Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am very disappointed that the gentleman from Maryland referred to this as a closed rule, when in fact he knows it is not a closed rule. The gentleman from Maryland understands that what we have done and undertaken in this rule is the opportunity that would allow any Member, but in particular a Member of the minority, a chance to vote on a manager's amendment, a motion to recommit, and certainly final passage.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, so that the gentleman does understand the facts of the case, the committee had no discussion on this point. The discussion took place in the Rules Committee, because a decision was made well after May, at the time that the committee brought it forward.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Baton Rouge (Mr. Baker), the author of the bill.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, my point is that the gentleman from Maryland referred to this as being a closed rule. It is not a closed rule. Mr. Speaker, I will insert in the Record a campaign plan from ACORN that is very much a part of this debate today about what organizations and groups plan to do with politics and money. Floridians for All--Campaign Plan for a November 2004 Minimum Wage Constitutional Amendment Initiative Introduction A Florida constitutional amendment initiative to create a minimum wage of $6.15 with indexing will help defeat George W. Bush and other Republicans by increasing Democratic turnout in a close election, will deliver wage gains to at least 300,000 Floridians, and will catalyze the construction of permanent progressive political infrastructure that will help redirect Florida politics in a more progressive, Democratic direction. The 2004 election in Florida is shaping up to be just as close as 2000, which Al Gore won by 537 votes. Although there have been demographic changes and growth throughout Florida when the 2000 total is adjusted for 2004 it is still-razor thin: Unofficial NCEC analysis shows that Gore's adjusted margin is 404, combined with the 2004 adjusted Nader voter-- 25,138 (assuming 25 percent stay home, 25 percent vote for Bush and 50 percent vote for Gore). The 2004 adjusted margin is 25,542--too close for comfort. The 2004 projections indicate addition turnout of 370,000 a total of 6.4 million, increasing the vote goal by 200,000 in order to have a winning margin. The other significant change in preliminary analysis is that the electorate will have 10 percent fewer ticket splitters than 2000. With less persuadable voters, the need to increase base voters and turning out more infrequent voters is critical to reach the vote goal in Florida. Given that turnout is down when the economy is bad, since our voters are more discouraged, the need for a exciting ballot initiative strategy that works to address the needs of the most economically needy, and also likely Democratic voters, is a fundamental part of a winning strategy in Florida. Florida ACORN is building a coalition, called Floridians for All, that will unite labor unions, community and civil rights organizations, the faith community, elected officials, sectors of the business community, political organizations, and thousands of grassroots activists behind the proposed strategy. At the same time, we are building the infrastructure to carry out the campaign and ensure the accomplishment of our objectives. The empirical evidence from other states indicates that initiatives generally increase voter turnout, and that minimum wage initiatives can significantly increase the turnout of supporters without increasing turnout from the opposition. [ACORN's own experience running municipal and state minimum wage ballots [Denver, Houston (1996), Missouri (1996), New Orleans (2002)] supports the conclusion that these efforts are highly motivating to low-wage voters.] In 2000, 6.1 million voters came to the polls in Florida, a turnout of approximately 70 percent. A targeted campaign that works to turn out 1 percent of that electorate, approximately 61,000 voters, would not only make the difference for the Democratic Presidential candidate but also lend significant support to Congressional and local races. [As an example, Congressional District 5 was won by conservative Republican Ginny Brown-Waite, by little over 4,000 votes. From the top of the ticket on down, a ballot initiative strategy which mobilizes infrequent voters and energizes unregistered Democratic constituency will help defeat George W. Bush and allow Floridians to vote themselves a raise.] An estimated 300,000 Florida workers would receive a direct raise from our proposal. Moreover, thousands more would receive residual raises because of their wage level just above the new minimum. Floridians sorely need this proposed raise. In 2001 over 28 percent of Florida's workers earned less than the poverty line (approximately $8.70 an hour). A full 20 percent of those workers earned less that $7.69 an hour, a result that can be partially explained by the concentration of workers in the lowest wage job sectors-- retail and service. A whopping 37.3 percent of the state's workforce is employed in service sector jobs, with another 19.6 percent in the low wage retail sector. The additional earnings of minimum wage workers, almost $700 mi1lion in the first year alone, would be directly pumped back into the economy, helping to stimulate the stagnant economy created under the watch of Bush's destructive tax cuts. Not only is this proposal beneficial to Florida's economy, it also helps to seed a mass constituency for future change. Because we are starting this campaign early, and because we have a plan, the Floridians for All Campaign will challenge the institutional forces for progressive and Democratic change in the state to build permanent political capacity. This is particularly important to rehabilitating the long- term prospects of our side. In a state where Democrats control only 53 of 160 legislative seats, and zero Constitutional offices, the need to rebuild infrastructure and capacity to win, has never been more important. For example, the signature gathering phase of the campaign wil1 lead to the construction of a vast database of hundreds of thousands of economic justice activists and voters in the state. These are the same voters the Democratic Party must court and win to regain a presence in state politics. The campaign will also force organizations like ACORN to build massive field capacity to deliver these necessary signatures and GOTV. A vast network of activists and voters, combined with sophisticated field campaign will act as a unifying force among Democratic electoral forces. The combined strength of community, labor, and--faith organizations committed to mobilizing their members and leaders at the grassroots level, will result in a cohesive strategy to retake the White House in 2004 and rebuild the Florida Democratic Party. Campaign Goals The goals of this campaign are threefold: 1. To increase voter turnout of working class, mainly Democratic voters without increasing opposition turnout; 2. To increase the power of progressive constituencies by moving a mass agenda, putting together the capacity to get on the ballot and win, and by putting our side on the offensive; 3. To deliver a wage increase to hundreds of thousands of Floridians. Increasing turnout is crucial to a successful 2004 electoral strategy from the top of the ticket all the way down, through the many key races in Florida that include not only the Presidency, but also a key Senate race, Congressional seats and also significant turnover in the Florida Legislature. Given these many key races, exciting and mobilizing constituency has never been more important, but in order to do this there must be a compelling issue on the ballot. Though presidential year elections always result in higber turnout, the 2000 elections demonstrate the importance of every vote in Florida; and we do not want to leave turnout to chance. These turnout figures from the most recent Florida elections demonstrate the overall decline in voter participation and the need to refocus efforts on mobilizing and motivating our base. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Percent ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1992.......................................................... 83 1994.......................................................... 66 1996.......................................................... 67 1998.......................................................... 49 2000.......................................................... 70 2002.......................................................... 55 AVG........................................................... 64 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ General Election Turnout Statistics from the Florida Secretary of State http://election.dos.state.fl.us/online/voterpercent.shtml Giving our constituency the opportunity to vote themselves a raise is probably the most compelling reason to go the ballot box. Candidates will make many promises, but turning out to vote for a higher minimum wage is a voter's guaranteed chance to affect real chance at the ballot box. The process of building a statewide network of progressive forces can be accelerated greatly through the use of the minimum wage ballot initiative. Though there are many groups that represent and advocate for the needs of social justice, civil liberties, and environmental concerns, the strength of these forces is limited through a lack of coordination amongst these groups. While the groups promote diverse agendas, a coalition of necessity is required in the face of organized and unilateral support amongst opposition groups. This ballot initiative will bring together progressive forces from around the state around a common goal: increasing turnout in the 2004 election in order to support campaigns which represent the interests of all our groups. Approximately 303,000 workers would be directly affected by a minimum wage increase, putting millions of dollars into the pockets of working families across Florida. In addition to the workers who are directly affected, many more will benefit through the rising tide of wages that results from raising the baseline wage level. Unlike tax cut policies which supposedly put money into peoples pockets, but really just raid state and federal treasuries, a minimum wage increase will put real in the hands of those who need it the most: working families. Campaign Strategy We define winning here as accomplishing the three campaign objectives: 1. Driving heightened Democratic turnout; 2. Passing the initiative; 3. Building permanent political capacity for future gains. Our plan to win centers on a series of strategic premises, layed out as follows: 1. First, we will divide the electorate into targeted groups of voters/potential voters, and make a strategic plan vis-a-vis each group. We are in the process of completing this plan, but roughly, the categories/plans are as follows: *African American voters--According to NCEC, there are 440,000 unregistered VAP (Voting Age Population) African- Americans in Florida. Of the 440,000 unregistered voters statewide, 176,000 of these voters live in the 475 majority African-American precincts in Florida. This campaign will work to register 50,000 of these potential voters through voter registration drives in the following major metropolitan areas: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total VAP White Latino Black County ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VAP (from 2000) Miami: M-Dade..................................... 283,673 32,116 195,859 49,000 1.7M Orlando: Orange..................................... 144,987 81,100 23,414 32,563 670K Tampa: Hillsborough............................... 228,681 126,387 42,711 50,109 746K Fort Lauderdale: Broward.................................... 122,821 77,807 11,282 28,620 1.2M St. Petersburg: Pinellas................................... 194,796 141,797 7,618 36,752 744K Jacksonville: Duval...................................... 539,278 353,983 20,759 139,700 573,888 Tallahassee: Leon....................................... 124,431 74,942 5,341 39,327 188,445 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This potential universe of newly registered voters, and highly motivated activists can be the deciding factor in the 2004 election. Registering 50,000 new African-American voters in these majority precincts can result in a net vote gain of approximately 21,000 votes (assuming 70 percent turnout of new registrations and 60 percent approval for the measure). *Non-Cuban Latino voters--There are 800,000 Hispanic voters in Florida, 400,000 of whom are non-Cuban, and 345,000 new potential Hispanic voters of Voting Age Population. The Hispanic population is the fastest growing population in Florida, and presents the Democratic Party with an opportunity to build a new, revitalized constituency within Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I heard the gentleman from Massachusetts refer to his 25 years of service in this distinguished body, and I have great respect for that; but I want him to know, and I am certain he remembers this, that the Democrats when they were in the majority, many times denied Republicans an opportunity in the legislative and rulemaking process to have motions to recommit. In fact, the Republican majority has given the minority that under this rule, as we have the entire time we have been in the majority. This vote today is simply on the rule. The committee voted for the bill 65-5. Members are going to have an opportunity during consideration of these amendments to voice their disapproval of the manager's amendment and vote it down if that is what they choose to do. The purpose of these changes that we are talking about in the manager's amendment is to prevent nonprofits from receiving these funds and engaging in political activity, to ensure that the scarce and available funds for housing resources are allocated effectively and for their intended purpose, pure and simple. We want to make sure that they are used for rebuilding houses with the primary emphasis in the gulf region. This legislation does not prevent nonprofit organizations from pursuing a political agenda if they so choose. It simply prevents them from accepting these funds if they put politics first. It is their choice. Hurricanes do not take party affiliation into account, and these funds are being contributed by the housing GSEs to rebuild this important region of our country. It should not be done on a political basis. I am very proud of this bill and the underlying legislation.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), chairman of the Committee on Financial Services. (Mr. OXLEY 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, the gentleman from Kansas City very clearly articulated the exact reason why this bill is moving forward, and the reason why Chairman Richard Baker and the chairman of the committee, Chairman Mike Oxley, have moved forward a bill that is so powerful, that will include more dollars. But I believe that the argument that is here is about politics, pure and simple politics, rather than policy. And this bill is about policy. It is about getting millions of dollars that will be given to the source at which we will create more and better housing for really poor people. The gentleman referred to him being a member of the United Methodist Church. I am a member of the United Methodist Church. When you look at a Web site for Habitat for Humanity, you will see large corporations on that list who contribute to new houses in this country, not-for-profits and others; and number four on that list is my church, of the entire country, my church the Highland Park United Methodist Church of Dallas, Texas. We build houses in Dallas, Texas, for poor people, people who are without that ability for their families. But what we are asking here is the ability to move this bill to create thousands of more homes. And I think what Mike Oxley wants in this bill is to make it about policy, not about politics. And I am proud of how we are doing this. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, it is right out there in front of everybody: Republicans are good on policy and, evidently, the Democrats do not like the politics. The policy is what this Financial Services Committee is all about. That is why they produced this great bill. I am pleased to yield 3 minutes at this time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney) who serves on that committee.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee may meet next week to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 1461, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005. The bill was introduced on April 5 and referred to the Committee on Financial Services which ordered the bill reported out by a vote of 65-5 on May 25 and filed in the House on July 14. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Rules Committee in room H-312 of the Capitol by noon on Tuesday, October 25, 2005. Members should draft their amendments to the text of the bill as reported by the Committee on Financial Services on July 14. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format. Members are advised to check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman not only asking these questions but bringing up and talking about some important issues. First of all, I would be the first one to admit that we have for the last few weeks been dealing with issues related to Katrina and other important matters as it relates to housing. To answer the gentleman most directly, I must say that the instructions that I have given are that we are going back to the bill of July 14. There have been no changes made at this time to that. That will be the text that will be considered by the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee, as we deliberate, we take into consideration amendments of how people would wish for the bill to be changed, new thoughts and ideas; and that will be just as current as the filing date that we have set. So it is my hope that you would have the opportunity to work with Members of your party, and that this announcement would be available for Members of my party to say that we are open to any amendment, any thought process that people would like to come to the Rules Committee. It is not unusual for us to hold hearings and take testimony that may take hours and hours and we hear from people. That thought process will be considered next week. The chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California, has instructed me to advise Members that we will be ready to do business next week and be open to the amendment process as Members choose.

Mr. SESSIONS. I would say to the gentleman, reclaiming my time, that the Rules Committee has been visited by the gentleman from Massachusetts. He is no stranger to the Rules Committee. You also in your leadership capacities and otherwise as a Member of Congress representing your constituents from Maryland have been very vigorous in your support of the things which you believe, the ideas which you choose to press to the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee is very open, and our esteemed chairman will make available that time. We do not know the content of that manager's amendment that you are talking about at this time. We once again encourage all Members, including the process that will be followed for the manager's amendment, to be filed on that date, October 25.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of the Dallas Fire Fighters who have laid down their lives in the line of duty while serving the citizens of the City of Dallas. They will be remembered at the Dallas Fire-Rescue Department Memorial Service at the Dodd J. Miller, Jr. Training Center on October 22. In addition, I honor the family, friends and fellow fire fighters who grieve their loss and carry out their legacies. Many times it is only the fire fighters that stand between our communities and countless dangers. In times of need, they are the first to arrive and remain vigilant on the front lines. We have come to depend on their heroism, fortitude and bravery and they never falter. I encourage the loved ones of these fallen heroes to reflect on the selflessness of their sacrifice and the glory of their actions. In the face of great danger, they did not waver in their commitment to help those who could not help themselves. I am privileged to represent these true American heroes. They served with pride and died with honor and we will forever be grateful for their selfless service. May their loved ones and colleagues accept the many thanks of our grateful nation.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased and proud today to have the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) to lead us today as we have an opportunity to debate, discuss, and vote on this important appropriations bill for homeland security. Mr. Speaker, I will admit to my colleagues we worked hard on this bill. It is a bipartisan effort. It was one that employed a lot of people with a lot of thoughts and ideas. We worked with the Senate, we worked with the administration, a lot of work, but what we have done is produce a package that is threat-based. It is based on those experts who see the threat that is aimed against the United States, and they are numerous. They are numerous. They are not in our largest cities, but along our border, but, Mr. Speaker, we have worked together to make sure that in a bipartisan fashion this was addressed, and I am pleased and proud today to say that this is a threat-based bill, based upon what the experts tell us is facing the United States today. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to highlight the retirement of a very important person in the administration. He is a former commissioner of U.S. Customs; and under Homeland Security, he has been commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Judge Robert Bonner from Los Angeles, California, who has served this great Nation for a number of years as a Federal judge and once again in the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Judge Bonner will be leaving in just about a month from his service to the administration; and Judge Bonner has been a man of not only substance and vision but a person who has offered Members of Congress his best advice on how best to deal with the threats against this Nation. So I would like to highlight not only the service to this country that the Members of Congress have done in this appropriations bill but also working with the administration, with such fine people as Judge Bonner. Mr. Speaker, I will confess to my colleagues that this bill that we have here today is aimed at averting and stopping the next terrorist attack that comes aimed at this country. I hope that we have put the best minds to this and that we are prepared. I am prepared to tell my colleagues right now I support this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), who is a speaker who also had an opportunity to serve on this appropriations conference in a detailed fashion and made sure that he looked at those priorities which were necessary for spending for this very important bill.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, serving as a member of the conference, when you go and you look at an appropriations and tear apart where all the money goes and what the priorities are and what the needs are and work with the Senate, one of the most important attributes of getting a good bill is listening to both sides, Republicans and Democrats, and to understand those priorities as they relate not only to, in this case, homeland security, but really the needs of the entire country. The next gentleman, who is a leader in this Congress, did exactly that. He took time with Hal Rogers and John Carter to understand the needs as expressed by this administration, as expressed by the Senate, and by the House. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 474 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today is the standard rule for the consideration of a conference report. It waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration and provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. This rule, brought to the floor today by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, funds our most important Federal programs aimed at securing this Nation against terrorist attacks. It provides $30.8 billion for the operations and activities of the Department of Homeland Security in fiscal year 2006, an increase of $1.4 billion above fiscal year 2005 and $1.3 billion above the President's request. The conference report agreement reflects the DHS organizational structure recommended by the Secretary on July 13, 2005, and does not create any new aviation security fees. This legislation secures our homeland first and foremost by protecting our borders and revitalizing immigration enforcement. It provides nearly two-thirds of the overall budget for the Department, $19.1 billion for border protection, immigration enforcement and related activities. This represents an increase of $1.2 billion over funding in 2005 and $490 million over the President's request. These funds are used to support cutting-edge technologies for high-risk cargo screening, to expand cargo inspection at foreign ports, and to support a robust revitalization of immigration enforcement along our borders and around our Nation. Among other security enhancing measures, this funding includes $1.8 billion for border security and control, funding an additional 1,000 Border Patrol agents. When combined with this year's supplemental appropriations, 1,500 new agents will be hired in 2006. It provides for $3.4 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, funding an additional 250 criminal investigators and 100 Immigration Enforcement agents. When combined with this year's supplemental, 568 new ICE agents and officers will be hired for year 2006. It provides $41 million for border security technology, including surveillance and unmanned aerial vehicles; $562 million for Air and Marine Operations to maintain the integrity of our borders and aerospace security, as well as drug interdiction; $94 million for the Institutional Removal Program, including an additional 100 agents; $40 million for implementation of the READ ID Act; $5 million to train State and local officials and officers to enforce immigration laws; $1 billion for immigration detention custody operations; and $135 million for transportation and removal of illegal immigrants. This conference report also recognizes the active role that the Department of Homeland Security must play in disaster mitigation and relief efforts. It prioritizes spending on Federal response capacities as well as increased planning and coordination with the States. To accomplish this, it includes $1.77 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund; $20 million for Urban Search and Rescue Teams; $20 million for FEMA catastrophic planning; $22 million for the National Incident Management System; $200 million for the Flood Map Modernization Program; a requirement that DHS develop guidelines for mass evacuation plans; and a requirement that DHS reports on the status of catastrophic planning in each of our 50 States. This conference report also provides $3.3 billion for first responders, in the form of performance grants to high-threat areas, firefighters and emergency management. Since September 11, 2001, $32.1 billion has been provided to first responders, including funds for terrorism prevention and preparedness, general law enforcement, firefighter assistance, airport security, seaport security and public health preparation. This conference report includes funding of over $1 billion for high- density urban areas, including $765 million for urban area grants, $150 million for rail security, $175 million for port security and $65 million for other infrastructure protection, $655 million for firefighter grants, $400 million for State and local enforcement terrorism prevention grants and $185 million for Emergency Management Performance Grants. Finally, this conference report provides $1.5 billion for the research and development of leading-edge technologies and $625 million to protect our critical infrastructure and key assets. These funds will be used to test and transition these technologies for use by Federal, State and local officials. It will also support ongoing efforts to develop secure communication systems with Federal, State and local entities and continue efforts with the private sector to implement protective measures around this important infrastructure. To accomplish this, the bill includes $538 million to develop radiological, nuclear, chemical, biological and high explosives countermeasures; $110 million for the research and development and testing of antimissile devices for commercial aircraft; $318 million to start up the new Domestic Nuclear Detection Office to help coordinate global nuclear detection and tracking; $14 million to identify and characterize potential biological terrorist attacks; and $93.3 million for cyber-security technology. Mr. Speaker, I could spend a lot of time listing the many strengths of this bill and the thoughtful and threat-based way that it funds the programs that keep American families safe. Instead, I want to take time to strongly support this legislation with an open rule. I commend my colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations for their hard work. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Massachusetts was very kind to enunciate and talk about the contributions that have been made on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats working together in an effort to make sure that Katrina is taken care of. I also take him at face value that he will not vote for this because there is not enough spending in the bill. There is not enough money that is being spent, and he outlined that money that he wants to spend. The majority party does need to make sure that the bill that comes forth is balanced and one that maintains the priorities of this country. So we on this side are standing up in strong support of this not only well-balanced bill but really will allow equal distribution as we see the needs of this country and the spending and to control that which we do. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) who, once again, is a gentleman who served on the conference report, who is a person, who is a veteran of the Committee on Appropriations, a person who sits directly on the border of the United States and Mexico; he is a person who has been involved for many years in making sure that tough questions were asked and that we made sure that a balance for delivery of money was given to agencies with an expectation of performance.