Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the statement of the administration policy on this bill. Executive Office of the President Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, March 8, 2007. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 720--Water Quality Financing Act of 2007 (Rep. Oberstar (D) MN and 32 others) The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 720, which authorizes excessive Federal funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) and mandates the application of Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage requirements ``to the construction of treatment works carried out in whole or in part'' with SRF funding. For the reasons described below, if H.R. 720 were presented to the President in its current form his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill. The bill would expand Davis-Bacon Act coverage to a program that has not been subject to any Davis-Bacon requirements since 1994--first by reinstating coverage for Federally- funded clean water state revolving fund projects, and second by expanding Davis-Bacon Act coverage to non-Federal clean water projects, including for the first time ever, projects financed by funds contributed solely by States and moneys repaid to the state revolving fund. This provision will increase project costs and impose new administrative burdens on States. Furthermore, it is contrary to the Administration's long-standing policy of opposing any statutory attempt to expand or contract the applicability of Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage requirements. In addition, the bill's total authorization of $14 billion for the SRF during fiscal years 2008-2011 represents on average a more than 250 percent increase over recent appropriation levels and is unrealistic in the current fiscal environment. This excessive authorization will distort market signals by discouraging utilities and their consumers from moving toward full-cost pricing, as they have elsewhere. Instead, this bill may encourage municipalities to delay undertaking needed infrastructure projects to wait for Federal subsidies, potentially diminishing reliability and increasing the eventual costs to the public. To provide additional opportunities to communities for financing needed wastewater infrastructure, Congress should enact the Administration's Water Enterprise Bond proposal, which would provide an exception to the unified annual State volume cap on tax-exempt qualified private activity bonds for wastewater and drinking water projects. To ensure the long- term financial health and solvency of these drinking water and wastewater systems, communities using these bonds must have demonstrated a process that will move toward full-cost pricing for services within five years of issuing the Private Activity Bonds. Consequently, this proposal will attract more private capital to meet the infrastructure needs of these sectors, help water and wastewater systems become self- financing, and minimize the need for future subsidies. Mr. Speaker, part of what the President has said very clearly to Congress today is two things: number one, that this Davis-Bacon expansion will cost an incredible amount of money to local water districts that seek bonds and funding that go to the marketplace to get that money to match the Federal money; and that the President believes that by expanding Davis-Bacon arbitrarily, it will mean that the cost of all these projects will go up exponentially and make it far more difficult for local communities to get the funding they need because it is more money than what should be paid reasonably for the projects to be done. Secondly, the President makes a point which I think is very true, and that is by almost doubling the amount of money that is in this fund, America is now going to start looking to Washington to take care of these projects. Over my years in this body, we have seen over and over again the requests from the Democrats to let's go build more schools in this country--with Federal money. Oh, yes, with Davis-Bacon; but more importantly, it is a message to people back home, let's let Washington build our schools. Republicans have said, the day we start doing that, there will be no more schools built by local people. Everybody will look to Washington. The President is saying today, by this bill, people back home are going to start looking to Washington to take care of their water system needs. That is dangerous, and I think that is a problem. Mr. Speaker, the choice that we are being asked to make is very clear. If you support fiscal responsibility, small business, States' right, rural communities, women- and minority-owned businesses and the environment, then you would want to oppose this rule and the underlying legislation. However, I admit that the Democrats are going to win today, and we are going to lose; but instead, what that is going to mean is it is going to be environmental harm, market distortion, wasteful Federal spending and stacking the deck in favor of labor bosses. That is who is going to win today. I include for the Record a letter to Speaker Pelosi and to the Republican leadership, John Boehner, signed by the National Association of Minority Contractors, the National Association of Women in Construction, the National Alliance for Working and Employee Rights, and the Women Construction Owners and Executives who make very clear their opposition for the reasons why we have talked about today: Excessive overspending and far-reaching expansion of Davis-Bacon that will mean that many of these communities who need the money the most will find that on up to 20 percent of their projects, the needs of their people cannot be met because of bloated spending that is contained within this bill. We want to make it very clear that we oppose this legislation. March 7, 2007. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. John Boehner, Minority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to notify the gentlewoman I will now yield myself the balance of my time, and then yield back my time and allow the gentlewoman to close. (Mr. SESSIONS 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, yesterday in the Rules Committee we had an opportunity to receive a number of amendments and have feedback from Members who were talking about these important water projects, and I found one amendment yesterday that was presented very interesting. It was rejected by the Democrats, but it says this: ``This amendment quadruples the current penalty for dumping sewage into the Great Lakes to $100,000 per violation per day. The amendment also establishes a Great Lakes Clean-Up Fund within the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, and directs the sewage dumping penalties into this new fund to be spent on wastewater treatment options.'' Here is the interesting part: ``These provisions would become effective January 1, 2027.'' Mr. Speaker, a colleague brought forth an amendment as a result of a discussion with a major mayor of a city on the Great Lakes. I have heard all sorts of conversations about how important clean water is. Yet the Great Lakes, which is an area of about 20 million people that need this clean water, wake up today to find out that someone was willing to come forward with an idea which, even if enacted, doesn't take place until January 1, 2027. No, we are not going to do that in the Rules Committee. So on one side the Democrat majority talks about how great they are for all this clean water. But when it really comes down to it, still 20 million people are being denied this opportunity to start this clean water revolving fund and direct that sewage dumped into the Great Lakes would be cleaned up and have higher penalties. Utterly incredible. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this modified closed rule and to the underlying legislation. I also rise, regrettably, to report to the American people that, for the second week in a row, the Democrat leadership is bringing legislation to the House floor that benefits big labor bosses at someone else's expense. Last week, American workers were the losers in the Democrat- controlled House when the majority leadership forced through legislation that would provide for unprecedented intimidation of employees by union bosses under a fundamentally anti-democratic process known as card check. This week, the Democrat leadership has set its sights on one of their favorite targets, the American taxpayer. But the other losers in this bargain are far more shocking. They include local communities across the United States, small and minority-owned businesses, and the environment. H.R. 720 would provide for an unprecedented expansion of the Davis- Bacon prevailing wage provision of the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund or SRF. When the SRF was established, it applied Davis-Bacon only to the Federal portion of a Clean Water project. But today, in order to help big labor bosses pad their dwindling ranks, they would apply these same provisions to all non-Federal funds, such as loan repayments, State bond revenues, interest and State-matching funds. Since the SRF program expired in 1995, no SRF project has been subject to Davis-Bacon. But today the Democrat Party wants to change that and to stack the deck in favor of big labor bosses whose ranks have dwindled to 12 percent in 2006 from their high of 35 percent in the 1950s. I insert into the Record a letter from my colleague from Florida, John Mica, to Rules Committee Chairwoman Slaughter and Ranking Member Dreier detailing the specifics of this unprecedented expansion. House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, DC, March 8, 2007. Hon. Louise M. Slaughter, Chairwoman, Committee on Rules, Washington, DC. Hon. David Dreier, Ranking Republican Member, Committee on Rules, Washington,

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her words, except I would like to let her know, I know she was not in the body last year, but this body did pass a minimum wage bill last year. It should be noted that the bill included exactly what the Democrat leadership wanted, and we took their bill exactly as it was for minimum wage. The problem that the Democrat leadership had was that it was a balanced approach, and that is the reason why it did not move forward in the other body and why the President never got it. Mr. Speaker, what the Republicans did was to take the Democrat bill on minimum wage and add to that a balanced provision which would help small businesses who are bearing the burden of most of the brunt of the minimum wage and allow them the opportunity to offset those changes so that we can continue growing the free market economy. Small business is the engine of our economy. It is also worth noting, since the gentlewoman brought it up, that this body this year did pass a minimum wage without those equalizing factors or benefits to small business, and that is why it got stuck in the other body and why this body is having to come back to correct it to make it a more balanced view, the same kind of balanced view that the Republicans took last year in order to pass the minimum wage. I know the gentlewoman was not here last year, but those are the facts of the case. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

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, we think we are trying to make a point here today that there were some strong reservations that should have been taken into account by the Rules Committee. We are not trying to chip away at minimum wage. We tried last year to pass a new minimum wage. What we are trying to do is get work done that is in the best interest of not only Americans who need these projects to complete things that have been done to their communities as a result of damage but also to move forward with more efficiency. We support spending money for clean water. We don't support bloated projects that are against the market-based abilities that communities have. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time. It is my understanding then that the chairman and I have engaged in an agreement; that I would withdraw my amendment, pending such that he would place within the legislation that agreement. And I would agree with that, and I would agree to withdraw my amendment. And I thank the gentleman.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 700 follows an authorization that the Republican Congress provided for in the year 2000, which authorized $75 million in grants for alternative water source projects. We learned that the population growth was causing a number of communities to have to explore alternative supplies through reclamation, reuse and conservation. And so Congress created section 220 of the Clean Water Act. This amendment to the Clean Water Act required a 50 percent non-Federal cost share. And it expired in 2004. Today's legislation doubles this authorization, but the troubling part to me is it allows this authorization to continue indefinitely. So if this legislation passes, there will be no sunset, no further oversight and no review of the effectiveness of these grants. My amendment would provide for the expiration of this authorization in fiscal year 2008. I think it is fiscally responsible and allows Congress to reevaluate these grants, and not just leave them forever without oversight. Mr. Chairman, at this time I understand that the gentleman Mr. Oberstar would wish to engage with me in a colloquy on this amendment. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, on February 28th, President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan delivered his annual state of the nation address entitled ``New Kazakhstan in a New World'' which outlined the strategy of Kazakhstan's development for the next decade. The goals set forth in President Nazarbayev's speech serves as a roadmap for the future and improve the quality of life for the people of Kazakhstan. In only a decade, Kazakhstan has achieved impressive economic growth and developed a strong framework of democratic government. President Nazarbayev rightfully stated in his speech that ``We are no longer a country of the Third World. This is the main result of our work for the past 10 years. Kazakhstan is now expected to double the country's gross domestic product by 2008 as compared to the year 2000. Accordingly, the GDP per capita has grown considerably, reaching $5,000 dollars in 2006 with the forecast of $6,500 dollars in 2007. Kazakhstan's stable economic development has allowed the government to devote more resources to social reforms. What is most impressive are the measures to improve social protection for motherhood and childhood, to increase pensions, and to raise government controlled wages. In other words, Kazakhstan is not just offering a better future for its people, but it is also securing its democracy on the rich soil of economic and social prosperity. Kazakhstan is blessed with abundant natural resources. However, Kazakhstan is not going to rely upon those resources alone, realizing that only a diversified economy will give this nation true independence and stability. President Nazarbayev envisions Kazakhstan as a ``regional locomotive'' of economic development and a successful player in the world economy by raising the effectiveness of extractive industries, ensuring the development of non-raw materials sectors, developing modem infrastructure, implementing swift administrative reform which takes into account international practices, and promoting the achievements and opportunities of a new Kazakhstan in Central Asia and the world. Central Asia needs and relies on Kazakhstan's leadership and strong presence that affirms democratic ideas and fosters economic values for the region. Modernizing the political system in the region is among the most important goals, and its achievement will ensure political stability for the future. I will continue to monitor Kazakhstan's improvements in the coming months, and I applaud their ability to move forward with progressive reforms that will be of a great benefit to the U.S.- Kazakhstan bilateral relationship and to the people of Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan's policy of promoting tolerance and inter-religious harmony among ethnic and religious groups also has been recognized internationally. Kazakhstan is making a considerable effort to deal with religious diversity in its country and in the region. In fact, all of the world's great religions are present and thriving in Kazakhstan thanks to a climate of tolerance and openness. For this reason, I welcome President Nazarbayev's willingness to ``serve as an international intermediary for finding mutually acceptable political solutions for conflict situations [and] expanding and deepening the dialogue of civilizations.'' The glowing sense of confidence that is portrayed in President Nazarbayev's speech is a direct reflection of the optimism of the Kazakh people. I applaud President Nazarbayev's vision and leadership in bringing Kazakhstan into a new level of its progressive development. His vision for a prosperous and democratic Kazakhstan will be a beacon to other nations in the region. Madam Speaker, recently I had a very informative and productive meeting with H.E. Kanat Saudabayev, Kazakhstan Ambassador to the United States. I share his optimism for the future of Kazakhstan and the growing strategic partnership between our two nations. Kazakhstan has proven itself as our firm ally and partner, and our bilateral relationship based on common values is strong as ever. The U.S.- Kazakhstan partnership in promoting nonproliferation, combating terrorism, securing peace and stability for Afghanistan and Iraq is exemplary. We are grateful for Kazakhstan's support and friendship. I strongly believe we should assist Kazakhstan as it continues to pursue a program of economic and democratic reform for it is in our Nation's best interest to have an economically strong and democratically developed Kazakhstan in this region of vital importance.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from California giving me time. I rise in opposition to this closed rule and to the unprecedented creation of a new panel with no legislative jurisdiction and no authority to take legislative action. Mr. Speaker, it is like being air-dropped into this usually noncontroversial resolution without any committee oversight or consideration being given. The cost to the taxpayers for this lopsided new committee to study the serious issue of climate change but that is not given the power by the Democrat leadership of actually doing anything; yet it costs $4 million. This resolution also represents an increase of 14.3 percent over last year's Congress, raising the funding levels for these committees and staff salaries from just over $250 million to just over $291 million, one Congress to the next. But with all of this new spending, the Democrat majority cannot find a way to adequately fund one of the most vocally stated priorities, at least on the campaign trail, the Ethics Committee. This lack of funding is hindering the committee's struggle to untangle the confusingly drafted new ethics package passed by the new Democrat majority and to provide the training mandated by House Rules. So, today, the American people can see where the Democrats' true priorities lie, in crafting and creating an unfunded mandate and leaving a campaign promise unfilled, while spending millions of taxpayer dollars on a new panel that has no authority to do anything. Mr. Speaker, I do encourage all my colleagues to hear the straight story, and I also encourage them to vote against this rule and to defeat it.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. That is exactly the point. The political debate in Washington has been that Republicans cut taxes and deficits go up. Well, the fact of the matter is, since 2001, exactly on 9/11/01, when we had a balanced budget at that point, we have seen the deficit go up, and that is because we lost 1 million jobs on or about that day in the months forward. So what Republicans did is they said, we have got to spur our economy. We have got to do the things that will bring America back to work. I am pleased to tell you that the budget is virtually balanced and is expected to be balanced by next year as a result of a strong, strong economy. Just 1\1/2\ years ago, we had a deficit of about $500 billion. This year, it is down to $140 billion. That comes from strong economic growth. That comes from the opportunity for people to go to work. That comes from investment and opportunity, but, most of all, we are competitive with the world, and these are the things that Republicans talk about that is a part of the Suburban Agenda but that is good for everybody.

Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding me the time. Being from Dallas, Texas, does offer me the opportunity to come in and join the Suburban Caucus members here tonight from Illinois and Pennsylvania; and tonight I would like to speak about something that I think is very, very important and that is our economy. Just yesterday, there was a brand new study that was released in Europe that mostly you will see in Europe, you probably will not see in the United States, but talks about how the United States economy, as it was 20 years ago, is now the size, or said another way, Europe is now the size of, their economy, in 2007, what the United States economy was 20 years ago. It comes as a shock to many people in Europe, even though they have already seen incrementally where their countries fall out. But what has happened in Europe is they have seen a continuation of high taxes, of overregulation, of requirements on single payer or what we might call single payer system in health care, as well as rules and regulations that are given to unions to not only organize but to put additional restrictions upon employers. So, tonight, what I would like to say is, thank goodness we live in America. Thank goodness we live in an America where the free enterprise system is alive and well. Tonight, the Suburban Agenda that is being talked about by the Republican party is a part of trying to make sure that we grow our economy, to where America has the very best not only economy in the world but also a leading-edge and moving-forward economy. What I would like to talk about tonight is also a part of our Suburban Agenda of growing the economy, and that relates to making sure that we have the opportunity to have lower tax rates that allow investment in opportunity. As we know, in just a few short years, I think it is about some 1,381 days from now, the tax cuts that were passed by the Republican majority over the past few years will be going away unless the Democrats were to allow a vote and we reauthorize those. What would be gone away is the marriage penalty, depreciation, capital gains; and our tax rates would rise, also.

Mr. SESSIONS. That is exactly right. What happened was, when Republicans came into office 12 years ago, we talked about how important it was to make sure that every worker in a family, in this case a husband or a wife, would have an opportunity to only be taxed upon their own income. What happened is, after 40 years of Democrat control, we had taxes at this high, high level, and what happened is that a married person would be taxed at the highest rate of the person in that household, whoever made the most money. That meant that if a wife worked full time and a husband worked part time, he would be taxed at her high tax rate. So what Republicans did with President Bush is we came and passed something that was known as the marriage penalty, and that is that every single person would be taxed only at their own rate, based upon what their own earnings were.

Mr. SESSIONS. That is exactly right. Once again, said another way, a person would be taxed only at their own income, as opposed to combining that rate, which then would increase the amount of taxes that a person would pay. What I am telling the gentleman is that in around 1,300 days, if the Democrat majority does not reextend these tax cuts, that all four of these taxes and more that I have talked about will go back to the rate that they were before the Republicans lowered those taxes.

Mr. SESSIONS. That is exactly correct. The gentleman from Illinois is correct, that as a result of what Republicans have done, by cutting taxes, is that we have not only given people back more of their own money, we have allowed for America to be in a position to where we are more competitive with the world. Is it not interesting that just a few short years ago all the talk was about outsourcing and these jobs that were going to other countries. Ever since we passed these tax cuts, the debate and discussion now is how do we get enough workers to do the work that we need done here in America. The greatest threat against that would be that we do not have enough work that can be done here, and so companies go offshore to have work done on behalf of corporations and people here in this country.

Mr. SESSIONS. The gentleman is correct, and if I could have the gentleman also continue to keep focusing on how we have done this, what has been done is we have turned to the free market, the free enterprise system, to Americans, and said, we need you to go work as hard as you can work and bring this country back. That is exactly what has happened. It was not because of a government program. What we did is, we gave people back more of their own money, allowed them to invest that money in places like Dallas, Texas, where I live, Chicago, Illinois. And we have this robust economy that, since 2001, 5 million new jobs have been added. Tax receipts are up, 3 years ago, plus 8 percent over the year before; then plus 13 percent in this last year, plus 15 percent more than we had received the year before. We have more people at work today. More people own their own homes. There is more money being made, and the government has more money at its disposal. I hope and believe that next year this budget is going to be balanced.

Mr. SESSIONS. As we close down our time here with Republicans being on the floor, I would like to remind the gentleman of something that is heard over and over and over again, and that is how great America is. But I would like to ask a rhetorical question. Have you ever heard of the China dream, the Brazilian dream, the French dream, the German dream? Probably not, but every single person in the United States and billions around the world have heard of the American dream, and the American dream is tied directly to not only the dream that they have about themselves, but a dream about their future. This is where Republicans, working together on the suburban caucus, making sure we have a healthy and strong economy, where investment and opportunity and reduction in taxes happens directly in front of us, and then we can support this agenda that is so important for every one of us.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I would inquire if my colleague has additional speakers. I believe she has about twice as much time remaining as we do.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the ranking member of the Education and Labor Workforce Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).