Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. House Resolution 340 provides for a structured rule designated by the Rules Committee for consideration of H.R. 1309. This rule allows for 25 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee by Democrats and Republicans to be made in order. I rise today in support of this rule, Mr. Speaker. This legislation was introduced by the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Insurance, Housing and Community Opportunity, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), and this bill has gone through regular order. There were hearings on this issue. H.R. 1309 was marked up in the Financial Services Committee and reported out by a unanimous vote of 54-0, and the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), provided a structured amendment process with 25 additional amendments to be considered on the House floor. Said another way, Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee, under the leadership of David Dreier, is willing to have in our upstairs committee room Members of Congress come and testify with the understanding that, in their confidence in the process of this House of Representatives, that they can bring forth their amendments, be heard by a Rules Committee that can equally give the Republican and Democrat sides the ideas that those Members wish to bring before this body, and that is what is happening with 25 amendments being made in order by the gentleman from California with the Rules Committee. Today, I will discuss the background of the current National Flood Insurance Program or NFIP, and why a long-term reauthorization is important, what the underlying legislation does to the NFIP, and why reforms are necessary. The NFIP was created in 1968 to address the Nation's flood exposure and the need to alleviate taxpayers' responsibility for flood losses paid out in the form of post-disaster relief following annual flooding that occurs across this country. In 1973, the Flood Disaster Protection Act established a mandatory flood insurance purchase requirement for structures located in identified special flood hazard areas. By 1984, Congress required lenders to purchase coverage on behalf of--and to bill premiums to--mortgagees who failed to purchase coverage on their own. The 2005 hurricane season resulted in significant claims which the NFIP annual contributions could not cover, so the NFIP's borrowing authority, which was at $1.5 billion a year, was increased three times from 2005, 2006 and 2007, allowing the NFIP to borrow up to $20.8 billion. Currently, the NFIP owes the national Treasury $17.75 billion. A recent Insurance Journal article from March 8, 2011, discusses this plan and it stated: ``The proposal does attempt to put the program on sounder financial footing by insisting that current subsidized prices to most policies be raised so they eventually cover the actual cost of risk determined by the actuaries.'' The underlying bill allows for greater accountability so taxpayers, meaning the Federal Government, actually incur less risk than in the current NFIP. Limiting the exposures for the taxpayer is one piece of what this bill does. The legislation we are discussing today reauthorizes the NFIP for 5 years through September 30, 2016. The current program is scheduled to expire on September 30 of this year. The last time Congress passed a long-term flood insurance program was in 2004. Since its expiration in 2008, the NFIP has been extended 11 times and lapsed three times during that period. These short-term extensions and lapses create needless uncertainty in the marketplace in an already struggling residential and commercial real estate market all across the United States. Charles Symington with the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America was quoted in a recent industry Insurance Journal stating: ``The 5-year extension of NFIP after several years of short-term lapses and last minute renewals is critical because it gives the marketplace certainty.'' Mr. Speaker, I believe Charles is correct. The Congress of the United States must do its job by looking at those programs, looking at their need to make sure that they work properly and to make sure that the exposure to the taxpayer is not overextended. Charles Symington has this correct. In addition to providing a much needed long-term authorization, this bill amends the NFIP to ensure the immediate and near-term fiscal and administrative health of the program. The bill also ensures the NFIP's continued viability by encouraging broader participation in this program, increasing financial accountability, eliminating unnecessary rate subsidies, and updating the program to the needs that currently face this great Nation. Since 2006, the NFIP has been cited by the Government Accountability Office, GAO, as a high-risk government program. This means that embedded within this program, it is not being run to the best benefit of not just its mission statement, but also the best interest of the taxpayer. The GAO has found that the NFIP does not charge sufficiently high rates to cover its claims obligations and projected future losses, resulting in significant Federal expenditures and potentially large future liabilities on top of the $17.75 billion that the program is already in debt. To protect the American taxpayers from future risk of a Federal program already in debt, the NFIP must be reformed. That's why we are here today. The underlying bill provides for some of the necessary reforms, and certainly we don't have to debate this, but with a $14 trillion deficit and out-of-control wasteful Washington government spending, Congress must provide the necessary oversight and accountability to ensure less taxpayer risk. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this rule. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a very valuable part of our Republican team here today, a gentlewoman who has taken hundreds of meetings and who has led the way in what, I believe, is to better the circumstance with the National Flood Insurance Program. She is from the Financial Services Committee and is the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Insurance, Housing and Community Opportunity. I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 340 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

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

Mr. SESSIONS. You know, Mr. Speaker, the beautiful part about the Republican Party is we have a whole bunch of Members who are just like the gentlewoman that I am going to extend time to in a minute who come to the table as friends of the taxpayer, who come and look at bills and reauthorizations of legislation from a perspective of what is the government's role, what should be the government's role, and how do we engage with the American people to keep these programs not only where they can sustain themselves, but also whether the taxpayer is well taken care of. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Shelby Township, Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that the gentleman has no further speakers at this time. I would like to yield 4 minutes to the chairman of the Republican leadership team, the gentleman from Hood River, Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Hood River, Oregon, coming to speak not only about this bill but also his strong leadership in issues that deal directly with our Nation and keeping us fiscally sound. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Lawrenceville, Georgia, one of my colleagues on the Rules Committee, Mr. Woodall.

Mr. SESSIONS. I want to advise my colleague, the gentleman, Mr. McGovern, that we do not have any further speakers at this time, and I would defer to his judgment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts not only for his service to the Rules Committee but also for the ideas that he represents. And I'm delighted that he had an opportunity today to state with great clarity that the 25 amendments that have been made in order by the Rules Committee are good for this institution, this body, and lives up to the promise not just that our Speaker, the gentleman, John Boehner, and our Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, subscribe to, but also the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman, David Dreier. Mr. Speaker, the bill we are discussing today provides a long-term certainty in the flood insurance market. It allows for greater transparency and accountability in the flood insurance program and removes or diminishes greatly the great risk that taxpayers incur from bailing out the current program. This country is facing a $14 trillion debt with almost $18 billion of that coming from the NFIP. Congress sorely needed to retain its control over this program and to ensure that we relooked at it in its reauthorization. However, we still have a government that spends way too much, taxes too much, listens too little to the needs of the American people. And today, the Republican Party, through the leadership that we're being provided by Mrs. Biggert from Illinois, is doing exactly that one at a time, to take on the programs and needs of this great Nation. Once again, this bill provides us much needed long-term reauthorization and amends the NFIP to ensure the immediate and near- term fiscal administrative health of this program. The bill also ensures the NFIP's continued viability by encouraging broader participation in the program, increasing financial accountability, eliminating unnecessary rate subsidies, and updating the program to meet the current needs of this great Nation. I applaud my colleagues for introducing the bill, the gentlewoman, Mrs. Biggert, for her hard work, the hundreds of meetings that were involved taking feedback from Members of Congress, looking at their needs, and then addressing those. I encourage a ``yes'' vote on this rule. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. SESSIONS. If you want to get your grass mowed at a big base, where you have a lot going on, do you care how many employees, or just that you have the guy that's supposed to cut the grass, you hold him accountable even if he has 80 people working for him? That's the point that we're trying to make. You don't have to know how many employees. You have to know that it got done at the right price. We're not doing away with the A-76 process. Your points are well made. The gentleman is dead on, and I appreciate him yielding.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to recognize the gentleman, C.W. ``Bill'' Young, who is a stalwart not only to this Congress but also to the men and women of the United States military, for his hard work in support of not only making sure our men and women have what they need, but making sure that he stands behind that, making sure that they get money well spent on behalf of the taxpayers. Also, I would like to thank Chairman Hal Rogers and certainly the gentleman from Washington (Norm Dicks) for their hard work and dedication and trying to work on traumatic brain injury, known as TBI, and also posttraumatic stress disorder, PTSD, and to thank all three of them, and others in this Congress, for their continued support by increasing funding for TBI and PTSD in this overall bill by $125 million. While I understand the long-standing practice of the committee for not designating specific TBI funds, my amendment confirms the House's support for this amendment which I have offered many times, and certainly related to TBI in May of this year to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011.

Mr. SESSIONS. I would yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SESSIONS. In fact, that is correct. What has previously been in the Defense Armed Services Committee, the policy that would allow men and women of the military who have TBI to be able to take these funds and be able to use them outside of the Department of Defense to what I would call private sector.

Mr. SESSIONS. They could take it where they choose to, not where they are designated to go by the Department of Defense; that would be correct.

Mr. SESSIONS. On May 26, 2011, during the NDAA debate, the House unanimously adopted an amendment to create a pilot program administered by the Department of Defense that would begin treating our troops coming back home from theater with TBI and PTSD. Today, Congress has the opportunity to appropriate funds that would be used to treat our active duty and veterans suffering from TBI and PTSD. My amendment specifically moves $10 million from the more than $19 billion in the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Defense Program to increase the defense health program by $10 million. Once again, this money will assist directly these soldiers and others in the military who have TBI-related injuries to be able to go to private sector facilities with the utilization of taxpayer dollars for them to get leading-edge treatments on these issues. In April 2007, the Department of Veterans Affairs screened veterans who were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001 for symptoms associated with TBI. More than 19 percent of these veterans screened positive for TBI symptoms. This is a big issue. According to the U.S. Army, the number of soldiers leaving active duty service has increased by 64 percent from 2005 to 2009 due to brain health, whether it was TBI, PTSD, or a mental illness. A 2009 Rand study estimates that costs related to depression, PTSD, and TBI in our soldiers ranges from $4 billion to $6.2 billion over a 2-year period of time. Today, health care providers all over this country are treating brain injury patients with new and innovative treatments with remarkable results. Unfortunately, many of these treatments are not available within military or veteran medical facilities for our heroes that I have previously discussed who are suffering from TBI. Our troops put themselves on the line every day, and I think they deserve every opportunity to receive this treatment that is available for their recovery. This pilot program created in NDAA will provide for that treatment and recovery. As has been talked about here on the floor of the House of Representatives, $10 million out of $19 billion should be allocated to this. I appreciate all of my colleagues not only learning more about this issue, also wanting to be a part of how we can help these men and women making groundbreaking treatments for our Nation's veterans and active duty soldiers. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Chairman, this month the House has voted twice to strike problematic and anti-competitive A-76 language from H.R. 2112, the Agriculture appropriations bill, and H.R. 2017, the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. The same change and reversal of bad language should be adopted in legislation today by striking this anti-competitive language. My amendment would strike section 8101 of this legislation, which as drafted prohibits the use of funds in the underlying bill to convert any functions performed by Federal employees to private competition pursuant to a study conducted under OMB Circular A-76. A-76 cost competitions between the public and private sector bring the best value to the taxpayer. Lifting the current moratorium will reform the way the Department of Defense does business, allowing the flexibility to manage the most effective and efficient cost ways in supporting the mission of the Department of Defense. The role of government should be to govern, not to operate business inside the government. Currently, the Federal Government employs some 2 million executive branch, nonpostal, full-time, and permanent employees; 850,000 of these employees hold jobs that are commercial in nature. The underlying principle of A-76 is that the government should consider private sector performance of commercial services where appropriate. This notion has been consistently embraced by administrations of both political parties for more than 60 years. Over the past 2 years, the Obama administration has pushed for an in- sourcing campaign within DOD. Secretary Gates put a halt on that practice recently due to what Forbes magazine on March 7, 2011, called, and I quote, ``a victim of bad planning and disappointing results.'' Two years of shutting out private competition resulted in zero taxpayer savings. According to a Small Business Administration study, 71 percent of A- 76 goes to small business. This work is important, and must be done well, but should be done also where the taxpayer sees results and the cost benefit. Any time Congress places a restriction on agencies' ability to implement A-76, such action denies opportunity for small business. Our Nation's unemployment rate stands at 9.1 percent. We must allow the private sector the ability to create jobs without an unfair disadvantage. The A-76 process allows the private sector just this opportunity. If competition is deemed fair, it doesn't matter who wins. As long as both sides are allowed equal opportunity for the job, the taxpayer ultimately wins. I urge all my colleagues to support this commonsense, taxpayer-first amendment, and to ensure that cost-saving competition is available throughout the Department of Defense. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. SESSIONS. I think the gentleman brings up not only very pertinent questions that the gentleman has dealt with throughout his career about how do we effectively utilize taxpayer dollars, but I would like to suggest to you we are talking about commercial activities, mowing grass, painting buildings, lots of other things too, but doing things which are very essential to the upkeep and operation, but that within the Department of Defense the base commander has a good grasp on this. Those people that are in the architecture group, those people that are in the operations group, they know who they're getting. And they're getting regular people who can come in and do the jobs that are specified, then leave; not have full-time employees that change oil, mow grass, do the painting, do all these things. And not in every location is it advantageous, but in some it is. And we're talking about where they can use it to their advantage. That's where this would be utilized. So Norm, I'd like to spend a little time with you, but where it's an advantage for the Department, we're giving them the opportunity. That's what this amendment's about. I thank the gentleman, and I yield back.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I know that the Federal Government employs some 2 million executive branch, non-postal full-time and permanent employees; 850,000 of these employees hold jobs that are commercial in nature. Of the 850,000 commercial jobs, only a handful have been characterized as government employees or private sector workers who can perform these activities more efficiently and more cost effectively. My amendment strikes the current insourcing language found in this legislation which, as drafted, would prevent the funds spent by this bill from being used to conduct public-private competitions or to direct A-76 conversions for any program, project or activity within the United States Department of Agriculture without a contracting report to Congress by the Secretary. Two weeks ago, the House voted in favor of striking similar problematic and anti-competitive A-76 language from H.R. 2017, the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. The same change and reversal of bad policy which I undertook at that time should also be implemented in this legislation by striking this anti-competitive, free market language. The A-76 process provides a valuable option for taxpayers and requires real competition. A former assistant director at USDA, Shawn Kingsbury, managed information technology programs at the Department. Mr. Kingsbury, in his tenure, implemented A-76 by transitioning to the first performance-based project management organization within the USDA, and it resulted in over $100 million in savings. Without the ability to add competitive insourcing, ballooning deficits and out-of-control spending will continue in our government. It is time that Congress explores and gives all solutions to save taxpayers and the managers of the business in the government their hard-earned money. The Heritage Foundation has reported that subjecting Federal employee positions which are commercial in nature to a public-private cost comparison will 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. The role of government should be to govern, not to operate businesses inside the government. Our Nation's unemployment rate stands at 9.1 percent. We must allow the private sector the ability to create jobs without an unfair disadvantage. We must get more results for our money. I urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense, taxpayer- first amendment and ensure cost-saving competition is available to the managers within this agency. Congress should be looking to use all the tools that it can find to help save taxpayer dollars. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, across the nation, more than 10 million Americans are affected by retinal diseases that cause blindness, such as retinitis pigmentosa and age-related macular degeneration. By 2020, that already-staggering number is expected to increase by 50 percent as our nation's population ages. Although these diseases do not attract as much attention as some others, their impact on the lives of our family, friends and constituents is significant. The Foundation Fighting Blindness is hosting its national VISIONS Conference in Baltimore, MD, bringing together a special community of patients from 35 states and eight countries, world-renowned researchers committed to finding treatments and cures for these diseases, and physicians who provide patient care on the front lines. This gathering will also commemorate the Foundation's 40th anniversary, celebrating four decades of breakthroughs, progress and hope in the field of retinal disease research. There is much to celebrate, as recent advances in research have given new hope for restoring the vision of those living with retinal diseases. Recently published results from a breakthrough study funded in part by the Foundation Fighting Blindness show that gene therapy restored vision in patients who were previously blind due to a blinding genetic disease called retinitis pigmentosa. A nine year old boy witnessed some of the most striking results of the trial, gaining the ability to play baseball and read the chalkboard in class for the first time. None of this life-changing work would be possible without the relentless innovation of the Foundation Fighting Blindness, which provides the capital necessary to begin new, previously unfunded research--allowing scientists to investigate uncharted territory. More often than not, this funding is the catalyst that drives research to gain widespread acceptance and thus funding from other sources, such as the National Eye Institute, one of the National Institutes of Health. Now, in this unprecedented time of promise, partnership between private and public sectors is paramount to eradicating these blinding diseases. I urge you to recognize the efforts of pioneering organizations like the Foundation Fighting Blindness, and the National Eye Institute so that research will continue to flourish and life- changing cures may be realized.