Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Kenneth H. Cooper, M.D., M.P.H., my friend, renowned physician, and the Father of Aerobics. The importance of cardiovascular exercise and fitness in our world today can be attributed to the dedicated efforts of Dr. Cooper. Throughout his career, Dr. Cooper has focused on preventive medicine and his work has revolutionized the physical fitness world. Aside from working with the National Aeronautics Space Administration (NASA) to create a fitness program for astronauts and designing the ``Cooper test'' used by the military to assess fitness, Dr. Cooper also trained the 1970 Brazilian soccer team to a World Cup victory. At the local, national, and international levels, Dr. Cooper has educated numerous individuals about the importance of diet and exercise and motivated them to adopt healthy lifestyles. He is also aggressively combating the childhood obesity epidemic with the Our Kids' Health initiative and by working with legislators to bring physical education back into our schools. The impact of Dr. Cooper's work spans across the globe; I know he has made our world a healthier place. His family, friends, colleagues, and patients will gather to honor him at Health Needs a Hero on May 22, 2011 in Austin, Texas. I am delighted to join them in recognizing Dr. Cooper's many achievements and contributions to the health and medical fields. Mr. Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in recognizing Dr. Cooper.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman engaging me in a colloquy, and I will just give him a straight answer. We did not offer any waivers. All 12 amendments offered by Democrats were germane. This, and perhaps others that were submitted to the Rules Committee, were not germane to the House rules, so we did not offer any waiver. But the others that we did, the 12, were all germane and did not have to have a waiver.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, there was a discussion a few minutes ago about Republicans and oil companies and a lot of very interesting comments. Yet many on our side have alluded to President Obama supporting the Brazilian Government and people by supporting their oil drilling, drilling for natural resources that they have. The President is willing to go down and back up a 2009 commitment to proposing $2 billion from the Export-Import Bank to the Brazilian company that is their energy company. And I would like to quote what he said, if I can, because I think it's very interesting: ``At a time when we've been reminded how easily instability in other parts of the world can affect prices, the United States could not be happier for a new, stable source of energy.'' Madam Speaker, what he just spoke of was the United States' ability to produce our own oil so we don't have to look to foreigners to get that done. [From The Hill, Mar. 21, 2011] Overnight Energy: Republicans Pounce on Obama's Brazilian Oil Support (By Andrew Restuccia and Ben Geman) State of Play: Republicans and the oil industry are working to translate President Obama's weekend comments in support of Brazilian oil development into political ammunition in their battle against the White House's U.S. drilling policies. The American Petroleum Institute, the country's most powerful oil and gas trade association, and Republicans, including House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), said Monday that the administration should be doing more to develop U.S. oil-and-gas reserves. Here's Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who is among the lawmakers pushing for wider U.S. offshore drilling: ``It's ridiculous to ignore our own resources and continue going hat-in-hand to countries like Saudi Arabia and Brazil to beg them to produce more oil,'' Vitter said in a statement. ``We need to get serious about developing our resources here at home and working toward lower gas prices and long-term energy independence.'' But President Obama said Saturday during his visit to Brazil that an energy partnership with the nation will offer major benefits for the United States. Obama, in announcing a ``Strategic Energy Dialogue'' with Brazil, noted that the country has nearly twice the oil reserves as the United States and lauded its stability compared to some other oil- exporting countries. ``We want to work with you. We want to help with technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and when you're ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers,'' Obama told a group of business leaders Saturday. ``At a time when we've been reminded how easily instability in other parts of the world can affect the price of oil, the United States could not be happier with the potential for a new, stable source of energy.'' Under the Strategic Energy Dialogue, the United States will work with Brazil ``in the environmentally responsible and technologically advanced development'' of Brazilian oil resources, according to a White House summary of the plan. Administration officials also say they are working diligently to expand U.S. oil-and-gas development. The Interior Department has recently issued three deepwater drilling permits for the type of projects halted after last year's Gulf oil spill. And the department on Monday approved an exploration plan that paves the way to expanded Gulf drilling. Still, it's not the first time Republicans have criticized the administration for its oil dealings with Brazil. Vitter and others railed against a 2009 proposed $2 billion commitment from the U.S. Export-Import Bank to the Brazilian oil company Petrobras to ensure the purchase of U.S. goods as the company explores for oil. Many Republican claims about the Export-Import proposal have been shown to be overblown. Forbes ran a handy fact-check Monday on Republicans' claims about the proposed Petrobras loans. And the Export-Import Bank takes on Republican charges here. Progress and setbacks at stricken Japanese nuke plant ``Tokyo Electric Power Co. continued to report progress in restoring order at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactors, but finishing the job is turning out to be a painstaking process plagued by damaged equipment and unexpected incidents,'' The Wall Street Journal reports. Court ruling hits California climate program ``California did not adequately consider alternatives to its plan to create a cap-and-trade market for carbon emissions, a judge ruled on Monday, throwing a wrench into the most aggressive U.S. effort to combat climate change,'' Reuters reports. U.S., Chile strike green deals President Obama's trip to South America is bearing green fruit, according to the White House, which is touting expansion of work with Chile on energy and climate change. The White House noted several areas of cooperation. Under the existing Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas, ``the United States intends to support the establishment of a regional research network for glacier monitoring and modeling led by Chile's world-class researchers,'' the White House said. ``This network will inform policy and decisionmaking by providing a more robust understanding of how glacial retreat will impact water security in Andean glacier countries,'' a summary states. President Obama lauded the various areas of cooperation during a press conference with Chilean President Sebastian Pinera. ``I want to commend President Pinera for agreeing to take another step, hosting a new center to address glacier melt in the Andes. In addition, a new U.S.-Chile energy business council will encourage collaborations between our companies in areas like energy efficiency and renewable technologies,'' Obama said at a joint news conference in Santiago. Three days ago the two nations also inked a formal ``memorandum of understanding'' on peaceful uses of nuclear energy. House vote on pesticides looms House lawmakers will vote next week on a bill to limit the Clean Water Act's jurisdiction over pesticide applications. The Hill's Floor Action blog reports: The House is expected to take up legislation next week that would reverse a court decision that said pesticide use is regulated by the Clean Water Act, in addition to a federal pesticide law. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee last week marked up the bill, H.R. 872, and Republicans want to move the measure quickly so it can take effect before April 9. That date is the deadline by which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is due to announce a new permitting process for pesticides that takes the court ruling into account. Staff for Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio), who sponsored the bill, said they expect it to be considered next week in order to meet that deadline. The bill is a reaction to a decision by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in the case National Cotton Council v. EPA. According to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, that decision vacated an EPA rule that said using pesticides in compliance with federal pesticide regulations means a permit is not required under the Clean Water Act. Chamber to host discussion on regulatory process The U.S. Chamber of Commerce will host an event Tuesday called ``restoring balance to the regulatory process.'' The event will focus in part on the Obama administration's energy and environmental regulations. ``Tuesday's discussion, hosted at the Chamber, will focus on how we implement more checks and balances to improve the process and guarantee sensible regulation, while also ensuring that federal agencies are held accountable to the people,'' said Bill Kovacs, senior vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs at the Chamber. State Department, World Bank look to boost water security The State Department will mark World Water Day by expanding cooperation with the World Bank. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will sign a memorandum of understanding with the bank at its headquarters. ``The MOU will strengthen support to developing countries seeking a water-secure future,'' an advisory states. Think tank gets efficient The Center for Strategic and International Studies will host Obama administration officials and other experts at a forum on energy efficiency. Speakers will include Rick Duke, the deputy assistant secretary for climate change. Group to release nuke poll The Civil Society Institute will release polling that explores attitudes about nuclear power amid the crisis at Japan's stricken reactors. The poll is the ``first major survey to look at the views of Americans on the broad policy implications of the Fukushima reactor crisis--including support for federal loan guarantees for new U.S. reactors, the merits of shifting federal resources from nuclear to less renewable energy alternatives and whether or not to end federal indemnification of the nuclear industry against nearly all cleanup costs,'' the group said.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 203 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman, my friend from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 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, House Resolution 203 provides for a structured rule designated by the Rules Committee for consideration of H.R. 910. This rule allows for 12 amendments--that is, 12 amendments, Madam Speaker--submitted to the Rules Committee to be made in order. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill, including the open process that is taking place, not just in the Rules Committee, but also on the floor, where Members will be allowed to come and debate these 12 amendments, as opposed to a closed rule with no amendments. This legislation, introduced by the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), has gone through regular order. There were hearings held on this issue. H.R. 910 was marked up in the Energy and Commerce Committee, and the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman, Mr. Dreier, provided for a structured amendment process for 12 additional Democrat amendments to be considered. The bill we are discussing today, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, would stop the Environmental Protection Agency--also known as EPA--from imposing a national energy tax in the form of carbon emission regulations. Today, I will explain what the underlying bill does, and I will discuss the EPA's agenda, what this agenda would do to the Nation's job market and economy, the need for a stronger energy policy from not just our President, but also from the administration and also, as the guidepost that begins with this legislation today, from the United States Congress on behalf of the American people. H.R. 910 prohibits the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act and repeals the steps the agency has already taken to begin this process. In this bill, we only focus on greenhouse gases and we leave EPA's authority to monitor and regulate pollutants intact. In short, the underlying bill clarifies that the Clean Air Act is not a vehicle for regulatory taxing. The decision about whether and how to regulate greenhouse gases should be made by Congress and only by Congress, not the regulatory body of a President who wishes to place his overriding answers on unelected bureaucrats to fulfill this role. The EPA has been aggressively pursuing a national cap-and-tax energy agenda through regulation and legislation for years. After cap-and-trade failed in Congress last year, the EPA accelerated its efforts to regulate this controversial policy through a series of new rules on hundreds of thousands of buildings all across the United States. In other words, because the President couldn't get his political agenda through Congress, he's taking his political agenda in the administration to overlay the American people. We disagree with that, and that is why we are on the floor of the House of Representatives today. Regulating greenhouse gas emissions--primarily the carbon dioxide emissions that come from coal, oil, and natural gas--will increase the cost of everything from gasoline to household utilities and, of course, groceries. Additionally, regulating and taxing emissions will ship American jobs overseas to countries that understand and recognize stable, affordable and energy policies that are vital for their economic growth. According to a letter from the Chamber of Commerce on March 9 of last year to the Energy and Commerce Committee: ``These regulations will impose significant burden across the United States economy, including sectors that will create jobs and lead us in our economic recovery.'' Additionally, the letter references that the American Council for Capital Formation has ``estimated that EPA's greenhouse gas regulations could reduce business investment between $97 billion and $290 billion in 2011 and as much as $309 billion in 2014,'' a tremendous hit on the economy when it comes from the President of the United States, Barack Obama, and his administration. This is not a way for America or our future to be successful. The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity also references the American Council for Capital Formation in a press release just last month that estimates that a greenhouse gas tax ``could result in the loss of between 476,000 to 1.4 million jobs.'' Republicans are committed to putting Americans back to work, and our Democratic colleagues continue to pursue a reckless agenda that puts more Americans out of work, drives business overseas--all the while limiting U.S. energy production and use. So, Madam Speaker, today the Republican Party is on the floor of the House of Representatives with good news not just for the taxpayers but for the American people, in particular, not just consumers, but those who have lost their job or who are underemployed. We believe that what we're doing today is a jobs-saver bill. The House Natural Resources Committee reported last month that the Obama administration policies have caused domestic oil production to drop by 16 percent versus projected levels and future projections show continued decreases in domestic production and more foreign imports to make up for this difference. A recent Rasmussen poll from March 3, 2011, shows that three-quarters of Americans believe this country does not do enough to develop its own oil and gas resources. So whether through greenhouse gas regulation permit delays or permitting moratoriums, which the President stands behind in his administration, this administration should change their policies and their direction. We must find new sources of energy and not tax those that exist for the freedom of this country. So while energy prices soar and continue to soar and projections estimate a $5-a-gallon gasoline by summertime, this administration wants to inflict more costs on consumers. The bill today would help to ease the cost of energy prices. It would assist in the global competitiveness of America. It would help ensure that this Nation does not lose millions of more jobs and does not threaten the intent of the Clean Air Act. No, Madam Speaker, the Republican Party is here because this is yet another opportunity at a jobs bill that is pro-consumer and pro the American people who want and need to be able to help in a desperate time when we're losing our jobs and things are tough back home to do something positive on behalf of the American public. This is a bipartisan bill that provides good policy for our Nation, and we're asking every single Member of Congress to understand clearly and see this for what it is. It is a jobs-protection bill. Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and the underlying bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Beaumont, Texas, Judge Poe.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to one of our brand- new freshmen, a gentleman who is not only on what is called an A committee but an exclusive committee of the United States Congress, who has had a distinguished career as a sheriff in Florida and who is a distinguished member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent).

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, there was a dialogue back and forth about cows, cattle, and that the EPA really is not after that issue. But if you go to the EPA Web site, epa.gov, and you look under the portion called ``Frequent Questions'' where it deals with livestock, in fact, the EPA is trying to talk about methane produced by livestock. And it ends up saying, as I read from my BlackBerry, that essentially 20 percent of all the methane content in the air comes from livestock. Well, that's what they want to regulate, which means they would get in the business whether we said this or not.

Mr. SESSIONS. The gentleman will have his own time in a minute, and I'm sure he will be very effective. But I encourage the gentleman to get on his BlackBerry and go to the Web site and look this up. They're going to blame it on cattle. They're going to tax cattle. They're going to tax the output because that's what they are proposing. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ennis, Texas (Mr. Barton). (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, my, oh my, we've heard this tirade before. If it wasn't just Republicans and the House, which we've had now for about 4 months, it was something else. The Democrats are looking for somebody to blame their woes on, their tax increases, their overregulation, all the big spending and the debt. Madam Speaker, we know what it is. If they search quickly enough, they can find out what the American people know: It is pin the tail on the donkey. We know how this happened. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Grandfather Community, North Carolina, Dr. Foxx.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, we are talking about 1.4 million jobs, a lot of cattle, and a lot of bull. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Melbourne, Florida (Mr. Posey).

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to notify the gentleman that I have no further speakers on this side. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado for this wonderful discussion and debate that we've had here today. Madam Speaker, the bill we're discussing today does not weaken the Clean Air Act or the regulation of air pollution. It does not interfere with the EPA's longstanding authority to protect the environment. In fact, as I stated in the very beginning, it simply clarifies that the Clean Air Act was never designated, designed or shown to be for regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, we would be removing authority that the EPA has not had, should not have, and would not have because this Congress will not pass what is called cap-and-tax regulations. By gaining control of government spending and eliminating government regulations, the private sector believes that the Republican Congress can be here for the interests of not only the taxpayer but also to make sure that jobs and investment in this economy in the future are very bright. I applaud my colleagues for coming down to help debate this bill. I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would prevent any funding within the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011 to be used to administer or enforce the Davis- Bacon wage rate requirements with respect to any project or program in the underlying text or any amendment adopted today. Since the Davis-Bacon Act was signed into law in 1931, labor rates for government contracts have been inflated significantly, affecting the cost of administrative expenditures for those awarded projects. Unfortunately, the Davis-Bacon requirement has inadvertently caused the government to pass higher costs on to American taxpayers, often costing 5 to 38 percent more than the project would have cost in the private sector, according to the Associated Builders and Contractors. The Congressional Budget Office has stated that the Davis-Bacon Act has cost our government more than $9.5 billion from 2002 to 2011. I say enough is enough. We must reevaluate and look at what we are doing that costs more money for the government and, ultimately, the taxpayers. We must stop passing this financial burden on the backs of hardworking American taxpayers. In this year alone, the Heritage Foundation has estimated that the Davis-Bacon Act will add more than $10.9 billion to our already burdensome national debt. The American people sent a strong message to Congress in the last election, that it was time to rein in out-of-control government spending. Congress can ensure their voices are heard by voting ``yes'' on this commonsense attempt today. In 2009, the Public Policy Foundation of West Virginia released a study stating that as many as 1,500 construction jobs could have been created if these wage regulations were repealed or reformed to reflect actual market-based wages. During our current economic times, as tough as they are that this Nation is facing, we need to make sure that it is easier for the private sector to create jobs for the unemployed, not to hinder job growth. Davis-Bacon requirements undercut and undermine the hard-earned work of small business owners because of the time-consuming and costly requirements of Davis-Bacon. Businesses have constantly expressed frustration over the difficulty of complying with the wage rules of Davis-Bacon. As a result, large and often unionized companies have been awarded more government contracts that come at a higher price to taxpayers. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, which ensures small and large businesses have the ability to compete for all government contracts while saving the American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. Mr. Chairman, this is exactly what the American people want and need--a better deal in the marketplace. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Georgia is correct. On an average, this Davis-Bacon wage requirement costs an average of 22 percent above market wages. That means that the Davis-Bacon act costs 22 percent or more on costs for getting projects done, which means fewer projects can get done, which hampers the ability that we have, local governments have to ensure that contractors and work is done across this country. This amendment saves taxpayers millions of dollars--we heard perhaps a billion. It allows for more competition, and I ask my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to consider House Concurrent Resolution 28 in the House, if called up by the chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or her designee; that the concurrent resolution be considered as read; that the previous question be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution to final adoption without intervening motion except: number one, 1 hour of debate controlled by Representative Kucinich of Ohio or his designee; and, number two, 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs; and that section 7 of the War Powers Resolution not apply to the concurrent resolution.