Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman makes a number of good points. We did pass in the House the Violence Against Women Act. It passed on May 16 of this year, 222-205. The House has passed, by the way--256 of our colleagues to 171--what's called the Job Protection and Recession Prevention Act. It was passed on August 1.

Mr. SESSIONS. I will yield in just a second. Mr. Speaker, this bill would have extended all current rates and would have compelled Congress to enact meaningful tax reform in 2013. We passed this. We've said we ought to do what we should do, and that was back in August. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, with great respect to my dear friend, the gentlewoman from San Francisco and minority leader, I'm delighted that she came down to engage us on this very important issue. The gentlewoman does recognize and know that the House on August 1, in fact, did exactly what she is suggesting today, and that is to take action on what the future tax rates would be in this country. And on a bipartisan basis, 256-171, this House of Representatives said let's understand that now is a bad time to raise taxes on the American people; and let's extend for a period of time all of what are known as the tax cuts which allow America to keep working. We passed it 256-171. Mr. Speaker, I'll insert into the Record a chart that exists on the House Budget Committee that shows the choice of the futures. And one future that was presented, this slide that I've got that's on the House Budget Committee is essentially about the current pathway as the President would choose as outlined in his budget that the gentlewoman, Ms. Pelosi, spoke of that got no votes in the United States Senate. Not one vote. No votes here, the plan that the President has presented which would substantially not just raise taxes, but substantially raise spending. If you isolate the President's ideas of simply raising taxes on whatever he calls the top 2 percent, those who have a household income of $250,000 and above, what you essentially do, Mr. Speaker, is very quickly lose 700,000 American jobs. And that's the answer that this administration fails to include in their talking points, that there's a huge impact. And part of that impact, Mr. Speaker, comes from the problem where dividends, and dividends are that money that comes back as a result of an investment, would rise essentially from 15 percent to whatever a person's top tax rate is--meaning it could go, at least under the scenario that the President wants, to 39 percent. That means from 15 to 39 percent. That window, that value in between is what people reinvest in their companies. They reinvest that many times in small business, and that's the job creation element. When you make this rate go up, you arbitrarily take away some 700,000 American jobs that need current capital every day, a small business owner, reputting that money, reinvesting that money for the life of their business. And this is the part that we believe as Republicans, that we stand on the side of saying we shouldn't lose American jobs just for the sake of fairness, of what the President, what the minority leader is down arguing for, of increasing taxes. So it's obvious to Republicans that what we believe we stand for is creation of jobs and making sure that that capital that's invested in the economy continues. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 827 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Fairport, New York, my dear friend, the ranking member on the committee, Ms. Slaughter, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. 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. In reclaiming my time, I do appreciate the gentlewoman in that we will be engaged in many of these debates. We have been in the past, and we will be in the future. I think the gentlewoman makes a good point. We offered this bill. We debated it. We passed it. We are waiting for the Senate to get to a point at which they can get to conference. I mean, this is how this thing works. We're not going to take the Senate bill and pass it. We passed our bill. Now, if we could get to conference, where the Senate and the House get together and they resolve their differences, then we can bring it back, and we'll have a bill. That's supposed to be how this place works. It's not where we pass our bill and then, all of a sudden, we decide we're just going to take the Senate bill and repass it and negotiate with ourselves. I think what we need to do is to stick to what we understand, and that is that we are waiting for the Senate to come and do business with us. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to a young, new member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman's engaging me. I would say to you there is nothing in this rule that will preclude our taking a conference report or any business on what we might call ``regular order'' that would require a rule to come forth.

Mr. SESSIONS. The gentleman would be correct, and we do expect those.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to remind the gentleman that Republicans have already passed the bill for the middle class tax cut on August 1 of this year, and it passed 256-171. We're now waiting for the Senate to act on that. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to just make sure that the speaker that was up here, Mr. Becerra, understands that on August 1 of this year we passed a bill to extend tax cuts for the middle class, 256-171. We've already done that, and it's now awaiting Senate approval. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the gentleman, my dear friend from Maryland, whom I have not only regular conversations with but enjoy very much. I would once again remind the gentleman that on August 1 of this year we passed, 256-171, an idea that would be about not losing 700,000 jobs by doing it the way that our friends the Democrats want to do it.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, it is wrong to lose 700,000 more American jobs, and that's the practical effect. The minority leader and our speakers here all day want to talk about sequestration. The sequestration came as a result of a promise, a deal, an agreement that we as Republicans and House and Senate and the President agreed upon that we would come to an agreement upon how to cut some spending. The President says it's absolutely essential. Now they want to back away from the deal. Well, here's what their deal is: Their deal is, among other things, about the new taxes that will take place. Here's one of them that we know will happen already under law: Medicare DSH payments paid to qualifying hospitals that serve low- income patients will be reduced by 75 percent starting October 1, 2013, in addition to the $700 billion that will be transferred away from senior care. And I know we had an election where we talked about this. One person tried to explain, Well, that's not really right. Those were to a certain group of people that may be rich. But it's right here, to low-income hospitals. That means that we're going to have hospitals that no longer will serve seniors because their payment rate got cut by 75 percent. Tax increases, tax increases on health care; tax increases, as we learned last week, when it was announced that all insurance plans will now be paying an extra $63. Those are passed on to customers, consumers. This is an outrageous government takeover of health care, and now what they want to do is diminish another 700,000 jobs. No, sir, we're not going to fall victim to that. [From the House Committee on Small Business] The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is currently being implemented. The following table lists some of the provisions affecting small businesses that take effect in 2013. PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT--PROVISIONS EFFECTIVE IN 2013 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Provision Law, Section Consequences for (Effective date) Description small businesses ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Medicare Tax Increase........... The Medicare Part Small businesses P.L. No. 111-148, Sec. 9015 A tax rate on structured as (January 1, 2013) wages increases pass-through from 1.45% to entities that 2.35% for those earn over the single filers threshold amount earning over will pay a $200,000 significantly ($250,000 for higher Medicare married joint Part A tax rate. filers). A new Small businesses and additional relying on 3.8% tax will be unearned income assessed on will be taxed an unearned income additional 3.8% such as taxable capital gains, dividends, rents, royalties, and interest for taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) over $200,000 single and $250,000 married joint filers. New Medical Device Tax.......... A 2.3% excise tax Higher costs for P.L. No. 111-148, Sec. 9009 will be levied on the manufacturers (January 1, 2013) manufacturers, of medical producers, or devices are importers on the likely to be sale of most passed on to medical devices health care that are not entities (often directly marketed small and solo to consumers. practice physicians and hospitals) and patients who rely on them. Several device manufacturers have already announced job cuts in anticipation of this tax. Decrease in Deductions for The threshold for Given the Medical Expenses. claiming an increased P.L. No. 111-148, Sec. 9013 itemized qualifying (January 1, 2013) deduction on threshold, fewer medical expenses small business rises from 7.5% owners and to 10% of workers may be adjusted gross permitted to income for those claim itemized under age 65 deductions for effective in medical expenses. 2013; for those 65 or older, the 10% threshold will be effective after 2016. Limit on Flexible Spending Caps FSA The new limit Account (FSA) Contributions. contributions at increases the tax P.L. No. 111-148, Sec. 9005 $2,500 per year. burden for small (January 1, 2013) business owners and employees with FSAs. Elimination of Deduction for Prior to ACA, The number of Employer Part D Subsidy. employers were employers P.L. No. 111-148, Sec. 9012 able to deduct offering (January 1, 2013) the cost of prescription drug providing plans for Medicare Part D Medicare-eligible to retirees and retirees is also were not likely to taxed on the decrease, as subsidy they there will be a received for reduced incentive providing this to sponsor such coverage. ACA plans. eliminated the additional deduction employers receive for providing Part D coverage. Reduced Medicare Medicare DSH Small hospitals Disproportionate Share Hospital payments, paid to that currently (DSH) Payments. qualifying receive Medicare P.L. No. 111-148, Sec. 3133 hospitals that DSH payments may (October 1, 2013) serve low-income find their DSH patients, will be payments reduced. reduced by 75% starting October 1, 2013. A hospital will receive an additional payment based on three factors: 1) the remaining pool of DSH payments that would have been paid absent these changes; 2) current estimates of the uninsured compared to the estimate for 2013, the last year before the expansion of coverage; and 3) the hospital- specific share of uncompensated care. The estimate of the percentage of individuals who are uninsured will be decreased by 0.1 percentage points for FY2014 and by 0.2 percentage points for each year from FY2015-

Mr. SESSIONS. The gentleman from New York, a very dear friend of mine, really, I think, got something wrong. What we're trying to extend is the law that President Obama signed into law as a result of bipartisan action 2 years ago, and the economy was better then than it is now. We were trying to extend the tax cuts that President Obama was asking us to do, and that's what we simply did in August again. So it is a President Obama last-signed bill that we're trying to offer an extension of. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman, my friend, who formerly was the vice chairman of the Rules Committee. I would like to remind him that when he was the vice chairman of the committee, almost half of the 3,075 bills considered under suspension in the 110th and 111th Congress were for post offices and Federal building namings, or resolutions, or things just like National Pollinators Week. What we're trying to talk about is, at the end of the year, since we're going to be here waiting for the ``big deal,'' that we're going to make sure that we can take ideas that still exist and reside on a bipartisan basis. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentlewoman for asking. I have no further speakers and will allow her that opportunity, and then I will close.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentlewoman from New York, for this vigorous debate that we had on the floor today. Mr. Speaker, top to bottom, the leadership of the Democratic Party has been on record here again today saying they want to increase taxes on small business. They want to increase taxes on family-owned businesses and people who get up every day and want to employ people and work harder. Small business is the engine of our economy, and our friends, the Democrats, want to punish them through taxes for fairness issues. Well, I'd like to say, Mr. Speaker, we've got a bunch of problems in this country, and that's why we're at the fiscal cliff. This thing is not as a result of taxes, it's as a result of spending and too many people not having jobs to be able to pay in not just their taxes, but to be able to sustain our economy. So we have millions of people that are unemployed and drawing unemployment compensation. We're seeing disabilities rise at a rate of 16 percent every year. One thing which we note is that just before President Obama took effect, the White House figure showed the Federal budget was $2.9 trillion. Next year's estimate is going to be $3.8 trillion. This is a 31 percent increase in spending in just 4 years. We have someone as President, our great President, who is hung up on taxing and spending. What we need is a House of Representatives that's hung up on jobs and job creation, the American product, entrepreneurship, creativity, and competition with the world. The next new great ideas will not come from this body but from the creativity of the American people. This is what Republicans are trying to keep alive in our country, the idea of self-reliance and working hard and taking care of people that are not just in your house but are in your neighborhood, your cities, our States, the vibrancy of our country. We are headed over the fiscal cliff after 4 years of leadership from this President who is running-- running--directly to the fiscal cliff, and he has even said, and his Secretary of the Treasury said, We don't mind jumping off this cliff. Mr. Speaker, we should not be having that kind of attitude. We should have the attitude that we're for everybody. We want to be for American entrepreneurship and especially small business, because it's small business such as family farms, small business such as electrical companies and people who put their name on the buildings, the creative people who get up to go to work every day. That is who we're going to hurt. We're not just going to hurt them, we're going to hurt their business families, the people they have had employed, small communities, large communities, but small business which is the engine of our economy. That's really who we're going to punish. Lastly, we should not do it at this time, just like we should not have 2 years ago, but I guess we were aiming for an election at that time, and now the President does not have one ahead of him. Mr. Speaker, I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

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. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today in memory of Air Force Academy Cadet First Class Matthew John Patrick. Matthew passed away on Friday, September 28, 2012. Born in Dallas, Texas, Matthew developed a love for flying at an early age and dreamed of becoming a fighter pilot. He joined the Civil Air Patrol where he earned the prestigious Billy Mitchell Award and experienced flying solo for the first time. After graduating from the School of Science and Engineering Magnet in 2009, Matthew entered the United States Air Force Academy where he excelled. He majored in aeronautical engineering and would have graduated in May 2013. I had the privilege of getting to know Matthew during the academy nomination process. Having won numerous math and science competitions, I already knew that Matthew was exceptionally bright. Aside from his academic achievement, I saw his passion when he spoke of his love for flying and of his desire to attend the Air Force Academy. I also noticed that Matthew possessed a quiet confidence, which told me a great deal about his character and leadership style. Indeed, I learned that Matthew was a loyal friend, an intelligent and hard working young man of great character, and the type of person who was always willing to lend a helping hand to others. He was unabashedly bold in pursuing his dream. Mr. Speaker, this is a great loss for the United States Air Force Academy and the State of Texas. Matthew is survived by his parents, Beverly and Matthew Patrick; his sister, Catherine Ann Patrick; grandparents, Cathy and Jack Robertson; and many aunts, uncles, and cousins. There are no words that can fully express my sorrow. There is nothing I can offer but prayers to comfort the Patrick family in the midst of this difficult time. May the peace of God be with those he loved and sustain them through this hour of sorrow.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Tonight we all rise in support of the favorite son of Rockwall, Texas, and perhaps all of Texas, the Honorable Ralph Hall. And I think of so many wonderful stories about Ralph. Tonight you'll hear many of them, Mr. Speaker, of the Texas delegation, of the life and times of our members, as we not only try and gather together every week, but also work together. One of my favorite stories about Ralph Hall really took place with the young woman who was just up here, Kay Granger. One night Kay Granger, then as a Member of my Congress, and myself--this is probably 12, 13, 14 years ago--were with Ralph Hall at the brand-new Reagan airport. And we sat down, waiting for a flight that was going to be in 35 or 40 minutes, that got delayed 35 or 40 minutes or maybe longer, and about an hour and a half later, the American Airlines people came and said, Just so you know, the flight left about 30 minutes ago. Do y'all want to have dinner with us or what? And we looked up at each other and we'd missed the flight, and that was because Ralph Hall was telling the funniest stories of taking time with Kay Granger and me, sitting around a small table at Reagan airport. And he was doing more than just telling stories. What Ralph was really trying to do was to mentor Kay Granger and Pete Sessions on, not the life and times of Ralph Hall, but to talk about citizenship and of service and of benefit to people. And he talked about how he, in his personal life, lived his life for the benefit of other people. From that day forward, I learned more about Ralph Hall and have continued to want to hear him and tell the stories. Every time it is about how you can better your life, about how you can look at what your service and your time and the things that you do is about other people, not yourself. Ralph Hall, for all the years that I am sure he has served, whether it was as a State senator or a county judge or as a distinguished Member of Congress, Ralph has done so for others. Ralph comes and goes every single weekend. I've never spent a weekend in 16 years that I've been a Member of Congress, and I'm sure Ralph has not in the time he's been here since the early eighties. Mr. Speaker, Ralph Hall is an important and distinguished Member of this body, and he has brought distinction, not just to the Texas delegation and not just to the people that he recommends, but I think to all of America, as a statesman, a man who gets his work done, not to put himself forward, but to put others. I think he's a model of success. He's a model of somebody that I want to become more like. But I will tell you what: If we will take the time tonight, those of my colleagues that have not known him, to watch the way Ralph does it, he even does it today the same way he did it the first day he came here. And that, to me, is a legacy of Ralph Hall, a great Member of Congress and one of my colleagues. I'm proud and pleased to be here tonight with the Honorable Ralph Moody Hall, Member of Congress.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, to my dear and distinguished friend, the gentleman, the young chairman of the Rules Committee, David Dreier, thank you very much. It is David's leadership, not just in the Rules Committee but, I believe, to all of us here in the House of Representatives, that David has led us to be a more open, thoughtful body; a person who used his time and position, power of the Rules Committee in the committee that's upstairs, to speak with all the Members of this body about their ideas that they represent and to make this a more open body. This institution is better because of David Dreier. And I am very aware of what lies ahead for me, but, David, you have done a great job, and thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, I rise today really to support what Chairman Dreier and the gentleman, Mr. McGovern, have been speaking for, and that is a rule and the underlying legislation. There are over 23 million Americans right now looking for work that are either over- or underemployed in our country, Mr. Speaker. So today is a jobs bill, another jobs bill that is important, and permanent normalized trade relations with Russia and Moldova will provide that much-needed boost, just a little bit. But a boost to the direction of adding jobs and making sure that the jobs we have here in this country to provide goods and services to another country are on an equal basis is important. This PNTR vote will mean that we're expected to double exports to Russia in just 5 years and to help create and strengthen jobs in this country while providing Russia with a great product at the right price, whether it's in manufacturing, agriculture, or the service industry. I believe this is an important bill for us to move on a bipartisan basis. Russia is the ninth largest economy and has a population of about 142 million people. It has a large and growing middle class. And Russia holds outstanding potential for the United States, not just in the business interests, but also for goods and services to make the lives of the Russian people even better. My home State of Texas is the top exporter to Russia among U.S. States, and Texas imports to Russia are growing faster than its exports for the rest of the world. Specifically, Texas exported $1.6 billion worth of goods to Russia in 2011. We, in Texas, value this relationship, the jobs, the exporting, and the ability to have better products and services in Russia, with the Russian people making those decisions to buy these products and services. This legislation today will only help us build on that success, growing not just more jobs, but, really, the American economy. So I will say this on behalf of all of us. This is an important bill. We needed to work together. We need leadership of this body, all the Members, as well as the Senate and the President to make this happen.