Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. 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 ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to take from the Speaker's table H.R. 1295, with the Senate amendments thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention of any point of order, a single motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means or his designee that the House, one, concur in the Senate amendment to the title and, two, concur in the Senate amendment to the text with the amendment printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII and numbered 1; that the Senate amendments and the motion be considered as read; that the motion be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, that is 300,000 times $405.67 for every single ticket. I am not trying to micromanage, nor am I trying to kill Amtrak. I vote for Amtrak; I am for Amtrak, but they also want more and more and need more and more resources to help in their north-south line in the East Coast and the West Coast. What they are doing is bleeding off their hard-earned money, using the subsidy rather than doing what their original mission should be. Mr. Chair, I think I support all of Amtrak, and I am for it. This is not micromanaging. It is showing them the obvious things which they need to accomplish. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, look, I made a mistake. I came here from business. I came here as somebody that had to operate within the bounds of common sense and doing things that made sense with money and opportunities. I will just say to you, Mr. Chairman, I am going to stay after this issue. I am all for Amtrak, but not when they continue to have routes that cost twice what the revenue is. This is what our airlines did for a long time. They provided service, and they went broke, and then we want to turn around and say we are going to subsidize the airlines. Marketplace ideas work, and that is why we are a capitalist country. I urge my colleagues to think over this commonsense amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very straightforward. It would eliminate funding for the absolute worst performing line at Amtrak, the Sunset Limited, which runs from New Orleans to Los Angeles. The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 required that Amtrak operate without any Federal operating assistance after 2002. I have since then offered this amendment each year. Amtrak was supposed to be free of Federal operating subsidy; yet despite this commonsense requirement that Amtrak cease their fiscal irresponsibility and mismanagement, instead, they turned to continuing this line that costs the taxpayers $405.67 for every single ticket that is bought, for every single trip. That is $405.67 to subsidize the travels of passengers from New Orleans to Los Angeles, a trip that takes nearly 48 hours, assuming the train is on time. I believe this is exceedingly unlikely also because it has a terrible record of being on time. According to Amtrak's most recent monthly performance report, the Sunset Limited was only on time 42 percent of the time; yet 100 percent of the $405 was paid for the ticket. This places the Sunset Limited as one of the top 10 worst ontime routes for any of Amtrak's routes in its latest performance report. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, taxpayers should be happy when the train is not running, but not running on time, and the cost to the taxpayer is prohibitive. Why does it run this route when Amtrak loses an average of $41 million a year? Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simply to help Amtrak make the tough decisions that they appear to be incapable of doing themselves. I think it is the first step to instilling a small measure of fiscal discipline in Amtrak. Failure to do so will only continue Amtrak along this process rather them being a north-south provider on both coasts. I hope my colleagues will join me. Certainly, I know they are taxpayer advocates that believe as I do. I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, once again, I stand in trying to help Amtrak to effectively manage its system by taking away those routes that are cost prohibitive. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would eliminate funding for Amtrak's long- distance routes, which have total direct costs that are more than twice the revenue that they generate. Every single long-distance route that Amtrak provides--those of over 400 miles in length--operates at a loss every month. Eleven routes cost double the amount of revenue they create. Oh, by the way, Mr. Chair--and this is true since 1997 when I came to Congress--these routes are ineffective and waste valuable taxpayer money, as well as money that could be used in the system for highly used routes for the safety and security of their passengers on north- south routes. Some argue that many travelers cannot afford to fly and they need a less expensive travel alternative. However, for most of these routes, bus tickets and plane tickets are less expensive, more efficient, and more frequently on time. Combined, these 11 routes cost the American taxpayer about $500 million in fiscal year 2014 alone. Four lines cost over $50 million each. I think it is clear that government-subsidized rail service on Amtrak does not make economic sense if they have enough money to bleed off $500 million with routes that cost twice in expense what they generate in revenue, so I am offering this amendment again. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the beautiful part about these last two speakers is that the rule allows them to come to the floor and to present an amendment to strike or to add anything that they would like to add into this bill. That is the beauty of what we are trying to do here today, Mr. Speaker. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman asking. I have no further speakers and, in fact, would, as we have done many times, allow the gentleman to offer his close, and then I would also.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my two colleagues who serve on the Rules Committee, the gentleman Mr. McGovern and the gentleman Mr. Hastings. They are both not only extremely committed men to their constituency, but also to bettering this House of Representatives. Their voice and their words and their opportunities of which they stand up for, I have great respect for, and want to thank them for the character in which they have come after today's not only debate, but yesterday's debate that took a number of hours as we heard from four Members of this body about their ideas about how we should pursue these two appropriations bills today. Mr. Speaker, I want to confine my comments to a perspective, and that is satisfaction that I have for the way in which this process is working today. I understand, as acknowledged in the very beginning, we have an issue with how much money we are going to spend. I recognize we are back at 2008 levels in 2015 in most of these bills. I do acknowledge that. I do acknowledge that we are asking-- requiring--on government a chance to run their agencies--spend money back at 2008 spending levels. I think that the process that we are going through will also be an advantage ultimately, sure, in the short-term, but ultimately, where we will look at this as a prioritization basis, where we will empower the government, if they work with us and if we work with them, to understand how we can keep this country great--even spending less money--how we can continue to prioritize the decisionmaking to where we can pick and choose what needs to be done. Look, it doesn't make me happy. It makes no Member of this body happy. Certainly, the Speaker, the gentleman from Florida, would recognize--you have needs in your district. I do, from Dallas, Texas, have needs in my immediate district and districts that are around. The overwhelming need is all of us--and that is not to spend more than we can say and justify for our future because the dollars that we spend are borrowed. The dollars that we borrow and spend show up on our bottom-line debt, and it impacts everybody. The bottom line is we have to pay back interest on that money, just like any family that takes out money on a home loan or a credit card or something else. They have to be able to understand that takes away because they are paying for that, their ability to spend money in a different way. Our Republican majority is well aware of the demand that is placed on us, that we cannot go and do all the things that we would wish to do, but we have accepted and taken a pledge that we have given to the American people that they do get an understanding--that is we are not going to keep in the circumstance of spending money based upon taking out a loan because it is not good for our children, our grandchildren. It is not good for our future. Mr. Speaker, today, we have had a chance to debate these two bills in this one rule. I think, once again, as I stated earlier, it is a commitment to transparency and openness that this body has and every Member retains here on the floor. You saw part of it today. Through this open modified rule, each Member will have the opportunity to submit their ideas to two underlying bills, H.R. 2578 and H.R. 2577. Through this rule, the House will be able to work its way through majority rule floor votes and to make sure that the vital appropriations process is vigorous, is timely, and reflects the will of this body. When this rule is adopted, a robust debate will take place in a way that will allow us to fund these important measures, over $100 billion. I think that, as we talk about this, you can see, Mr. Speaker, that this body is getting its work done. It is getting its work done. We passed a budget. We will pass the appropriations bills. We go home every weekend; we look our constituents in the eye, and we have to justify what we are doing. We are following a process that we said we would do. It is for the betterment of this country, to keep this country strong. I am proud of the Members of this body; and, as a Republican member of our leadership team, I can tell you that we intend to follow through with the process, the promise that we make to the American people. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the underlying bills, for this rule. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by the direction on Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 287 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 Florida (Mr. Hastings), my friend, 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 may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 287 provides for a modified open rule for separate consideration of H.R. 2578 and H.R. 2577. Under this rule, any Member may offer any amendments to the bills in question that comply with the rules of the House. It also provides for 10 minutes of debate on each amendment considered. This approach has been what we call a standard rule for appropriations bills and was established and has been followed for this last year and the year before, and I believe it has been effective and, really, a good way for this body to be able to effectively operate, allowing each and every Member of this body the chance to offer their amendments. This rule also accomplishes two important goals: First, it reflects the majority's commitment to an open and transparent appropriations process. This rule will also allow for all Members to bring to this body their ideas that they have that they bring from back home, perhaps ideas from their own individual constituents about how we can make this appropriations process even better. I think it is important that Members of Congress be given an opportunity to do this in the appropriations process, and that is exactly what we are trying to do today for a robust opportunity for discussion. If an amendment complies with the rules of the House, it certainly will be given an up-or-down vote, if that Member chooses to do so. Secondly, this rule provides for reasonable time constraints. It is my belief that if Members' ideas are heard and the process by which we consider appropriations bills is done on a timely basis, then the House will benefit, and so will the American people, so that we work effectively and efficiently at the same time. This rule, I believe, strikes a good balance, allowing all Members an opportunity to offer necessary amendments but also allowing the House to get its work done. I estimate that we will spend about 18 hours in the process to get these bills done. Throughout this open process, the House will be able to make two great bills, I think, even better. Mr. Speaker, the open process by which these two bills will be considered, if the rule is adopted, is not only a good thing, but I think it says something about the work that the Rules Committee is doing. I am proud to support these two underlying bills because they make tough decisions, and they prioritize the responsibilities of the Federal Government. We simply do not have enough money to spread around to not have to make tough decisions. These are tough decisions that are made. Yesterday, at the Rules Committee, both of these bills were equally addressed on a bipartisan basis, and both the ranking member and the chairman of the subcommittee said they worked well together. Obviously, not everybody was happy with how much money they had to spend, but both of the ranking members--the Democrats who were present--addressed our committee and said that they were treated fairly, that they were treated respectfully, and that it was an open and transparent process to achieve good things for the bills. That is the hope that I have as we come to the floor today in that you will see groups of Members who will come to the floor with an open opportunity as a result of what we did in the Rules Committee, knowing that the process that took place back in the Appropriations Committee was well done. Alarmingly, however, yesterday, we learned that President Obama has threatened to veto both of these bills because, as I quote him, they ``drastically underfund critical investments.'' Let me see if I can break this down for you. It is our job to determine what those appropriations levels would be. We heard from the President of the United States when he presented his budget, and year after year after year, the President of the United States has failed to receive more than only several votes on his budget. I believe that what we have done by working carefully and meticulously through the budget process and through the appropriations process gives us a better angle on the needs and the priorities of these agencies from a congressional and, I believe, a ``back home'' experience. The people of this country elected their Representatives, and their Representatives have come to Washington and have had a fair and open process, notwithstanding that we are not spending as much as people want us to spend. I believe that the President is saying that he will veto these bills because he does not believe that we simply continue to spend more and more and more. This President has an insatiable appetite that we saw and have seen year after year after year. Based upon his words, I would say back to him: Mr. President, please look at the merits of the work that the House of Representatives is doing on a bipartisan basis. We are trying to live within the parameters of a budget that has been established and that was voted on by Members of this body, that has the vast majority of the Members of this body to say, when compared to the President's budget, this is the budget that I believe best represents not only what we can accomplish but what will work in the best interests of the American people, our constituents. Mr. President, they are the same ones that you have across this great Nation. Mr. President, we are asking you to take a second look at how you will listen to us and to watch the process that is going on here. I think it will develop itself into a better way for us to do business, and I would encourage the White House to look at that. Mr. Speaker, a great nation simply cannot spend money that it does not have and be a great nation for very long. This last month, we crossed over the terrible, terrible threshold of going from $17 trillion to $18 trillion in debt, and we continue to add up this debt and live off that debt and add to the debt with the spending that we do. We believe that what we have got to do is become more responsible with the taxpayers' dollars and the future of this great Nation. The law of the land and the law that the President has signed requires Congress to act within the requirements of the Budget Control Act. These were agreements that were made with the President. That is what we are sticking to, and that is what these bills do; yet the President, once again, is telling us: Please set aside the agreement that was made. I don't now like the thing that I agreed to, that I signed into law. In some instances, they were some of the President's own ideas. We need to understand that the American people want and expect us to see problems and to solve them and to stick to it. That is what this budget process is about, and that is exactly what this appropriations process is about. Look, I disagree with the President. I believe that what we need to do is to live within the agreement of the Budget Control Act. My party, the Republicans, have worked to lower discretionary spending from nearly $1.5 trillion in 2009, where we were, to today in 2015, $1.014 trillion. That is the difference between 2009 and 2015, years in which excessive and out-of-control spending could have taken place but for the discipline of the Republican Party and the discipline of our Members and, might I say, of the American people, who have heard our call for having a plan, a plan which carefully moves America into the future, that lessens the amount of debt the American people have to take on, and that makes better opportunities for our children and grandchildren not to have to pay back our excessive spending just because we are a group of people who thinks it is smarter than the people back home. We aren't. They get also, Mr. Speaker, that we have to have a defined goal. We have to do exactly what they do back home, and that is to be responsible about a family budget, about a State budget, about a Federal Government budget. That means disciplined accountability and a plan that you are willing to stick to. That is exactly what we have done. We have worked hard to lower discretionary spending over these years, and the effort has saved more than $2 trillion over this period of time and, I believe, over what would have been spent. I think this is a big win for the American people, and I think it is a big win for people who want, need, and expect Members of Congress to come to Washington and stick not only to a plan, but to a disciplined approach in trying to balance together the needs of this great Nation and its people and the need for us to look over the horizon at what our future would be. I think that we have lowered spending and that we have had a chance to shrink the size of government. Certainly, what we are trying to do is to work at lowering the deficit or the amount of money that would have been added to that deficit. These are the discussions that people back home have with their Members of Congress: What lies ahead? And how are you going to be able to make tough decisions? I hope that the President of the United States is listening to this because we are, on a bipartisan basis, having these same discussions in the House of Representatives and in the committees on which our Members serve. Now is the time not to go back to liberal, reckless spending opportunities. They will always abound. It is always easier to spend somebody else's money. I just don't think it is right, so the Republican Party is here on the floor today with two more appropriations bills, and it is going to sell to the American people the confidence that we have that we can make this government work more effectively and more efficiently--yes, with fewer dollars but with greater opportunities for efficiency. I believe that both of these bills strike what is a balance, a balance between funding critical projects while making smart financial decisions. These two can be accomplished, and that is why we are trying to work together to prioritize it. H.R. 2578, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2016, focuses on the true governmental interest: fighting crime; making decisions about how we keep terrorists at bay; keeping the American people safe; and supporting the U.S. economy at the same time by making critical investments in science, space, exports, and manufacturing. Certainly, in tough economic times, tough decisions are required, and that is exactly where we are. Yesterday, we had a chance to hear from two Members of Congress-- Republicans--one of them, the gentleman from Houston, Texas (Mr. Culberson), the subcommittee chairman. He talked about the bill reflecting smart but fair decisions. The decisions that he spoke about were that the legislation provided $51.4 billion in total discretionary, which was $661 million below the President's request. H.R. 2578 also prioritizes vital programs that are, essentially, built around law enforcement--Federal law enforcement--and their ability to aim at the problems that our citizens see and that, certainly, our law enforcement sees and to put a priority on national security and public safety and initiatives that also aim for job creation and economic growth. These are part of the priorities that have to be taken up, and, in fact, they were. The second bill, H.R. 2577, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2016, I believe, similarly had many of the same characteristics. First of all, they are going to stick to exactly what we talked about in the budget, and they are going to have to strike a balance--a tough balance--but one which is based on the priorities of essential programs and on making responsible reductions to low-priority activities. This bill provides $55.3 billion in discretionary funding, which is $9.7 billion below what the President wanted. Once again, the President does not want to stick to the budget agreement--an agreement which he signed into law--but that is what this body is going to do. We are going to live within the law, and living within the law is what the American people expect as part of the plan. This bill allows for important investments in national transportation infrastructure, including investments in our national highways, railways, and airports. It also provides help to people who are in dire need of affordable housing options. Mr. Speaker, I learned a long time ago, when I became a scoutmaster for the Boy Scouts of America, that needs always outpace resources. Needs are always out there, and they are something that you just simply want to continue to be a part of, but money is not always the answer. Sometimes, a prioritization of the needs that you have to meet will then define you to a better process, one which people can then better understand. That is what we are doing here today. Like most Members, who will have an opportunity as a result of the work that we did last night in the Rules Committee, I have ideas that, I think, can help improve H.R. 2577. One of those ideas, I have brought to the floor many, many times in a bill; and during the debate on funding, I think I will have good ideas that will help make our country stronger--in this case, make transportation stronger. It became clear to me a number of years ago that government subsidized rail service on Amtrak does not make economic sense. What we have looked at is that Amtrak takes money. Years and years and years ago, they agreed that they would quit taking government subsidies and would run the railroad as an east and west operation. Instead, what did they do? They became a cross-country hauler. Every single long-distance route that Amtrak provides--those of more than 400 miles in length--operate at a loss every single month. There are 11 routes that cost double the amount of revenue that they create. That is why I have offered two important opportunities, which were amendments, to eliminate this. The first would eliminate the funding for Amtrak's long-distance routes, which have a total direct cost of more than twice the revenue. That means, if the cost is twice the revenue, then it would be eliminated. The second would eliminate the funding for Amtrak's worst performing line, the Sunset Limited. The Sunset Limited, which is an east-west and west-east operation is subsidized for every single ticket and for every single train by over $400 in government subsidies, a loss totalling $41.9 million last year alone. Mr. Speaker, these are just some of the ideas. Mr. Speaker, you will be hearing about lots of them over the next 18-some hours of debate that will take place. This is a good thing about this rule. Members just like myself will have a chance to come and put their ideas as opportunities on the floor for other Members to consider. I think that is why we are here today, to work together on a process that will make our country even stronger. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I know that I see one of our colleagues from the Rules Committee who wants to come speak, but I want to take just a second and respond in kind for my party, and that is that my party does recognize that there is much that does get accomplished because of the efforts of this government and the efforts of this Congress that fund good ideas and do things. A number of years ago, we became faced with, however, a circumstance where what lies in our immediate future is too much spending, which means that this country has to borrow money. It is money that needs to be paid back. But in the process of taking money, setting priorities, and spending money, there also is something called interest on the debt. And that is, if money were free and you could just borrow money but not pay interest for it, I am sure we would not mind how much we borrowed. But the bottom line is that is not the reality. The reality is that we have to pay for money that we borrow. And that debt which we have to pay money back for means that every single year the amount of money that we pay and that comes out of the pot of money gets larger and larger and larger. And paying back debt competes against money that we can spend on behalf of people. And so, at some point, if you just buy off on that we have got to spend more and more and more, that means that we have to take more as debt and pay more of interest. And that competes in a marketplace, in a budget, against projects that we would like to do and that do actually help people and that do focus on the most needy and the most vulnerable in our society. But we are spending, Mr. Speaker, an incredible amount of money. And we are trying to learn over time how to become more efficient, how to make our cities even better, how to create jobs, and how to educate people and to bring them forth in a mature way. That is what every great nation really will be ultimately charged with: how can you make your country better not just today, but for the future. And so Republicans do stand for not spending more than what we make so that we have more that we can make in a balanced budget today and spend in a way that creates a better future for our children and grandchildren. The bottom line is, over the last 6 years, we have gone from a debt of $9 trillion to $18 trillion. Some could say that was while we slept, but that is not true. It happened while we were trying to offer better opportunities and resolve. So, for the last 5 years, Republicans have said we are going to quit this runaway spending, we are going to make tough decisions, and we are going to protect this great Nation at the same time. But we are asking for the American people to also recognize what we are doing, Mr. Speaker. And just as I speak to you today, I speak to people back home, as other Members of Congress do to their constituents, and say we are trying to balance what we do over time with the efficiencies that keep this great Nation great. I will be honest with you. We live in the greatest Nation in the world. And thank God we are Americans. We trust in God, but we also trust in discipline to make this great Nation even better. And that is what appropriations bills are about: priority, making this great Nation still great tomorrow with discipline. And discipline has a lot to do with our ability to be a great Nation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a remarkable individual for his dedication to the State of Texas. I would like to congratulate and thank Major Morris Shepherd for his hard work and his passion for service. I would also like to applaud his retirement. Major Shepherd has diligently served as Deputy Director for the Dallas Independent School District's Office of the Director of Army Instruction. His commitment spans many years, beginning with his commission as an Infantry Officer in 1974 from Prairie View A&M University. His service record reflects the hard work, resolve, and passion that he continues to embody and practice to this day. Since his initial commission, Major Shepherd has progressed through the ranks. Following his graduation as an Airborne Ranger and a Distinguished Military Graduate he attended the United States Infantry Basic Officer's Course at Ft. Benning Georgia. He first served in the 1st Cavalry Division at Ft. Hood, Texas, and then served in the 2nd Infantry Division in the Republic of Korea. Major Shepherd also served as an Assistant Professor of Military Science at Alcorn State University, as a Project Officer, as a Director of Plans, Training, and Mobilization, as a Logistical Planning Officer for the 1st Cavalry, as an Executive Officer 15th Forward Support Battalion for the 1st Cavalry Division, and as a Director Resident Training Detachment. He finally retired from the U.S. Army after more than 18 years of service. Following his first retirement, Major Shepherd joined the Dallas Independent School District in 1995 serving as the Senior Army Instructor for Franklin D. Roosevelt High School. During his tenure he has received many notable recognitions and awards. From serving the country to serving his community, Major Shepherd's accomplishments have been well noted and appreciated. His passion and drive are commendable. In our rapidly shifting world and fast-paced lifestyles it is always impressive to find someone like Major Shepherd that gives so generously of their time and effort to positively impact the lives of the people of Texas. As we reflect on all of Major Shepherd's achievements, it is important to acknowledge that his belief in giving to those around him comes from the genuine patriotism and determination of a remarkable man. I want to express my heartiest congratulations and thanks to Major Morris Shepherd on his outstanding accomplishments, and for his immense contribution to our great country and to the State of Texas.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in remembrance and in honor of all of The Fallen and their families this Memorial Day. The Men and Women who have given that last full measure in the name of freedom. I submit this poem penned by Albert Carey Caswell. On this Monday each year. As all across our Nation appears. Rows of flags in graveyards here. And far across the distant shores too revered! As we take the time as a Nation so clear. With memories of them in our hearts so dear. As the parade's line the streets all across the towns. As throughout the Nation in graveyards planted flags are found. When, we as a Nation take the time to stop and pause. To remember and honor all of those patriot's in their just cause. Because, Memorial Day represents America's very Heart so clear. Her very soul all in what we hold dear! For on no other day do we as a Nation remember and grieve so here. And shed such tears, as above all else this ranks each year. For all of those who now lie in soft cold quiet graves. Who over the decades have shown, how men and women of honor behave! I'm sorry but your son Johnny's not coming home! But for the greater good their fine lives they gave! Because Freedom Is Not Free, but with only most precious lives bought and paid! A price so high and grave! Remember this, and remember them this Memorial Day! And give thanks to all of their families with tears upon their faces. Whose hearts on this and everyday so break in places! And thank all those heroes who came back from war. Without arms and legs and PTS the more! Who the rest of their young lives must endure. Memorial Day is our heart and soul, the one fine reason we have all that we behold! Our Freedom bought and paid for with the blood of human gold! The one's who will never get that chance to grow old! Carry them in your hearts so, and give thanks and remember what to them you owe! Memorial Day is but, America's Heart and Soul!

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey. In fact, he did refer to the relationship that I had with Don Payne, a young Congressman from New Jersey who, in fact, engaged me as a new Member in the Caribbean Caucus. During that period of time that I engaged with the Congressman's father, we tried to pay attention to the Caribbean, as some would say, a gateway to the United States of America, but a land of a number of islands of people who are not only most accommodating to the United States of America, but really thoughtful in ingenuity involved in the people of the Caribbean. I found through the relationship that I had with then-Congressman Payne, as he was co-chairman of the Caribbean Caucus, I learned the things that he tried to teach me about not only people, but about a relationship with the United States of America. I do miss Don. I want to thank the gentleman for not only knowing that, but acknowledging that. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding time to me to file the rule. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of all the Mothers of The Armed Forces who have served, or who have family members who have served. Let us remember their sacrifice and give thanks to them and their families on this Mother's Day. I submit this poem penned in their honor by Albert Carey Caswell. For All the Mother's For all of the Mother's of war. For all the Mother's across our shores. Whose son's and daughters burdens bore. And for all the families who have been separated by war. While, mommy for our nation so fought for. And all those hours of worry and pain. And all of that heartache with them which now remains. As they rebuild from the scars and loss of war. And for all those Mothers who aren't coming home. For all their sons or daughters. Who now lie in such cold dark graves so all alone. Remember them this Mother's Day, and say a prayer for all of them . . . please say. And for of those Mothers who must learn to walk again. And son's and daughters must somehow start their new lives, so begin. Without arms and legs, and with scars and burns upon their faces. all in such places. As they help them rebuild, so face this. Lets give thanks and praise for all of them. And for all of those little boys and girls, who have now lost their best friends in the world. Their Mother's who are the heart of the home. Mommy aint coming home. Who now on Mother's Day sit with tear in eye. not understanding why mommy didn't say goodbye. For the Mother is the heart of the home. They give us life and they give us love. And in our darkest of all hours help us to rise above. And how they cry, when their most beloved daughters and sons die. A pain that can not be healed by time. Only when in heaven they reunite. As they teach us even more. About faith and courage, and with hope how to overcome the scars of war. This Mother's Day carry them with you in your thoughts, upon your way as you pray. And give thanks for what they give, and what they gave. For all the Mother's this Mother's Day!

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 231, the special rule governing consideration of the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 11, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2016, included a prophylactic waiver of points of order against its consideration and it was described as such in House Report 114-98. Due to an unexpected change in the legislative schedule, the waiver of all points of order against consideration would now include a waiver of clause 8(a)(1)(A) of rule XXII, prohibiting the consideration of a conference report until the third calendar day on which the conference report has been available in the Congressional Record. It is important to note that the text of the conference report and the joint explanatory statement were made available in electronic form on April 29, 2015.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 189 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), my friend, 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.