Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, really, today's legislation is simple. It is about protecting American workers from job-destroying regulations contained in the Affordable Care Act. As written, ObamaCare establishes a definition of full-time employees as anyone working 30 hours per week and requires that business provide each of these workers with employer- sponsored health care or to pay a penalty. Mr. Speaker, what we are here for is not the minimum wage today; that is another time. I am sure that as the other body debates this and as the administration trots around the country opportunities to sell their end of that, the American people will get that message. Today, this is about a group of people who are arbitrarily losing and having diminished from 40 hours down to 30 hours their work, their job, directly as a result of ObamaCare. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in testimony before the House of Representatives, there was discussion about a Hoover Institution study that was done by Dr. Chen. Dr. Chen specifically went and looked at the impact that the Affordable Care Act was having upon employers and employees. This really was put into context when we realized that this is a net $74 billion change in the law--$74 billion that the administration was counting on American people paying into the Affordable Care Act to support this by diminishing the amount of hours that a person works. So, what did Dr. Chen say? Dr. Chen took just one part of our marketplace--education. Here is what he said: The final reason I argue the 30-hour rule must be addressed is because of the negative impact it is having--in this case--on school districts, colleges, and universities. The analysis of vulnerable workers referenced earlier was that we focused on 225,000 workers who have a history of working in the education industry. And they found out that, because of the 30-hour rule, that over 100 school districts across the country, including dozens in Indiana, which is where the study took place, would have either cut workers' hours or outsourced jobs to avoid the Affordable Care Act's employee mandate. What we are saying is that the Federal law--which is not a mistake; it is on purpose--was specifically designed to bring $74 billion to the Affordable Care Act by diminishing the hours that the American worker can have. And when we bring this to the floor, they are arguing, oh, my gosh; Republicans, they want to have a $74 billion higher deficit. It could not be further from the truth. This is money that comes from American workers, $74 billion. And this commonsense legislation that we are handling today will say that we are going to turn back the clock to where there will not be a penalty for having a 40-hour workweek in America. Today, the Democratic Party and President Obama want to reduce the number of hours that an American worker will have and take $74 billion off, diminishing what would be in their pockets, to move it directly to the Federal Government. No doubt you will see other Democrats come to the floor, just as we saw the gentleman from New York, arguing not about the substance of this bill but talking about why we ought to do a minimum wage bill. Yet their same arguments are, we should have a government that allows people to keep more money in their pockets. Mr. Speaker, that is what we are doing today. We are with a commonsense bill on the floor of the House of Representatives. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young) carefully, thoughtfully went and sold this bill across this body, a bipartisan bill to say that the $74 billion impact on the middle class of this country--in particular, universities, those in education, those workers who needed jobs--will lose, in essence, one-fourth of the hours that they have worked because of the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, who jammed this bill down the American people's throats. And now Republicans are taking it on one at a time. This is our 51st slice at explaining to the American people why this is a bad bill. Mr. Speaker, the $74 billion belongs to the American worker, not to bigger government. The $74 billion is exactly why the Republican Party is here today. And I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), who has worked not only on the Rules Committee but also in Energy and Commerce, for taking his private sector experience as a doctor to Washington, D.C. Having a doctor in the House, as Dr. Burgess has done, makes a huge difference. That is why the Republican Party is on the floor today saying, let's pass this piece of legislation.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Gayle Glenn for her outstanding service as the 2013-2014 president of the American Association of Orthodontists (AAO). She completes her term as president of AAO in May of this year. Born, raised, and educated in Texas, Dr. Glenn earned her Doctor of Dental Surgery at The Dental School at The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio and her Master of Science in Dentistry at Baylor College of Dentistry in Dallas. She began practicing orthodontics in Dallas in 1984 and, today, treats patients at her Dallas practice she shares with two fellow Baylor College alums who are pediatric dentists. Dr. Glenn's practice focus is pediatric orthodontics. Her effective communication, kindness, and ability to put nervous patients at ease are some of what has contributed to her success treating children and adolescents. Dr. Glenn has dedicated countless hours to enhancing orthodontics in Dallas, throughout Texas, and across the country over the course of her nearly 30-year career. She has promoted membership in organized dentistry and orthodontics and has helped to transform orthodontics from the perspective of women. She was recently elected the 2013-2014 president of the AAO, the oldest and largest dental specialty organization in the world. Dr. Glenn is the first female to hold the position of AAO president in the organization's 113-year history. Dr. Glenn is also a member and past president of the Southwestern Society of Orthodontists and the Texas Association of Orthodontists, and is a member of the American Dental Association, the Greater Dallas Association of Orthodontists, the Texas Orthodontic Study Club, the Texas Dental Association, the Dallas County Dental Society, and the American Association of Women Dentists. Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues will join me in commending Dr. Glenn for her service to her patients, her state, to the orthodontic, dental, and medical communities, and, specifically for her service as the first woman president of the AAO.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Baylor Medical Center at Garland as they celebrate fifty years of success. Over the past fifty years, their commitment to provide high quality health care to their community has remained steadfast. Since its founding as Memorial Hospital of Garland in 1964, Baylor Medical Center at Garland has grown from a 100-bed hospital to a 240-bed hospital, expanded its campus to four Medical Plazas, and opened the Don and Ruth Buchholz Pavilion. I want to commend Baylor Garland for being nationally recognized, including ranked as a Top Metro Hospital in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metro Area by the U.S. News & World Report and receiving the Heart Failure Gold Achievement Award from the American Heart Association. Their integrity and care are evident through the personalized and excellent health care they provide which recognizes and fulfills the needs of all patients. I am deeply grateful for Baylor Garland and the positive impact they have on their community. Mr. Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in expressing our heartiest congratulations and best wishes to Baylor Medical Center at Garland for another fifty years of continued success.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chair, as chair of the Committee on Rules, I want to take a moment to address the procedural status of the resolutions discussed in this measure. It is my understanding that the resolutions contemplated by H.R. 4138 would not be privileged or otherwise subject to expedited procedures in the House. Because there would be no procedural ramifications for a measure failing to adhere to the statutory prescription, there should be no occasion for the Chair to rule on whether or not that measure meets the definition of a ``resolution'' as that term is used in H.R. 4138.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Success North Dallas as they recently celebrated twenty-five years of success. Founded in 1988, Success North Dallas started with merely fourteen select individuals. Under the leadership of William M. Wallace, Success North Dallas was created as a high-level connecting and mentor group, providing a forum to support business development and leadership. Over the past twenty-five years, they have met monthly, growing and maturing into an integral part of the North Texas business community. Success North Dallas has provided a forum for key business leaders, bringing together high-profile speakers from city, state, and federal government, major domestic and international corporate executives, and distinguished visionaries to discuss and share their respective businesses. I commend Success North Dallas for fostering and nurturing seventy businesses in North Texas, largely contributing to the region's success in economic development. I am grateful for the positive work Success North Dallas has done to expand and develop the business community in North Dallas. Mr. Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in expressing our heartiest congratulations and best wishes to Success North Dallas for another twenty-five years of continued success.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 475 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Boulder, Colorado (Mr. Polis), my colleague and 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. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 475 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 3193. This rule makes in order every amendment that complied with House rules, giving House Members of the majority and the minority ample opportunity to participate in today's debate. The legislation before us today takes important steps to restore transparency, accountability, and effective oversight in our Federal regulatory process. Established in 2010 under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, known as CFPB, is granted the authority to regulate the financial services industry in an effort to limit bad actors and protect consumers from fraud and abuse. Unfortunately, by design--no mistake--the CFPB has virtually zero congressional oversight, limited judicial review, and the unilateral ability to promulgate any rule or regulation it deems appropriate. In essence, it is wholly unaccountable to the American people and to the United States Congress, the men and women who, by the Constitution of the United States, have the authority and the responsibility to represent the American people through elected office. This is not how our government was meant to operate, but this is what former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats desperately wanted, control of the financial services industry by one person, one person who answers solely to the President of the United States. I have heard from numerous community bankers in Texas. Madam Speaker, I am from Dallas, Texas, and am proud to say that Dallas, Texas, is home to community bankers who understand that they are on the front lines of a new regulatory regime, and that is not just community bankers, but all bankers and those covered under financial services regulations. Their accounts of the impacts stemming from the new CFPB rules are startling. Specifically, they have told me that the CFPB's new regulations regarding ``qualified mortgages'' will significantly increase borrowing costs and considerably reduce the number of available mortgages. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Sounds like something that the Democrats concocted to make sure that health care was in trouble so they could show up with the answer of the Affordable Care Act, which is nothing that is implied in its name. They are doing exactly to financial services what the Democrats did to health care in this country, and bankers and the financial services industry understand this. In a time when Americans are looking to the Federal Government simply to promote increased private sector investment in our economy and to allow the free enterprise system to flourish, up to and including offering more jobs, stable opportunities for meaningful capital, instead, we see one person at the head of the organization who can make all these decisions handing down new rules and regulations which, I believe, do the exact opposite of making it easier, safer, and better to grow jobs and to have Americans be competitive in the marketplace. The bill before us today is not about deregulation. It is about appropriate balanced regulation with ideas that come from not just the Committee on Financial Services, led by our great young Chairman Jeb Hensarling, but perhaps, more importantly, ideas that coincide with other government agencies, where it is a bipartisan effort, not by a particular head of one organization. While the American people do need protection from bad actors in the financial services industry, they also need protection, I believe, from an activist government that unilaterally dispenses burdensome and needless regulations which negatively impact not only our economy but the industry that helps provide needed capital, jobs, and enrichment of the American financial services industry, which is a part of the free enterprise system. Madam Speaker, I am sure you are familiar with ObamaCare's Independent Payment Advisory Board, known as IPAB. Yes, it is the one body of unelected bureaucrats which rations health care and makes decisions, once again, without judicial or congressional oversight on America's seniors. Just as IPAB restricts choices in the health care sector, so too do unelected bureaucrats at the CFPB. They restrict choices in the financial sector. They are trying to choke off the free enterprise system as a result of rules and regulations that become burdensome, and so people quit offering their services. By regulating the types of credit cards, mortgages, or loans that Americans can get, the CFPB makes unilateral decisions regarding what types of financial tools Americans can use. The American people, I believe, deserve something better from Washington, as opposed to this which they are getting, which is a one-size-fits-all approach from Washington, D.C. That is why I support H.R. 3193. It brings much-needed balance to the CFPB by replacing the lone director with a five-member commission to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, similar to other financial regulators, so that no one person can unilaterally determine regulations which impact millions of Americans and has little oversight by our courts or by Congress. Additionally, as an independent agency housed in the Federal Reserve today, the CFPB is not subject to appropriation. They are a mandatory spending item as a result of what President Obama and House and Senate Democrats have done. By restoring this important check and balance, Congress needs to make sure that we appropriate the money that they should use. It will ensure that the CFPB acts as intended and does not continue to impose economically devastating regulations on the American economy. To have no oversight and no authority for the money that they spend I believe is a misuse of the way we would want a government agency to work. Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, we should be for understanding they should serve at the pleasure of the American people, not the reverse therein. Finally, this legislation takes important steps. It protects Americans' personal nonpublic information. Yesterday, up in the Rules Committee, we heard testimony from Chairman Jeb Hensarling of Dallas, Texas, that the CFPB currently maintains over 900 million credit card records. That is right: the NSA of financial services, that is exactly what the CFPB is, and such an immense amount of private data held by the Federal Government presents ample opportunity for misuse. Madam Speaker, I do not believe that they should have this information, and I believe they should immediately recuse themselves of gaining this information. H.R. 3193 will ensure that Americans are protected by requiring express written consent from the CFPB before they can obtain, access, collect, use, or disclose any personal nonpublic information. I think it is dangerous to have a government agency with this type of power, information, and, as we have seen from the IRS, a misuse of personal information and data that has become an abuse of power. This bill will require that the CFPB assert in writing how that information will be used and to request it. Madam Speaker, the American people are tired of the Obama administration's blatant disregard for the laws which govern our great Nation. Just yesterday, we witnessed, once again, President Obama's willingness to do whatever he wants when he unilaterally delayed the employer mandate of the health care bill by 1 year. Instead of giving all Americans relief from the Affordable Care Act, known as ObamaCare, the administration is single-handedly picking winners and losers--by the way, on behalf of business as opposed to individuals. Just as the President has done with health care, there is nothing to prevent the CFPB from following suit and unilaterally deciding who will be subject to crushing regulation and who will not. That is why H.R. 3193 is so important. Madam Speaker, we are on the floor today because we are talking about what literally is a Big Government action that was done several years ago by the President of the United States, by the former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Republicans understand that Big Government not only is costly and expensive but that some people want them to control our lives. Freedom, in fact, Madam Speaker, is worth fighting for, and so Republicans are here today on the floor to balance that tilt in favor of freedom, opportunity, and for the right of their own person, an individual in this Nation, to know if your government is collecting your financial records. And you have a right to know that. That is another reason why Republicans are pleased to say today we are talking about very, very important issues to every single American. It is more than freedom. It is rule of law. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Weston, Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), a member of the Financial Services and Budget Committees. He is not just the author of the bill; he is an awesome and outstanding new Member of Congress.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 4 minutes to the gentleman.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentlewomen from Florida who bring up this issue again. We spoke about this issue last week, how it is actually a $24 billion problem to the taxpayer. It is also equally a very difficult lift financially on the problems that it is creating to homeowners who live in flood areas. As was noted last week, FEMA did not complete their job. We have known about this. This is not a new issue. The numerous Members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats, are trying very diligently to work on this and have been. I want to acknowledge the work that has been put in by both these Members and others--including the gentleman from Florida, Judge Hastings--who sit on the Rules Committee, including the gentlemen and gentlewoman that sit on the Rules Committee from Florida. There are a total of 4 people out of 13 on the Rules Committee that live in Florida. This is a nationwide problem wherever those people live, predominantly along coastal areas. We are working on it. But it is a $24 billion problem that was not addressed by the Senate--not addressed. What we are trying to do is to work with the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Hensarling, as well as the ranking member and the committee on getting an answer. As I have stated to people numerous times, I do appreciate not only them keeping this issue in the forefront, but it is something that we must address in the Rules Committee. We intend to do that. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I do appreciate the distinguished gentleman from Maryland coming down. Once again, I would tend to not just acknowledge what the gentleman is asking for, but I will speak to it. The problem is that we have to worry about the solvency of the program. The program is some $24 billion in the red right now. Not addressing its solvency just to give some new program life rather than fixing it correctly is where we politely disagree. We believe that the ability we have in this Congress with this issue is to do it right where it is in the best interest of the people back home that I care about, that every Member of this body cares about, but also the financial integrity to the taxpayer. The national debt is a tremendous national embarrassment, and we are not going to just waive a $24 billion that will become a $50 billion problem. That is why we are trying to address it the way we are. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I don't consider common sense or the right thing to do a $24 billion irresponsibility, which is, once again, what the Democrat Party is pushing today on the floor of the House of Representatives. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I am prepared to close. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues from the Democratic Party for coming and for, once again, offering their ideas about flood insurance. That is not part of the bill. I would simply reply to them, as I have previously, that the Senate-offered compromise or the Senate- offered language spends $900 million more but does not take care of the $24 billion problem, which is red ink that the taxpayer would pick up, which harms the solvency of the program. Why have a government program that runs in the red $24 billion and then goes to $50 billion? That is not what we are going to do. We are going to come up with an answer in the House of Representatives, and I expect it to be done quickly. Today, we are talking about the CFPB, and Americans have witnessed firsthand the negative effects of the CFPB. We have looked at how this administration and one agency cannot only gather records but literally control a marketplace. I believe that what you have heard today lends us to understand that a balance of the CFPB is what is important. We have brought five distinctly different bills to bear here, one of them saying that we should not have employees of the CFPB who are paid well outside of normal government standards, where even an intern who serves for this CFPB makes over $51,000. Mr. Speaker, what Republicans are trying to do is to balance the piece of legislation that passed this House with President Obama, with Speaker Pelosi, with Senator Reid. We are trying to offer a balance to that on behalf of the consumer, on behalf of a legislative process where Members of Congress and the Financial Services Committee have an opportunity to work with any administration, not just with the Democrats, on what the policy of the CFPB would be. Secondly, we think it is wrong that 900 million financial records are taken without notice given to a consumer. We think that is not just an overreach; we think that is an abuse of power. When the government unilaterally has 900 million records, I would have to ask why. So I support the rule. ``Yes'' on the rule. ``Yes'' on the underlying legislation.

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. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 470 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Madam Speaker, I want to apologize for being 2 minutes late to come here. I apologize to not only you but also the staff and my friends from the Rules Committee for being late. General Leave

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 470 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 3590. This rule makes in order 11 amendments which provide for discussion and opportunities for Members of the minority and the majority to participate in this debate. Yesterday in the Rules Committee, we held what I consider to be an open discussion about this bill where amendments were fully discussed and debated, and I am pleased to say that there will be these 11 amendments as a result of the action by the Rules Committee. Madam Speaker, the bill before us today represents a yearlong bipartisan, bicameral legislative process to protect our public lands and to preserve traditional hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting for American sportsmen and sportswomen. Specifically, H.R. 3590 improves access to Federal lands for hunting and fishing. It protects Second Amendment rights enshrined by the Constitution of the United States and promotes sportsmen's views by giving them a seat at the table through an innovative advisory committee to collaborate with the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture on ways to better conserve wildlife, habitat, and traditional outdoor activities. American sportsmen are some of the strongest stewards of our Nation's unparalleled natural resources. We have an abundance of natural resources, but they all must be in a protected and stewardship role, and that is what the American hunter does for this country. They direct conservation projects. They establish nonprofit organizations to protect wildlife and precious habitat. Sportsmen are leading advocates to ensure that we leave a stronger, more vibrant America for future generations, and, I might add, we teach our children and the next generation the same so that the legacy that we leave is prepared for our future. Additionally, according to the 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, American sportsmen contribute roughly $90 billion in economic activity every year. These resources sustain thousands of American jobs and protect our Nation's rich outdoor heritage. They also provide many of our rural areas of this country with needed jobs, jobs for people who live in rural areas who care very much about conservation and of their local areas to keep them natural. Unfortunately, all too often the Federal Government erects unnecessary barriers which prevent Americans from participating in the many activities that also should be available on Federal lands. That is why H.R. 3590 is important. It streamlines government regulations to allow for greater access to our Nation's public lands so that all Americans can enjoy everything that our great outdoors have to offer. As a sportsman myself, I will tell you I have enjoyed our national parks. I have enjoyed State parks and the outdoors, and in particular, as a young Boy Scout growing up all of the way through being an Eagle Scout and an adult leader, I have utilized these resources, which has allowed me an opportunity to know more about America and to be able to pass it on to my sons and others. It is a great way to spend an afternoon or a weekend or a week with your family, the outdoors and learning more about America. Today I want to thank the Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings, who is from Washington. He understands the West, and he understands the outdoors. His leadership on this issue was essential, as well as that of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus cochairmen Bob Latta from Ohio and Bennie Thompson from Mississippi. Both of these men met with me and the committee early on to make sure that we would be prepared for their bills that would come to the floor as a package, with the understanding that on a bicameral, bipartisan basis, we would move this legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.