Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, tonight I offer an amendment which would strike provision 6 of section 505 of the legislation, which would impose a moratorium on contracting out activities currently performed by Federal employees. These challenging economic times require Congress to not only reassess the size and scope of the Federal Government, but I think it's important to make better stewardship of taxpayer dollars and to give the government an opportunity to get the best dollar for and on behalf of the American taxpayer. Legislative provisions that prohibit or otherwise interfere with contracting out or in-sourcing are counterproductive to reducing spending, limiting the size of government, and creating private sector jobs. My amendment to strike this provision, which I am proud to offer with Congressman Justin Amash of Michigan, does not affect inherently governmental activities. It allows only for increased private contracting. Mr. Chairman, the Heritage Foundation has reported that subjecting Federal employee positions which are commercial in nature to a private- public cost comparison would generate, on average, a 30 percent cost savings, regardless of who wins that competition. Rather than preventing market competition that would improve service and lower costs, we should be encouraging Agencies to find the best way to deliver services to citizens of this great Nation. This is exactly what this amendment does. Our Nation's unemployment rate stands at 8.1 percent. We must allow the private sector the ability to create jobs without an unfair disadvantage, and I think we get more results for our money. I urge all my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment that would ensure cost-savings competition in the Federal Government. Congress should be looking to use all the tools it can to help save taxpayer dollars.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SESSIONS. I believe that is correct, sir.

Mr. SESSIONS. No, sir, it is not.

Mr. SESSIONS. I do not believe in any way that we would limit this committee at all; no, sir. It is simply to allow this to take place except where there are inherently governmental policies in place, inherently governmental activities.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the subcommittee chairman yielding, my very dear friend, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania. The way I read this, section 505 begins with ``none of the funds provided under this act'' and continues to say, ``contracts out or privatizes any function or activities presently performed by Federal employees,'' which is under section 505(6), and it is this (6) that contracts out or privatizes any function: ``No funds can be for contracts or privatization of any function or activities performed by Federal employees.'' Now, to me that's pretty straightforward. I'm simply saying that we would amend that and say we're going to strike that to where there is nothing in there that says none of these funds provided in this section shall be provided where you can contract out or privatize any function. That's all I'm simply trying to say. It would be equally a part of any funds in section 505 to say it could be contracted out.

Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate that, and if I could engage the gentleman, what is that line that you were suggesting?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment at this time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 178, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Cravaack) who is a freshman who serves on the Transportation, Homeland Security, and Science Committees, and a man who understands what people back home are asking for.

Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate that and thank you so much for asking the question. The gentleman was here in 1997. The exact same arguments took place as we worked with President Clinton, and we were told on this floor a capital gains tax cut will result in $9 million not coming into the Treasury, and $554 million appeared quickly in that same tax year. I would say to the gentleman, if we encourage people to go do things, they will turn things into great opportunities.

Mr. SESSIONS. The answer is no. And I would reply to the gentleman, I saw in this House of Representatives when former Speaker Pelosi increased the amount of money that we had in our Member reimbursement account, we went out and did more, and I hired an additional person at that rate. If given an opportunity, small business wants to grow and they want to add employees, and this is what nobody seems to understand in this town. We are for growing our economy. No one on our side would do something that wouldn't necessarily work. We are doing it because this is what people are asking for to grow the economy.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 620 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the resolution with an amendment I have placed at the desk.

Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 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, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. House Resolution 620 provides a structured rule for H.R. 9, the Small Business Tax Cut Act. The bill was introduced on March 21, 2012, by our leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), and was ordered reported by the Committee on Ways and Means on April 10. The rule provides for consideration of an amendment in the nature of a substitute as is standard practice for this legislation when dealing with tax policy. Madam Speaker, today we will be considering the underlying legislation, which will allow the House of Representatives yet another opportunity to ease the burden on small businesses across America by giving them the economic tools to create jobs and to help grow our economy. It would be an understatement not to recognize that this country, including small business, is under duress. We are under duress in this country. The economic circumstances, which abound across the entire country, are not only obvious to every one of our citizens but also to this body, and we are here doing our job today following through not just in regular order, but the process to make sure that we are talking about what Congress should be doing to aid small business. I believe that by giving them the economic tools, the free enterprise system and entrepreneurs, men and women, will know exactly what to do because we're allowing them competitive advantages. Earlier this week, congressional Democrats and President Obama offered their competing plan, and their plan is to raise taxes on small businesses. We disagree with that. Today, the Republicans in the House of Representatives, under the great tutelage and leadership of our majority leader, Eric Cantor, offer a different vision for America. Despite their best effort, congressional Democrats think that we can tax our way to improving our economy. It's really simple logic. Increasing taxes on job creators will not help create jobs. It will place new impediments and roadblocks for not just job creation, but the opportunity for business and small business to be successful. Congressional Republicans, once again today, will stand with small businesses across the Nation as we demand less government intervention and more marketplace creativity and the opportunity for small business to get what it needs. Madam Speaker, as this Congress and the American people know, job creators are small businesses. They are the engine of our economy and, as a former chairman of the board for a small chamber of commerce in Dallas, Texas, the Greater East Dallas Chamber of Commerce, I saw firsthand entrepreneurship and the availability of talent that was necessary in small business. That same engine of our economy is what we are trying to restart and ignite today. Congressional Republicans will continue to promote job creation through robust economic growth because we must grow our economy by giving those job creators a chance to get that done. H.R. 9 will allow small businesses under 500 full-time employees to take a tax deduction equal to 20 percent of their domestic business income. So, no matter how they're organized under the Tax Code, under the bill the size of the tax cut is kept at 50 percent of W 2 wages paid, encouraging increasing hiring. I have been in touch with small businesses across Dallas, Texas, and across that area, and we do understand that small business wants to come and create more jobs to increase the amount of not just employment, but to help them grow their businesses. In return, what happens is that loyalty that comes from entrepreneurship to those employees and obviously, then, Uncle Sam, gets the advantage because taxes are being paid instead of paying for unemployment. Small business, we know, employs about half of our private sector workforce and generates 65 percent of our new jobs. What we are here on the floor talking about today supports ideas that come straight from these small business job creators, directly from men and women, many minorities, many moms who are in the marketplace who are trying to help their family to make sure that they can perhaps pay for their kids to go to college, ideas that they have. Entrepreneurship, the American Dream, is what we are talking about today, and we need to keep that dream alive. With an unemployment rate consistently over 8 percent for the past 3 years, it's time that we not only take aggressive action, but that we do the things that are being asked for that will create jobs. In my home State of Texas, the 14 million citizens who work for 387,000 small businesses and 1.69 million sole proprietorships will see immediate benefits from this bill. They call that relief. They call that competitiveness, and we call it up here giving back to those job creators what they need by listening to them and then offering solutions. Those real Texans are struggling even in the midst of perhaps one of the best economies in this country. Texans are still struggling, and small business needs this opportunity today. Madam Speaker, just a few weeks ago, Congress and the President came together to pass what was known as the JOBS Act, a bill designed and designated to generate unique sources of new credit for small business. I was proud to manage that rule and for legislation that not only passed on a bipartisan effort, but has become law. This underlying bill today applies those very same principles. But instead of opening up new avenues of credit, this legislation before us enables the very same small businesses to keep more of what they have earned and to reinvest into their own business and to make sure that that capital that was difficult to achieve is now possible through their own success. Democrats, quite likely, as we have heard up in the Rules Committee and seen in the press, will oppose this novel concept because they really want Washington lawmakers and bureaucrats, not our hardworking constituents back home, to have the availability to get those dollars. I'm proud to tell the small businesses in the congressional district that I represent in Dallas, Irving, Addison, and Richardson, Texas, that with this bill those small businesses, not just in my congressional district that I am lucky to represent, but all across this country, will be able to see the potential, will be able to grow and succeed and, perhaps most of all, it is a group of people in Washington who are willing to listen to the needs of small business, men and women who are trying to create the avenues of success, not just for them and the American Dream, but also for more employees. I encourage my colleagues to vote for this fair rule and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you for yielding me the time, and I hope that the substance that I provide back is of great measure to the gentleman's request. First of all, let me say I know Bruce Bartlett. I had a chance to work with Mr. Bartlett when I served as vice president of the National Center for Policy Analysis. Mr. Bartlett was a contributor not just to the NCPA, but of economic terms. I will completely agree with Mr. Bartlett that there are many out there who have successful businesses. Our point is we want them all to grow. Successful businesses are able to hire new people. Unsuccessful businesses struggle and cannot provide not only an increase in the amount of pay, but also the benefit issue becomes difficult. So we want people to be successful. And I think Mr. Bartlett is correct. It's a wide swath. I want small business, because of the size, not because of how successful they are, to be able to employ more people. And that's what Republicans are trying to do. Guilty as charged.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. SESSIONS. Here's what I can give. Mr. Bartlett is wrong, because I know there will be at least one new net job created, and I know that because the testimony and information that I received last week as I was at the North Dallas Chamber, several people told me this is exactly what they need. They needed the jobs bill to get credit. They need this opportunity. And what's interesting is, on the reverse side, is where Illinois, in January, a full year ago, passed a bill which increased taxes, and they lost 58,000 jobs in Illinois quickly because of high taxes. We're trying to make it easier to grow small business. Mr. Bartlett seems like there will be no new job growth--there will be--and he knows better than that.

Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you very much for yielding. As the gentleman knows quite well from the legislation and from the hearing which we had in the Rules Committee yesterday, that while these are great questions that you ask, the answer is we do not tell them what to do. There are no limitations in this bill that would say that you must or must not do these things. We don't do that. We try and encourage, on the Republican side, and believe that this is what small business is asking for. I think you will be shocked with not only the success, if we had testimony from these small businesses, but this is what they're asking for. Let's go to the worthiness of why would we possibly push an agenda that will never be held to the light of day with a vote in the United States Senate--for the same reason that the President will never get a tax increase from John Boehner. This Republican House will not increase taxes, and so I don't know why the President is doing what he's doing.

Mr. SESSIONS. I believe that would be correct.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, we're hearing a lot of rhetoric today about all these millionaires that are out there. And I would be for their ideas if they worked, but the facts of the case are what they create is less opportunity. The IRS, on their Web site, shows that there were 37 percent fewer people who filed as millionaires one year over the next. That's the latest information we have on the IRS Web site--37 percent fewer people reported numbers of $1 million or more. That falls right in line with what's happening as America goes into bankruptcy. Because this is about fairness. Well, it shouldn't be about fairness. It should be about opportunities, creating more opportunities. That's the same reason why this same rhetoric, why 63 percent of our children move back in to our homes when they finish college--lack of opportunities. That's not fair. Fairness is opportunity and the chance for people to go make something better of their lives. What we're talking about today will help some 54,509 women-owned businesses in the State of Texas alone that account for 483,000 individuals. That's what we're trying to help and save. This is the right thing. I'm very proud of it. I know what they want to do is raise taxes. I know what they want to do is call it fairness. All it simply does is cause further economic malaise and deficiencies all across this country of small business. Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent), the gentleman who sits on the Rules Committee.