Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentlewoman from New York, the ranking member of the committee. Just before we came down to the floor, we had a very, very nice committee meeting where she was able to not only articulate that, but was joined by her other colleagues. I did offer words of assurance to them about not only how we need to move forward but also how the committee needed to get slightly better in our time frames, and we're going to attempt to do that. The gentlewoman recognizes that what we are doing is bringing bills as quickly as we can, including the FAA, opening up the FAA again, and how important that is. So she recognized the importance of what we are attempting to do. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Rice) of the Budget Committee.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the minority leader for her comments today and thank her for coming to the floor. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado Springs, Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished Dean of the House has spoken. I gather, from his comments, that he would not like to be appointed on the committee, and I'm disappointed. I was rather hopeful that the minority leader would see that he would be exactly the kind of commonsense person that could represent the party, and so I'd hope that the gentleman would reconsider that. At this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Grandfather Community, North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the vice chairman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago, we heard from one of the brightest voices of the Republican Party, a member of our Republican leadership, Virginia Foxx. At this time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), a member of the Budget Committee and the Rules Committee.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that there is a lot of dialogue on the floor today about opening up the government. Yet this body has passed bill after bill after bill--whether it's the intelligence community, whether it's Head Start, whether it's NIH--making sure that we are going through a deliberative process. Repeatedly, you are seeing where our friends on the other side vote ``no,'' and when it gets to the other body, even though it's a passed piece of legislation, the Senate, our friends over there, ignore the bills. I kind of wonder what we're really trying to aim at, whether we're really just trying to score political points or whether we can begin working together. That's what House Republicans are here to do: to set aside our differences, to try and fund these issues, to try and deal with the President. Earlier in the week, our great young Speaker, John Boehner, went to the White House. He was asked to come to the White House, and really all he was there to be told by the President was: I won't negotiate. I won't negotiate. I won't negotiate. Then, as Mr. Boehner tells the story, he got that message, so he came back to work. Here we are, trying to send ideas out about working together. The working group intentionally was an open-ended opportunity for Members of Congress--10 on the House side, 10 on the Senate side--to work together with an opportunity, as a working group, to try and overcome this bypass. That's what we're trying to do. I think we're going to be faithful to it. I think we're going to pass this here today, and then we're going to see what the Senate will do again--I'm sure, once again, just another piece of log over in their fireplace for the Senate majority leader to burn down. I am hopeful here today that we have common sense, and I think we will pass this. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. I would advise the gentleman, at this time, I do not have any further speakers. I thank the gentleman for asking.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself the balance of my time. I appreciate my dear friend, my colleague, from Worcester, Massachusetts. I will describe it to him real fast. Mr. Speaker, what we're trying to do is open up all the employees that are home at the FAA. That's it. We're going to bring them back to work; pay them; get it done, all the employees at the FAA. Secondly, we're trying to form a working group. We're trying to work around the process that has gotten bogged up today, with an idea from our Speaker, John Boehner, and our Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, and our whip, Kevin McCarthy, and a couple of people who are in the Republican leadership who are saying let's find another way around the logjam that we've got. So we came up with a good idea and said let's go to a working group. Let's actually get 10 Members of the Senate and 10 Members of the House. Let's meet. Let's meet very quickly. As a matter of fact, the resolution says that, within 1 day, they've got to be selected; within 1 day after that, they have to meet. Let's put them to work. Let's put the Members to work on this on a bipartisan, bicameral basis. That is what this is about. It is really pretty simple. Mr. Speaker, this is not really rocket science right now. We're engaged in how we put one foot in front of the other, and Republicans have been doing this for 3 weeks. We're meeting at the Rules Committee. We're taking testimony. We are listening to the people who come to the committee. We have very vigorous, detailed debates where Members, Republicans and Democrats, come to the Rules Committee from the Appropriations Committee. As a matter of fact, we've seen some star witnesses in this House--stars, good people, great ideas--trying to push that we're going to work together. We're going to do this together. We can do this together. Not all the bills were agreed to, but a bunch of them have been on a bipartisan basis. So you never know when you throw up a good idea whether somebody is going to take you up on it or not. We have had a couple where that has worked; and we, as Republicans, are going to stay after it. We're the ones willing to negotiate. Now, there was a discussion about us showing up at the World War II Memorial. Yup, sure did. I did that myself, too. The reason we went down there is that there are men and women who served in the military during World War II who, at the last years of their lives, are coming up in what are called Honor Flights, where they come up here and meet together as people who were comrades in arms for the United States of America, who fought the Axis of Evil, the Germans, the Japanese, and others. They wanted to come just about 2 miles from here down to the World War II Memorial, and it was locked. It was bolted up and locked. So a couple of colleagues, my fellow Texans, went down there last week and found out--the park ranger was there. Well, who's allowed to get in? First Amendment protesters. First Amendment protesters are the only ones allowed in--well, and Members of Congress. So these two colleagues of mine took bolt cutters, opened it up, and it has been open ever since. That's what Republicans are trying to do. We are trying to do that not just for the World War II Memorial; we are trying to do that for this government. We are trying to work on commonsense ideas. We are asking for this House of Representatives to be with us today. I support this rule. I support 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. Objection.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 373, I call up the bill (H.R. 3273) to establish a bicameral working group on deficit reduction and economic growth, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 3273.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It has been 1 week since the Federal Government shut down. In that time, House Republicans have passed several appropriations bills designed to provide funding for numerous parts of the government's most important functions. Additionally, we've invited Senate Democrats to join us at the negotiating table to find a commonsense solution to our Nation's fiscal problems. Unfortunately, no one over these 3 weeks has been able to reach a compromise, and Senate Democrats have simply returned our volley every time without a value-added proposition. So what we are here to do today is to stand up once again and say we believe we are trying to appropriately fund the Federal Government. As a result, we are here today. House Republicans are going to offer to sit down at the negotiation table with Senate Democrats in an effort to reach the meaningful solutions our constituents expect from us. H.R. 3273, the Deficit Reduction and Economic Growth Working Group Act of 2013, would establish a bicameral, bipartisan working group consisting of six Members of the majority and four Members of the minority from both the House and the Senate. These 20 Members would be appointed no less than 1 day after enactment of the legislation and would meet each subsequent calendar day to provide recommendations to overall discretionary spending levels for fiscal year 2014, changes to the discretionary debt limit, and reforms to direct spending programs. Mr. Speaker, being from Texas, I am used to a lot of people trying to work for the good--the common good--of its people. I will tell you that I fully expect that the reason I came to Washington was to work for the good and not for just the people of Texas, but to accept the responsibility. It was important that I come to work for all people in Texas and the American people to make their lives better. I believe that some of those ideas include sitting down, talking, negotiating, finding common ground, leading--not obstructing, not saying ``no,'' not being the first one to walk out or not agreeing to meet, but, rather, to sit down and be constructive. That is what we in the House of Representatives are trying to do once again today with a common set of principles. We believe constitutionally, as the House of Representatives, we have the authority and the responsibility to be leaders in the process that will allow the American people to effectively see who is here, who is working, and expect us to get our job done. Unfortunately, it's a rough world, and we're having a tough time, so a new idea today is to gather our colleagues together from each side and see if we can make progress. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party hears the gentleman. We are also listening to the American people. The American people are sick and worried about their future. They see a government that spends too much money and listens too little. They tax too much and leave too little for the American people. They are very aware that this Big Government ploy and play by not just this administration, but the prior administration that ran this House of Representatives, placed America in a detrimental position, in a position where we have health care that is a government-run health care plan, that is causing not just uncertainty, but unemployment. Republicans got into this whole mess of the debate with ObamaCare because it got closer and closer and closer to implementation. Let's look at what this bill tactically does. It tactically puts rules and regulations on business. That means that business arbitrarily will make decisions literally to cut not only the amount of people that they have, but the work hours associated with that. Many unions across the United States are concerned about the loss of the 40-hour workweek because that's the threshold that Democrats have placed the American worker in. So the Republican Party, in listening not just to business, but workers, made a determination that the closer we got to this implementation, we were going to continue discussing how bad this was for not just business, but for individuals. Then the President came and unilaterally decided he would let businesses be deferred for a year, but kept the rules and regulations on individuals. That was done over Fourth of July, just in a tweet that went out. They weren't even brave enough to put the full announcement out. So now the Republicans have focused since the Fourth of July on the unfairness about how individuals will be expected to apply all of these laws directly on them as individuals. See, what the American people understand is, it is almost impossible to fight as an individual against a big government, against the IRS, and it's the IRS who will be making sure that the American people follow this tax law. That is what the Supreme Court said it is. It is a tax law. That is where lots of groups around the country continue to speak, not only clearly, but with effectiveness, about how it is unfair for the President to give 1,200 waivers and a waiver to certain people who were included in the bill--business--and now he is going to waive that but put it off on individuals. These are small business owners. They are men and women who are not just our neighbors. They are men and women who produce the goods and services, who put their name on their businesses, who have their children become teachers and firefighters and members of our military. They see where this is harming their ability to have health care. It is harming their ability to have the opportunity for their small business to be successful because it is putting them at a disadvantage. Perhaps worst of all, there are lots of businesses who understand that this will cost an incredible amount of money, and that is why businesses will not offer the exact same health care plan that they had previously--UPS, all the way to Delta Air Lines, and lots of other companies. That is why it is very timely--it is very timely--that Republicans have been doing this all year, but we focused on this directly at the implementation. We are here for a good reason. We are trying to now change the dynamics with a working group. We are trying to say we believe that some of our colleagues would have a better opportunity to negotiate with some good ideas. Trust me, there are good ideas that float back and forth between Republicans and Democrats all the time. We are trying to say that a successful ``rain dance'' has a lot to do with timing. That success can be accepting this working group, getting our Members together on a bipartisan basis--House and Senate--immediately within a day or so, and then start working together. Do you know what? Even if they weren't the final answer, what a great opportunity to empower our Members to talk and work together and see if they can make headway. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would thankfully acknowledge the floor of the House of Representatives here for voting on several very, very important items that allow those employees that today might not be at work. We have asked that they come back to work, and it was passed here--those in food and drug security, those in Head Start, those in national emergency disaster recovery, those in the NIH, and those in national parks. These are an example of the ideas that have come forth from votes on this floor. And soon to come--intelligence, border security, Native Americans, and Alaskan health care, national weather monitoring, nuclear weapons security, and nutrition assistance for women and children.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman for asking. My dear friend, very respectfully, has asked a good question. As a matter of fact, we would like to move forward with all 150 as quickly as possible. What we would like to do is move through these. We've got them now. They are lined up to go to our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol. But they don't want to do that. Why would I move forward if they don't want to do that? Why would we move forward if they do not actually really want to open up the government except under their terms? We believe that they have not addressed the underlying problems: Number one, what is happening with this thing called ObamaCare, and secondly, with the debt? We are adding debt as we speak. We have gone from $9- to $17 trillion in just a few short years. We have been working with the President. We have been doing things in the 3 years that Republicans have been back in the majority. We are trying to correct the errors of the past. That is why we are here today. The gentleman asked a good question: Wouldn't it be a good thing to get through our list of 150? I would say to the gentleman, we have already done some and we will keep doing them. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As the gentleman knows, there are few people in this House who I have a better relationship than I do with the gentleman from Maryland. With great respect, I listened to him and his words. I would say back to him there is a little bit more that really comes to us from people who speak about their lives also. I am concerned about people who are not only working for our great government and people who receive services, but we are also trying--without to make a point--we are trying to make changes in the Affordable Care Act, which is also known as ObamaCare. There are several things about the Affordable Care Act that render that title difficult to understand, because the Affordable Care Act, within a year the Congressional Budget Office said they believed it would be at least twice as expensive as it was originally thought it would be. Secondly, some 70 percent more people will be in the system because they provided a figure that did not match what they expect now for people to be in it from people who moved off of their worker plans, their insurance plans. Third, the President stood right here one State of the Union and said there won't be a dime of taxpayer money. And lastly, the President of the United States said: And if you like your insurance, I guarantee you, you can keep it. But, Mr. Speaker, what has happened since then is this administration was incapable of providing information about how this would work. And even to today, after the announcement was made, people are going onto the Web site and learning more about these exchanges. The largest cardiology group in America, cardiologists--heart doctors--were not even included or asked to be in the exchange. Not even given a chance to say no, thank you, the largest cardiology group in America. So now the American people are looking at it and saying, my doctor's not even included, so who is included because my doctor is not, and now I am looking at this plan that is very expensive. Granted, New York City, the State of New York was less because they had a very expensive plan, and it's true in some places it is less. But the best doctors or the doctors that people went to are not even included in those plans now. As an example, as I said, the largest cardiology group, the most experienced cardiologists, the ones you want to go to for Medicare, for Medicaid, and for your health insurance, are not even going to be included in the government plan. So, Mr. Speaker, this is just one example about the disappointment that the American people have because they were told one thing, and they're going to get something else. Because you're fighting the government, we have to do it in such a public way. If we simply followed the law, and the contract or the express contract did not equal what came out the other end, you could go to court and sue for it. But you can't sue the government over this. So we are litigating this actually, Mr. Speaker, right before your eyes in a very public way, saying that we believe this health care, known as ObamaCare, should not be entered into lightly. We better understand what we're doing, and we're asking for a lot of changes. Those changes are: we think we ought to delay it; we think we ought to defer it; we think we ought to wait on it. We have, in essence, backed up every single time from our demand, and now we've gotten to a point where we, as Republicans in our discussion through legislation with the Senate, have now gotten to the point where we've said, We are where we're going to be. Now we're going to try and open up the government and we're going to try and make it work. That's the facts of the case, and that's just the way it is. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, first of all, there is some truth to this. I and the Speaker and the majority leader and the whip and our conference do not want to have anything that would empower somebody to raise taxes. But we did want to empower that we would allow maybe Mr. Dingell, the Dean of the House, maybe Mr. Van Hollen, maybe Mr. Hastings, to be part of a committee, a working group that would sit down with their colleagues and speak honestly--and maybe Mrs. Lowey--speak honestly about how we get out of this mess that we all have. And as a working group, as a working group with no dictates but how you've got to do what you're going to do, no timeframe except you have to go meet, and you've got to be successful, and it's going to be about these items. In other words, make ``the big deal'' the big deal. And the big deal right now is spending, debt, and how we do something to get this government back to work. That's what I think the legislation does. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. Speaker, we're here because Republicans want us to move forward with a process that is very important. We've had a number of times that the gentlewoman, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mrs. Lowey, we've had the great young chairman from Kentucky, Mr. Rogers, chairman of Appropriations, come up to the committee and talk very clearly about their ideas about moving forward to get things done. I don't know that they would be the representatives of this body, but I bet they would be and I bet you that they could make real progress, along with, perhaps, Mr. Van Hollen and others who are awesome Members on their side, Members who are committed to getting the work done. But this is a fight, and it's a fight that goes all the way to our friends in the Senate and all the way to the President. As best I can tell you, just as I started, I will end today. I will say that today's stalemate is the making of the President. This is his making. He places his own political power, I believe, above the Constitution, wanting to dictate policies instead of negotiating them with a duly elected branch of government, and that's the House of Representatives. I hope that the American people take note of what's happening. The President is different from his predecessors not in terms of greatness, but rather to the degree to which he's willing to sacrifice this Nation's greatness. He's willing to take us to the brink, rather than offering his negotiating skill-set and getting people together. That is what we should be about. The Speaker of the House has literally instructed us to get a working group together, gather it on a bipartisan basis, and see if we can make progress not with the President, not with the Speaker, not with the Senate Majority Leader, but among Members of this body who we know and who we respect. Let's gather us together, and let's get together, and let's make a difference. That's what we're trying to suggest today. I will tell you that my colleagues that have been here on the floor, including the great minority whip, I believe have the ability to make this success happen if we will work together. That's what I'm for. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's motion.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the amendment contained in the motion violates clause 7 of rule XVI, commonly referred to as the germaneness rule. The objective of the bill under consideration is to establish a working group on deficit reduction. The amendment proposes to consider a Senate amendment to a House bill; therefore, the amendment fails the fundamental purpose test of germaneness described on page 547 of House Practice: If the purpose or objective of an amendment is unrelated to that of the bill to which it is offered, the amendment may be held not germane. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, the amendment proposed in the motion is not germane to the bill, and I respectfully request a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 367 and ask for its immediate consideration.