Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following poem by Albert Carey Caswell. They Stand. IN MEMORY OF THE FALLEN AND WOUNDED POLICE OFFICERS OF DALLAS--CORPORAL

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Charles A. ``Chuck'' Rutan on his recent election to the Board of Directors of the National Association of Federal Credit Unions. Mr. Rutan currently serves as President and Chief Executive Officer of Southwest Airlines Federal Credit Union, located in Dallas, Texas. He has 40 years of experience in the financial services industry, serving as a credit union CEO for over 25 years, including the last 8 years at Southwest. Mr. Rutan is a passionate leader in the credit union community, having served in numerous volunteer positions. This includes 14 years on the Illinois Credit Union League Board, where he chaired numerous committees and served as Board Chairman in 2000-2001. Mr. Rutan currently serves on NAFCU's Legislative Committee and attends several NAFCU events every year, including the annual NAFCU Congressional Caucus. He has a deep understanding of legislative and regulatory issues facing credit unions across the county. I am confident that his expertise and years of experience will benefit the NAFCU Board and local credit unions for years to come. Mr. Rutan received his bachelor's degree from Eastern Illinois University in 1975 and his CPA certification from the University of Illinois in 1976. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Chuck Rutan and wishing him the best of luck in his new role on the NAFCU Board of Directors. I look forward to working with him in this regard.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), a member of the Rules Committee

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 796 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. General Leave

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 4768, the Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2016. I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying legislation, which I believe directly benefits the American people by ensuring unelected bureaucrats are not able to reinterpret the intent of legislation passed by this body, the United States Senate, signed by the President, or known also as lawmakers under the legislative process Article I powers that are directly elected by the people of this country. Two weeks ago, the Rules Committee met and reported a structured rule for H.R. 4768. This rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided by the chair and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. I also want to point out that the Rules Committee asked Members to submit their ideas and amendments, and, as a result, this resolution makes in order all of the amendments submitted that did not raise a point of order. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution of these United States established three coequal branches of government, each with a clearly defined role. The separation of powers protects Americans by preventing any one branch from gaining too much power. Unfortunately, this system is being, I believe, abused by unlawful actions by administrative agencies that are increasingly asserting lawmaking powers. This modern ``Federal administrative state,'' as it is called, runs counter to our Founders' intent, outlined in our Constitution, and I believe must be reined in. That is why we are on the floor of the House of Representatives today with our ideas to move forth on behalf of the ideas that we believe should rule in law, in rulemaking, and in the way the American people find governance of these United States. Mr. Speaker, in 1984, the Supreme Court ruled that, when a congressional statute is ambiguous, courts hearing challenges to executive actions must preemptively defer to the regulators' interpretation of the law. The Court effectively rigged America's regulatory and judicial system in favor of unelected bureaucrats and against the American citizens that are being targeted. Later, in Auer v. Robbins, the Court required deference to agencies' interpretations of their own regulations. This great deference to administrative agencies is particularly troubling because it effectively gives unelected bureaucrats the power to make law. Administrative agencies issue, enforce, and settle disputes involving regulations that have the force of law in many, many respects. In every aspect of our daily life, we are impacted by these decisions. Though the courts have a duty to check the abuses of the political branches in certain appropriate cases, they too often rely on deferential doctrines in reviewing agency actions. Given the inconsistent application of Chevron deference and concerns about the separation of powers, it is imperative that Congress act. H.R. 4768 reverses this erosion of our constitutional system that has allowed unelected bureaucrats to mandate their own interpretations of laws. The legislation overturns the Chevron and Auer doctrines by clarifying the intent of the Administrative Procedure Act. Specifically, the bill directs courts to conduct a de novo, or from scratch, review of all relevant questions of law, including the interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions and the provisions of agency rules. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that, at the time we pass laws, at the time we debate intent, and at the time we pass these laws and give to the agencies the opportunity to work with us on the formation of how the laws will be played out, meaning the agencies' rules and regulations, it should be done with the intent of Congress. Many States have regulatory systems that require all regulations come back through their elected officials. We find that what we are trying to do is to simply return the power of legislating to Congress and ensure the courts, not the agencies, interpret the laws, based upon the original intent of the laws. This is a critical step in restoring the constitutional balance and, I believe, limiting executive overreach to the balance that works on behalf of people for the intent of the original passage of the laws. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The purpose why we came to the floor was to support the rule and the underlying legislation. And I believe that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) spoke very clearly about how this Congress needs to stand up and speak clearly about not only the role of Congress in writing laws, but also working more carefully with agencies as they write rules and regulations. We get that. We have oversight. We work with regulatory bodies. But what we are trying to say, as we provide the information on this bill, is that we want the courts to recognize that in the power struggle that takes place between the executive, legislative branch, and the courts, that we would like to defer to the people who originally wrote the law. What we are here to do today to talk about is exactly that. I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle feel like they have a lot of frustration about a lot of issues. I would say to them: 2 weeks ago, that was the Zika virus; this House has tried to work its will on that. We will get to rather quickly this issue of the terrorist watch list. What we are trying to do today are also things that are of grave importance to the American people because of the loss of jobs in this country, based upon the executive branch that is overusing what we believe are the rules and regulations to inhibit the American people that are costly--over a trillion dollars' worth of cost--that have been placed over these years on private industry and the American citizens. We are here today to also talk about an important aspect, and that is jobs opportunity. The American people are overburdened. We are trying to bring back the discussion today that we believe the intent of those who write the law, that the rules and regulations that are the underpinning of how those laws will be looked at, will be supported by the same effort that we wrote the law with. And so we are trying to go back to the intent that the people who wrote the laws and the agencies that are attempting to enforce the laws, that they would mirror each other to the benefit of the American people. We have had virtually 1 percent GDP growth now during the entirety of President Obama's administration. For 7 years, America has lagged behind in its ability to catch up and be competitive with the world. And the question becomes: Why do we allow the Federal Government to be bigger and larger and put roadblocks, impediments in front of job creators? That is why we are here today. We are here today to say we would like to balance out the process. We would like the courts to understand and the administration to understand that for America to continue to be competitive with the world, we have to go back to some balance of power that we believe directly is related to Article I; that we believe that the courts should understand that the original intent of laws come from the legislative process. And that is why we are on the floor today. We have too many people who cannot find work, cannot find a job because of rules and regulations that are burdening industry and people who are job creators. This is why we are here today, Mr. Speaker. I think we are here doing the right thing. We are talking about jobs, job creation, the original intent of this body, the legislation that is written by legislators with the intent and rule of law. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The bill that we are debating and going to vote on is a bill that is a very important bill talking about what is essentially the power of the United States Congress as we pass laws and to have the rules and regulations that are written by agencies to conform not only with the law, but even the intent of the law. This administration increasingly goes further and further and further and further beyond not only the original intent and narrowness of bills and laws, but they are into a power grab. That is why we are here, Mr. Speaker, because we are concerned about the GDP growth, the lack of jobs in this country, the huge number of people who are unemployed and the strong, strong support that they are not getting from Washington, D.C., to try and say that we need a pro- growth agenda and we need less rules and regulations. We have many, many, many laws that are already on the books. And this administration keeps pouring on more and more and more rules, taking the laws that we have passed and taking advantage by writing rules that will inhibit not only business, but job creation. That is why we are on the floor today, and this is why Republicans will pass this bill, because we are talking about the real problems today that the average American has. Americans want to see themselves in a good job, a job that is located near their home, a job that provides good access not only for them, to provide more goods and services for their family, but for communities to survive the onslaught of rules and regulations where it seems like Washington knows better than people back home about how to provide not just jobs, but to make things better for people that are in their own environment. So, Mr. Speaker, that is why we are here. Republicans are going to stay after this. We deeply believe that what we are doing today is offering the American people a good solution to a huge, huge problem. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Once again, what we are here to do today is to bring forth a bill that would bring about the constitutional authority that would give a clearer understanding and meaning to not only the legislative process, the executive process, but also the judicial process whereby there would be an understanding of the laws that are passed and rules and regulations which very understandably must be given to a branch of government, in this case the executive, to look at the law which the executive signed to determine its implementation. The facts of the case are that years later, this administration comes in and uses that same law which was very specific, which rules and regulations were passed for, and create new and onerous roadblocks and problems for not only industry, but also the development of jobs and job creation. And it is an apparent administration policy that they will use this as their advantage rulemaking authority to prevent further opportunities for us to grow jobs and job creation in this country. Mr. Speaker, I really could not be here at a more genuine time and say that just last month this great country only netted adding 28,000 jobs--net 28,000 jobs--and yet we had millions and millions of young people who had just graduated from high school or college who should be seeking an opportunity to help themselves into a line of business, into a career, into an opportunity to sustain themselves, their way of life, their city, their State, and this great Nation. But the sign is there that said: No jobs available; we are not interested; we cannot hire more people; no thank you. And the number one reason back from industry, from employers, from people who want to make America stronger is rules and regulations, rules and regulations coming out of Washington, D.C., that are harming job creation, that are impediments to effectively being able to create new jobs. That is uncertainty. That is agency power that specifically targets all sorts of industry in this country. And they are doing it for a reason--to the demise of the free enterprise system of America on behalf of Washington, D.C., unnamed, unknown bureaucrats who hide behind their rules and regulations. We, as Members of Congress, are getting questions: Hey, what about our generation having jobs? What about our communities that cannot have jobs and job creation? Ask the coal industry in West Virginia. The war on West Virginia, Ohio, Virginia, people who are in an industry not only that has a lineage in this country, but who have adapted themselves very rapidly in the environment that we are in. How about truckers, men and women who are engaged in moving goods and services back and forth? How about bankers? How about financial services people who look up and see a regulatory scheme that keeps coming after them? How about my old industry that I spent 16 years at, the telecommunications industry, that would wish to put an extra some $18 billion a year more in investment in the ground, up in the air, and available to people, $18 billion they would like to put into the ground for people to have better services? No. The rules and regulations out of Washington, D.C.--and that is why you see the Democratic Party today talking about something else, because they are protecting this administration. They are protecting these people who write rules and regulations who are making sure that we only have 1 percent GDP growth and, Mr. Speaker, only 28,000 net new jobs last year in the middle of summer in 2016. Meanwhile, we look up and India is at a 7.9 percent GDP growth rate. We are minuscule. We can't sustain what we have, Mr. Speaker. That is why we are here. I understand the Democrats are frustrated. They are frustrated because their utopia of this idea of this land that would be just a giveaway isn't working because people don't have jobs, and that is why people are shooting each other--drug gangs, drug cartels, people who we have allowed to be in this country who shouldn't be here. That is why, because there are not jobs for people to do, and they are taking it out on each other. So we are going to stay on the floor. We are going to get our work done here on this bill, and it is about jobs and job creation, but more important, it is back to the original intent of what we believe that those people who write the rules, that the rules and the laws should better be in line with what they wrote in the original intent. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, my friends failed to tell you that we know of not one person--not one--that has used the terrorist watch list as an excuse to buy a gun and do things. What they are forgetting to tell you is that we do have a problem with terrorists and people in this country. The President of the United States is not, in my opinion and in many other people's opinion, taking executive and affirmative action against this. They can't even call terrorism what it really is. That is our problem. But today, Mr. Speaker, we are on the floor trying to debate a bill which we are going to be voting on in a few minutes. In 2014, Mr. Speaker, 224 laws were enacted by Congress during the calendar year, yet 3,554 rules were passed by agencies. That means that there were 16 rules issued for every law. Mr. Speaker, the administration is attempting to smother, to overrun the free enterprise system in favor of administrations that are not for job creation, that are not for raising GDP. They have a 7-year history of trying to kill the free enterprise system. We are here for the American people to talk about jobs and job creation and more investment in America. As long as you have got an administration that is all about issuing some 3,554 new rules in exactly 1 year, you have got a problem. That is why we are here. Mr. Speaker, I know what we are trying to do, and so do they. This legislation restores all Americans' basic rights and it also helps this body. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 797 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of appropriations for Zika response and for Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and provides for necessary authorities over the district work period. 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. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, today we are on the floor for a very important question, and the question is: Will Congress ignore knowledge of some $476 million that is considered documented fraud that is taking place on behalf of taxpayers of the United States of America? Mr. Speaker, a letter from Commissioner Pai at the Federal Communications Commission dated June 8, 2016--not even a month ago-- goes to Mr. Chris Henderson, chief executive officer, Universal Service Administrative Company of the United States. It documents abuse in here, and I would read if I may: ``Thank you again for your May 25 letter, which contained detailed data on how wireless resellers have used the National Lifeline Accountability Database. My staff has concluded further analysis of that data, and I am now concerned that the abuse of the Universal Service Fund's Lifeline program is more widespread than I first thought.'' Mr. Speaker, Mr. Scott is here on the floor today to protect the taxpayers of this country and the integrity of the laws that we have passed and that we have oversight of by virtue of being Members of Congress. The $476 million is a problem because it is documented that it is duplicate use by organizations that have been fined over $50 million by the FCC. In no way is Mr. Scott or this legislation attempting to take away Lifeline service that is very important to not only members particularly in rural areas, but other areas of the United States to provide them access to broadband that has been created by our American ingenuity. I would note, however, that what we are doing is that we do not believe the government has any business in funding the fraud that has been made available. Mr. Speaker, I was on the original Labs team out of New Jersey that developed broadband in the mid-1980s. I was on the original team that brought forth this product to the American people, and it was done with great anticipation to help better people's lives, to allow all areas of the United States--and probably the world--to better connect itself for the new transitional world that we would live in. I don't think it was ever envisioned that we would want it to be misused in such a way that it would cost taxpayers of this country $500 million a year in fraud. It is there as an advocate for people to gain jobs, to understand education better, and to use the avenues of technology to better their lives. Where you have documented fraud, the United States Congress has a responsibility to stand up. I believe that is what we are saying today. By this suspension vote, we are expecting two-thirds of this body to recognize that where there is widespread fraud that the United States Congress, on behalf of the taxpayer who paid the bill for the fraud, that something responsible would be done about it. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this letter from Commissioner Pai. I would ask, more importantly, that this Congress be responsible about saying it is documented fraud that we are after, not Lifeline service. Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC, June 8, 2016. Mr. Chris Henderson, Chief Executive Officer, Universal Service Administrative Company, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Henderson: Thank you again for your May 25 letter, which contained detailed data on how wireless resellers have used the National Lifeline Accountability Database (NLAD). My staff has concluded further analysis of that data, and I am now concerned that abuse of the Universal Service Fund's Lifeline program is more widespread than I first thought. Before 2012, it was well known that duplicate subscribers (that is, individuals getting multiple subsidies) plagued the Lifeline program. In the 2012 Lifeline Reform Order, the Commission codified the one-per-household rule, which prohibits more than one Lifeline subscription from going to a single household. To curb the problem of duplicate subscriptions and enforce the one-per-household rule, the FCC established the NLAD. The NLAD is designed to help carriers identify and resolve duplicate claims for Lifeline service and prevent future duplicates from enrolling. Although the NLAD rejects multiple subscribers at the same address, the FCC also instructed USAC to ``implement procedures to enable applicants to demonstrate at the outset that any other Lifeline recipients residing at their residential address are part of a separate household.'' USAC did so by allowing carriers to override NLAD's rejection of an applicant with the same address as another subscriber. As USAC's website explains, to carry out an independent economic household (IEH) override (as USAC calls it), an applicant must merely check a box on a form and need not provide any supporting documentation. Unfortunately, this well-intentioned exception to the override process appears to be undermining the one-per- household rule. The NLAD is not preventing a large number of duplicate subscribers from claiming Lifeline subsidies. We saw in the Total Call Mobile case how unscrupulous carriers could regularly register duplicate subscribers by fraudulently using the address of a local homeless shelter, altering a person's name, and using fake Social Security numbers to evade detection. As a result, USAC had to de- enroll 32,498 duplicates from Total Call Mobile's rolls. But your May 25 letter reveals an even greater problem. Specifically, USAC's data reveal that Carriers enrolled 4,291,647 subscribers between October 2014 and April 2016 using the IEH override process. That's more than 35.3% of all subscribers enrolled in NLAD-participating states during that period. Indeed, that's more people than live in the State of Oregon. And the price to the taxpayer is steep--just one year of service for these apparent duplicates costs taxpayers $476 million. It is alarming that over one-third of subscribers--costing taxpayers almost half a billion dollars a year--were registered through an IEH override. Therefore, I respectfully request that you provide the following information to my office: 1. Of the 4,291,647 subscribers enrolled using an IEH override between October 2014 and April 2016, how many are still enrolled in the Lifeline program? To the extent these subscribers are no longer enrolled, please quantify (1) how many subscribers left the program of their own volition, (2) how many de-enrolled as a result of a specific investigation, audit, or review, and (3) how many de-enrolled as a result of annual verification checks. 2. Please explain the process USAC used to establish the current IEH override process. Specifically, please explain why carriers are not required to collect any documentation demonstrating that a subscriber is ``part of a separate household'' for purposes of an IEH override and why staff do not review either the certification form or any documentation before authorizing an IEH override. 3. Please describe the steps USAC has taken to verify the integrity of the IEH override process. Specifically, I am interested in understanding the steps taken to verify that subscribers enrolled with an IEH override are in fact economically independent from other Lifeline subscribers at the same address. a. For example, one Total Call Mobile sales agent testified that he filled out applications, checking off the boxes he knew applicants needed to check to enroll. What process does USAC use to minimize and detect such behavior? b. Does USAC contact existing subscribers at a particular address before enrolling a new subscriber at that address to verify economic independence? c. Has USAC sampled a set of subscribers to determine whether subscribers can demonstrate economic independence through documentation (such as tax forms)? d. Has USAC coordinated with federal or state agencies to determine whether subscribers have consistently represented themselves as economically independent? 4. According to the 2014 Lifeline Biennial Audit Plan, independent auditors were required to create a list of apparent duplicates for each carrier subject to the audit and verify for a sample of 30 apparent duplicates that ``at least one subscriber at each address [has] complete[d] a one-per- household worksheet.'' Were auditors required to verify whether such subscribers were actually economically independent from other Lifeline subscribers at the same address for a sample of apparent duplicates? If not, why not? 5. Please describe any investigations, audits, or reviews that USAC has conducted from October 2014 to the present to verify that subscribers enrolled with an IEH override are in fact economically independent from other Lifeline subscribers at their address. Please include any such reports drafted or issued by USAC or, in the case of no such report, a summary of USAC's findings. 6. Please describe any recommendations USAC has to improve the IEH override process to ensure that taxpayer funds are not wasted. Please identify any FCC rule changes that would be necessary to effectuate such improvements. 7. You reported in your May 2 letter that USAC also conducts Payment Quality Assurance (PQA) reviews and regularly analyzes the NLAD for ``anomalies, duplicates, or other errors that may signal improper payments of potentially fraudulent behavior.'' As a result of those reviews, USAC discovered and de-enrolled 373,911 duplicates from the NLAD between February and May 2015. Please describe any other investigations, audits, or reviews that USAC has conducted from October 2014 to the present to eliminate duplicate subscribers from the NLAD. Please include any such reports drafted or issued by USAC or, in the case of no such report, a summary of USAC's findings. 8. In the Total Call Mobile case, one sales agent alleged that he could enroll the same person multiple times in the NLAD so long as the applicant used different devices within a 15-minute timespan. Is this claim true? If so, what steps will USAC take to close this apparent loophole? I appreciate USAC's continued work to protect the American taxpayer and safeguard the Universal Service Fund. I also appreciate that USAC often takes instruction from the FCC in fulfilling its role. Given the hundreds of millions in taxpayer funds apparently lost to unscrupulous behavior in the Lifeline program, I hope you will agree that USAC's paramount task must be to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse from the Lifeline program. I therefore ask that you respond with the requested information by July 28, 2016. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact my office. Sincerely, Ajit Pai, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Gosar not only for his work, but also for working with the Committee on Rules diligently to have this made in order. I am very supportive of this amendment to ensure the administration cannot implement what I consider to be an unconstitutional memo expanding the Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest program, I think in clear violation of congressional intent--as a matter of fact, working around Congress. We must ensure that congressional intent is always protected and executed in accordance with the will of the people and rule of law. The purpose of this program is too important to be exploited for those who I believe have used it for a political agenda. Immigration policy must and should be debated in the Halls of Congress, not written in an agency behind closed doors. I am very pleased with the gentleman from Arizona, and I thank him for his amendment and for working with the Committee on Rules to have this made in order today.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when a veto message on House Joint Resolution 88 is laid before the House on this legislative day, then after the message is read and the objections of the President are spread at large upon the Journal, further consideration of the veto message and the joint resolution shall be postponed until the legislative day of Wednesday, June 22, 2016; and that on that legislative day, the House shall proceed to the constitutional question of reconsideration and dispose of such question without intervening motion.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Jim Proce on earning the American Public Works Association Public Works Leader Award. Each year the American Public Works Association recognizes 10 outstanding individuals who have made an indelible mark on their communities through their commitment to public service. This year, I have the distinct honor of representing one of the recipients, Jim Proce, the Assistant City Manager of Rowlett. Jim's commitment to his community and dedication to service has not gone unnoticed throughout his 32 years of service. During his career, he has earned many honors and awards including the National Community Involvement Award by the American Public Works Association, was named the State Public Works Employee of the Year by FACERS in 2010, is a Designated Public Works Leadership Fellow by the Donald C. Stone Center for Leadership through the American Public Works Association, and is a member of the International City Management Association. In his role as Assistant City Manager of Rowlett, Jim has excelled as a community leader and worked to implement strategic goals to strengthen the city and best serve the citizens of Rowlett. Throughout Jim's years of service he has displayed an unwavering commitment to community and proved to be a distinguished leader in all of his endeavors. I would like to offer Jim my heartiest congratulations on this immense accomplishment and thank him for his dedication to serving the great people of Rowlett, Texas

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a distinguished member of the Garland Police Department, Officer Gregory Stevens, for receiving the Medal of Valor at the White House. On May 3, 2015, two gunmen opened fire at an event in Garland with the sole intent of harming and taking the lives of every single person inside. Luckily, Officer Stevens was standing guard that night. As the shooters opened fire on the auditorium, Officer Stevens swiftly acted to protect the people of Garland from what could have been a devastating situation. His actions not only saved countless innocent lives, they also sent a clear message that Texans will not stand down in the face of terror. I am extremely proud to have such exceptional men and women who faithfully serve and protect our communities. Officer Stevens, thank you for your selfless service and your unwavering commitment to protect the wonderful people of North Texas. God Bless our Police Officers, God Bless Texas, and God Bless America.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman, not only a member of the Rules Committee, but an appropriator who is directly in line with and understands the needs of not only the American people as it relates to the NIH, but also the funding mechanisms. Mr. Speaker, I stand up to really disagree with the gentlewoman from California. To call my party and our efforts reckless and irresponsible, I believe, is unfair. I believe it is unfair because, last night at the Rules Committee, we had this virtually same discussion. And the discussion started with me when I said that I had Republicans and Democrats, only Monday, with the Director of NIH, Dr. Francis Collins, and the Director of the Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and we talked directly about this issue. What we learned, Mr. Speaker, is that there was a request for additional money and that the NIH had some $600 million that was sitting in a fund from Ebola that had not been completely used. A determination was made--including the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), Hal Rogers, and Nita Lowey, who were engaged in the decision-- that said we will allow the money to be switched over if you would like to do that. Switch it over and use that money for this specific event that we are now looking at. What happened is they used the money very quickly. They accelerated spending the money--that is fine; we want them to do what they need to do--some $600 million. As soon as that was known, the gentlewoman Mrs. Lowey, the gentleman Mr. Rogers, and the gentleman Mr. Cole went about looking at a request to fill for the next 5 months what would be some $1.2 billion that would be spent just this year remaining--we are in May--just until the end of September. The President asked for $1.9 billion for 5 years, and we gave $1.2 billion of that $1.9 for 5 months. We are accelerating the money that is necessary to NIH. The minority leader outlined how terrible this destructive behavior can be to a child, to an embryo. We agree. But to suggest that Republicans are reckless is not fair. What is fair to say is that we are responding appropriately, we are responding immediately, and we are putting it together before we are gone next week on a district work period. We are doing it this week. We are moving it as quickly as possibly. If we weren't, we would be accused of the reverse, evidently. Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party, the gentleman Mr. Cole, the gentleman Mr. Rogers, and our Speaker care about people. We are doing the right thing. Now, in the Rules Committee, the gentleman Dr. Michael Burgess, acknowledged some other frailties that he sees from the administration's point, and that would be: Where is the alert to cities? Where is the administrative action to say let's do something about alerting travelers? Where is the information that is going to public health officials? Where are we preparing ourselves to look at what would happen in Brazil? What is the administration doing other than just accusing us of not spending more money? Mr. Speaker, we all live in glass houses. We need to look at this the same way, and calling each other names is not a way to get there. So, Mr. Cole will be responsible and reasonable; Hal Rogers, the chairman of our Appropriations Committee, will responsible. I said to my committee last night, as quickly as we need to get together, the Rules Committee will come in, even if it is on an emergency basis, to handle this, based upon a request. And that is what we are going to do.