Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we have heard the debate today about this budget, about the priorities of the new Democrat majority, about how they have set aside all these 11 reserve funds; and we have seen Member after Member after Member from the new Democrat majority take credit for all these things that are going to be done. And yet, in fact, what they are is reserve funds set aside to find a way to either increase taxes or to find an offset. We think that this is an irresponsible way to run the government. We think this is an irresponsible budget. We think raising taxes $395 billion, which is included in that budget; we heard the testimony last night from the chairman of the Budget Committee and the ranking member that the assumptions that are based on the Democrat budget are that the tax cuts will go away, that tax increases will fill their place. We disagree with that. We think that hardworking American families deserve the right and the opportunity to continue their best wishes for their families, for their children's education, and take care of their family needs through the hard-earned money that they earned, to be able to keep that rather than bringing it for more spending that this new Democrat majority has in mind. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question so that I may amend the rule to make in order a very thoughtful amendment offered by Mr. Brady of Texas which was rejected by the Rules Committee last night. The Democrats in the committee voted down on party line. Mr. Brady's amendment would amend the budget resolution to add reconciliation instructions to the Committee on Ways and Means to extend the State and local sales tax deduction through 2012. Currently, the Democrat budget resolution does not contemplate the extension of any meaningful tax relief provided by Republicans in 2001 or 2003. In fact, the Democrat budget resolution is relying on tax increases to reach this balance. As Americans make their household budgets, they should be able to rely on a consistent and fair Tax Code. The Democrat budget resolution will undermine this goal by imposing double taxation and will help eliminate the stability in the Tax Code that Americans deserve. So even if all the substitutes are defeated, we will still be able to consider and debate this very important amendment. Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material printed in the Record just prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

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

Mr. SESSIONS. You know, a reserve fund out there in the future does not fix a darn thing. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Suburban Caucus from Highland Park, Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, by the way, I encourage the gentleman from Oregon to read the bill. The Democrat budget does not address the alternative minimum tax, as he stated.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the favorite son from Pasco, Washington (Mr. Hastings).

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule and to the unprecedented tax increase that the Democrat majority is bringing to the House floor today. The massive and irresponsible tax increase included in this budget would be the largest 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, will be used to finance bloated new government spending that my colleague just spoke about that will be well above the rate of inflation through 2012 while ignoring the brewing entitlement crisis. Spending, more spending, and more spending rather than worrying about the brewing entitlement crisis that faces this Nation. Around 77 million baby boomers will be retiring in the near future and will begin collecting Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. Funding this new spending represents the greatest economic challenge of our era and is a challenge the Democrat budget has chosen to completely ignore while going on a spending spree everywhere else. If fiscal discipline is what the Democrats promised voters this past fall, then by my count it took all of about 3 months for the Democrat candidates to abandon their campaign trail promises and show their true tax-and-spend stripes here again on the floor today. This deeply flawed budget would increase taxes on almost 8 million taxpayers in my home State of Texas, costing each of them an average of $2,755 per year. 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 taxpayer, this means reducing the child tax credit for working families so that government can collect $27 billion more to finance the new spending that the Democrat majority chooses. It means reinstating the marriage penalty and the death tax to collect an additional $104 billion so that the majority can kick that 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 quickly. Madam Speaker, I believe the voters watching this debate on C-SPAN understand what these tax increases mean for our economy and our ability to compete globally, for, you see, I remember just a few short years ago when America was shipping thousands and thousands of jobs overseas and then the tax cuts took place and now we can't find enough workers in America. Madam Speaker, I would suggest to you, that is the way to be globally competitive, when you have plenty of jobs in America. But the voters and those people watching this debate may not realize that for a family of four with $60,000 in earnings, it would mean a tax increase of some 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 in income would see their taxes increased by a whopping 156 percent. Now, one would think that a tax increase of almost $400 billion impacting every American taxpayer would be enough to finance the Democrats' appetite for big government programs. But hold on. This is just the start. There's more to come. This budget also contains 12 reserve funds, or pet initiative IOUs, which set the stage for more than $115 billion in future higher spending which will have to be financed by, let me say, you guessed it, the taxpayer. Higher taxes. For the last 4 years, responsible budgets passed by the Republican Party kept discretionary spending at or below inflation for all non- defense, non-homeland security spending. This budget plan brought forward by the Democrats brings this tradition to a screeching halt by allowing about $25 billion more in discretionary spending than requested by President Bush or even the spendthrift Senate, which asks for about $7 billion less than the House. Thankfully, it is not too late to stop this fiscal train wreck. My friend, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Paul Ryan, has proposed an alternative budget that achieves balance by 2012 and ends the raid on Social Security without raising taxes. The Republican alternative maintains our strong economy, reforms and strengthens entitlement programs, and does this while keeping in place the tax relief that has contributed so much to our economy since 2001. Without meaningful tax relief passed by recent Republican Congresses, our economy would not have seen the massive job growth--with 7.6 million new jobs or roughly 170,000 per month--and economic growth of 3.5 percent a year that it has experienced over the last 15 quarters. The Republican budget contains no increase in marginal rates and leaves in place the 10 percent bracket for low-income filers. It includes no reduction in child tax credit, no rollback of the marriage penalty or death tax relief, and no increase in capital gains or dividend tax rates. It provides for an extension of alternative minimum tax relief, the research and development tax credit, and the State and local sales tax deduction that is so important to people all across this country, including the 17 States that it benefits. It ends the raid on Social Security and fully funds the President's request for national defense and the war on terrorism. It also makes important budget reforms, such as a legislative line-item veto; earmark transparency; requiring PAYGO to be offset by spending reductions, not tax increases; discretionary spending caps; requiring a vote on any debt limit increase; and requiring a vote on any bill that seeks to spend or authorize more than $50 million. Madam Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to listen very carefully today about what the choices are that are on the floor of the House of Representatives and what they can support and to stand up for fiscal discipline, economic growth and responsible budgeting by opposing this rule and the underlying legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heller).

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to congratulate the students of the University of Texas at Dallas for their victory at the 2007 Final Four of Chess held in Dallas/Fort Worth this weekend. With this win, the team earned the title of the top collegiate chess team in the Western Hemisphere. The University of Texas at Dallas chess team won the President's Cup trophy after defeating the University of Maryland at Baltimore County, Duke University and Miami Dade College. The team's five and a half point margin of victory was the largest in the tournament's seven year history. Team members Alejandro Ramirez, Magesh Chandran Panchanathan, Marko Zivanic, Drasko Boskovic, Dmitri Shneider and Davorin Kuljasevic were guided by their coach, Rade Milovanic. The team credits their victory to a thoughtful strategy and a rigorous practice regimen before the tournament. Drasko Boskovic, a junior business administration major, was selected as the tournament's Most Valuable Player. He outscored all other competitors and had a perfect 3-0 record. The University of Texas at Dallas is an outstanding school of high academics; the freshman class typically boasts above average SAT scores. Located at the convergence of Plano, Richardson and Dallas, the school enrolls more than 14,500 well-rounded and ambitious students. The university offers bachelor's degrees, master's degrees and doctoral degree programs. I am proud to represent the University of Texas at Dallas in the 32nd Congressional district of Texas. I congratulate these students for their success in collegiate chess, a true indicator of intelligence, and wish them the best of luck in their future academic and chess endeavors.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the gentleman from Florida, his conduct on the Rules Committee, him working with the minority on a number of bills. We wish we could have been successful on this amendment, just the one amendment to add into this piece of legislation. We will take them at their word that they do not intend for this to be any sort of a back-door attempt to form a government-to-government relationship with the tribal Native Hawaiians. I will tell you that we do believe that public housing and housing for Hawaiians, who are many times faced with increasing not only land costs but prices that escalate in the beautiful, beautiful State of Hawaii, that this is a good idea. We should be helping these people out. We simply wish that the amendment had been made in order for the proper clarification. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman's inquiry. At this time, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) is intended to represent the minority on the Rules Committee. He is not here at this time. So until further notice or until his arrival, it would be my intent to have the gentleman accept me in his stead.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in opposition to this closed rule and the potentially unconstitutional measure that the Democrat majority is presently bringing before the House. I also rise in opposition to the majority's gaming of the system by bringing this legislation up under a closed rule with no input from the minority, even after this measure failed to win the support of two- thirds of the House when it was considered under the suspension of the rules just last week. I believe that the 162 ``no'' votes that were cast last Wednesday prove that this measure carries with it some measure of controversy. I have heard the gentleman from Florida explain very clearly and carefully in addressing this issue his desire for us to understand that in fact nothing more other than the words that are on the paper are intended and implied in this bill. However, I would say there is also room to make sure that is not only correct, but also to improve this legislation. I am also confident that an overwhelming number of Members would likely support the final measure if they were given a chance to improve it through the amendment that perhaps we are hearing that the majority intended perhaps in the first place or at least did not unintend to make it happen. Unfortunately, in what is becoming a standard practice for the Rules Committee, last night the Democrat majority rejected along party line the only amendment offered to this legislation that would have offered the solution on behalf of the 162 ``no'' votes. This amendment was offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) who simply would have made it clear that there is nothing in this legislation that should be constructed to confer a special relationship between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people for the purpose of establishing a government-to-government relationship. This amendment is necessary because in 2000 the Supreme Court decided in Rice v. Cayetano that the current configuration of Justices would likely strike down most Federal benefits flowing to Native Hawaiians as an unconstitutional racial set-aside if, given a chance, by accepting Mr. Neugebauer's amendment, or at least allowing its merits to be debated and voted on, Congress would have had the opportunity to make it crystal clear to any future court that this legislation should not be construed as Congress' abuse of its power under the Indian commerce clause to indirectly confer tribal status on the Native Hawaiian people. I will take the words that have been given to me by the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) as well as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) from the Rules Committee that they do not intend this legislation in any way, and it should not be construed as told to the minority, that they would intend to pass power under the Indian commerce clause to indirectly confer tribal status on the Native Hawaiian people. I will take them at their word as the understanding and the basis and the intent of this legislation. But by shutting out this amendment, the Democrat majority has done nothing to address the concerns of the 162 Members of this body who do believe that this legislation under consideration is vague at best and unconstitutional at worst. Nor have they done anything to clarify the intent of this legislation to the courts. While, Mr. Speaker, you and I recognize that courts in their deliberations would look at congressional intent, we would like for it to be so stated. While the majority has indicated they do not intend this, we wish it had also been in the form of an amendment. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that, once again, the majority has silenced the minority in this effort. I am disappointed also that, by failing to include this amendment, Congress may very well be opening up this legislation to be overturned by the courts. In doing so, Congress would be depriving Native Hawaiians access to the loan guarantee programs provided for in this bill simply for the sake of speed at the cost of accuracy and good legislation. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule so that this legislation can be passed in a clear, constitutional way that makes it transparent to the courts that this is not a back-door attempt to lay the groundwork for other legislation to confer tribal status on the Native Hawaiian people. Native Hawaiians are just as much a part of America, this great land, as any of us. Their history is covered by the Constitution, and they are part of this country. I oppose this rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. I would notify the gentleman from Florida I have no additional speakers. If he would engage with me in a quick colloquy, we can figure out where we are in terms of moving forward.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, so that the gentlewoman from Texas is not confused, I will repeat what we have said. The routes that we have selected, the 10 most unprofitable routes, do not have enough people on them to support this additional security and additional necessary things that would come under the billions of dollars of this bill. My amendment is straightforward. It allows the management of Amtrak to be able to reallocate those resources where there are a lot of people, namely, the east coast and the west coast, rather than providing all these new security concerns all across the country that has little to no passengers, that is unprofitable. I am trying to allow Amtrak and the management, including the people who live in the east coast and the west coast, to be able to get the full measure of the security enhancements that would be necessary. I am trying to allow the men and women, the management of Amtrak, to be able to run their own business where the allocation of resources should be made.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a straightforward attempt to prevent any further taxpayer money from being spent to place additional unnecessary cost on Amtrak's 10 least profitable routes. I would like to talk a little bit about what this amendment does not do. This amendment does not remove any currently appropriated funds. This amendment does affect the 10 routes that are affected by the amendment that currently cost the taxpayer $161 million per year and will continue to cost the taxpayers $161 million if it is enacted. This amendment does not affect the funds made available in section 108, which would be used to upgrade and improve the Northeast corridor tunnels in New York City, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C. This amendment does not tie the hands of the administration, because it provides the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security with the flexibility to waive this provision should that Secretary deem that a security upgrade on one of these most unprofitable routes, or even a partial part of it, would be deemed to be critical to Homeland Security. What this amendment does, and it does it very simply, is stop adding unnecessary costs to the 10 worst routes that already cost Amtrak $161 million a year. The worst route in Amtrak's system, called the Sunset Limited, which runs from New Orleans to Los Angeles, had a net loss of $20.4 million last year, or, on a cost basis to taxpayers, 25.5 cents per seat for every mile of that journey. The tenth worst route in Amtrak's system is the City of New Orleans, which runs from Chicago to New Orleans, which had a net loss of $9 million last year, or a cost to taxpayers of 10.4 cents per seat for every mile of that trip. This amendment seeks to prevent further good taxpayer dollars from being thrown after bad by limiting the costs on these already unprofitable routes. All in all, it says that if Amtrak wants to compete for the $4 billion worth of funds made available under this Act, they must ensure that they are being used for routes that cost the taxpayer less than 10.4 cents per seat over every single mile, a hurdle that is hardly unreasonable. This amendment will provide fiscal discipline and accountability to a system that has already received over $30 billion in taxpayer subsidies over its lifetime. My amendment is supported by the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste and Americans for Tax Reform, which are three of the most prominent groups committed to monitoring the effective use of taxpayer dollars. On behalf of fiscal discipline, I don't know if there is anything that's possible that they could want to support on behalf of taxpayers that would be more. I encourage all of my colleagues to support my amendment. Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, Washington, DC, March 27, 2007. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: Soon you will have the opportunity to vote on an amendment to H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007, that will be offered by Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas). This amendment will prevent Amtrak from using any of the appropriated funds in the bill, except those noted in Section 108, from being used for any of the top ten revenue losing long-distance routes that were noted in Amtrak's September 2006 monthly performance report. On behalf of the more than 1.2 million members and supporters of the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW), I ask that you support this amendment. Amtrak has failed to produce a profit since its inception in 1971 and still has not met the Congressional deadline of December 2, 2002 to achieve self-sufficiency. As a result, it has become a black hole for taxpayer dollars. Fewer and fewer people are using the rail service due to less costly and more efficient alternatives, yet everyone pays for Amtrak through their taxes. This amendment will ensure that tax dollars will not be used to prop up non-profitable Amtrak routes and that the money will be used in appropriate areas in order to provide greater protection and safety for our nation's public transportation. It does provide a waiver from this provision if the Secretary of Homeland Security believes a route or a portion of an Amtrak route is critical to homeland security. All votes on H.R. 1401 will be among those considered in CCAGW's 2007 Congressional Ratings. Sincerely, Thomas Schatz, President.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. You do anticipate two additional speakers?

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to inquire if the gentleman has notified the Blue Dog Caucus that it is time for them to rush out front of their offices and put an extra $25 billion on the national debt. Have we given that notice yet for their offices to begin doing that? We will find out whether they are going to vote for this 25 extra billion dollars that I think is way too much in the emergency supplemental. Mr. Speaker, once again the Democrats are refusing to operate under the rules they campaigned on to open up the political process and use PAYGO rules to fully fund and offset any new mandatory spending. Today is a particularly egregious example of their irresponsible leadership as they threaten to leave our troops in the lurch by micromanaging the war against the United States by terrorists, while also leaving American taxpayers holding the bag by declaring hundreds of millions of dollars in new mandatory spending as an ``emergency.'' SCHIP is an important program where States are given a fixed annual allotment to assist them in providing health care coverage to near- poverty children and pregnant women. However, a few States want to use their SCHIP program to provide health care services to expanded populations that go well beyond the scope of the original program, even though they signed an agreement stating that they promised to pay for any additional costs with their own State funds or to offset those within the Medicaid program. Despite this agreement, Mr. Speaker, a number of States have told Congress that overspending their Federal allotment was their intention all along. Once again they come to Uncle Sam to get a bailout. Mr. Speaker, this is not an emergency. This is a loophole being exploited by the Democratic leadership. So today the Democrat leadership is telling these States, You don't have to keep your promises to the Federal Government, and you don't have to worry. We don't mind exploiting a loophole in the rules and calling this an ``emergency'' even though we have known for years that this would happen. Mr. Speaker, I am voting against this.