statutory small business goals, or that apply small business goals to overseas acquisitions. The Administration looks forward to working with Congress to increase opportunities for small businesses without unnecessarily disrupting agency operations and imposing burdensome requirements on agencies and contractors. I ask for all my colleagues to oppose this partisan rule, this restrictive rule that will do very little to help small businesses.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, my wonderful colleague from Massachusetts is trying to have it both ways: We're going to balance the budget; we're not going to cut taxes. We're going to balance the budget; we're not going to cut taxes. But, in fact, what happens is this budget relies on every single tax cut going away so that they can then say they balance the budget, but the fact of the matter is that they do not even address the biggest issues and the problems that face the Nation. He is correct. The gentleman from Massachusetts is correct. Republicans did produce a balanced budget as a result of cutting taxes and fiscal discipline in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000. And in 2001, the day America was attacked, we had a balanced budget. He is absolutely correct. Since that time, we have not had a balanced budget. One million jobs were lost within 1 month after 9/11, 2001. And so as a result of that, Republicans decided that in order for us to gain financial advantage, that we would have tax cuts. It is true that, as a result of rules in the Senate, the other body, that we could not make these tax cuts permanent. It is also true that every single year since that period of time that Republicans have asked Democrats, please make every single one of these tax cuts permanent, well, that's like light to a vampire. Absolutely no, not for the Democrats, because they're opposed to the tax cuts. They're on record of opposing the tax cuts. And today they come to the floor, oh, we're not taking away any of the tax cuts. Of course they are. Because if they didn't, they couldn't then ``balance the budget'' that they have on the floor today. That is exactly what they are doing. Second point, Social Security, as a result of our growing economy, every single new worker that comes in, Social Security has to add to its deficit the amount of money that is owed to Social Security every time we get a new worker, and that is more than half of this deficit. It's an accounting gimmick because what happens is that Social Security accounts for what they have to have as an unfunded liability out for 50 years. So to talk about the irresponsibility, I will take part of the blame. But growing this economy, having increased tax revenue, having the greatest single economy we have ever had, more people than ever living in homes, their own homes and our challenging the Democrat minority and now majority to say, why don't we get on with the real things that are important like worrying about Medicare and Medicaid? Nothing. Why don't we make sure that families do not have to pay after-tax dollars for health care? Silence. Silence from our Democrat majority. The new Democrats want to tax and spend. That's what they've always been about. That's what they're about on the floor of the House of Representatives today. And they're trying to get it both ways. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member from the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take just a second and highlight the admiration that this House has for the two gentlemen who have just been speaking. The gentleman, Mr. Spratt, and the gentleman, Mr. Ryan, have conducted themselves despite tough differences, and I applaud both of them, in particular my good friend from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for the conduct that he has on this floor. Now back to the real issues. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is the Republican minority is here on the floor of the House today opposing this bill. We are opposing this resolution because we do not believe that this properly talks about the future of this country for entitlement spending, raising taxes and not being responsible for the future opportunity for America to compete. So we, once again, continue our opposition to the process that is happening today, as well as the underlying legislation. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from the Fifth Congressional District of Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we are opposed to this bill. The first thing this is going to do is provide for higher taxes, $392 billion worth of new taxes between now and 2012. Secondly, this budget outspends inflation. It outspends inflation moving forward that will increase higher than the average of 2.4 percent. It is reckless entitlement spending increases. It is either empty promises or tax increases that they have. Mr. Speaker, lastly, it is very obvious that there is no entitlement reform that will take place. They had a 5-year budget to do it. They had 5 years to look out and say, we are going to match our Republican colleagues. It is now our chance, because the Republicans tried and got no support from the Democrats for the last 12 years to make sure we could do entitlement reform. Now it is their turn. Nothing. Nada. They are ignoring the future. This is a bad precedent. We know that the Democratic party is about taxing and spending. It is obvious. It is there today. We will let them vote for the tax increases. We will continue on the Republican side to make sure that we are for growing the economy and cutting taxes. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule and the unprecedented tax increase that the Democrat majority is bringing back to the House today. I wish I could report to my colleagues that this legislation was improved since the last time the House considered it in March. Unfortunately, the massive and irresponsible tax increase included in the House version of this budget would still be the largest tax increase in American history, weighing in at a shocking $392.5 billion over the next 5 years. This Democrat budget, which is balanced on the backs of everyday taxpayers, would be used to finance bloated new government spending that will grow well above the rate of inflation through 2012, while also ignoring the brewing entitlement crisis. Around 77 million baby boomers will be retiring in the very near future and will begin collecting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Funding this new spending represents the greatest economic challenge of our era, and it is a challenge that the Democrat budget has chosen to completely ignore, while going on its own spending spree elsewhere. In the 32nd Congressional District of Texas, which I have the honor to represent, the Heritage Foundation estimates that the passage of this budget will cost every single taxpayer an additional $2,920 in 2012. It will also mean a per capita loss of $474 in personal income, as well as 2,389 lost jobs as a result of a loss of $328 million to the local economy of the 32nd Congressional District of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record this entire document which details the severe negative impact on the passage that this budget will have on every single taxpayer from every single district across the country. Mr. Speaker, if fiscal discipline is what the Democrats promised voters this past fall, then, by my account, it took only 3 months for the Democrat candidates to abandon their campaign promises and an additional 2 months for Democrats to reiterate their really true support for tax-and-spend policies again here on the House floor today. This deeply flawed budget would increase taxes on almost 8 million taxpayers just in my home State of Texas alone. It would collect these taxes by allowing the 2001 and 2003 tax relief provided by the Republican Congress to expire. In real terms, for every American taxpayer, this means reducing the child tax credit for working families so that the government can collect $27 billion more to finance, yes, you've got it, Mr. Speaker, brand-new spending. It means reinstating the marriage penalty and the death tax to collect an additional $104 billion so that the new majority Democrats can kick the can further down the road, rather than reforming and strengthening our Nation's entitlement programs. And it means completely ignoring the alternative minimum tax crisis which is projected to hit 23 million middle-class families if not dealt with in a responsible manner. Mr. Speaker, I believe the voters watching this debate on C-SPAN understand what these tax increases mean for them, the economy, and for our ability to compete globally. But they may not realize what they mean for the average family of four with $60,000 in earnings. It will mean a tax increase of 61 percent. It means that a single parent with two children and $30,000 in earnings would see a tax increase of 67 percent. And it means that an elderly couple with $40,000 of income would see their taxes increase by a whopping 156 percent. Mr. Speaker, you can see the advantages of the Republican tax cut and what it means to every single middle-class American. Now, one would think that a hike of almost $400 billion impacting every American taxpayer would be enough to finance the Democrats' appetite for big government. But trust me, it's just the start. This budget also contains 12 reserve funds or pet initiative IOUs which set the stage for more than $115 billion in higher future spending which would have to be financed by, you guessed it, even higher taxes. For the last 4 years, responsible budgets passed by the Republican Party kept discretionary spending at or below inflation for all nondefense, non-homeland security spending. This budget plan brought forward by the Democrats brings this fiscally disciplined tradition to a screeching halt by allowing about $25 billion more in discretionary spending than President Bush or even the spendthrift Senate, for that matter, which asked for about $7 billion less than the House. Thankfully, it's not too late to stop this fiscal train wreck. By voting against this rule, every Member of this body can demonstrate their opposition to the Federal largesse included in this budget, as well as their opposition to the largest tax increase in American history. Without the meaningful tax relief passed by this recent Republican Congress, our economy would not have seen the massive job growth with 7.6 million new jobs created for American workers and tremendous economic growth of 3.5 percent per year that has our economy growing at the highest rate and has done so over the last 15 quarters. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to stand up for fiscal discipline, economic growth, and responsible budgeting by opposing this rule and the underlying tax increase. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of promoting technological innovation, bolstering the strength of our manufacturing industry and contributing to the overall global competitiveness of American business. However, I simply cannot support the closed rule process brought forward today by the Democrat majority that prevents all but one Republican amendment from being considered by the House. This rule represents a substantial break with recent precedent because the last time that a comprehensive reauthorization of the National Institute of Standards and Technology was brought to the Rules Committee, the Republican majority provided the House with a completely open rule for its consideration. I know this, Mr. Speaker, because I had the privilege of managing that rule for our majority, and the Democrat minority position was then ably handled by the current chairman of the Rules Committee, my good friend Chairman Louise Slaughter. Unfortunately, Chairwoman Slaughter seems to have forgotten the merits of providing the House with an open rules process because today the committee that she chairs has provided the House with a closed process, through a restrictive rule, not an open rule, even using the more lenient definition of an open rule currently being employed by the Democrat majority, which under Republican leadership was reserved for modified open rules. I include for the Record a copy of this rule, H. Res. 474, which provided for the consideration of H.R. 2733, the Enterprise Integration Act of 2002, to remind the majority that NIST reauthorization is, in fact, possible to do under an open process. H. Res. 474 Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2733) to authorize the National Institute of Standards and Technology to work with major manufacturing industries on an initiative of standards development and implementation for electronic enterprise integration. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Science. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of substitute recommended by the Committee on Science now printed in the bill. Each section of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Despite my objection to the rule, I do want to support the underlying legislation which makes a number of positive changes to an institution with a long history of helping to keep America globally competitive. Since its inception in 1901, the National Institute of Standards and Technology has worked diligently to achieve its mission of promoting U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement, science, standards and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve the quality of life. By focusing on its core mission of stimulating innovation, fostering industrial competition and competitiveness and improving quality of life, the NIST has become a valuable component in the ongoing struggle that the United States faces to remain globally competitive. This legislation authorizes appropriations for NIST for the next 3 years, most notably doubling the Federal Government's investment in physical science research, as proposed by President Bush's American Competitiveness Initiative. And this increased investment will yield real-world benefits across a number of diverse sectors, including developing performance standards for bullet-proof vests for our military and law enforcement, chemical and biological protection equipment for first responders, and measurement standards vital to leading-edge industries like nanotechnology and next-generation solar cells that will help America increase its energy independence. This legislation strengthens oversight by requiring the NIST director to submit annual programmatic planning documents to Congress, ensuring that the NIST budget is spent on activities that meet the needs of American industry, and that the increased funds which the NIST is being entrusted with are spent wisely. This legislation also takes steps to ensure the continued viability of the workhorses of the American economy, small and medium-size manufacturers. By reauthorizing the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, Congress will help countless domestic manufacturers to improve their manufacturing processes, reduce waste and to train workers to use new equipment. Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the work of Chairman Bart Gordon and my good friend, the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Rockwall, Texas, Mr. Ralph Hall, for all of their hard work and bipartisan cooperation on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the Statement of Administration Policy for this legislation. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 1868--Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007, May 1, 2007 The Administration opposes House passage of H.R. 1868 in its current form. The bill conflicts with the administration's Research and Development Criteria by diverting funds from critical, high-return basic research to support subsidized management consulting activities and a Technology Innovation Program (TIP) modeled on the Advanced Technology Program that was proceeding toward termination last Congress, as the Administration has proposed for the past five years. These external commercial support programs would be authorized at a total of $223 million in Fiscal Year 2008, and would increase by more than 18 percent in FY 2009. The Administration does not support the level of funding or the focus and structure of the programs as currently reflected in the bill. The Administration recognizes that a Manager's Amendment may be offered that is intended to improve the bill by refocusing TIP awards on areas of national need. However, the bill still permits grants to large corporations, limits the role of universities and national laboratories, and does not target major societal challenges. The Administration continues to believe that investing in basic research is a higher priority. Last year the President proposed doubling support for high-payoff physical science research in the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Energy's Office of Science over the coming decade as part of the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). Compared with the amounts required to double NIST's core research and facilities funding, H.R. 1868 provides $22 million less in FY 2008 than the President requested and authorizes less funding than the Administration recommends in FYs 2009 and 2010. Such investment in NIST's core measurement and standards capabilities has demonstrated a significant, and often exceptional, return to the economy. Studies commissioned by NIST to evaluate the economic impacts of its core standards activities generally show benefits far greater than costs--the benefit-cost ratio across 19 of these studies averaged 44:1, indicative of the great leveraging of NIST's work in the economy. The research funding increases for NIST proposed in the ACI have been broadly endorsed by the science community, most recently in the ``American Innovation Proc1amation''--a package of targeted recommendations by America's business and higher education leaders. The House bill would divert NIST resources from core basic research activities toward less meritorious industrial policy. The Administration urges the House to amend the bill to address these concerns. But despite my support for the legislation's goals, I encourage my colleagues to oppose this rule, so that this legislation can be considered under an open rule process that gives every single Member of this body with a germane amendment an opportunity to come down to the floor and to make their case. Mr. Speaker, the essence of what we are here to do today is to help America to become more competitive in the global process. By doing this, what we are saying is that by working with the NIST, it is a collaboration that the government has on behalf of and in particular for technology. Technology is what ultimately will drive America well into this new century to make sure that we solve problems, problems that have existed. Maybe they are mathematical problems, perhaps they are problems of trying to get people to work with new equipment that they may have. But the technology angle and the ability that the Federal Government has to take a proactive stand on behalf of American competitiveness is the essence of this bill. For a long time, we have spoken on this floor, Member-to-Member and as a body, about how important it is for America to understand the global competition that faces America. Today is an opportunity for us to come together here in this Congress to make sure that we are talking not only about that which will help America, but to continue something that we have been doing since 1901, and that is a government program that works well with the private sector to make sure that America is poised in its future to be prepared for what lies ahead. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, as you can see by the last two speakers, the gentleman from Georgia (Dr. Gingrey) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), they have approached this subject not only in a bipartisan way, but with a genuine friendship to each other in trying to promote NIST as well as American competitiveness. I think this flows all the way to the top, where Chairman Bart Gordon and ranking member Ralph Hall have worked very diligently on this. I think it is a good thing when we are able to work in the Congress on behalf of the American people, in this case for the NIST laboratories. I would like to talk for just a minute, if I can, about more of what they do, because I think it is an interesting exercise to go through. Between 3 and 6 percent of the U.S. gross domestic products is attributed to measurements and measurement-related operations that rely on the NIST for accuracy, reliability and for international recognition. The NIST X-ray standards and proficiency tests ensure proper radiation exposure levels in more than 9,000 facilities that perform more than 30 million mammograms yearly. The NIST Internet time services are being used by NASDAQ, a key component of our wonderful American system of financial integrity, for NASDAQ members to time stamp hundreds of billions of dollars worth of stock trades and other financial transactions that are conducted in business every single day. The United States, for the last 35 years, has helped the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the FBI. During part of that time my father, for eight of those years, served as Director of the FBI. The NIST helps improve the process of matching fingerprints found at crime scenes or collected from suspects with those that are on file. In cooperation with the American National Standards Institute, the NIST also developed a uniform way for fingerprint identification data to be exchanged between different jurisdictions and between scanning machines made by different manufacturers. The Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award, the Nation's highest honor awarded by the President of the United States to U.S. organizations for their performance excellence in quality achievement, is managed by the NIST, and the award criteria are used by thousands of companies, hospitals, and schools to improve their products and services all across the United States. The total economic benefit of the NIST Baldridge National Quality Program, which receives only a small amount of Federal funding, is estimated at almost $25 billion for a stunning benefit-cost ratio of 207 to 1. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about something that is a laboratory that all Americans can be proud of. I came from a research organization years ago in New Jersey where I had a chance to also work in a lab. This lab is an asset to America. But, Mr. Speaker, it is part of an overall comprehensive and complex way that the United States chooses to do business not only in this country, but also to lead the world. I found it interesting that just a few weeks ago there was a report issued by the Financial Times, which is a newspaper that reports on international monetary circumstances, and it reported that now the 25- member EU countries have a combined GDP that equals that of the United States of America, 25 member countries from the EU. But if you read on, you see that they now have a combined GDP that equals the United States where we were in 1985. America truly is the world leader. We are the world leader in commerce and activities that create better lives for people. The EU is struggling. They are struggling because of high taxes, rules and regulations, and a single-payer system in health care, those things that we here in the United States Congress also debate and talk about. And because we have a chance to have something like the NIST as well as a free-enterprise system that is vibrant here in America, because we shut off the heavy rules and regulations, the heavy taxation, and those things that would be related to a single-payer system for health care, we have been able to move America economically in the world marketplace. So Republicans today come to the floor in full appreciation and respect with our colleagues to say we want to continue what this lab does, but we are also asking for them at the same time to recognize that growing medium and small business, ensuring that America stays competitive, and, most importantly, that we are prepared for the future where our competitors might be is what really this Congress should be doing. Today is a small piece, part, a component of that competitiveness model that will keep America going, and I am proud to be a part of that. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, for years now, Taiwan has had no representation in the World Health Organization (WHO). The health rights of Taiwan's 23 million people have been grossly neglected. As a democracy, the Government of Taiwan is compelled to respect the wishes of its people and apply for membership into the WHO. Also, Taiwan would like to be invited to send observers to sessions of the World Health Assembly this May. I support Taiwan's bid to be a member of the WHO. Taiwan's bid is closely related to its campaign for World Health Assembly observer status and meaningful participation in World Health Organization activities. The health rights of the 23 million Taiwanese people must be respected. Moreover, Taiwan is willing and able to contribute to the world health network. As of December 2006, Taiwan had 32 technical missions stationed in 29 partner countries and dispatched 16 mobile medical missions to 12 countries. It is conceivable that with a membership in the WHO, Taiwan will be able to contribute even more of its resources to the global health network. Several years ago, Taiwan was gripped in crisis with the outbreak of SARS. Since Taiwan was not a member of the WHO, Taiwan encountered a significant amount of red-tape in getting WHO assistance to the affected areas during its urgent time of need during the SARS crisis. Should there ever be a new medical crisis in Taiwan, the WHO should be free of all barriers in assisting people in urgent need of immediate medical attention. Madam Speaker, Taiwan's application for WHO membership in the name of Taiwan does not represent any change of Taiwan's status quo. Taiwan is most commonly known as ``Taiwan'' internationally and the Government of Taiwan has made it absolutely clear that it has no intention of changing its national name. Taiwan's Constitution has not been changed. I hope that the administration will once again enthusiastically support Taiwan's application and that no government will dispute Taiwan's membership request. All nations, especially the United States, Japan, and major European countries, should request the WHO to make appropriate arrangements for Taiwan to participate in WHO's mechanisms or at the very least grant Taiwan WHA observer status this May.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in memory of Officer Andrew Albert Esparza and in honor of his life dedicated to service and public safety. Andrew passed away on April 13, 2007 in a fatal car accident while on his way to assist another officer. After graduating from the University of Texas in Arlington with degrees in business marketing and Spanish, Andrew followed in his brother's footsteps by joining the Irving Police Department in 2005. He was recently selected to join the SWAT team on a part-time basis and always made himself available as a Spanish translator. Though he was only with the Irving Police Department for 2 years, Andrew demonstrated great promise with expertise, maturity, and professionalism beyond his years of experience. He is survived by his parents, Rafael and Christina of Fort Worth, TX; two brothers, Rafael Esparza, Jr. and wife, Jennifer of Irving, TX; Felix Esparza and wife, Haylee of Burleson, TX; sister, Zoe Esparza of Burleson, TX; grandparents, Lydia Garcia of Fort Worth, TX; Lazaro and Olivia Cantu of Fort Worth, TX; and nieces and nephews, Saeya, Sloan, Slade, and Rylee Esparza. He will be remembered as a compassionate officer, a dedicated family man, and a devout Christian. May God bless all those he loved, and may I convey to them my sincerest condolences and the gratitude of the American people.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the second time in a month in strong opposition to this closed rule, to these two closed amendment processes, and to the blatantly unconstitutional underlying measure that the Democrat majority is bringing to the House floor today. I would like to say that I am surprised by the lack of respect for regular order and procedural gimmickry that the Democrats have used to bring this rule to the floor today. Unfortunately, in what has become an all too familiar scenario in the Democrat Rules Committee, respect for minority party rights and regular order are, once again, being trumped by political expediency and the Democrat leadership's willingness to abuse power for their own narrow political ends. Last month, when this unconstitutional bill was first brought to the House floor, the Democrats sunk to an unprecedented new low by pulling the legislation from the floor just before it passed the House, using a provision that was intended to give the Speaker flexibility in scheduling votes, not to give her an escape valve when things were not going her way. Today, the Democrats seem committed to outdoing that shameful effort by waiving the ``Pay-For'' rules that they imposed on this House floor just less than 4 months ago, after committing themselves to honor their pledge to increase taxes on the American public every time they increase spending. They have also split the bill into two pieces, one that tries to skirt the Constitution and one that skirts their own ``Pay-For'' rule, all in the name of preventing the minority from offering the popular notion that a majority of the House was on the brink of passing just weeks ago. And as if the process that brings us here today weren't bad enough, there is little to celebrate in this deeply flawed underlying bill, the same words that the constitutional scholar and law professor Jonathan Turley has called ``the most premeditated unconstitutional act by Congress in decades'' either. Thankfully, President Bush has made it clear that this cynical political exercise is destined for his veto pen, if it even makes it that far. My opposition to this matter stems from its incompatibility with a pretty basic foundation of American government: the Constitution. Section 2 of article I clearly states that ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the People of several States.'' And as any fourth grader in the country can tell you, Washington, D.C., is simply not a State. There is simply no one that has moved into or lives in Washington, D.C., that thought that they would be given this ability. Washington, D.C., is not a State. Supporters of this legislation will claim that the ``District Clause,'' which gives Congress the power to legislate over our Nation's seat, also gives Congress the power to grant D.C. a Member of Congress. But this same clause makes it clear, by its very nature, that Washington, D.C., is not a State, which brings us back to the original problem of this bill's being completely unconstitutional. But don't take my word for it. If the Democrat leadership won't listen to reason, one would hope that they would at least listen to one of our Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton, who offered an amendment to the Constitution that would have provided D.C. with a vote in the House. Unfortunately, I know we all don't know this, but his amendment was defeated on July 22, 1788. But if neither my word nor the Constitution nor the actions of our Founding Fathers is good enough, I wonder if the Democrat majority would be willing to listen to an equal branch of government, as they had an opinion on this matter. In 2000, the Federal District Court in Washington, D.C., concluded that ``the Constitution does not contemplate that the District may serve as a State for the purposes of the apportionment of congressional representatives.'' It seems pretty clear to me, but I guess not to every single Member of this body. So for a moment let us ignore my word, the Constitution, the actions of our Founding Fathers, and the decisions of the Federal judiciary. What would it mean if Congress simply gave D.C. a seat in the House, rather than going through the necessary process of passing a constitutional amendment, which was attempted in 1978 and failed? Well, it would create a precedent that Congress would give the District three votes next year or they could perhaps give them 10. The way that this legislation is currently drafted, it gives the District two votes in the Committee of the Whole, more than any other voting Member, as well as a vote in the House. But rather than discuss the facts or the logic of this approach, I suspect that supporters of this legislation will come to the floor and talk about ``fairness.'' But I fail to see how it is fair to give Washington, D.C., super-representation, two votes for amendments, or every voter in Utah an unprecedented two votes also, one for their Congressman and one for a new at-large Member, keeping the ``one man, one vote'' principle in every other State. Perhaps a Member on the Democrat side will be kind enough to come down to the floor and explain this logic to me; but I am not going to hold my breath. Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress, we take an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution, not to trample on it. No matter what the supporters of this bill may claim to the contrary, the Constitution is not a cafeteria. You cannot pick and choose which parts you are going to respect and which ones you are going to ignore. That is why our Framers, in their infinite wisdom, created an orderly, lawful process for amending the Constitution. And despite the best efforts of the Democrat leadership, I am sure that the Framers' legacy to our country will prevail and will prevent this poorly drafted and ill-conceived measure from becoming law. I urge each of my colleagues to reject this outrageous rule and the underlying assault on the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we simply are on the floor today to say that the means do not justify the ends. It should be done properly and constitutionally; just as it was done in 1978, it should be done today. We think the way that the Democrat majority is doing this, to give super-voting powers to the District of Columbia and to the State of Utah, is unconstitutional. So I make no apologies for standing up for the way I read the Constitution and what I believe. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield, with Mr. Arcuri's concurrence, 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by agreement, I believe Mr. Arcuri and I are going to be the final two speakers. He has agreed that I will offer my close and then yield back my time, and the gentleman will have the remaining time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the minority believes that the means just don't justify the ends. We believe that there is a process for getting this done constitutionally and appropriately. We believe the way the rule is written, we believe that the supermajority that this would give to Washington, D.C. two voting Members as well as a super-Delegate Member who would be from Utah would violate the one man-one vote clause. We believe that the way that this is written is wrong and not correct, and we should not proceed under that matter. Related to the gentlelady's comments about us delaying tactics several weeks ago, I find that curious because we were following regular order rules, rules that had been established. And I find it interesting that regular order would be called a delaying tactic. Mr. Speaker, I am asking Members to vote against the previous question so that I might be able to offer an amendment to the rule which would strike the obvious attempt to nullify and mute the minority's ability to recommit a bill. The provision says that if the minority has a valid motion to recommit and the majority of the House agrees to it, the bill is tabled. The majority has taken away the House's ability to send something back to the committee for further consideration. The distinguished majority leader has spent a great deal of time telling Members in the press that the motion to recommit offered on March 22 would have killed the bill. Well, that just wasn't true. It would have sent the bill back to the committee. The egregious provision makes the minority leader's wishes come true now. It causes any motion to recommit the bill other than a forthwith motion to effectively kill the bill. Why would the Democrat majority want to limit the minority's opinion in such a manner? Would it be so that they might be able to say with a straight face that a vote to recommit actually kills the bill? Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and the extraneous material be printed just prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from San Dimas, California, the ranking member of the Rules Committee (Mr. Dreier). (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.

Mr. SESSIONS. Is it in order for any member of the minority to call up a bill during the call of the committees?

Mr. SESSIONS. Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.

Mr. SESSIONS. Is the chairman of the committee the only person that is in order to call up a bill during the call of the committees on Calendar Wednesday?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule and to the underlying legislation, which I think constitutes an unnecessary and unwarranted Federal intrusion into the free enterprise system and the private sector. The legislation that the Democrat majority has brought to the House today would create a new Federal mandate on publicly held companies, but does so in a half-hearted way that would have absolutely no practical impact on its purported goal of improving disclosure and addressing ``excessive'' executive compensation. The Democrats' Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act would force every publicly held company to bear the costs of administering a toothless, nonbinding shareholder vote on pay packages of its highest compensated officials during every proxy vote. It is unclear, however, what the outcome of this vote, which under current rules could already happen today at any publicly held company, would mean for the company, the board of directors, executives or the shareholders. Yesterday in the Rules Committee, Chairman Barney Frank testified that this vote was not intended to create a new fiduciary responsibility for board members. Even if a majority of shareholders agreed that a company's executives were being compensated too generously, there are no provisions in this legislation to obligate a board to comply with this decision. So if a board does choose to ignore an affirmative vote, again according to Chairman Frank's testimony in the Rules Committee, since there is no fiduciary responsibility and no private right of action created by this new mandatory shareholder vote, there is no legal recourse provided in this bill for shareholders to force board compliance. So rather than demonstrating the courage of their convictions that executive pay is wildly out of control in this country and that shareholders should be able to rein it in unilaterally through a ballot process, Democrats have chosen to bring legislation to the floor today, forcing private entities to take an action that they are already capable of taking by their very own nature. But this would make this new mandatory vote little more than a weak ``sense of the shareholder'' resolution that can be simply ignored by a board with impunity. I am also extremely surprised, Mr. Speaker, by the Democrat leadership's recent conversion to the merits of democracy in determining an organization's actions. Less than 2 months ago, this same leadership brought to the floor legislation that strips American workers of their right to use a secret ballot to decide whether or not to unionize and provides for unprecedented intimidation of employees by union bosses under a fundamentally antidemocratic process known as ``card check.'' But I suppose the Democrats' new-found selective commitment to democratic principles is better late than never. The reality is that shareholders already have a democratic option available to them if they think that a board is shirking its fiduciary responsibilities to investors. They can sell their shares and vote with their dollars. This is a basic principle of how markets work in a free enterprise system, and it has been the steadfast commitment to principles like these that has made the American economy the envy of the world over the last decade, even while economies across Europe have stagnated and shrunk. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Frank has represented to the House that the real aim of this legislation is not to create a new class of lawsuits for the trial bar to exploit, and I take him at his word. But that leaves only one sensible explanation for why the Democrat majority would bring such a toothless bill to the floor of the House today, and that is to provide outsiders, such as Big Labor bosses, environmentalists and so- called ``consumer activists,'' with a new avenue to criticize the management of corporations and to compel boards to do their bidding. Information about executive compensation is already fully disclosed to investors, who have every opportunity to determine whether or not it is too generous before becoming an owner of a listed security. And under this bill, even if they decide that it is too generous, the legislation contains no enforcement mechanism. This legislation simply provides a foot in the door for outside organizations to try to bully boards of directors in hopes of weakening management and gaining concessions down the road. This bill does nothing to improve corporate governance. It does nothing to improve board decision-making or increase shareholder value. That is why I have submitted an amendment that would force any person or organization who spends a significant sum on trying to influence the outcome of this new mandatory vote to disclose who they are, how much they have spent and on what activities so that investors can have a full picture of who is trying to influence them in this decision-making process. While I think this amendment would improve a misguided bill, I am not holding my breath at all that the majority party will join me in standing up for increased transparency. But who knows? Today we learned that they have radically changed their opinion on the merits of secret ballots, so perhaps they will stand up for transparency in proxy vote influence-peddling also. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule and the weak underlying ``sense of the shareholder'' legislation. Congress can do better than this. And rather than mimicking the interventionist economic policies of Europe, I believe we should reject this legislation and stand up for what sets our economy apart and has spurred our continued economic and job growth while others sank, which would be a commitment to free markets and an understanding that when given information, investors can make good decisions on their own. Mr. Speaker, I stand up for the free enterprise system and the American way of doing business. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.