Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, you are witnessing here a colloquy on the floor between groups of people who can work together. Mrs. Lowey, Mr. McGovern, Judge Hastings, Ms. Slaughter, and Mr. Polis represent not just the Democratic Party, but millions of people across the country. I want to forthrightly try again to answer, if I can. I do hear them, Chairman Rogers hears them. There is at least $500 million--granted, only one-third of what has been requested--that we believe is available for it to be transferred right now. I talked to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). I said: Mr. McGovern, do you believe in any way that something is being held up? He said: No, sir. We are working. This government is working feverishly. As a parent, I understand this. While I have an advantage of having a disabled child as a son, that does not mean that I would want anyone else to have a disabled child. I get this. I have satisfied myself, and I believe my party has, through our great young Speaker, Paul Ryan, satisfied ourselves that pending the time when we can get at a supplemental--perhaps later in the year there will be wildfires, perhaps later in the year there would be a hurricane. We have the money available. No one disputes that the money right now is usable, it is fungible. The question is: When will it be backfilled? I have properly said here today that Chairman Hal Rogers has the ear--and we have his ear--of every Member of this body who does understand when we need to get more money and when the new cycle begins, and we will be starting this just in the next few weeks, that that would be available as an option for Chairman Rogers to take Mrs. Lowey's request, to take her detailed analysis of if it is a billion- some, would be able to implant that into a priority for this Conference, for this Congress, for these bodies to understand, and that we would hope to work forth then with the United States Senate, with the President of the United States, and work it well together. Mr. Speaker, what you have seen here is a prime example of people talking, people getting closer to an answer. I am trying to respond back that I believe our Speaker, Paul Ryan, I believe Hal Rogers, I believe myself as an instrument of a messaging back and forth properly are responding: The money is available. Please go get your work done. As we get further down the line, we will be further down the process. 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. What a great day to be on the floor for us to really bring forth our ideas. The obligations that we have here as Members of Congress to work with each other, to listen to each other is apparent to me, but I don't think apparent to every single person. We have allowed, meaning Chairman Rogers has allowed, in consultation with the Speaker, for money to be reprogrammed, which is aplenty right now. We have agreed this is an immediate crisis. We have made sure the administration is not wanting for a penny. We recognize that in the processes that will take place, we will go through in a regular order procedure getting these funds reprogrammed and allocated to fill back up the bucket. I have satisfied myself that we are trying to do the right thing. I have great concern that the American people understand we do care about the children and the families. I get this. We do care. And until we go through this process to further develop it and add money, the administration has the money necessary to do as they see fit to protect the American people, to combat this virus--this disease--and to make sure that we get a handle on it. Mr. Speaker, the value of startups, which is why we are here today, cannot be understated. Founded in 2013, back home in Dallas, Texas, which I have the pleasure of representing, is the Dallas Entrepreneur Center, or DEC, which is a nonprofit created to help entrepreneurs start, build, and grow companies. According to the DEC, over 1,000 jobs were created in the past 2 years and another 500 are expected to be hired by Dallas startups in 2016. That is the power of what we are talking about. The SEC has gotten in the way of this, not only with red tape, but with consternation directly back at the process that the free enterprise system has to make these jobs happen. Investment in startups has been done in Dallas. Companies like Edition Collective, Rise, PICKUP, and Visage Payroll in Dallas, Texas, are prime examples of the success that could take place all across this country, not just in Dallas, Texas, but in other places where entrepreneurs should be king also. And they are king because they are providing jobs--good-paying jobs--for people. Mr. Speaker, the Helping Angels Lead Our Startups Act is a bipartisan, bicameral bill that provides small, innovative companies and startups access to the capital they need, just as we have talked about that exists in Dallas, Texas. We are helping them succeed. We are helping them to innovate and grow jobs and turn them into opportunities for our Nation to have better products and services. As Angus King, a Senator from Maine who is one of the Senate's cosponsors, said: ``By fixing flawed Federal rules, the HALOS Act will remove unnecessary roadblocks and help startups grow and thrive.'' I couldn't have said it better myself. He needs it in Maine. We need it in Dallas, Texas. We do not have all the jobs we need. There are still too many people unemployed in our country. That is why we are here doing this. In particular, two Dallas startups, iSIGHT Partners and Bottle Rocket, are revolutionizing the field of cyber threat intelligence and mobile strategy development, respectively. Imagine for just a moment what it took them, despite these problems in the marketplace, to get started and get done. I think it is time that we allow others the opportunity to make life a little bit easier. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support this rule. This awesome legislation and what it represents is bipartisan, is bicameral, and has no boundaries of who may participate.

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, I rise today to support passage of H.R. 4923, the American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2016. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation creates an open and transparent process for the House to consider manufacturing tax cuts through the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill (MTB). This new process corrects distortions in the U.S. tariff code that place an unnecessary and anti-competitive tax on manufacturers, retailers and other businesses across the country that rely on imported products not available domestically. As an active promoter of free trade, I want to commend my good friend and fellow Texan, Congressman Brady for steering this important legislation to the House floor. I thank him for consulting with me on the development of this legislation, and I am pleased to support his efforts to ensure swift passage of this critical bill. Our partnership was memorialized in the exchange of letters contained in the Ways and Means Committee's report on the measure. Congress has not renewed MTBs since the U.S. Manufacturing Enhancement Act in 2010 expired at the end of 2012. Since then, U.S. businesses faced an annual $748 million tax increase on manufacturing with an overall economic loss of $1.875 billion for the U.S. economy. The new MTB process will help American manufacturers compete in the global market while also ensuring a transparent and public process for consideration of MTBs. U.S. businesses will be able to petition the independent, non-partisan International Trade Commission (ITC), explaining the need for a specific tariff reduction or suspension. The ITC will then be able to issue a public report to Congress analyzing the request and whether or not it meets MTB standards, including that there is no domestic production. Congress would then be able to consider the bill within existing House Rules. Small businesses and manufacturers across the country have long voiced their support for this new process. I am proud to have worked with Congressman Brady to ensure passage of this job creating legislation.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Hamlin County, South Dakota, a very dear friend not only of every Member of Congress, but, in particular, a great Representative representing South Dakota at a time when South Dakota needs not only strong representation, but a strong voice. I want to thank the young Congresswoman for bringing this legislation to the floor today. Mr. Speaker, today is quite simple. The United States Congress has a say in the matter about how our government is run and the conduct of the government. The Internal Revenue Service has, for quite some time, been at odds, I believe, not only with their mission statement, but also at odds with their duty to publicly serve, provide information, and to do the things that enable taxpayers, who want to follow the law and need to follow the law, to comply respectfully. The Internal Revenue Service, over the last few years, has run afoul, I believe, of the American people because the commonsense obligations that they have have not been met. Today we are here on the floor with Congresswoman Noem to talk about H.R. 3724 that prohibits the Commissioner of the IRS from rehiring any employee who was involuntarily--that means forced--out or involuntarily separated from service for misconduct at the Internal Revenue Service. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration reported in February 2015 that the IRS had rehired those employees who had been fired from the Service for misconduct, hundreds of former employees who were terminated for well-documented conduct or performance issues. In fact, the IRS rehired 141 former employees who had substantial tax issues. That means they were not paying their own tax bills. Mr. Speaker, if we were going to hire a person in our office, we would attempt to gain information about that employee. Yesterday, as we were talking about this on the rule, a fellow colleague said: What about your own employees? Do you make sure they pay their taxes? I said: That would be a good question. No, I don't ask that question. But I would not have any idea what the real answer was--the truth--if an employee did not tell me the truth. The IRS does have the answer. They know who is paying their taxes, and they know why they fired an employee, Mr. Speaker. We are here saying that the Internal Revenue Service should not rehire these employees who were unfaithful, unfaithful to their job and unfaithful to the American taxpayer. One hundred forty-one employees who substantially did not pay their taxes represent 60 percent of all terminated for misconduct. I think I know why: because the Internal Revenue Service at the highest levels allows this to go on, and then they rehire the employees who didn't even follow the law. Mr. Speaker, that is not just misconduct. That is another level giving them an opportunity that a normal taxpayer would not have to get away with not paying their own taxes. Other misconduct issues of rehiring employees include accessing taxpayer information improperly without authorization, falsification of official forms, unacceptable behavior and performance, and abuse of IRS leave and property policies while on public time. Mr. Speaker, Congresswoman Noem is doing the right thing and so is the House of Representatives. I would like to see this be a bipartisan issue, not a partisan issue. We need the IRS. We need them to do a good job. But if this were at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, would we allow that to happen? If this were at the CIA, would we allow that to happen?

Mr. SESSIONS. If this were at the Department of Justice, would we allow that to happen? Why is this not a bipartisan issue? Why can't we get together and say: Mr. Koskinen, you are the Commissioner of the IRS. We respectfully would like to see you correct what you are doing. We are not on a witch hunt. We have the facts of the case, and we believe the right thing to do is to offer some remedy. That is why Republicans are on the floor today, and that is why our young Congresswoman is leading this charge. I stand behind her. I voted for the rule, and I am going to vote for this. It does the right thing. I thank the gentlewoman for the time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Rules Committee issued an announcement outlining the amendment process for H.R. 4498, the HALOS Act. The amendment deadline has been set for Monday, April 25, at 3 p.m. For the text of the bill as reported by the Committee on Financial Services and for more details, please contact me or the Rules Committee Web site. Our staff is also available to answer any questions that may arise from any Member of our body.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman engaging me in a colloquy. In fact, on a bipartisan basis, that was achieved, and the President of the United States signed the legislation. That was because of the gross examples of the IRS' conduct as it was related to politicalization. That would be correct.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers), who is a member of the Rules Committee, for not only yielding me the time, but also for the service that he gives to the Rules Committee, the hours of deliberate work, reading, and thought process. I also want to address, if I can, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers) did, with great admiration not only to Judge Hastings for always constantly staying with issues and ideas that not only affect his district in Florida, but that really address the entire country. I was delighted yesterday when the gentleman brought up in a most thoughtful, genuine way: Where is the answer to these important questions? What we are here today, Mr. Speaker, to do is--as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers) talked about, we are here to have, I think, once again a thoughtful debate about some problems that we think we see. The role of the United States Congress, on behalf of the American people, is to make sure that we provide proper oversight, that we fund well and faithfully the running of the government. As we see things that happen from time to time, it is our role to make sure that we are providing the debate, the argument, the facts of the case, and that is what we are doing today about the IRS. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers) did talk about H.R. 4885, IRS Oversight While Eliminating Spending Act. There is more to the story about fees that are being collected by the IRS. I am going to read here directly about what they have done. Mr. Speaker, traditionally, the IRS has used this money that they collect in fees, that they collect for work that they do that goes directly back into customer service, sustaining themselves in the eyes of the public, taking calls, answering questions, trying to be of a service nature. We understand the IRS is an organization that is there to collect taxes and very few people want to pay certainly more than what they have to. But in doing that, in complying with the law, it is not unusual that a taxpayer would want to contact the Service to learn more about paying their taxes, properly reporting their taxes, and properly doing things. So, historically, the user fee account has primarily supported taxpayer services in the past. However, the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight found that, in fiscal year 2015, the IRS deliberately diverted resources away from taxpayer services toward other agency functions, including implementation of the Affordable Care Act. So they took their eye off the ball that they had previously done to change that. In fiscal year 2014, the IRS spent $183 million in these user fees on taxpayer services, which was 44 percent of the user account fees. That is what they used it for: 44 percent. In fiscal year 2015, however, the agency spent only $49 million--from $183 million to $49 million on taxpayer services and only 10 percent of user fees from those accounts that came in. That decision amounted to a 73 percent reduction in user fee allocation. Now, Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to say today to the IRS--because this is how we give them oversight. We hold a hearing. We do a markup. We bring the ideas to the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee notifies all the Members that, if you have an idea about how you would like to talk about this bill, there is an amendment process. For both the rules that we are doing today, we made all of the amendments in order that were germane. What we are saying here, Mr. Speaker, is that we disagree with the IRS. We are going to force the IRS to begin using these user fees in the way that they have historically done so that the public, which are taxpayers, have a chance to comply with the law, to get their questions answered, and to do business as is necessary. The IRS has intentionally changed the way they do business to the detriment of the customer. Republicans all the time argue we ought to be more like customer services or a business-type organization.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, so what we are trying to say today, which we would like to do on a bipartisan basis, which we would like to do straight up and look right at the IRS, is say: We would like to meet you in a way to where you know what we think. We would like to be very specific. We would like to show you exactly what we are talking about. We would love to have you comply. In this case, it is taking a piece of legislation that we think is in the best interest of the IRS--because we are helping them protect themselves--and Congress that has oversight and an administration that we would welcome this opportunity. This is not some sneaky attempt to do something wrong. This is the right attempt. The second part of the rule is H.R. 1206, No Hires for the Delinquent IRS Act. That simply says that we want to make sure that the Commissioner of the IRS understands that they should not hire any new employee if they have a tax problem. I would think that would be part of the agreement. I would think that an employee of the IRS would understand that, to be faithful to their job, they should not be given an extra status better than any taxpayer who pays their taxes, has done what they are supposed to do, and follows the law. Mr. Speaker, that is why Republicans are on the floor of the House of Representatives today. I am proud of what Congressman Stivers is doing. I support this rule that is a fair and logical rule for the best interest of us working with the IRS, with our colleagues that are Democrats and Republicans, and with the administration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SESSIONS. Yes, sir. In fact, I do. But I also recognize--and the gentleman knows this. You are making a very, very good point. They did not use it for something they were not authorized to do. My point is that I think what we are trying to say is we would like to get the IRS to answer more questions. Some of the people who might be asking questions, it might be related to the Affordable Care Act because, in fact, it is a new portion of the law. And the IRS, I believe, has a duty to at least balance what they do, sir.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes a very important point. I would respond back by saying it is probably my fault and Members' fault. We do not ask that question. I do not have a determination. I generally do not do a full background check. I do not have access to their records. I would not know if they were telling me the truth or not. If you were a law enforcement organization or if you were a hospital looking for certification, if you were the IRS, you would have pretty much data available to you so that you didn't ask a question that you couldn't verify. So I think the gentleman makes a point. I will tell you that this Member of Congress is now and has always been faithful and has not done anything with his taxes. I pay mine every year.

Mr. SESSIONS. Well, I agree with that. Once again, I don't ask the question, but the IRS should.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, yesterday, the Rules Committee issued four announcements outlining the amendment processes for: H.R. 1206, No Hires for the Delinquent IRS Act; H.R. 3724, Ensuring Integrity in the IRS Workforce Act; H.R. 4885, IRS Oversight While Eliminating Spending Act; and H.R. 4890, a bill to impose a ban on the payment of bonuses to employees of the Internal Revenue Service until the Secretary of Treasury develops and implements a comprehensive customer service strategy. The amendment deadline for each bill has been set for 10 a.m. on Monday, April 18. For more details and the text of the bill, please contact me or visit the Rules Committee Web site. Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. McNerney

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the 250th birthday of Collin McKinney, a Texas patriot, statesman, and hero. Mr. McKinney was a drafter and signer of the Texas Constitution and is the namesake of Collin County and the city of McKinney. His courage of conviction and love of Texas fundamentally shaped our state's history and our nation. Mr. McKinney was born to Scottish immigrant parents on April 17, 1766, in New Jersey. Years later he moved to Kentucky before settling in our great state of Texas. Mr. McKinney was a man of faith and boldly preached the gospel message of love and redemption. Mr. McKinney and four other individuals were drafted by Judge Richard Ellis at the convention meeting at Old Washington-on-the-Brazos to write a declaration of separation from Mexico. Today, we know this document bearing Collin McKinney's signature as the Texas Declaration of Independence. He later went on to serve the Red River District in the First, Second, and Fourth Congresses of the Republic of Texas. Author Samuel Houston Dixon wrote in his book ``The Men Who Made Texas Free'' that ``Mr. McKinney was a man of most admirable character. He possessed a spirit of progressiveness which dominated his life. No one of that group of pioneers exercised a more wholesome influence over those with whom he came in contact than Mr. McKinney. He lived a life worthy of emulation and was held in high esteem.'' In 1846 he settled near the Grayson-Collin county line which would become his final resting place and later bear his name. In 1936 the Texas Centennial Commission had his house moved to Finch Park in McKinney. Mr. McKinney lived under eight different governments in his life. He was born a subject of King George III, became a citizen of the Colonial Government of the 13 Colonies, then the United States, Mexico, the Provisional Government established by the Texans in 1835, the Texas Republic until annexation, the United States again, and then the Southern Confederacy. Mr. McKinney's life of public service and dedication to the cause of freedom should inspire each of us. I am proud to honor this statesman and encourage every Texan to study his life so that we may continue his legacy.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I believe that what we are seeing here are some dilatory moves on behalf of the minority. While I respect every bit of that, we have decorum that is established in this House, and I believe the Speaker has adequately responded to the questions thereon by the gentlemen, and I ask that we move on forward. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I ask unanimous consent----

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 649, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 639) authorizing the Speaker to appear as amicus curiae on behalf of the House of Representatives in the matter of United States, et al. v. Texas, et al., No. 15674, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 649 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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 of the House have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule, which will provide for consideration of House Resolution 639. I believe the underlying resolution is imperative to protecting the balance of power that our Founders so carefully enshrined in the United States Constitution. I would also like to point out that the House Committee on Rules held an original jurisdiction hearing and markup yesterday in which we received testimony and consideration of an amendment from the minority. Mr. Speaker, over 25 States or State officials have filed suit challenging the Obama administration's expansion of DACA and the creation of DACA-like programs for aliens who are parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. On February 16, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas entered and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction prohibiting further implementation of these programs on the ground that States are likely to prevail in their argument for the programs that have run afoul of the law. The Supreme Court indicated that they will begin hearing oral arguments on United States v. Texas in April of 2016 and that it will consider the plaintiffs' claims under the Take Care Clause. Because of this timely consideration by the highest court in the land, it is imperative that the House consider this underlying resolution. I want to make it very clear that this resolution is not about policy. If you spoke with every single Member of this body, you would find a wide spectrum of opinions regarding how to handle the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States unlawfully. This resolution is not about those viewpoints. It is about the fundamental separation of power ingrained in our founding document, the Constitution. Article I, section 8 gives Congress, not the President, the authority ``to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.'' The administration simply cannot ignore certain statutes and selectively enforce others or bypass the legislative process to create laws for executive fiat. This administration has failed in its duty under Article II, section 3 of the Constitution of the United States to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and the Supreme Court has specifically indicated that it will consider the plaintiffs' claims under the Take Care Clause. Clearly, the Court views this case as an important review of Article I and Article II issues and the balance of power between the branches. For that reason, and that reason alone, the United States House of Representatives is uniquely suited to speak to this underlying question that has been raised by the court. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the argument we are making today is that this President has a repeated history of needing to have his actions resolved through the court system. The Supreme Court has acted over 13 times to rule against the Obama administration. This President is an activist President that works around the legislature. As a matter of fact, even Members of this body have implicated that they don't even know who their White House contacts are. We have repeatedly tried to work with the President. We hold hearings. They ignore and rebuff the things that we do. They disallow what are considered to be normal rules of law. So this is an action that has been brought by the States, not by the United States Congress. We were simply asked to give an opinion, and that is what we are doing today. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne) one of our bright, new members of the Rules Committee.