Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, today the Rules Committee issued a Dear Colleague letter outlining the amendment process for H.R. 2310, the Red River Private Property Protection Act. An amendment deadline has been set for Monday, December 7, 2015, at 12:00 p.m. Amendments should be drafted to the text as reported by the Committee on Natural Resources and is posted on the Rules Committee Web site. Please feel free to contact me or my staff with any questions.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I will be sending around a Dear Colleague later this afternoon outlining the amendment process for H.R. 8, the North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2015. The amendment deadline will be Tuesday, November 24, 2015, at 12 p.m. Amendments should be drafted to the text posted on the Committee on Rules Web site. Please feel free to contact me or my staff if we may be of further assistance.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my dear friend from Georgia, for the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1073, the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act. Over the past decade, our Nation has seen an unprecedented expansion in the use of electronics, Mr. Speaker. These electronics have transformed our economy, our homes, our families, and, really, the way we do business and have become an integral part of our daily lives. Unfortunately, this technology is also susceptible to new types of potential threats, threats that have been talked about on this floor by not only Mr. Franks, but also our friend, Mr. Carter, and others. Today electromagnetic pulses, known as EMPs, could dramatically disrupt electronic activity and severely damage our electrical grids and everything that stands under those grids. Examples of EMP threats include those generated from a geomagnetic solar flare, from a terrorist short-range missile, cybersecurity attacks, or from a physical assault on a utility or a power plant. The Critical Infrastructure Protection Act that we are talking about today and that we hope to pass is an important first step towards protecting our Nation from potential catastrophic nationwide blackouts. I would like to recognize Frank Gaffney, the president and founder of the Center for Security Policy. Frank has provided the leadership not only by meeting with me, but also working with Mr. Franks and hundreds of other Members to let us know not only about this important critical infrastructure policy need, but also to make sure that we educate and spread awareness to not only our constituency, but other Members of Congress, regarding the new types of potential threats and occurrences, such as an electromagnetic pulse attack, that could dramatically alter our way of life. I would also like to recognize, as I have previously done, our leader in Congress on this issue, my dear friend, Arizona Congressman Trent Franks. Mr. Franks and I have spoken about this issue for years. We have worked hard with the chairman of Homeland Security, as well as leadership in this House, to make sure that we accomplish this legislation now. Ultimately, the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act is simply the first step towards getting the U.S. closer to protecting ourselves from a potentially catastrophic nationwide blackout. It is simply the first step, Mr. Speaker. I know this will begin a national dialogue, a dialogue that needs to take place and that has already been begun by such leaders as former Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Vice President Dick Cheney. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the House today for taking up this important legislation, ask that my colleagues pay attention to understand this bill, and vote for it because support and passage of H.R. 1073, the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act, is important to the American people and our way of life.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Men and Women of The Armed Forces. We give thanks to them and their families, who live and die and carry the burdens of war for all that we hold dear. Bless them. I submit this poem penned in their honor by Albert Carey Caswell. Honor our Veteran's One day is not enough. Somehow one day of the year does not seem just. Honor our Veteran's each day of the year For they fight and die for all of us here For all of those freedom's that we hold dear Honor our Veteran's not one, but every day of the year For they are ones, who must live with all of those tears For all of their Brothers and Sisters In Arms they have lost here. And who awake in the night with all of those nightmares. Whose families who must now live in fear Not knowing whose going, or ever coming back here Honor our Veteran's every day of the year. For those are ones, who must lay in hospital beds when its all said and done With all of their families holding their daughters and sons. And their Husbands and Wives. The Greatest Loves of their lives. So all in tears. Teaching Us. Beseeching Us. All about honor and duty, and courage so clear. Who against all odds now cling to life here. The ones who have died. Who live without arms and legs as they try. With scars on their faces And all places Living in darkness losing their sight. Carried with them for the rest of their lives. Some how it does not seem right. That we only take one day to make honor of them who fight the fight. America's most magnificent of all lights. Who give the greatest gifts of sacrifice. Honor our Veteran's every day and night I bid you to please To fall to your knee's And say a prayer of thanks for all of these Buy them a drink. Buy them a meal. Put your arm around them and let them know how you feel. Go up to them and their families, and tell them how much they mean. Because all that they ask. Are these two words from yours lips to so pass. Thank you. Yea, one day not enough. For all of our freedoms of which they bought. One day just somehow does not seem just. For all that they've taught. Honor our Veteran's every day of the year. Say a prayer of thanks, and for them and their families shed a tear. Honor our Veteran's every day of the year.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the work of an outstanding Texan, Jean M. Mrasek, as she recently concluded her distinguished work as Chairman of the National Panhellenic Conference (NPC). This conference represents 26 sororities with a member base of more than four million women at 655 campuses and 4,500 alumnae chapters in the United States and Canada. Sororities and fraternities are the largest values-based organizations on college campuses and among the most successful leadership development programs for college students. National sororities are the largest women's leadership organizations on hundreds of campuses and they continue to grow because of the value they provide in helping collegiate women become better scholars, leaders, and citizens. As Chairman of NPC, Jean was a leading voice on contemporary issues of sorority life and for all collegiate women. As a proud University of Tulsa alumna and past national president of her sorority Chi Omega, Jean's unyielding passion for Greek life is reflected in her lifetime commitment to serving others. Under her leadership, NPC has increased their membership, developed a new visual identity as part of a new communications plan, created new forms of risk-management education, and furthered the organizational effectiveness of the sorority world, speaking for the interests of college women everywhere. Jean's long- term commitment to her Chi Omega chapter, its international organization, and the entire Greek community make her a role model for women who aspire to make a difference in the lives of other women. I have personally had the opportunity to work with Jean over the years as she has come to Washington to tirelessly advocate for students across the country on issues ranging from college affordability, improving student housing, preserving the vital role of charitable support for higher education, and fighting to make campuses safer for all students. Jean Mrasek has provided exemplary service in advancing the NPC's ability to positively influence the lives of so many collegiate women. Mr. Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in wishing her all the best in her future endeavors.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday evening, the Rules Committee circulated a Dear Colleague outlining the amendment process for the Senate amendments to H.R. 22, the DRIVE Act. This will be the vehicle for consideration of H.R. 3763, the Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform Act. An amendment deadline has been set for Friday, October 30, at 2 p.m. This is an unusual amendment process; so, I ask all Members to please read the Dear Colleague, which can be found on the Rules Committee Web site, very carefully and refer any questions to the Rules Committee staff or myself, as the chairman. I would also like to point out that, in consultation with the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, several changes were made to the bill, as ordered reported. A summary of those changes can also be found on the Rules Committee Web site. Please feel free to contact me or any of our staff members if we can be of assistance.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, last night in the Committee on Rules we looked at this bill. We talked about it and its importance to the Nation. Madam Speaker, first let me say that this is an agreement between the White House, the Senate, and the House. This is an agreement that we can move forward on and avoid many destructive things that might have happened not only to the American people and the economy, but, really, our own credibility. Our ability to work together at this very careful time is important so that we show the American people that this can happen. There are a lot of things that I agree and disagree with that were said. First of all, harm the economy? Good gosh, when you only have a 1 percent GDP growth, the President has already done that with massive tax increases. The President has done that with rules and regulations. We are trying to make sure that what we are doing in this bill is to stick to the Republican plan. What is the Republican plan? It has been--going into our sixth year-- that we are going to hold government spending flat. We do that essentially not only with a CR, which we will do again in a few weeks, but through effective use of sequestration. What we have done is been able to take the sequestration dollars and to utilize them in such a way that, as the chairman was speaking about, we are pulling in mandatory spending. We believe, after 5 years of staying flat with government spending, that we are in a more dangerous world than ever, and our military must have more money, our security operations must have more money. What we are going to do is to look at the entire process, come up with an idea about bringing in more money that funds our security, that funds our military, and offsets that so that we can do this by looking at long- term mandatory spending that will bring in over 170 billion dollars' worth of savings over the mirror that we look at, over the timeframe that is important for the American people to have confidence that we will not bankrupt this country and that we can continue. Now, the bottom line to this whole exercise is that what we have done is worked together. Working together, we now have a plan to move forward; and we will simply go to the next exercise, and that is funding the government for the year. The Republican plan is simple. We are not going to give this government one extra penny to put us into a bankruptcy circumstance, but we are asking also, back, that the President of the United States give us an opportunity to grow our economy. Taxes are too high, and we have too many rules and regulations; but the Republican Party will stick to our plan, and that is what we are doing here.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Budget may, at any time before 6 p.m. on Friday, October 16, 2015, file a privileged report to accompany a message to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2016.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Chairman Conaway, I want to thank you for leading this effort tonight as we talk to the American people about what we are not only doing in Washington, D.C., but about what we began several years ago, a process of talking to our colleagues about how important it was that America have a strong energy policy. America is the only nation in the world that has a provision that does not allow the export of crude oil. Crude oil is something that we have been told for a long, long time, since the mid-1970s, that we are running out of. It is a natural resource that America has an abundance of, but over the years that we are running out of oil, we are running out and depleting what we have. Then a few years ago, some bit of reality took place because a change in technology, a change in technology that was called horizontal drilling, allowed those people who were in the oil patch actually drilling and doing the hard work necessary to extract this gift that we have in this country, developed a process that would allow them to get 60 percent more oil than what had previously been provided for through those existing processes. Overnight, Americans saw that we also gained the advantage of getting more natural gas. The proven reserves of not only natural gas, but also crude oil shot up dramatically; and it became very apparent not only to the marketplace, because we have seen consumer prices fall over the last few years from over $4.40 per gallon in lots of places to last week, in Dallas, Texas, 2 weeks ago, gasoline at $1.97. It is true, last weekend that I was home, it was $2.18. Mr. Speaker, I would sooner be paying between $1.99 and $2.18 for the gasoline that I use as opposed to the scare tactics of where we were just a few short years ago of over $4. What does this mean to the American consumer? What does this mean to families all over the United States? More importantly, what does it mean to America? It means that in testimony that was gathered yesterday at the Committee on Rules, on which I have a chance to serve as the chairman, that we heard that they are expecting at least 400,000 regular jobs that would be added to the economy. That would be all across the United States of America--New York, Illinois, Florida, North Carolina, all over this country--because it would encourage us to do more work, to be able, instead of taking these places and putting a stop on their production, we would now do more production, get it into the worldwide market, sell it overseas, and it becomes a product just like a farm product that can be sold around the world that would help America's exports. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to thank not only Chairman Joe Barton, but also Chairman Michael Conaway for the hard work that they have done to sell the ideas and the reality that America can have it both ways, and that is: we can produce our natural products; we can get more than 60 percent more out of the ground than we were getting before because of the technology; and we can help the American consumer, moms and dads who need to get to work, who need to go to softball and football practice, and also to work and back and church and back, all in a way that they can meet their budget. I am pleased and proud to say, Chairman Conaway, you can count on me tomorrow, that I will be there to support this great piece of legislation. I want to thank you for allowing me to be with you to talk about the importance of this bill and to wish you good luck tomorrow.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I am going to leave research to the researchers, and history to the historians and address myself to another, and even more basic aspect, of the issue before you. I am satisfied that when you review the historical data that is being presented here today, you will agree that there is no room for doubt where Uncle Sam Wilson lived and where he died and where he lies buried--in an all but forgotten grave. Troy's claim to Uncle Sam is beyond dispute. But there is another and, as I said, an even more fundamental aspect to this issue. It might be expressed in the unspoken question which, I am sure, has suggested itself to some, if not all, of the members of this committee. You may well ask: With Congress laboring to resolve the most complex issues, which reflect the crises which face our nation at home and abroad, why all this fuss about Uncle Sam? I should like to try to answer that question. There was a time when our country passed immeasurable advantages over the rising tide of world Communism. We had technology, we had the production know-how, we had the most advantageous tools of peace--yes, and the most advanced tools of war, including the atomic and hydrogen bombs. But our ascendancy in all these fields has, little by little, been erased or at best reduced. And, as we pause from time to time, to assess the progress of the never-ending struggle for survival which we call the ``Cold War'', we would do well to ask ourselves, bluntly and realistically: What do we have today that Communism does not have? It may be difficult to find a satisfying answer to this question in the areas of purely material progress. Nor is it surprising that Communism, the expression of materialistic philosophy, should be strong in material advantages. But there is a heartening answer to our question when we go a step beyond the purely material aspects of the struggle, into the spiritual aspects which, after all, in the long run, will resolve and decide the issue. What do we have that Communism does not have? We have our American heritage--a heritage that is reflected in our history, in our tradition, in every detail of the great success story that is the story of America. When Mr. Khrushchev shakes his fist and points to his rockets and his space ships and his legions parading in Red Square, we can stand before the world and point to our American heritage--to our history and our institutions and our principles. And it seems to me, that the nations of the world and the people of the world, faced with a choice, will know which way to go. When Mr. Khrushchev shouts, ``Look what we got,'' we can reply, ``Look what we ARE.'' And since the Cold War is, in great measure, a struggle for men's minds--a war of propaganda, if you will--one of the most important responsibilities we have is to project the American image in every corner of the world. Gentleman, we have that image ready-made. It's Uncle Sam--that kindly, serious, honest old gentleman in his striped suit and tall hat. In the minds of millions here and abroad, he stands for all the virtues and qualities that are wrapped up in the American dream--honor, initiative, industry, opportunity, freedom, respect for the rights of others, and, above all, regard for the dignity of the individual. It's all there in that picture. And it's worth more in the world struggle than all Mr. Khrushchev's space ships and rockets and nuclear bombs. But here is the point we must not overlook. What makes the image of Uncle Sam important and vital and compelling, is that Uncle Sam is real. And the world needs to know he is real. The world must be told that he is not a fictitious, shoddy trademark after the manner of an American advertising campaign. He is no cartoonist's whimsy. He is no Madison Avenue gimmick. Uncle Sam really lived. And from what we know of him, he embodied many, if not all of the qualities and virtues, that make us proud of our American heritage. Not only is Uncle Sam a real, flesh-and-blood American, he is particularly representative of the things that have made America great--initiative, industry, business acumen, Yankee resourcefulness. Going even a step further, when you consider how the term ``Uncle Sam'' was coined, you find an eloquent representation of the partnership between private enterprise and military effort in one of the most critical moments of our history--the same sort of partnership that made America mighty and respected--yes, and in the councils of the ungodly, feared. We, in America today, know something about how advertising and propaganda works. We know how difficult it is to sell an idea; any intangible idea or concept, until we clothe it in some image people can see and touch. Well, the people of the world know Uncle Sam. And the better they know him, the more they will respect and love him. And in accepting him, they will be embracing all the principles that go to make up the good life. Our own people too, need to know Uncle Sam better. Every nation needs its heroes, needs the inspiration and pride that come from a healthy respect for its historical figures. From Uncle Sam, we all can get a deeper appreciation of the American way. I have just one more point to make and it goes to the heart of all that is being said here today. Never--I say it again, gentlemen--never forget that Uncle Sam is real. Let us not go off waving the picture and leaving the substance behind. Let us never forget that Uncle Sam had a last name too--and that name was Wilson. Let us never forget that Uncle Sam lived among us and worked among us and, when his time came, died among us. And need I suggest, gentlemen, that his resting place should command the attention and respect of the nation he has come to symbolize. Too long has Uncle Sam Wilson slept, almost unknown and unnoticed, on that grassy hillside overlooking the Hudson River. Of course we in Troy--whose forebears knew and worked with Samuel Wilson--we in Troy are proud of Uncle Sam. We have marked his grave modestly and have done what we could to make him better known. We feel that, in this effort, we have been doing what the American people would want to do, would insist upon doing, if they knew the story as we know it. And now we come, gentlemen, to the halls of Congress to ask you as the representatives of the American people to discharge a debt that is long overdue. Across the nation, we have federal installations of all kinds--among them, navy yards and arsenals and forts and missile bases and atomic testing sites--so many of them grim monuments to the unhappy aspects of our national existence. We have too few monuments to the more inspiring side. We ask you to add another to the roll. We ask that you create, if you will, a Shrine of Americanism at the grave of the man who has become-- after the Stars and Stripes--America's greatest symbol. The military installations are necessary indeed, if only to help us stay alive. But the final, inevitable victory in the great world struggle will be won by the ideals and principles--ideals and principles that are loftier than the highest space shot and more powerful than the most destructive bomb. I feel sure, gentlemen, that we can say without fear of challenge, that America will always be the leader of all nations in armed might, indeed in any field of material or productive ingenuity. Communism, the greatest threat to mankind, leaves no room for sentiment of nostalgia. Sentiment and nostalgia breed individualism. Individualism is a quality of Freedom. Here is where we need our Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam is the breathtaking feeling of pride that goes with the beat of the military band and the marching men. Uncle Sam is the quiver in the lip as the picture of Surabachi flashes before our mind. Uncle Sam is the invisible resident of the tombs of the known and unknown dead in our wars. Gentlemen, I can assure you, we have no selfish interest in our quest for recognition of this great America. We ask only, that you accept from us, this treasure that lies buried in a modest grave in Troy, New York. Recognize it, as it so richly deserves, and give it to all our people. That is the message Uncle Sam has for us today. That is the message that will be reflected at the shrine for Americanism over his grave in Troy, New York.

Mr. SESSIONS

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 would empower the U.S. House of Representatives with the opportunity to block this administration's devastating nuclear deal with the country of Iran. It is my belief that this deal needs to be ripped up word by word, line by line, and it is this body that needs to help do that. The process is going on today and tomorrow, and it needs to continue until we kill this deal. This rule includes three legislative items and is designed to give the U.S. House of Representatives multiple opportunities to block this disastrous Iran deal. I want to make one thing perfectly clear from the beginning: There is nothing unprecedented about this rule. What is unprecedented is that the administration, an administration of the United States, has negotiated a deal that pardons a state that supports terrorism and turns it into a legitimate nuclear state in a matter of time. There is nothing to hide in this rule; whereas, a significant part of this so-called deal with Iran is still hidden, not just by side agreements, but in facts of the case that it was up to the United States Congress to openly understand, to debate, and then to make decisions on. First, H. Res. 411 would find that the President has not complied with the requirements of section 2 of the Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, which passed Congress and became law of the United States of America in May of 2015. This resolution simply says that the President should follow the law--the law he signed only 4 months ago--and give Congress access to all parts of the deal as they pertain to this nuclear opportunity and deal that is being cut, including the IAEA and Iran. Second, H.R. 3460 would stop the administration from lifting sanctions placed currently on Iran. Third, H.R. 3461 would allow for a vote to approve the deal that the administration made with Iran regarding its nuclear program. While previous legislation would have allowed Congress to disapprove this deal, this legislation would not allow the deal to go forward without congressional approval. So, Mr. Speaker, what does the administration deal do? Well, first, the deal guarantees permanent sanctions relief, but only temporarily blocks Iran from building a nuclear bomb. In other words, this deal would inject--I assume really as a signing bonus--$150 billion into the Iranian economy with almost completely no rules or regulations related to the use of the money, and it would allow Iran to build and possess a nuclear bomb in just a matter of a few, short, 15 years. Mr. Speaker, we should not encourage the leading funder of terrorism in the world to have immediate access to billions of dollars now and billions of dollars later. Let there be no doubt, this money will go to Hezbollah, Hamas and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, groups that are dedicated to wiping out not only the United States but our friends and allies around the world, including their number one target, Israel. Mr. Speaker, when I visited the Middle East in May of this year, we met with our partners all around the region, and they were furious that this administration was negotiating with Iran. Presidents from both parties have spent decades in the United States persuading countries around the region not to build a nuclear bomb, yet now this administration wants to allow Iran to have access to that, that which we have been protecting and holding away from even our closest of friends. We will give that to this country that calls us the ``evil empire.'' Under this administration, for 6 years, America has led from behind. We have led from behind when it should have been chosen to lead from the front. Now this administration has decided to engage with a nation that jails Americans and where ``death to America'' and ``death to Israel'' is chanted every single day all over the streets of Iran and by its chosen leaders. Even worse, when the administration chose to engage with Iran, it chose to negotiate from a position of weakness. This negotiation ended with a deal that gives Iran literally everything it wants and, as I see it, delivers nothing for the American people. So what does this deal exactly do? Instead of allowing international inspectors into sites within 24 hours, the administration agreed to give Iran 24 days' notice. The plan also ends restrictions on the Iranian intercontinental ballistic missile, ICBM, program in just over 8 years, which means, within a decade, Iran can go back to developing warheads that could reach the United States. Mr. Speaker, they cheat on every single deal they make. Why would you negotiate with someone you don't trust? Why would you give someone you don't trust and who had a track record, give them everything they wanted? Well, even worse, reports have indicated that there is also a side deal, a side deal between Iran and the IAEA, that allows Iranians to inspect their own nuclear sites. Mr. Speaker, this will be like a person in college or any school being allowed to grade their own test. That is not the right way you handle international affairs. When the Republicans say you negotiate with weakness, this is exactly what we are talking about. So, Mr. Speaker, it is not clear what the American people would get from this deal. What is clear is that this deal will empower a stronger Iran to be the strongest country in that region, to be competitive against the United States, and to have everything they want to pursue nuclear weapons in their future. So what is at stake here? Congress is being asked to join in this deal. They are being asked to endorse a plan that would eventually legitimatize the Iranian nuclear state and fund its terrorism activities and to support our President in doing this. Mr. Speaker, that is why we are here today. We are going to debate it. We are going to pass this legislation, and we are going to put this House on record of where we would be. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Harding Township, New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Butler, Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Sugar Land, Texas (Mr. Olson), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Fairhope, Alabama (Mr. Byrne), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman and my friend 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. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Texas delegation, I want to say to the Speaker pro tempore, ``Happy birthday.'' We were celebrating your birthday at the Texas lunch. We are sorry you were unable to attend. General Leave

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 412 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we will do everything in our power to try and stop this bad deal; you are darn right we will. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Farmington, Utah (Mr. Stewart), a member of the Intelligence Committee, the Appropriations Committee, and a member of the United States Air Force for years and years, a veteran of this great Nation.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Windsor, Colorado (Mr. Buck).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), who serves on the Foreign Affairs Committee as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentlewoman, I have three or four more speakers.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe), a gentleman with compassion and healing, a gentleman who is a physician, a gentleman on from the Education and the Workforce and Veterans' Affairs Committees.