Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to, before I really begin, extend my thanks to the Members of Congress, including Mr. Arcuri, who has taken time and been very gracious in his professional nature today on the floor, as well as the other Members who have been here, and I want to thank them for working together with us. Mr. Speaker, I will be urging Members to oppose the previous question so that I may offer an amendment to the rule which would make in order the constitutional amendment offered by Representative Dana Rohrabacher, as described today, which was presented to the Rules Committee last night. At a minimum the House should be allowed to vote and debate on a practical, legal alternative. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to reject the previous question. If the previous question is agreed to, I urge Members to reject the closed rule and the unconstitutional underlying measure. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record the amendment and extraneous material just prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman for inquiring. I would like to save my 2 minutes for my close and would like to ask if the gentleman would allow me 1 additional minute for a speaker that I have.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Davis.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to inquire of the gentleman from New York if, due to the imbalance of time, if he would like to perhaps have some more of his speakers. If so, I would reserve the balance of my time if he chose to go that direction.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman, the ranking member of the Rules Committee from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier). (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, if I could, I would like to try to get us back to a balance if we could. I would encourage the gentleman to run his time down. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, if I could please inquire upon the time remaining on both sides.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman to run down his time. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. If I could inquire from the gentleman from New York if he has any additional speakers, with the understanding that he has the right to close.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, if I could inquire upon the time that remains on both sides.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), a former member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. SENSENBRENNER 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 the blatantly unconstitutional measure that the Democrat majority is bringing to the House floor today. There is not much to celebrate in this deeply flawed legislation that constitutional scholar and law professor Jonathan Turley has called ``the most premeditated, unconstitutional act by Congress in decades.'' But I am an optimist, and I have found a very small silver lining in what I think is a cynical political exercise that is designated for President Bush's veto pen, that is, if it ever makes it that far. Today, the American taxpayer can be grateful that at least this week that the Democrat majority has trained its sights on simply trampling on the Constitution rather than propping up the fledgling ranks of big union bosses for the fourth week in a row. While this may not seem like much, it seems to be the best that the Democrat majority is willing to do at this time. My opposition to this measure 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 the several States.'' The way I see it, any fourth- grader in the country can tell you that D.C. is simply not a State. Supporters of this legislation will claim that the ``District Clause,'' which gives Congress the power to legislate over our Nation's government seat, also gives Congress the power to grant D.C. a Member of Congress. But this same clause makes it clear that by its very nature, D.C. is not a State, which brings us back to the original problem of this bill being completely unconstitutional. But do not take my word for it. If the Democrat leadership will not listen to reason, one would hope that at least they would 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, that 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 our government for their 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 apportionment of Congressional representatives.'' It seems pretty clear to me, but perhaps not every 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, by the way, was attempted in 1978 and failed, it would create a precedent that said Congress would give the District three votes next year, or they could give them 10. It would mean that if Congress did not like the way the new Member from D.C. was voting, it could simply take the seat away, because if Congress has the power to create a seat, it certainly has the power to take that seat away, which it cannot do under the Constitution, the same Constitution that gives States those rights. It would mean that Congress could deny D.C. voters the protection from, let us say, racial discrimination, given by the 15th amendment to the Constitution, or deny them protection from discrimination based on sex given to them in the 19th amendment. Is this the kind of precedent that we should be setting? But rather than discuss the facts or logic of this approach, I suspect that the supporters of this legislation will come to the floor and simply talk about fairness. But I fail to see how it is fair that this would give every voter in Utah an unprecedented two votes, one for their Member of Congress and one for a new at-large Member, while keeping the one man, one vote principle in every other State. Perhaps a Member on the Democrat side would be kind enough to come down to the floor and explain this logic to me, but I am sure I will not hold my breath. Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress, we take an oath to uphold and support the Constitution, not to trample on it. Personally, I think this is a fairly low bar that has been established. So last night in the Rules Committee, Congressman McHenry and I offered a commonsense amendment to have this new Member from D.C. act to preserve the individual right to keep and bear arms of the residents of the District of Columbia as also provided in the second amendment to the Constitution and upheld on March 9, 2007, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. No matter what the supporters of this bill may claim to the contrary, the Constitution is not a cafeteria. You simply cannot pick and choose which part you are going to respect and which part you are going to ignore. That is why our Framers, in their infinite wisdom, created an orderly, lawful process for amending the Constitution, if you so choose. So despite the fact that this underlying bill is designated for history's trash can, I am attempting to improve it slightly by forcing this entire body to recognize that the rights given in the whole Constitution, not just certain parts, should be recognized by anyone who claims to uphold and defend our government's founding document. Unfortunately, this amendment was defeated on a party-line vote in the Rules Committee, which is fast becoming the graveyard of good ideas in the U.S. House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying assault on the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, two years ago, China passed its anti- secession law, codifying its use of force against Taiwan. Despite Taiwan's pleas for friendship and worldwide condemnation of the legislation, China has continued its military buildup along the coast of Taiwan and heightened its rhetoric against the people of Taiwan. The 23 million people of Taiwan feel insecure and worry about present or future military confrontations in the Taiwan Strait. Even more ominously, China recently successfully tested an anti- satellite missile, threatening the surveillance satellites of India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the United States, Europe and Russia. China's development of space-based technology will seriously threaten U.S. military operations and world peace. This action, when combined with other actions by the PRC, should raise serious concerns among my colleagues about future moves that China may conduct. For the sake of world peace, I urge my colleagues to continue to speak out against the Chinese military buildup. China's military intimidations against Taiwan pose a serious threat to the well-being of the peaceful 23 million people that reside in Democratic Taiwan. It is in our best interests for people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait to live in peace and any military action against Taiwan will lead to chaos and destruction for many countries in the region. As a start to maintaining this critical peace on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, China should rescind its anti-secession legislation now. This legislation should have never been adopted by the Chinese, and therefore I ask for its immediate repeal.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, this is a costly bill. This is a bill that is an intrusion not only upon a system that works well, but it is also aiming at an unintended consequence, and that is it is not only going to be more expensive for the government to pay for those services that it wants to buy, but it is going to make it also more costly to the taxpayer in the amount of spending that takes place. We think there could be better ways that this could be accomplished. I ask all of my Members to oppose this bill. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule and to the financially irresponsible underlying legislation. I also rise with great regret to report to the American people that for the third week in a row the Democrat leadership is bringing legislation to the House floor that stacks the deck in favor of big labor bosses at someone else's expense. Madam Speaker, in just a few minutes I am going to ask that we submit this into the Congressional Record, but the Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill will cost a new $20 billion for 4 years after it is implemented. $20 billion. Yet we have just heard from the other side that this is responsible and the right way to do things. What do we expect? An additional $20 billion worth of spending. It is a real sad day, Madam Speaker. Two weeks ago, American workers were the main losers in the Democrat- controlled House when the majority leadership forced through legislation that would provide for an unprecedented intimidation of employees by union bosses under a fundamentally anti-democratic process known as ``card check.'' Last week, in another unprecedented expansion of Davis-Bacon to important water projects across this country, the Democrat leadership set its sights on one of their all-time favorite targets, the American taxpayer. Other losers that were targeted in that bargain included some other perhaps more surprising targets, including local communities, small and minority-owned businesses and, perhaps most of all, the environment. But I suppose that that is everything that the Democrat-controlled leadership says is good. Everything is a fair game when tilting the playing field in favor of labor bosses. That is what this new Democrat majority is about. Given this well-established track record, it should come as no surprise that today, once again, the Democrat majority has placed a bull's eye squarely on the American taxpayers' back on the floor of this people's House. The legislation that we are being asked to consider today represents the triumph of politics over policy by attempting to taint every government contractor with the high-profile transgressions that only a few have done. I do commend Chairman Waxman for his desire to provide proper and appropriate oversight for the use of government funds, and I do share his desire to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in government contracting. However, the approach that he has brought to the floor is far-reaching and intrusive, expensive; and it misses the mark. The problem is primarily one of enforcement, and this is where Congress should be focusing its efforts on behalf of the taxpayer. While these proposals may seem beneficial and look good on paper, in practice they add up restrictions upon restrictions simply for the sake of regulation. They would increase the cost and reduce government access to the solutions it needs, while increasing the burden on an already-overworked Federal contracting workforce. While I am concerned about fiscal responsibility as a Member of this body, I do not believe that adding layer upon layer of additional regulations is a way to save taxpayer money or to be responsible. Every day, private contractors provide the entire Federal Government with effective cost-saving solutions, and this legislation represents a large step backwards in giving these contractors the flexibility they need to provide these vital services. Rather than taking Chairman Waxman's approach and discouraging the vast majority of contractors that do not play by the rules from wanting to do business with the government, Congress should focus on dealing with those bad actors that have violated the public trust. Right here on our Capitol campus, private contractors provide us with the services that we need to function on a daily basis. They include inspecting and delivering the mail, mowing the Capitol grounds, installing signs, repairing sinks, providing IT consulting and technology systems maintenance, and they do so at the lowest cost to taxpayers through competition. The Federal Government should not be competing with a vibrant private sector that can provide these services better, faster, and cheaper than we can do them ourselves. I find that a good rule of thumb that I have used for years is if you can open up the Yellow Pages and find professionals willing to do the same services listed, then the government should not try to perform these tasks on its own, because it will end up costing the taxpayers a great deal more money. Madam Speaker, I do understand that the Democrat Party wants to change this slowly and to stack the deck in favor of big labor bosses whose ranks have dwindled to 12 percent from a high of 35 percent in the 1950s. I understand that a very few contractors have behaved dishonorably and illegally, and for that they should reimburse the taxpayer and be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But I simply don't believe that limiting the Federal Government's flexibility to contract, especially in the case of an emergency, is the answer to this problem. Nor do I believe that this legislation that is a new private sector mandate and that the CBO estimates will cost taxpayers over $20 billion, 20 billion new dollars, should be considered reasonable or should be considered financially responsible. This is not the correct solution to this problem. Madam Speaker, I include for the Record the CBO cost estimate for H.R. 1362. H.R. 1362--Accountability in Contracting Act Summary: H.R. 1362 would amend federal contracting rules. Specifically the legislation would require federal agencies to limit the length of noncompetitive contracts and limit the use of solesource and cost-reimbursement contracts when possible. H.R. 1362 also would authorize an increase in funds used to pay for contract oversight, planning, and administration equal to 1 percent of the value of an agency's contracts. The legislation would require various reports to the Congress on noncompetitive contracts and contractor overcharges and amend employment restrictions on federal procurement officials. CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1362 would cost $20 billion over the 2008-2012 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts to provide additional resources for contract oversight, planning, and administration. That estimate does not include any costs or savings that could result from implementing the legislation's provisions regarding the use of noncompetitive and cost-reimbursement contracts. CBO has no basis for estimating any costs or savings for those provisions. Enacting the bill could affect revenues by increasing collections of civil penalties, but CBO estimates that any increase in revenue collection would not be significant. Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending. H.R. 1362 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Refonn Act (UMRA) and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. H.R. 1362 would impose a private-sector mandate, as defined in UMRA, on certain former federal officials that were substantially involved in the awarding of contracts. CBO expects that the direct cost of complying with the mandate would fall well below the annual threshold for private-sector mandates ($131 million in 2007, adjusted annually for inflation). Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 1362 is shown in the following table. The cost of this legislation falls within all budget functions that provide contract funding. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam 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 ask unanimous consent to reclaim 2 minutes of my time as a result of us yielding back our time because we did not anticipate any additional speakers.

Mr. SESSIONS. I do recognize that from time to time as we do these rules that people do come down. The gentleman who is asking to speak is a member of the Rules Committee, and based upon that request, I consent and agree, and I welcome the gentleman.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?