Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman asking. I am down just to the close, and I thank the gentleman for seeking that information.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, today we follow the pattern that we did yesterday in talking about the needs of this great Nation, not only men and women who are unemployed, but who also need the benefits of the food stamp program. And today, the Republican Party, as a result of the work we did in the Rules Committee, is bringing several bills in this rule, two of them talking directly about jobs and job creation. One, Hood River, Oregon; the gentleman, Greg Walden coming to talk about, please, give us a chance to have jobs. Our people want jobs. They don't want to be on food stamps. They want jobs. A narrow, political, shrill agenda, environmentalist agenda, is the reason why we don't have that--the Democrats and Barack Obama. Secondly, Arizona. Arizona is asking for 3,700 jobs, $60 billion worth of economic activity right in this bill. They are jobs bills. We are trying to do the things that the Republican Party talks about; that's the middle class of this country, jobs, and job creation. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, ``yes'' for jobs, ``yes'' for the underlying legislation, ``yes'' so that we can employ people back at home, rural areas, people who don't have jobs, ``yes'' for the opportunity for the Republican Party to, once again, stand on this floor and say, we believe the legislation that is here is better for America than the policies that we have today, the policies of unemployment, the policies of less than a 40-hour workweek, now to a 30-hour workweek, the policies of taxes and spending. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I want to thank the young gentleman from Oklahoma for his service not only to the Rules Committee, but also the Appropriations Committee, that he very aptly serves this honorable body well. Mr. Speaker, I'm not surprised that we're seeing the hysteria that we are. The people who are screaming the loudest are the people that ensured, through no--trust me, no other reason, other than the things that they voted for, no unintended consequence but to have this country go from a $9 trillion to a $17 trillion deficit in just 5 short years. They made sure that this country has become unemployed, that we no longer really have careers, that there is not only hundreds of waivers that have been given to the political friends of this President. Uncertainty is all across this great Nation about employment. People who want to sign paychecks want more employees. It is rampant across America of uncertainty and answers that cannot be given about this massive government-run health care plan that is getting ready to face this Nation in just a few short weeks. That's why the Republican Party is on the floor of the House of Representatives today. That's why we are here to say we are going to make sure this government gets funded. But the main culprit of uncertainty of hugely rising insurance and health care costs is ObamaCare. It is not an Affordable Care Act. By the way, I think it works about this same way in Moscow as it does in Havana. It is an out-of-control health care system that will diminish America's greatest health care system. So why we are here today is to join House Republicans, Mr. Speaker, in our efforts to prevent ObamaCare from becoming reality. Since ObamaCare was proposed in the House in 2010, I and my Republican colleagues, not just from north Texas, as you heard here from Dr. Michael Burgess, but people from Oklahoma and all across this country, stood firmly to say that we believe that our fight against a government health care-run system is exactly what the American people want. My Republican colleagues and I in the House are doing everything we can to stop ObamaCare through voting to repeal it, defund it, and to dismantle it. I am proud of that effort. ObamaCare is bad for jobs. It's bad for jobs all across this country. That means it's bad for our economy and it's bad for our Nation's health care systems. Doctors all across this country are united, as well as consumers, to say we must do something about it. Up to 60 percent of Americans today are worried about the quality of health care and how they will pay for this expensive product that Democrats have brought to America. ObamaCare will jeopardize 3.2 million jobs across this country in the franchise industry alone. These are people that before had an opportunity to put food on their table that now are having to struggle to pay for this ObamaCare. Additionally, hardly a week goes by that we do not hear stories about companies having to force their employees off their employee and off their preferred employer provider insurance. President Obama stood right in front of where you are, Mr. Speaker, just a few years ago, and said that famous, what has turned into a lie: If you have health insurance, you can keep your health insurance. That is not true. Today, we are learning that this is not just the case with just a few people, but also just, effective yesterday, Walgreen's has announced that they will move 160,000 of their employees off their current coverage. That is why Republicans are on the floor of the House of Representatives today. We are trying to pass this same message to our colleagues in the other body so that they are able to take the fight so that Americans understand that we not only hear them, but we are willing to do something about it. I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding me time and I end my speech today by saying this: that Republicans will continue to fight for jobs, better health care, and an opportunity for every single American to have a job to make this country even stronger.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, tonight we engage this House to talk about some commonsense legislation that would, in fact, allow the American people and this Congress to understand more about rules and regulations as they are presented that the American people have to live under. My amendment requires that an agency submitting a report on any proposed Federal rule include an assessment of anticipated jobs gained or lost as a result of the implementation of any rules that fit within the REINS Act. This is very important, Mr. Chairman, because many times rules and regulations are implemented without regard for what the impact would be on the people who have to live under them. We believe this is common sense. We believe this happens in businesses every day. We're asking for a cost-benefit analysis of the impact of the rules that are written, combined with the impact that they would have upon job losses, whether it be the government or the free enterprise system. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, we see 25 million people struggling in this country as a result of that same attitude that the Democrat Party and the President has about having jobs go off into the past and looking to the future. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, tonight, we've had three new first-term Members of Congress who have come on the floor to talk about things that are important to them, and it's a balance. It's making a difference so that people back home have confidence in the rules and regulations that are promulgated by the Federal Government and that Congress knows how we can react and act upon those. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, today is a very important day in the life of America as we recognize that Republicans are back in Washington to try and grow our economy and bring jobs back to the free enterprise system. Mr. Speaker, for 12 years Republicans worked hard on doubling the size of GDP, and we did that from a GDP of $6.5 trillion to over $14 trillion. Over the last 5\1/2\ years, we have seen our President embark on an agenda that will reduce not just GDP, but jobs and job growth in America. We now stand at a GDP of just over 1 percent. Mr. Speaker, this means that jobs, as we saw this last month when we saw the jobs report that came out, of some 700,000 jobs that have been created in America this year, of that number, about 600,000 are part- time jobs. America cannot make ends meet as workers, as families, as communities if we have a President who stands in the way of the free enterprise system and job growth. Mr. Speaker, I urge House Republicans to continue their work on behalf of the American people for American jobs and to grow our economy.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman, the member of the Rules Committee, Dr. Michael Burgess, from Lewisville, Texas. Dr. Burgess is a brand-new member of the Rules Committee and came to the Rules Committee because of his understanding, not just of medicine and health care as a doctor and a provider for many, many years, but also because of his grasp of knowledge of this health care bill which is an enormous bill, which, while we are talking about the economic consequences primarily today on the marketplace where this bill is causing employers to not hire more employees, is causing more employers to take to part-time worker status their employees because of the extreme ramifications of this, what was called Affordable Care Act, known as the ObamaCare Act. And today we are here for the simple purpose to say what the President of the United States has now recognized, without comment, and done, not just in the middle of the night on a Web site, but even done on a weekend, and I believe when the President potentially was out of the country. We're now dealing with the United States Congress speaking our viewpoints about that bill. And the gentleman, Dr. Burgess, is going to consume time today where he's going to talk about also the problems that physicians have, that patients have, that we look at from a family perspective of trying to make sure we get health care in an affordable way without ruining it. But today I'd like to focus, if I can, my comments on that it's not a surprise that we have a problem. It's not a surprise that we have a problem with this ObamaCare, or is known as the Affordable Care Act, not just because of the concept that it is, and not just because of how it was run through this Congress, but really, the concept that the Democrats are trying to overlay on the American people a system of government-controlled health care that does not work. It does not work and will not work in America because America has a vibrant free-enterprise system whereby a person, whether they're an employer or an employee or just as a regular citizen, could contract to get the health care that they would choose to have. And the reason why health care has become more expensive is that the Federal Government does not pay their fair share for Medicare or Medicaid. This United States Congress does not adequately pay their fair share for our seniors or for poor people, and so what happens is it's taken out on people that work. It is showing up in their cost of health care. So rather than trying to fix their problem and their responsibility, what President Obama and Democrats did is stick it, more of it, the cost, and a system on the American worker, rather than living up to their responsibility. And we are here today because the President of the United States got worried because he's hearing so many people come back and say this won't work in America; this is harming job creation; this is harming businesses that want to employ people, and it's causing a huge distortion in the marketplace. So what the President did, literally, without comment, except on a Web site, he said, we will back off this for 1 year. Now, we heard testimony last night at the Rules Committee, everything is okay. Everything is okay. We just are trying to hear feedback from business, and we're going to back off for a year. That's not really the case. The facts of the case are that this administration, from top to bottom, has failed to provide information to the American people and to business about how they intended for their socialist, government-run plan to work. And they have not provided leadership for 3 years. They've not answered questions. They've not made decisions. They've not been open about how it would really work. So business has the problem of a legal side. They have a legal responsibility. Now, you won't have the White House come out and admit this, but they have failed to do their job. And so business has a legal requirement on them of providing notice. They have notice that they have to provide to consumers under State laws and under Federal law. The facts of the case are they couldn't figure it out because they did not know enough about how this government-run health care system would work. They didn't understand legal consequences. They don't understand reporting consequences. They don't understand consequences because this government is so big and so powerful that they control too much of our life. Now, in this equation, we also see where a number of unions have now let their opinion be known, and they are directly on the side of this bill today because now they have learned more about this bill, and they are worried. They're worried sick about not just the health care for their members, but how it will individually affect their own families' lives. The facts of the case are simple. The Democrat Party here is trying to do everything they can do to cover up what is a monster mistake, an inability by the Obama administration to effectively lead on a government-run health care system. Their only back-up point is to say, if you do this, you're going to put everything in jeopardy. My response is, thank goodness. It needs to be in jeopardy. What they have done is, effectively, picked on, by doing what they've done, individuals who are not as powerful as groups of individuals collectively under business or under labor unions. We need to look at the entire scope of this. What is bad for business is superbad for individuals. And individuals are going to find themselves at the behest of working with the IRS on their health care. They're going to work with the IRS, an organization that is incapable of effectively delivering a fair product and rationally following the law. They think they're above the law. They think that they can control our lives, and, in fact, Mr. Speaker, they can. So there's far more to this entire debate than simply we're trying to go against precedent of what this President has within his authorities or responsibilities or precedents. Far bigger than that. What we're here to say today is this Obama health care plan, and his decision that he has made about not moving forward with the law, is a selective enforcement, and it's really their fault. It is their fault for a lack of leadership. It is their fault because they passed a bill that was entirely done by the United States Senate. And we agreed up in the Rules Committee, no Republican in this House, that we would simply take it as it was, without understanding it, without making it workable and without ever understanding the consequences, because the bottom line is Democrats have been trying to do this for 50 years. And what they're really after is a single-payer system, where the government literally, completely makes every decision, not some of the decisions. So Republicans are on the floor of the House today to say we ought to repeal the whole thing. We're going to start by this action today, and we're going to follow it up by saying we ought to give individuals the same opportunity to evade this that the President has given to special interests and to business. It's a sad day today, but let's not twist the facts of the case. A government-run health care system is, at it's very basis, a beginning of socialism in medicine, and we oppose that. I thank the Speaker for the time. I thank the gentleman for the time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 295 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Worcester, 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. General Leave

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 295 provides for a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 2642. However, I think it is important to recognize that while the rule before us today is closed, this legislation, exactly the legislation, has gone through an amendment process on this floor, was debated--just a few weeks ago--debated, discussed, and voted on. The amendments which were agreed to as a result of that process are in this underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today is the exact same language that this body considered in June with two important considerations and exceptions. Unlike last month, this legislation contains a repeal of the 1949 backstop, which means that in the farm bill we will do away with that 1949 law as the backstop to the farm products and legislation. However, it does not include the nutrition programs from the previous bill. We will hear that today. On the other hand, however, this bill does include the exact same language as the previous bill, including adopted amendments. Since the House considered a farm bill last month, there has been a great deal of and many conversations, including today with Members, that have raised significant concerns with the language as it was previously drafted. The chief concern was the inclusion of a nutrition policy in the agriculture bill. Therefore, after careful consideration of all aspects of the issue, the decision was made to consider nutrition and agriculture policy separately. However, I want to be clear: removing the nutrition provisions from this legislation in no way seeks to marginalize the importance of the nutrition programs, nor in any effort are we trying to avoid their reauthorization. Anything that would be said on this floor contrary to that simply would not be true. I think you would be hard-pressed to find any Member, Republican or Democrat, who does not think that these programs are vitally important, in particular, to women and children. They simply will be considered separately and not in this bill. Now, the practicality to this, Mr. Speaker, is and was discussed last night in the Rules Committee, that is, that if it is not in this title, and it is not, and if the House does not move forward on a nutrition or SNAP program, then all of these items still go to conference with the United States Senate, and it is contained within the Senate bill and would be fully operational, debatable, and decisions can be made in that conference. In that conference, it is fully authorized and the House would simply not have taken a position. To assume or to say that we are trying to move a bill without nutrition and to take things away would not be truthful. To say that we would show up at conference without a position of the House of Representatives would be truthful. Republicans and Democrats, including leadership of both parties, understand and recognize that nutrition and nutrition programs are an essential part of not just government services, but an essential part of a civilization that we agree with as part of the programs from the United States Government. So in no way, in no way, is this intended to be a trick or to be seen that we would not believe, or would believe, that we would show up to do anything to the nutrition program. It would be stated that the House would show up without a position on those issues, which would mean in reality that the current law would prevail. The House would show up with no position to change any of these items related to food stamps, and thus it would stay as is. So for someone to suggest that Republicans are not going to be supportive of the nutrition programs would simply not, in my opinion, be fairly spoken of. The House will have an opportunity, however, once we get this done, to move forward a bill that if a decision was made could move to conference. Today's legislation is an important step in making sure that the agriculture programs provide the American farmers with innovative risk- management tools and so many other things that have been placed in this bill on a bipartisan basis as a result of the work that began with then-Democrat Chairman Collin Peterson when the bill began its writing process and now has continued on a bipartisan basis with the gentleman, Mr. Lucas, the chairman of the committee. That is what we are trying to present today. The bill which we are presenting today has every consideration that I believe is necessary and important about why this House should move forward and support this legislation. Legislation is commonsense, fiscally responsible; and it is a solution to answers that are in the marketplace. I urge my colleagues to understand not only what we have stated today, but which was testimony last night in an agreement in the Rules Committee. I support the underlying legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. I object to that.

Mr. SESSIONS. There is objection.

Mr. SESSIONS. There is objection.

Mr. SESSIONS. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I object. When I receive the time, I will offer an explanation.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. To the gentleman, the minority whip, I would encourage him to please recognize that his request to me, as my dear friend, Mr. McGovern, as we stated last night in the Rules Committee, I would encourage you to please offer me an opportunity to explain not just the position but what I believe is the intent of what we are attempting to do. Mr. Speaker, in the vote that was held for the farm bill, 171 Republicans voted for it, 62 Republicans voted against it. For the farm bill, 24 Democrats voted for it, 172 Democrats voted against it. This meant that the farm bill did not pass. It did not pass this body; and as a result of the significance of the underlying legislation of the farm bill that does include provisions related to SNAP, the Republican leadership, up to and including the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Ohio; and the majority leader, the gentleman from Virginia, felt it was very important for this body to, as quickly as we returned, to offer a bill that could be passed. With the hope that it could be passed, an analysis of that bill was done; once again, remembering that only 24 Democrats helped to pass the previous bill. We are attempting to then separate, bifurcate, offer today a rule and the underlying legislation which hopefully will pass which would go to conference. And the Senate, because they have passed their own farm bill, has included in provisions where they discuss SNAP. As a result of that, that will be included in their bill on a conference measure. The House simply at this point, if we pass this part, could go to conference--could go to conference--and would be without resolution, would not have passed an amendment or a piece which would discuss it. So, in essence, my conferees, your conferees, our conferees, that would include the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) as well as Mr. Lucas from Oklahoma, would go to the conference without resolution from this body. That's all we're talking about. It's fully debatable under the conference. We simply would not have made a decision to change existing law. And the change in existing law would mean that the Senate conferees could stick to their position and hold the cut to $4 billion, and we would not have a position to cut a penny. I believe that this is an honest attempt to get us to go to--by passing part of the farm bill--to get to conference. And the tactics against that are simply to keep us from going to conference where we would show up with whatever we pass. Now, if I have overstated this or understated this, I would encourage the minority whip to please engage me in a colloquy at this time, and I would yield to the gentleman on the substance of what I have spoken about to feel free to enlighten me, and for us to work through this very important issue. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, and I would encourage the gentleman to still stand. We are now here at a point on the floor where we are, rightly or wrongly, attempting to be forthright and honest about what is in the bill and what our intents are. I would hope that the gentleman would recognize that what we have carefully done is excluded some extraneous pieces which might mean--excluded the things that would cause the bill to fail and would not allow us, because we come to no decision therein of the House, that we could not pass the final bill. And what we're trying to do is take this to conference without any decision thereon. That is not an indication of a lack of willingness on the part of the Republican leadership or any of our Republican Members. It simply says we could not come to a decision at this point, and what we're trying to do is to move forward so we can get to conference. The gentleman, I hope, does recognize that the Senate has spoken. Our conferees would be at the table and simply would not have a position that has been taken by this House. In no way would it mean it couldn't be discussed or could not be done. So I would encourage the gentleman to understand then current law would prevail. The current law would prevail because we have come to no decision therein. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I've represented my party and my leadership on the floor today in the most sincere way, with an opportunity for me to discuss with senior members, not just of the Rules Committee, but also of the Democratic leadership. And in no way, in no way, is the Republican Party trying to do anything more in this bill that's on here today other than to bifurcate and to pass pieces of legislation that then can go to conference. But we have to find a way to pass the bill. I would remind my colleagues that 172 Democrats voted against the bill, then passing it to go to conference, and 171 Republicans voted for the bill and sending it to conference. The height of, really, the work that we do is to gain a chance to have a product, in this case the farm bill, that can then go to conference. It's not hyperbole. It is an actual event that can happen. Because the Senate has done their work and finished their work, we are trying to do the same. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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