Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, Washington is under a barrage of people from all over the country, union organizers, union bosses, the business community, this week talking about this bill. They are talking about this bill because they recognize what it will mean. It is the biggest change since Taft-Hartley in 1947 to the workplace. I believe that you have heard today a story that this is an attack on the American free enterprise system, but Madam Speaker, I would also say that there are lots of groups that also understand the problems with this bill. Groups in Opposition to H.R. 800, The Employee Free Choice Act Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, 60 Plus Association, Alabama Chapter of ABC, Alaska Chapter of ABC, Alliance for Worker Freedom, Aluminum Association, American Apparel & Footwear Association, American Beverage Association, American Conservative Union, American Frozen Food Institute, American Hospital Association, American Hotel & Lodging Association, American Meat Institute, American Seniors Housing Association, American Shareholders Association, American Society for Healthcare Human Resources Administration, American Society of Employers, American Supply Association, and Americans for a Limited Government. Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform AMT--The Association for Manufacturing Technology API, Arizona Builders Alliance of ABC, Arizona Hotel & Lodging Association, Arizona IEC, Arkansas Chapter of ABC, Arkansas Hotel & Lodging Association, Arkansas IEC, Asheboro/Randolph (NC) Chamber of Commerce, Ashland & Tri State Area Chapter IEC, Assisted Living Federation of America, Associated Builders & Contractors Heart of America Chapter, Associated Builders and Contractors, Associated Industries of Massachusetts, Atlanta Hotel Council, Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association, Baltimore Metro Chapter of ABC, and Bearing Specialists Association. BKSH & Associates for National School Transportation Association, California Hotel & Lodging Association, Capital Associated Industries Inc, Carolinas Chapter of ABC, Center for Freedom & Prosperity, Center for Individual Freedom, Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, CenTex Chapter IEC, Central Alabama Chapter IEC, Central California Chapter of ABC, Central Florida Chapter of ABC, Central Indiana IEC, Central Michigan Chapter of ABC, Central Missouri IEC, Central Ohio AEC/EIC, Central Ohio Chapter of ABC, Central Pennsylvania Chapter of ABC, Central Pennsylvania Chapter of IEC, Central Texas Chapter of ABC, and Central Washington

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this modified closed rule and to the Democrat leadership bringing legislation to the floor of this House which will provide for an unprecedented intimidation of employees by union bosses under a fundamentally anti-democratic process known as ``Card Check.'' Today, the Democrat leadership has scheduled a vote on the most dramatic change to our Nation's labor laws since the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, which identified and disallowed the most egregious union practices of its day. And every single Member of this body will have an opportunity to answer very plainly and clearly whether they think our economy should be nimble and adaptive to compete with countries that present tomorrow's challenges, or mirror the politics of Europe which will continue to keep our former competitors on the continent from realizing the jobs and the economic growth of the United States. We do not believe the policies of Europe are the way to go. This legislation will give every single American voter a chance to see whether their Member of Congress supports the private ballots, a right which is given to every single American voter for obvious reasons, or if they support government protection and special treatment for labor unions by silencing one side over the debate of unionism. Of course, as we watch what is going on today across America, everyone will be tuning in to C-SPAN to watch this debate to see how we are going to answer a number of statements from the majority about how this legislation will provide fairness and will improve conditions for American workers. What they will not hear from the other side of the aisle is an explanation about why 16 Democrat cosponsors of this legislation previously signed a letter to the Mexican government imploring it to use the secret ballot in all union recognition elections because it would ensure that workers would not be intimidated into voting for a union that they would not have otherwise had. Madam Speaker, I could argue this sentiment even more. I would like to insert a copy of this letter into the Congressional Record, and I doubt that that body will get an explanation from these signatories why they believe it is a matter of fairness that Mexican workers deserve protection from coercion, while American workers do not. We will find out. Perhaps they will take an opportunity to enlighten us later today. August 29, 2001. Junta Local de Conciliacion y Arbitraje del Estado de Puebla, Lic. Armando Poxqui Quintero, 7 Norte, Numero 1006 Altos, Colonia Centro, Puebla, Mexico

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. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from the Rules Committee, Lincoln Diaz-Balart.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier), the ranking member of the Rules Committee, who argued very strenuously yesterday on behalf of the free enterprise system for America. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from the Rules Committee from Miami, Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday evening at the Rules Committee, we met to bypass regular order once again, which seems to be a new regular order for the 10th time under the new Democrat leadership. I brought forth the ability to discuss a small tax item with the germaneness to the tax bill that we are debating here today. I wish that we were considering this rule under regular order that the Democrat candidates, out on the campaign trails, promised voters this last election cycle. I believe that the tax bill will end up enjoying bipartisan support on the House floor today. So since we are already bypassing regular order to consider this legislation, I offered an amendment to bring another tax bill to the floor that would enjoy also broad bipartisan support, making the State and local sales tax deduction permanent for residents of non-income-tax States. This issue is a matter of fairness. It is quite simple in its honesty. It enjoys support from a huge number of Democrats and Republicans and would allow taxpayers a deduction for sales tax in lieu of income tax for taxpayers in States that do not have a State income tax. Nine States currently have no income tax: Texas, Florida, Washington, South Dakota, Tennessee, Nevada, Wyoming, New Hampshire, and Alaska. The 1986 Tax Reform Act eliminated the sales tax deduction from the Federal Tax Code but maintained the State income tax deduction. That change has a disproportionate impact on States that do not use a State income tax. A 2-year sales tax deductibility provision was signed into law as part of the American Jobs Creation Act. This law restored fairness to those in States with no State income tax for the first time in nearly 20 years and kept an estimated $3.6 billion in the hands of taxpayers that choose to deduct State sales tax in all nine affected States. This critical tax relief is said to expire at the end of this year and must be extended, or my constituents in Texas and taxpayers from eight other States will see a massive, unavoidable tax increase. H.R. 60 would permanently restore fairness to taxpayers in the nine affected States. I am disappointed that the amendments did not include this one and it was defeated by the Rules Committee Democrats along a party-line vote. While I support the legislation for continued tax fairness for small businesses that we are about to consider, I am sorry that we were not allowed to have this amendment on the House floor today as a golden opportunity for taxpayers to finally find this tax disparity and this loophole closed for good. I appreciate the gentleman's extending the time to me. He also is from the State of Florida, which is hugely affected by this unwelcomed tax.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my fellow colleagues in mourning the passing of Congressman Charlie Norwood. My friend and the honorable representative for the people of the Ninth District of Georgia passed away on Tuesday after his long battle with lung disease and cancer. This Chamber, and the State of Georgia has lost a friend and one of our most capable and dedicated Members. Even before Charlie came to Congress in the election of 1994, he was a courageous individual and public servant. The former Army dentist was a decorated officer serving in Vietnam, having been awarded the Combat Medical Badge and two Bronze Stars for his service. Words cannot fully express the sorrow that is felt by those who have known and loved Charlie. My heart goes out to Charlie's wife, Gloria, their two sons, Charles and Carlton, and their four grandchildren. I also will be keeping Charlie's staff in my thoughts and prayers, as I had the pleasure of working with Dr. Norwood on a variety of issues, and his staff was always a delight to work with. I can only imagine how tough it is for them, and all of Charlie's family and friends right now during this difficult time. I will be keeping Charlie's memory in my thoughts and prayers. He was always a dear friend of mine, someone who I looked to for his opinion and judgment. Charlie is now leaving us for a better place, but he leaves behind a lasting legacy, and shoes that can never be filled. We have lost a hero and a champion, God bless.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, on Monday night the Rules Committee met and after hours of testimony from members of both parties, the Democrat members of the committee voted along party lines to shut out every opportunity for amendments to be a part of this debate of this resolution today that we will be debating for the next 2 days. Our colleague from Texas, Congressman Sam Johnson, brought an amendment that would have clarified that Congress and the American people support our troops and that funding for our Armed Forces serving bravely in harm's way should not be cut off or restricted in any way. Our colleague from Virginia, Frank Wolf, also brought to the Rules Committee a very comprehensive amendment that would have made clear that Congress supports the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, with its emphasis on providing American commanders serving in Iraq with the strategy and tactical means that they need for success and accelerating cooperation with Iraqi leaders to meet specific goals, as the strategy for moving forward to success in Iraq. A number of other Members also spent a lot of their evening sitting in the Rules Committee waiting to share their ideas about how to improve this resolution which thus would help America in our message to not only the President but also the world. However, the 13 members of the Rules Committee are the only ones who had the benefit of hearing and debating these good ideas because none of them were given the opportunity to be considered and voted on by the House. Instead, rather than allowing this body to consider good ideas, today we are continuing debate on the floor with a completely closed process to debate a nonbinding resolution with no teeth and serious logistical flaws. In two short paragraphs, without explicitly stating that funds will not be cut off for our troops that serve in harm's way, the resolution asserts that Congress and the American people will continue to support the members of the Armed Forces who are serving in Iraq. This nonspecific language is something that every single Member of this House already supports. It also states that Congress disapproves of the President's plan to deploy 20,000 reinforcements to Iraq to bolster the mission and provide additional support to the troops already there serving on the ground. This resolution gives no direction on how we should proceed in Iraq. Instead, it settles for some generic language about supporting the troops without guaranteeing that Congress will continue to fund their efforts and stand behind them as they remain in harm's way. And it simply amounts to a vote for the status quo. Mr. Speaker, this is a serious debate about the serious challenges that America faces in not only this fight in Iraq but also against Islamic terrorism. We all understand the cost of failure in Iraq is too great to bear. It would embolden radical Islamic terrorists and give them a base from which to train from and to attack America for generations. But with this resolution, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle provide the troops with nothing: no guarantees that we will continue to fund their heroic efforts; no guarantees that Congress will heed the advice of the Iraq Study Group, which notes on page 73 of their report that it would ``support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission.'' Nor does this resolution provide the American people with a clear picture of our direction in Iraq. It simply says ``no.'' It says ``no'' to the only strategy for success that has been placed forward. President Bush said, ``If you disagree with me, then come outthink me.'' This resolution in its simple form does not do that. Mr. Speaker, I think Congress can do better than this nonbinding resolution for the status quo of Iraq. I know that a number of my Republican colleagues tried to improve this legislation but were denied that opportunity. But I know that our troops serving in harm's way and the American people deserve better than this simplistic resolution that provides no new ideas, outlines no strategy for victory, and makes no guarantees that we will continue to stand behind our troops with funding. I am greatly disappointed in this resolution and the Democrat majority's efforts to prevent this body from considering meaningful amendments.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Los Angeles. Mr. Speaker, we are here today as a result of the meeting in the Rules Committee last night where members of the Republican minority tried to speak about our desire to have more added to this ``simple resolution,'' as it is being called by the minority. And that it is, a simple resolution. Mr. Speaker, we implored upon the committee to make in order more amendments which would specifically speak directly to the needs of trying to provide direction and to work with the President of the United States on where we are in Iraq. In fact, on March 15, 2006, Members of both parties from this body supported the creation of a bipartisan Iraq Study Group to review the situation on the ground and to propose strategies on a way to move forward. For more than 8 months, the study group met with military officials, regional experts, academics, journalists and other high-level officials. This study group included James Baker and Lee Hamilton as cochairmen. It included Lawrence Eagleburger, Vernon Jordan, Ed Meese, Sandra Day O'Connor, Leon Panetta, William J. Perry, Charles S. Robb and Alan Simpson. Mr. Speaker, we believe that the things which were embodied within this Iraq Study Group report, which came out this last December, embody the kinds of things that the President of the United States is attempting to do now in Iraq. The President stood before each and every one of us as we sat in this Chamber just a few weeks ago and he outlined very clearly the changes that are taking place and his willingness not only to work with this body, but willingness to be more specific. I would like to read some of the things from the Iraq Study Group report that we will not be hearing as the voice of the United States Congress. That is, that the United States should work to ``provide political reassurance to the Iraqi Government in order to avoid its collapse and the disintegration of the country.'' America should ``fight al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in Iraq using more special operations teams.'' We should ``train, equip and support the Iraqi security forces.'' And we should ``deter even more destructive interference in Iraq by Syria and Iran.'' But there is more. The ``more'' is ``We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up training to equip the mission.'' Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is what this resolution, that is nonbinding, is all about is to politically neuter the President of the United States, and, I believe, our forces and our mission in Iraq. It is about trying to do something that is politics, rather than policy. The Rules Committee last night heard from several of our colleagues, one of them Sam Johnson, who brought forth an amendment that would clarify that Congress and the American people support our troops and the funding for our Armed Forces that are serving in harm's way to make sure that we do not put that element at risk. Our colleague from Virginia, Frank Wolf, brought forth the things that I just spoke about. He brought to the Rules Committee the recommendations from the Iraq Study Group, with this emphasis on providing American commanders in Iraq with the strategic and tactical means to support this war. However, my colleagues on the Democratic side have decided that what they want to do is they want to have this be all about politics and not about policy. They are after a simple answer. Last night, the Rules Committee met--and after hours of testimony from members from both parties, the Democrat members of the Committee voted along party lines to shut out every opportunity for amendment to the Resolution that the House will be considering over the next 3 days. Our colleague from Texas, Sam Johnson, brought an amendment that would have clarified that Congress and the American people support our troops and that funding for our armed forces serving bravely in harm's way will not be cut off or restricted in any way. Our colleague from Virginia, Frank Wolf, also brought to the Rules Committee a very comprehensive amendment that would have made clear that Congress supports the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group-- with its emphasis on providing American commanders serving in Iraq with the strategic and tactical means that they need for success and accelerated cooperation with Iraqi leaders to meet specific goals--as the strategy for moving forward to success in Iraq. A number of other members also spent a large part of their evening sitting in the Rules Committee, waiting to share their ideas about how to improve this resolution--however, unfortunately the 13 members of the Rules Committee are the only ones who will have the benefit of hearing and debating these good ideas, because none of them were given the opportunity to be considered and voted on by the House. Instead, today we are on the floor with a completely closed process to debate a non-binding resolution with no teeth and a serious logical flaw. In 2 short paragraphs, without explicitly stating that funds will not be cut off from our troops serving in harm's way, the resolution asserts that Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of Armed Forces who are serving in Iraq. This non-specific language is something that every member of this House clearly supports. It also states that Congress disapproves of the President's plan to deploy 20,000 reinforcements to Iraq to bolster the mission and provide additional support to troops already serving on the ground. This resolution gives no direction about how we should proceed in Iraq--instead, it settles for some generic language about supporting the troops without guaranteeing that Congress will continue to fund their efforts as they remain in harm's way--and it simply amounts to a vote for the status quo. Mr. Speaker, this is a serious debate for serious people. We all understand that the cost of failure in Iraq is too great to bear--it would embolden radical Islamic terrorists and give them a base from which to train and attack America for generations. But with this resolution my colleagues on the other side of the aisle provide the troops with nothing: no guarantees that we will continue to fund their heroic efforts; no guarantees that Congress will heed the advice of the Iraq Study group--which notes on page 73 of their report that it would ``support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission.'' Nor does it provide the American people with a clear picture of our direction in Iraq--it merely says ``no'' to the only strategy for success which has been put forward. Mr. Speaker, I think that Congress can do better than this nonbinding vote for the status quo in Iraq. I know that a number of my Republican colleagues tried to improve this legislation, but were denied the opportunity by the Democrat majority. But I know that our troops serving in harm's way, and the American people deserve better than this simplistic resolution that provides no new ideas, outlines no strategy for victory, and makes no guarantee that we will continue to fund the efforts of our troops. I am greatly disappointed in this resolution and the Democrat majority's efforts to prevent this body from considering amendments from thoughtful members to improve it.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate noncontroversial legislation that will help to develop markets for biofuels and ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel through research and development. And I am very, very pleased, and I appreciate the majority's decision to suspend its policy of a closed rule without regular order. I hope that this will not prove to be a unique circumstance, and one in which we will continue to see more open rules like the one which this legislation is being considered today. However, I also believe that we are missing an important opportunity to improve this legislation by offering an additional provision to be considered that was offered yesterday in the Rules Committee by our colleague, Dr. Michael Burgess from Texas. Congressman Burgess' amendment would have doubled the tax credit for making biodiesel from recycled restaurant grease from 50 cents a gallon to $1 a gallon, thereby encouraging its further use and production. This incentive would encourage the marketplace to reduce petroleum use and the pollutant associated with removing this grease without removing arable land from food production. Mr. Speaker, this technology works. This technology is something that we need to do more of. But, this amendment is not germane; it requires protection from a point of order, which is what the Rules Committee's job is all about. Unfortunately, yesterday, the Rules Committee voted it down along party lines with every Democrat on the committee voting to prevent this amendment from getting the protection that it would need to be considered by the House. Said another way, good ideas don't necessarily pass in the Rules Committee. This amendment would allow the House to consider new and innovative ways to achieve our goal of energy independence in a responsible way. And I am disappointed that my Democrat colleagues on the committee prevented us from debating that and passing that in the bill today. I support Congressman Burgess through his thoughtful legislation to provide incentives for the free market to create new, responsible and leading-edge solutions to end our dependency on foreign sources of energy. I hope, despite the setback that he will likely encounter today, that Congressman Burgess will continue to offer his amendments in the future, and I also hope that he will continue to come up to the Rules Committee to make sure his ideas, thoughts, are well understood and communicated. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee is open for business. That should mean that the best thoughts and ideas that may or may not have been considered throughout the process of going through regular order would be permissible in the Rules Committee. Good ideas should find the light of day upstairs in the Rules Committee, and it is my hope that the majority will continue to allow not only an open process, but will perhaps allow itself to engage in these ideas for the betterment of people who want us to make sure that we work not only in a bipartisan way, but solve, through creativity, the problems of this great Nation.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party of this country is dedicated to coming to Washington, DC, and serving the people who believe that America's greatest days lie in our future. But there is also incumbent within that promise the opportunity to present new and better ideas that will help this country to deal with the things that lay ahead of us. Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, Congressman Michael Burgess from Texas offered an amendment that would have doubled the tax credit for making biodiesel from recycled restaurant grease from 50 cents a gallon to $1 a gallon. This comes as a result of Mr. Burgess' working firsthand with people within his district who are trying to solve problems of not only air pollution, but also to take things that might normally be dumped into a recycle bin that ends up going somewhere to sit in a landfill. Mr. Speaker, I think that Congressman Burgess deserves the respect of this House for new and better ideas that will help make sure that America is facing the problems that lie ahead of us and to make sure that we have answers for it. I congratulate Congressman Burgess for bringing these ideas forward, and I hope we will continue to have other Members of this body do the same.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman from the State of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this closed rule and to the underlying 137-page, as they call it, omnibus appropriations measure that is being rushed to the floor of the House of Representatives today without committee oversight, regular order, or input from the vast majority of Members of this body. Last night in the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment that would have eliminated $44.5 million in unspent funds from an earmark that dates back to the 2004 omnibus appropriations measure that would have created an indoor rain forest in Coralville, Iowa. Because the project failed to meet its non-Federal matching funds matching requirement, this money remains unspent. It is sitting waiting for it to be spent. Last night, I offered an amendment that could be used for better purposes. It could be used to make sure that we move the money to the veterans health care program, and that is exactly what my amendment said. Despite their claim of support for veterans health care and their stated opposition to earmarks, Democrats rejected my commonsense proposal on a party line vote of 9-4. They also rejected along the same party line margin an amendment offered by my colleague from California (Mr. Campbell) which would have replaced the Democrats' omnibus spending bill with a clean continuing resolution that would have saved taxpayers around $7 billion. Mr. Speaker, we are on the floor today because we believe that the process that should have included more time and more opportunity for feedback but at least the ability in the Rules Committee to do the right thing was rejected by the Democrats who stand up and say that they are for an open and fair process. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote against this bill.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, we are here today to consider the Democrat leadership's proposed change to the current House practices to provide Delegates from U.S. territories with representation without taxation. The Democrat leadership, in a political effort to pad votes, is willing to trample on the Constitution by allowing these Delegates to cast votes on amendments that could affect taxpayers across the United States of America without requiring that these residents pay taxes into the United States Treasury. According to a 2000 census, American Samoa had 60,000 residents, about one-tenth the size of an average congressional district. This too undermines the fundamental constitutional provision and principle of one man, one vote. I encourage all of my colleagues to oppose this bad policy and political effort by the Democrat leadership and majority to extend representation without taxation to nontaxpayers and to dilute the votes of the American taxpayers in the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire on the time that remains for both sides, please, sir.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, if I could at this time, I would like to ask the gentlewoman if she could engage in running down her time, it would bring us to some more parity and allow her speakers that time at this juncture.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman who is the ranking member of the Education and Labor Committee, Mr. McKeon from California.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Speaker. I also thank the gentleman, a dear friend of mine from South Carolina, for talking about how great this is for the budget. Yet the rule waives points of order that are contained in the budget. Being specific, it is an explanation of the waivers that we found out about. The bill violates section 302(f) because its direct spending will exceed the Committee on Education and Labor's allocation, but that is good for the budget. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have had an opportunity on this side to talk about why we are disappointed in this closed rule and in the Democrats' failure to provide a comprehensive solution to increasing higher education access for our students that will help keep America competitive. Mr. Speaker, I would ask to insert in the Record an article printed in The Dallas Morning News, my home newspaper, from January 12, outlining the way today's Democrat proposal fails and falls short of their past promises. [From the Dallas Morning News, Jan. 12, 2007] Dems Push Rate Cut for Student Loans Washington.--Following up on an election-year promise, House Democrats said Friday that they plan quick action to lower interest rates for student loans. Their proposal, scheduled for a vote next week, would cut interest rates on some student loans in half. However, the college tuition plan has been scaled back since it was first touted on the campaign trail last year. The interest rate relief would apply only to need-based loans and doesn't help people who take out unsubsidized student loans--a distinction not made in the campaign literature Democrats handed out before winning control of Congress last fall. The measure also abandons a pledge to reduce rates for parents who take out loans to help with their kids' college costs. The rate cut for subsidized student loans--from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent--would be phased in over 5 years. The measure would cost just under $6 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. To avoid increasing the deficit, the bill's cost would be offset by trimming subsidies the government gives lenders and reducing the guaranteed return banks get when students default. Banks also would have to pay more in fees. An estimated 5.5 million students receive subsidized loans. Republicans pushed a budget bill through Congress last session that cut $12 billion from student loan programs. Democrats and student groups argued the money should have been preserved. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this closed rule and the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, the House will have the opportunity to debate this important amendment offered by Republican Ranking Member Buck McKeon so that convicted felons will be considered ineligible to receive the Democrat interest rate reduction. Mr. Speaker, today this debate has been very succinct and to the point. That is that we believe that for 12 years that Republicans and Democrats have worked very carefully on education issues that will help this country out, through difficult times, through difficult processes, increasing the amount of money that is available, not only for people to attend school, but also reducing the costs that were impediments in the program. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the way it is being pitched today is, well, the Republicans were just headed in a bad direction and had 12 years to do this, when in fact we have been doing this in a bipartisan way for 12 years. Today, we are going to hear it and have it the Democrats' way. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the last 12 years the Republicans, when we were in the majority, always led off every single rule by describing the rule and the actions of the Rules Committee. I would like to yield to my friend from California to explain this rule again that we are offering today that is progress over partisanship.

Mr. SESSIONS. So in other words, what the gentlewoman has said is that this five-step process that we are going through right now means that there will be no committee hearings, no expert witness testimony, no information that is available really to the membership of this body, but mostly would be necessary for new Members. And then when someone does come to the Rules Committee we are told before the session even starts there will be no amendments and a closed rule, and yet progress over partisanship is what we are doing here. Interesting day, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule and this underlying legislation which the Democratic leadership has decided to bring to the House today without the benefit of regular order, committee oversight or the opportunity for any Republican input or amendment, despite repeated promises to respect the rights of the minority and to increase Member participation in this legislative process. Every Member of this body, Republican and Democrat alike, understands the importance of higher education in the competitive global world environment that our students and workers face in keeping the United States at the vanguard of the global economy. I am greatly disappointed that the Democratic leadership has chosen to bring this narrow legislation of questionable effectiveness forward rather than engaging in an honest debate which has taken place for 12 years, as education has always been considered a bipartisan effort. It is true that the gentlewoman did describe that it will be a bipartisan act that we do today, but this was simply the first step in education and doing the right things for our students. I disagree with that. I think members of the minority have been given the opportunity for 12 years to be a part of the progress that has taken place, offering amendments that would actually make college more affordable for parents and students, as well as the cost effectiveness of the American taxpayer who foot the bill for tens of billions of dollars each year spent on Federal student aid programs. Mr. Speaker, this bipartisanship that I talked about for 12 years was led by Republicans in support of making sure that college was more affordable. Over the past 6 years, spending on Federal student aid has increased by 57 percent, and funding for Pell Grants has risen by nearly 50 percent. We also think about lower education also where, as a result of Republicans for the last 12 years, education has risen in spending from Washington, DC, 256 percent. Today, some $90 billion a year in Federal resources fund student aid programs from loans and grants to work study programs and educational tax benefits. This is not a first step that we are taking today, it is another step that was not begun or born out of bipartisanship, but rather out of bumper sticker politics. What we have talked about is that Republicans have more than tripled what spending was helping students over the last decade. Yes, it was done in a bipartisan way before today. Open committee hearings and feedback make bills better. Republicans, through our leadership, have also made sure that more than $4 billion for new and high achieving Pell students pursuing degrees in math, science and critical foreign languages was included these last 12 years. We slashed the total loan fees so students can access more of the money that they borrowed for education purposes. We cut $20 billion in Federal subsidies to student loan lenders through the Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2006, which provided substantial savings for U.S. taxpayers while ensuring that these tax programs would operate efficiently by not cutting one penny in student loans. But rather than continue along this path of making college more affordable and increasing the transparency not only in this body, but also as it relates to college costs so that students and their parents can see why higher education costs are rising, today Democrats are imposing, in a closed rule, without feedback, upon the House legislation that would do nothing to expand college access or improve affordability. Instead, their plan will not benefit a single college student, only former students. Let me say this very plainly, not one additional student will be able to attend college because of this proposal, unlike the bipartisan efforts of the past where we worked to make sure that it impacted more students' ability to go to college. In fact, today's legislation is no more than a flawed answer in search of a problem. In 2004, the Federal Government spent less than four-tenths of a cent on every dollar in providing these student loans. Since 2001, the program the Democrats today seek to change, Republicans, through a bipartisan effort before today, returned over $12 billion to the U.S. Treasury because the cost of administering the program needed to be changed. Once again, we find ourselves with a great example of the private sector doing a job better, more efficient, with less risk to the taxpayer, and the government and taxpayers will see the benefit. This legislation also does not make good on a common Democrat campaign promise in the highly touted ``Six for `06'' program. Many Democrats on the campaign trail made broad promise about cutting interest rates in half immediately for all student loans, both subsidized and unsubsidized, as well as loans made to parents. Instead, in a classic bait-and-switch for voters, the Democrats are really bringing to the floor today legislation that only addresses subsidized loans and phases these savings in over 5 years before they sunset and then disappear. Additionally, they proposed to pay for this weakened $6 billion plan with many of the same lender cuts passed by Republicans and Democrats in the last Congress, the same subsidy cuts that Democrats opposed because during the election they called a ``Raid on Student Aid'' when in fact it is exactly what they do today. Mr. Speaker, Republicans have a comprehensive alternative to the flawed Democrat plan. The College Affordability and Transparency Act would provide students and parents with more and better information about college costs, helping students to become better consumers of higher education. It will add great transparency and accountability by establishing a user friendly college affordability comparison creating quality, efficiency task forces to determine the causes for tuition hikes at the schools with the greatest tuition increases and provide a demonstration project for up to 100 schools, freeing them from the costly regulatory requirements and driving down one of the main reasons that schools raise costs. Mr. Speaker, today 80 percent of the student loans made are originated by the private sector at an efficient cost and enhanced borrower services, such as reduced charges, financial education tools and reduced student interest obligation, all of which would disappear if we allow the Federal Government to crowd out the private sector. Mr. Speaker, this was our idea, and we would have brought this forth if we were allowed to do so in a rule where Members could openly vote for this and have an honest debate through the entire committee system. I encourage all of my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at the Rules Committee, I saw something, well, I saw several things that I had not seen in the 8 wonderful years I have served on the Rules Committee, but I have been told by those who have longer tooth than I that they had not seen in the 12 years the Republicans were in the majority, where people were greeted to the Rules Committee by the chairman saying, your amendment will not be made in order and it is a closed rule. The interpretation for the membership of this body was, you need not apply. Please, just don't even come and give your story because we are not open for business. We are closed before we are open. Mr. Speaker, one of our colleagues, Ric Keller, did come up. And despite being told this right up front, in an honest way, by the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), he still stuck around for another hour. He still was there to present his thoughts and ideas, even though he knew before the meeting even took place, before a vote ever took place, that he would not have anything made in order, his ideas, which he has been presenting in a bipartisan way for the last few years, would not even see the light of day. So, Mr. Speaker, we are proud to be able to be on the floor today and to discuss this. He is a kind and wonderful gentleman who cares a lot about students and student aid, and so I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Orlando, Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the prior speaker is a prime example of the new Members of this body who are completely clueless about the 12 wonderful years of bipartisanship that have taken place out of this Education and Workforce Committee to make education strong, to give money where it has needed to be, and really, if we want to tell the truth, to take what we inherited 13 years ago from the Democrats from a failed student loan program that didn't even work, that was bankrupt. So, Mr. Speaker, yet another good reason why I wish we had had regular order, so these new Members of Congress could speak from the facts of the case rather than holding hostage the truth. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).