Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, today is a historic day, also, as two of the stalwarts of this House of Representatives perhaps are here tonight to argue as chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee on behalf of not only themselves, their committee, but also the teams they represent. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) perhaps will be on the floor tomorrow, I don't know, but tonight I will be here, and I would like to recognize the service that Mr. Obey has given the United States Congress. I have been with Mr. Obey over a number of times in the last 14 years up in the Rules Committee. I have seen him very early in the morning and very late in the day. Mr. Obey has presented himself not only in a professional manner, but represented his party and its thoughts very well. It would be my hope I would be able to offer a warm hand and extension to him to say: Job well done, sir. Also, on my side, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) will be on the floor in just a few moments as they present this final spending package, the CR. Mr. Lewis has been a very dear friend of mine over the years. He has been very gracious about hearing the activities I believe are important, including those of the gentlewoman from Wisconsin who sits in the chair tonight as the Speaker pro tempore, for issues related to sight, retinal issues, and the ability we have to create a better life for those who have lost their sight. Mr. Lewis has been very responsive to not only this Member but also to others in this body in dealing with health issues, understanding that research and development is a key part of technology in medical breakthroughs for people who count on us making wise choices with how we spend people's money. So I would want to extend to both of these gentlemen thanks for a job well done, knowing that tonight they will be ready to go home for Christmas and the holidays. Madam Speaker, the Republican Party finds itself in the position where we are here on the floor just a few days before Christmas. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) has outlined the exact need of not only this administration but, I believe, forthrightly, the American people and certainly this Congress, the ability to make sure that we act responsibly, that we provide the funding that is necessary. The President of the United States has asked for this. The President of the United States has a constitutional authority to move forward, and I believe that that is a rational argument. The Republican Party finds itself in a circumstance where we have attempted, for quite some time, to bring to the attention of the majority what we believe is an overriding need to cut the amount of spending that is taking place by the United States Congress. I believe it has created excessive not only spending, a bloated government, and an inadequate ability by the free enterprise system to get out of the way of government; that a government that is empowered to roll over the free enterprise system and individuals who are in the marketplace perhaps, also. In the scheme of things, the Republican Party is worried about the future of this country and what our children and our grandchildren will have to pay with a monster debt that looms over us. I recognize, I think the entire country recognizes, that this debt, the doubling and tripling of debt that is underway, came as a result of a political opportunity with the Democratic Party by the President, the House, and the Senate to collectively determine that they were going to go and increase spending in a dramatic basis. The Republican Party, through myself as the Rules Committee person, recognizes that we, once again, are here on the floor of the House of Representatives at the late hour, even though I believe what is inevitable is here with this continuing resolution to say, We believe there should have been a better effort on behalf of this majority to substantially review not only the excessive spending but to put into place those stopgap measures which would prove to the American people that Washington, D.C., does get it. What we need to get is this: as we loom and roll forward in the future, another debt limit opportunity vote that means that we will have to take the tough votes here on this floor and raise that debt limit so that we are as responsible as we are tonight, what has been described by Mr. Polis, about making sure the government funds itself. The Republican Party believes we should have immediately last year when we recognized not only continued unemployment, massive debt, have done something about stopping the spending. We spend about $4.5 billion too much every day, more than what comes in. And that $4.5 billion is important. When you add it all up, it amounts to about 40 percent of all of the spending going to debt. So we don't have to yell and scream. We have to succinctly come to the floor. We have to protect the turf that we believe is best for the American people, and that is, I will tell you, on January 5 when we elect a new Speaker and the Republican Party becomes the majority, we pledge ourselves to having not only the ideas about how to turn this country around, but I believe we will have the guts to make tough votes. And we will ask the American people to listen and look at every single vote we make. Today, we are kicking the can down the road. Today, I guess we are ready to go home. The Republican Party is here to say, We disagree. We think every dollar and every penny that is being spent to the detriment of the future of this country is a problem. So that's what we are doing here today. I appreciate the gentlewoman not only for her efforts of tireless sitting in the chair today, but I also recognize our leaders, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis). I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) and wish him the very best of holiday seasons. Madam Speaker, just this morning, I stood right here to do a rule and pointed out that my democrat colleagues continue to use an unprecedented, restrictive, and closed process on the House floor, and here I am again to tell the same story. In fact, this is the third Continuing Resolution rule I have done this month. Week after week my friends on the other side of the aisle continue to bull-dose their massive spending agenda through the floor of the House with no Republican input, and no regular order. What was promised to be the most ``open, honest and ethical'' Congress by Speaker Pelosi when she took the gavel, has been the most closed, and one-sided Congress in history. The American people asked for changes in 2008 and they got something far worse. They received a Democrat Congress that doesn't listen to the American people, and a Congress that acts on their own interest and not the interest of the American taxpayer. Madam Speaker, in two weeks that will change. But until then, I am here to discuss another closed rule for another Continuing Resolution. The legislation before us continues to overspend--a common theme over the last two Congresses. The underlying legislation is a CR to keep the government running for 2 months. The Democrats provided no budget for this year and the President has not signed one appropriations bill into law--so this legislation and rule is just another tactic to keep the government running until the Majority can kick the responsibility to the Republicans next Congress. Over the past three years, non-defense, non-homeland security, and non-veterans affairs discretionary spending has increased by a staggering 88 percent. In the meantime, the Nation's debt has risen to $13.5 trillion, there have been yearly record deficits since the Democrats took the Majority, and the unemployment rate has been at or above 9.5 percent for 18 consecutive months. This CR does almost nothing to reverse this trend and instead continues the unsustainable, high rate of spending passed the Democrat Majority this year. This includes more spending for many federal agencies that received massive increases with the Democrat Stimulus bill in 2009. My Republican colleagues and I have pledged to cut non-security spending back the fiscal year 2008 levels which would save American taxpayers nearly $100 billion in the first year. The American people are fed-up with the tax, borrow and spend policies of the past 4 years, which has brought nothing but unemployment, debt and deficit. Americans have called for an end to reckless spending and a new era of fiscal discipline, yet it continues to fall on deaf ears here today. This country needs leaders that are willing to make the tough fiscal decisions that will provide economic stability and job growth, not just more of the same. In true fashion, my democrat colleagues continue to push their own agenda on the American people. They have shut out Republicans over the past 4 years, and they continue to shut out the American people. Continuing on the path of reckless government spending, will only put the U.S. further in debt burdening future generations. Congress must do better for the American people. I oppose this rule. Madam Speaker, you have heard me say it over and over, but the American people we promised an ``open, honest and ethical'' Congress, and that is not what they have received. Congress only received the text of this legislation a few hours ago. American's have called for transparency and bipartisanship and have only seen a secretive dictatorship. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule. Vote no to stop the reckless fiscal policies that Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats have pursued over the last 4 years. It is time to end the idea of big government and big spending. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, it is my understanding from prior conversations with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) that it would be his idea we would take the minimum amount of time, and I appreciate him yielding the customary 30 minutes to me and trying to work through the loads so we are able to get home. I would like to inquire of the gentleman if he has any further speakers that he would anticipate at this time on his side.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Good morning, Madam Speaker. Welcome to this week of Christmas. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, my friend Mr. McGovern, the vice chairman of the Rules Committee, for bringing this martial law rule to the floor of the House of Representatives today. Madam Speaker, the 111th Congress is in its final days, or so the body hopes. The rule before us today provides for an expedited same-day consideration of all legislation brought forward until Christmas Eve and extends suspension authority for that same period. This martial law rule consists of the ability of the Democrats to bring 4 more days of expedited consideration on top of the 11 days my colleagues gave themselves on the 8th of December. This Congress has seen a record number of restrictive rules over the past 2 years. In fact, we have not debated one open rule in this Congress. I don't believe that closing debate, limiting amendments, and shutting down Democrats and Republicans out of their thoughtful solutions on the House floor is what we were promised by Speaker Pelosi. Speaker Pelosi openly told the American people that she would run the most open, honest, and ethical Congress. Madam Speaker, I would say to you that as we started, so are we ending, in chaos. It seems like every time I come to the House floor I point out that my Democrat colleagues are using an unprecedented, restrictive, and closed process. This is not what the American people wanted, and I believe the American people truly do want their Member of Congress to be able to come to Washington, DC, to fully participate in the process. And unfortunately, we find ourselves here again today with Members simply sitting back in their offices, wondering and waiting what is next, what are we even debating, what are we doing, rather than being actively involved in this democratic process. Madam Speaker, that's why people came to Congress. This Congress has managed to rack up a record $1.4 trillion deficit in 2009, more than three times the size of the deficit in 2008, and it hit a $1.3 trillion deficit this year. Additionally, we have seen unemployment at or above 9.5 percent across this country for over 18 consecutive months and a national debt that has now ballooned to $13.4 trillion, and yet we see no end to the spending, which is evident by the rule that we are here discussing today. No discipline; no feedback from Members, Members of this body coming faithfully to do their job, not even knowing what is happening and what is next, purely speculation. No sharing of information; no plan that can be executed based upon the Members of this body understanding what we're doing, where we're going, and what is next. Madam Speaker, if there ever was a time when the American people need to know what the plan is and Members of Congress need to know what the plan is it would be now. It would be now for us to determine not only how to have fiscal restraint, but also, a majority who offered leadership, leadership on a budget process, leadership on a transparency process, leadership on the ability for Members of Congress to come and effectively represent their district and, perhaps more importantly, not just a budget that was never produced, how about an appropriations bill that was properly done. Every single business that I know of--State and local government, families, schools--everybody has a budget. Even nonprofits who try and work in the best interest of a smaller group of people recognize you've got to have a plan. That's an exception for this Federal Government. It's an exception by this Congress, and that is not leadership. As the chairman of the Budget Committee once said, If you can't budget, you cannot govern. I think he's right. That's exactly the truth of what Chairman John Spratt said. And if the shoe fits, we're wearing it right now. Unfortunately, we've come to expect this behavior from this majority, but, once again, there is always tomorrow. Republicans have made a pledge to America, and we intend to keep it. I am happy to report that very soon, on or about January 5, 2011, there will be a significant course correction in this House of Representatives. Members will be expected to, and allowed to, read legislation before they cast their votes, take part in the activities of not only their committees, but also come to the Rules Committee with their ideas to take part in the process that they want to do. I think open rules will make a triumphant return to the House floor, and elected Representatives, Members of Congress, will have a chance to fully contribute in this legislative process. It does not make me happy when I recognize that there is no Member, freshman Member of this body, who has not, for the last 2 years, seen this body work the way it was designed--a legislative process that would be open, a legislative process that would be ethical, and a legislative process that would be transparent for people. So here we are, once again, the week before Christmas. I can handle that. I'm here ready to work but, like the rest of my colleagues, waiting for a small cadre of people to let us in on the plan. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. We've got to return to a process which is prepared for the future and prepared for Members to fully participate. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) not only for his friendship but also for being with us today as we approach the floor on H. Res. 1776. Mr. Speaker, just last week, I stood right here to do a rule and pointed out that my Democrat colleagues continue to use an unprecedented restrictive and closed process on the House floor, and I am here today to tell the same story. At least this is very consistent behavior. For 2 years, we have had nothing but closed rules, and here we are today, in fact, in the same place, except what we are doing here today, again, is discussing a long-term continuing resolution, a resolution that went nowhere in the Senate. Yet we are here again today, doing another continuing resolution so that our government does not shut down on Saturday. Last week, the Rules Committee, under Democrat leadership, reported out an unprecedented long-term martial law rule. They gave themselves 11 days to bring up any bill under a rule that same day, and just yesterday, they reported out an additional martial law rule through Christmas Eve. This only continues the backroom, closed deals that have been pursued throughout the 111th Congress. What was promised to be the most ``open, honest, and ethical'' Congress by Speaker Nancy Pelosi when she took the gavel has turned into the most closed, one-sided Congress in history. We tax too much. We spend too much. We regulate too much. We listen too little. Mr. Speaker, the American people asked for changes in 2008, and they got something that was far worse. In 3 weeks, that will change; but until then, I am here to discuss another closed rule for another continuing resolution. This day continues to bring about more overspending, which has been a common theme of the last two Congresses--not just another CR but another omnibus. The underlying legislation is a CR to keep the government running until Tuesday. That is true. The Democrats provided no budget this year, and the President has not signed one appropriations bill into law this year. So this legislation and the rule is just another tactic to keep the government running until the majority can figure out its next priority. Well, I assure you it will be all about spending. Over the past 3 years, nondefense, non-Homeland Security and non- Veterans Affairs discretionary spending has increased by a staggering 88 percent. In the meantime, the Nation's debt has risen to $13.5 trillion. There have been yearly record deficits since our friends, the Democrats, took the majority and record unemployment. The unemployment rate has now been at or above 9.5 percent for 18 consecutive months. Republicans want to take spending levels back to 2008, which would save American taxpayers nearly $100 billion in the first year. I think the American people are fed up with taxing, borrowing, spending, closed rules, and more rules and regulations than we have seen in the past 4 years, which has brought us nothing but more unemployment, higher debt and a monster deficit. Americans have called for an end to the reckless spending and for a new era of fiscal discipline. Yet it continues to fall on deaf ears even today. This country needs leaders who are willing to make tough financial decisions and fiscal decisions that will bring back our economy, stability, job growth--not just more of the same taxing and spending. Mr. Speaker, as if continuing the spending levels from 2010 weren't enough, my colleagues on the Democrat side of the aisle are here, acting only today to await a possible Senate omnibus bill that has a total price tag of $1.1 trillion more to be spent in the next 10 months. That's not called ``running the government.'' Running the government has already been taken care of. This is $1.1 trillion. When will the majority recognize that this simply cannot and should not continue? When will the Democrats understand that taxing and spending and putting our children in an unfavorable position for their futures will not be tolerated? In true fashion, I know, the Democrats have an agenda, and they need to continue it until the very end, and that is what they are doing. They have shut out Republican ideas for the past 4 years. They continue to shut out the American people. Continuing on the path of reckless government spending will only put us, our children, and our future in debt. Congress must do better. So, on behalf of my party, the Republican Party, we are on the floor today to recognize H. Res. 1776. We are going to oppose this rule. We are going to oppose the additional spending, and we promise to do better. Just last week, I stood right here to do a rule and pointed out that my democrat colleagues continue to use an unprecedented, restrictive, and closed process on the House floor, and here I am again to tell the same story. In fact, last week I was standing here before you Mr. Speaker discussing a long term Continuing Resolution--a resolution that went nowhere in the Senate. Yet, here we are again today, doing another Continuing Resolution so our government does not shut down by this Saturday. Week after week my friends on the other side of the aisle continue to bulldoze their massive spending agenda through the floor of the House with no Republican input, and no regular order. Last week the Rules Committee, under Democrat leadership, reported out an unprecedentedly long martial law rule. They gave themselves eleven days to bring up any bill under a rule the same day, and just yesterday they reported out an additional martial law rule through Christmas Eve. This only continues the backroom, closed deals they have pursued throughout the 111th Congress. What was promised to be the most ``open, honest and ethical'' Congress by Speaker Pelosi when she took the gavel, has been the most closed, and one-sided Congress in history. The American people asked for change in 2008 and they got something far worse. They received a Democrat Congress that doesn't listen to the American people, and a Congress that acts on their own interest and not the interest of the American taxpayer. Mr. Speaker, in three weeks that will change. But until then, I am here to discuss another closed rule for another Continuing Resolution. The legislation before us continues to over-spend--a common theme over the last two Congresses. The underlying legislation is a CR to keep the government running until Tuesday. The Democrats provided no budget for this year and the President has not signed one appropriations bill into law--so this legislation and rule is just another tactic to keep the government running until the Majority can kick the responsibility to the Republicans next Congress. Over the past three years, non-defense, non-homeland security, and non-veterans affairs discretionary spending has increased by a staggering 88 percent. In the meantime, the nation's debt has risen to $13.5 trillion, there have been yearly record deficits since the Democrats took the Majority, and the unemployment rate has been at or above 9.5% for 18 consecutive months. This CR does almost nothing to reverse this trend and instead continues the unsustainable, high rate of spending passed the Democrat Majority last year. This includes more spending for many federal agencies that received massive increases with the Democrat Stimulus bill in 2009. My Republican colleagues and I have pledged to cut non- security spending back to the fiscal year 2008 levels which would save American taxpayers nearly $100 billion in the first year. The American people are fed-up with the tax, borrow and spend policies of the past 4 years, which has brought nothing but unemployment, debt and deficit. Americans have called for an end to reckless spending and a new era of fiscal discipline, yet it continues to fall on deaf ears here today. This country needs leaders that are willing to make the tough fiscal decisions that will provide economic stability and job growth, not just more of the same. In true fashion, my democrat colleagues continue to push their own agenda on the American people. They have shut out Republicans over the past 4 years, and they continue to shut out the American people. Continuing on the path of reckless government spending, will only put the U.S. further in debt burdening future generations. Congress must do better for the American people. I oppose this rule. Mr. Speaker, you have heard me say it over and over, but the American people we promised an ``open, honest and ethical'' Congress, and that is not what they have received. Congress only received the text of this legislation a few hours ago. American's have called for transparency and bipartisanship and have only seen a secretive dictatorship. I ask my colleagues to vote no on the rule. Vote ``no'' to stop the reckless fiscal policies that Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats have pursued over the last 4 years. It is time to end the idea of Big Government and Big Spending. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and remember my friend, Dr. James Edward Byrd. He was kind and generous and a man of great character that deeply loved God and country. Dr. Byrd passed away on November 23, 2010 after suffering complications from heart surgery. Born and raised in Arkansas, Dr. Byrd was a proud graduate of Ouachita Baptist University, where he was a ROTC student during his tenure and the recipient of the Distinguished Military Student Award. Upon graduation, he received his commission in the Army as a Second Lieutenant and proceeded to serve as the Executive Officer, 2MTB 67 Armor and then as the Accountable Officer, 9th Quartermaster Battalion in Germany. Dr. Byrd also earned a Masters in Psychology and a Ph.D. from Southwestern Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas. Most recently, he served as the Vice President for the Texas Baptist Missions Foundation where he traveled around the State of Texas raising money for missions, ministering to local churches, and emphasizing the importance of sharing the gospel. His love for people and winning them to Christ was evident in his actions; I know Dr. Byrd touched countless lives. I had the distinct privilege and pleasure of having Dr. Byrd serve on my U.S. Academy Selection Board for thirteen years. He proudly served our country as a member of the Arkansas National Guard and the U.S. Army Reserves, with his military career spanning over twenty-three years. His record of exemplary military service and background in education made him well-suited to serve on my Board. He was deeply committed to selecting the best candidates for our military academies; these students who would go onto serve as the next leaders of our military in the generations to come. There are no words that are capable of fully expressing my heartfelt gratitude for his dedicated service to our great Nation. Dr. Byrd is survived by his loving wife of fifty-one years, Wencie; his sons, Scott, Lance, and Bart; his brother Bill; sisters Alice and Lela Mae; and grandchildren Daniel, Lauren, Blakely, Ryland, and Margaret. I am honored to have known him and called him my friend. He will be greatly missed. May the peace of God be with those he loved and sustain them through this hour of sorrow.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my friend, for yielding me such time as I may consume today. And I want to thank the gentleman for the considerations that he has given me personally and professionally over the last year, and I would wish him the very best in this holiday season. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this completely closed rule and to the ill-conceived underlying legislation. Week after week, my friends on the other side of the aisle continue to bulldoze their massive spending and overregulations bill to the floor of the House with no Republican input and no regular order. As a matter of fact, even today at least one Member of the Democratic Party showed up with a darn good idea, and it was slam-dunked ``no'' on a party-line basis. By the way, the Republicans voted for that good idea. What was promised 4 years ago was that this House would be the most open, honest, and ethical Congress, by our current Speaker Pelosi when she took the gavel. But this has been the most closed, secretive, one- sided, and flawed Congress, I believe, in history, matching the previous Congress. The American people asked for change, and I think they got far worse in the election to elect this current Congress. They received a Democrat Congress that didn't listen to the American people and a Congress that acts on its own interests and not the interests of the American people or the taxpayer. And that's why we suffer from such low numbers of support by the American people. Mr. Speaker, soon that, however, will change. But today it is more of the same, and I am here to discuss the rule for the continuing resolution, known as a CR, for fiscal year 2011. It also includes the food safety bill which has been attached to that CR. So it is not a clean bill. My colleagues and I have not even had 24 hours to review the text of this legislation. This legislation, once again, continues to overspend and overregulate, a common theme over the last two Congresses. And we won't even use regular order to establish the process. The underlying legislation is a CR to keep the government running through the rest of this fiscal year. The President has not signed one appropriations bill into law for this fiscal year, and our friends, the majority Democrats, have provided no budget. So this is their last- ditch effort to provide funding to keep the government running. Over the past 3 years, nondefense, nonhomeland security, and nonveterans affairs discretionary spending has increased by a staggering 88 percent. In the meantime, the Nation's debt has risen to $13.5 trillion--and that means that there is an additional $4.5 billion in deficit spending every single day. There have been back to back yearly record deficits day after day after day. The unemployment rate has risen--it is now at 9.5 percent--for 18 consecutive months. I might add that it rose to 9.8 percent in the latest economic report. This CR does nothing to reverse this trend and, instead, continues the unsustainable high rate of spending passed by the Democrat majority, aided by, supported, and abetted by the President of the United States, our President, Barack Obama. This includes more spending for Federal agencies that already had seen huge dollar increases with the stimulus bill in 2009. Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues and I have pledged to cut nonsecurity spending back to the fiscal levels of 2008, which would save the American taxpayers nearly $100 billion for what will end up being the next year of spending. Mr. Speaker, I believe that any responsible action by this House of Representatives should have been and should be to avoid raising the debt limit by making tough decisions today to avoid placing our children and our grandchildren in a further diminished position. Mr. Speaker, I believe the American people, as they look at their own personal circumstances and as they look at the irresponsibility out of Washington, unfortunately continue to see taxing, borrowing, and spending as a national problem. And that has brought us nothing but the results of higher unemployment, more debt, more bankruptcy, more homes being lost, and more debt. Americans have called for this endless spree to end and for an era of fiscal discipline. I think, once again, even though we are after the election, that message continues to fall on deaf ears again today. This country needs leaders who are willing to make tough decisions, fiscal decisions that will empower not only economic stability but also bring back to the American people jobs, the opportunity for them to be in a competitive marketplace and to understand that America must have jobs if we are going to provide our children and grandchildren with the future that they can believe in. Once again, it is the Congress of the United States that continues to lead the effort of us towards higher deficits, higher unemployment, and higher problems for people back home. We disagree with that. Mr. Speaker, as if the rampant spending wasn't enough, my colleagues, once again on the other side of the aisle, had to add what I consider to be an unfair and overregulated Senate food safety bill to the underlying legislation. Republicans remain committed to legislation that ensures the safety and security of America's food. However, this legislation comes at a heavy toll on producers and does virtually nothing to hold Federal bureaucrats accountable for their role in preventing food-borne illnesses. Oh, I'm sure we are going to hear about the number of people who get sick every year. We are going to blame everything on food processors and that process when, in fact, what we need to do is put rules and regulations in place that will better people's lives, and to allow the Federal Government to effectively work with consumers. That's not what this food safety bill does. The food safety measures in the underlying bill impose significant regulatory and cost burdens on the food processing and food producing system. It increases costs for food producers and, ultimately, consumers and does not require the Federal Drug Administration to spend one additional penny on the inspection of food for safety purposes. The bill expands the FDA's authority to dictate on farm production practices and performance standards. This means Congress is about to give the FDA, who is already overworked and has limited resources and even less expertise, the specific power to dictate to U.S. farmers how best to farm. Our Nation's farmers do not need more Federal Government bureaucrats who sit behind a desk in Washington telling them how to do their job. Additionally, this legislation institutes and expands registration requirements for food processing facilities, which essentially amounts to a Federal license to be in the food business. This would make it unlawful to produce food without a registration license, allowing the FDA to suspend a company's registration, once again a big Federal empowered government in Washington, D.C., at the expense of jobs and the price that consumers have to pay. Like any Federal agency, the FDA makes mistakes, yet this bill does nothing to ensure agriculture producers don't take massive financial losses caused by the mistake of the FDA. For example, in 2008 when the FDA mistakenly attributed an outbreak of salmonella to tomatoes, it cost the industry $100 million. Mr. Speaker, there is no way for us to legislate out of Washington, and there is no way to ensure that the FDA will not make such mistakes again in the future and wrongly implicate agriculture processing to food-borne disease outbreaks that can once again cause severe economic losses to the farmers and ranchers of America who cannot only not afford them, but who produce the highest quality of safety products anywhere in the world to American consumers. This is not going to be addressed properly in this legislation. It is simply about empowering Federal bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. In an article in The Wall Street Journal from December 2, 2010, related to the food safety bill, it states that ``food-borne illnesses have fallen by nearly one-third over the last decade, largely because businesses have already every incentive to police themselves.'' Yet this legislation gives the FDA new powers over the 2.2 million farms and the 28,000 food producers in America. In true fashion, my Democrat colleagues continue to push their own agenda, overwhelming the American consumer. They have shut out Republicans over the last 4 years, and they continue to shut out common sense and the American people. Continuing on the path of reckless government spending will only put the United States further in debt, burdening future generations. Mr. Speaker, we disagree with taxing, spending, and overregulating. Overregulation that increases costs to consumers and food producers will add just another fiscal restraint on families, not just in the congressional district that I represent, but all across this country. Congress must do a better job. We tax too much, we spend too much, we regulate too much, and we listen too little in this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I think you can count me in that I oppose this rule and the underlying legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, I think the gentleman from Massachusetts is right. Much of what this President does propose and in these last two Congresses what they proposed, Republicans have objected to them, and it is for a simple reason: We don't want to support the things that don't work. We want to support the things that will help the American people not only to have a better economy and to take care of themselves, but we are not for growing the size of the Federal Government that is in our lives now, a food safety bill that will do what I believe is quite the reverse but will be expensive and will come at the cost of consumers bettering their ability to have a safe food chain. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Cheyenne, Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas). (Mr. LUCAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman, Mr. Lucas, the gentleman who was selected today by the new Republican majority this next Congress to be the Agriculture Committee chairman. The gentleman, Mr. Lucas, spoke very clearly not only on behalf of farmers and ranchers across this country, but really on behalf of a group of people who are in the food chain of this country, who all the way up through grocery stores and providers of content make sure that the food safety lines of this country are properly taken care of. There are so many food workers all across this country who have established not only high standards as a result of their advocacy for not just their job, but the greatest opportunity around the world for us to make sure that consumers get the benefit of clean food, the opportunity to know more about not only the caloric intake, but to make sure that the value of our food is held for consumers at a proper price. The gentleman, Mr. Lucas, has noted a number of times on the floor that this industry, the agricultural industry, and the supermarket industry really have taken steps to ensure that their products are not only safe and secure, but that consumers have an opportunity to understand how to utilize those products when they receive those products from a store, perhaps, or where they buy their products. And this is part of that chain that I believe that this legislation just misuses. And consumers, through their ability to use food, whether it's refrigeration, whether it's in cooking procedures, whether it's mixing these products, how they would hold these out certainly has a lot to do with the food safety and the aspects that come as a result of that. Mr. Speaker, you have heard me say it over and over, but the American people I think expect something better and different. I must confess that in the near future that what we will do when Republicans come to the floor this next Congress starting January 5, we will take the legislation and run it through committees. We will include feedback and ideas from not just Republicans, but also the Democrats who want to be a part of this process, who get up and come to this town to represent their people, people who have elected them, people who have confidence in the way we do things. Taxing, spending, overregulating is not the way that this Congress should run; and the American people feel that, unfortunately, so plainly. Today all the way to the end, it is yet another example about how the American people see because they hear firsthand about overregulation, excessive spending, and continuation of more of the same. So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the underlying legislation, to vote ``no'' to stop the reckless fiscal policies that not only Speaker Pelosi but the Democratic Party have pursued over the last 4 years. Irresponsible not only in terms of the fiduciary responsibility that they had to openly discuss with the American people, the appropriations process, the budgeting process, but perhaps more importantly, I believe what is the responsibility of this body to work effectively as a purveyor of the taxpayer money in working with the administration. All we have done is send them a signal, you go spend all the money you want, we will make it available to you, rather than an understanding of the give and take of the expectations of performance by the American people of where each of these dollars should be spent and what we should expect back in return. I think it's always bad when a blank check that's filled in is given to somebody without an understanding of that. The United States Government should not allow this. That will change. A vote ``no'' is going to allow farmers and food producers also, because this bill is together, it's going to take away their rights, it's going to add more rules and regulations, it's going to add more government interference, it's going to get in the way of what I believe is a food safety issue. It's time to end the idea of big government and big spending. We are here on the floor again to make sure that the American people understand this, that there is a group of people who will certainly see things differently. But I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, we will show up with better ideas. Get ready, hope is on the way. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Vietnam War Veterans of the Oak Cliff Lions Club. It is my great privilege and pleasure to honor these individuals. On November 3, 2010, the Oak Cliff Lions Club paid special tribute to its members that served in the Vietnam War. This group of distinct individuals includes Captain Stan Altschuler, USA; Petty Officer 2nd Class Robert Bown, USN; Airman First Class Danny Boyce, USAF; Colonel Rich Buickerood, USAF, Ret.; Major Durhl Caussey, USA, Ret.; 1st Lieutenant Scott Chase, USA; Colonel Ken Cordier, USAF, Ret.; Lt. Colonel Stoney Green, USA; Captain Ray Morey, USAF; 1st Lieutenant Edwin Strom, USA; Sgt. Joe Wells, USAF; Captain David Mills, USA, USAF; and Spec. 4 Jim Foster, USA. These veterans deserve our deepest gratitude for their great sacrifice made in defense of liberty, freedom, and democracy. No words can ever fully express our gratitude for all they have done for our country. Their patriotism, courage, and selflessness is commendable and deserves our highest regard. Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in expressing our gratitude for their service to this great Nation.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Turkey's Republic Day, which was celebrated on October 29, 2010. On this day, America's ally Turkey commemorated its 87th year as a Republic. Turkey, under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, officially became a Republic in 1923--paving the way for the creation of a modern nation- state. Turkey has been and continues to be an important ally to the United States. It serves an important role in the international community, and as a member of North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, it has supported the United States on many critical issues. I congratulate Turkey and its citizens on this important day.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for strengthening the bilateral relationship the United States has with Taiwan. Taiwan is an important ally and trading partner, and we must continue to support its defense. Taiwan faces a continuous threat from the People's Republic of China, PRC, and must be capable of defending itself in the event of an attack. Section 2(b)(4) of the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, which is the cornerstone of United States-Taiwan relations, declares that it is the policy of the United States ``to consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States.'' Section 3(b) of the Act stipulates that both the President and Congress shall determine the nature and quantity of defense articles and services that Taiwan needs. On January 29, 2010 the Obama Administration announced to Congress a planned arms package to Taiwan totaling $6.4 billion. The package included 114 Patriot PAC-3 missiles, 60 Black Hawk helicopters, 12 Harpoon missiles for training purposes, two Osprey class refurbished mine hunters, and military communication equipment. This package was extremely significant and will help ensure the security of the Taiwan Strait. However, this package did not include the 66 F-16 fighter aircrafts, which were requested by Taiwan in 2006. I request that the Obama Administration give full, prompt, and fair consideration to Taiwan's request for the F-16 fighter aircrafts.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the city of Irving for its successful use and implementation of the Lean Six Sigma Program. Understanding the need for a more responsive and efficient government, the city of Irving became the first municipality in the State of Texas, and second in the country, to holistically utilize the Lean Six Sigma Program citywide. Irving initiated this program in October 2007 and expanded it citywide in its efforts to streamline and improve the efficiencies of city operations and staffing structures. The city's emphasis to improve overall customer satisfaction underscores their attentiveness to the concerns of Irving residents and businesses and working diligently to address those issues, making the great city of Irving a better place to live and work. I commend the city of Irving for its innovative thinking and actively seeking new ways to better serve the needs of residents, visitors, and businesses. Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in recognizing the city of Irving for its successful implementation of the Lean Six Sigma Program.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center at UT Southwestern, UTSW, Medical Center for attaining the prestigious National Cancer Institute, NCI, designation. The NCI designation is a national benchmark bestowed upon the top cancer centers in recognition of their innovative research and excellence in patient care. The Simmons Center exemplifies this and is the first and only medical center in North Texas to attain this designation. Founded in 1989, the Simmons Cancer Center has been devoted to reducing the impact of cancer, aggressively striving to be at the forefront of cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. The dedicated clinical and research faculty and their staff conduct numerous clinical trials and develop and test new cancer drugs. I commend their commitment to conducting cutting-edge medical research and providing quality care. I am also pleased to recognize the Simmons family for their generosity and firm belief in giving back to our local community. Their charitable donation established this cancer center and they have remained strong supporters. Over the years, they have given and pledged over $100 million to enhance the cancer programs at UTSW. With the continued help of numerous supporters and foundations, UTSW will be able to expand its reach and help countless more individuals affected by cancer. Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in recognizing the dedicated efforts of UTSW and the Simmons Cancer Center to combating cancer and in congratulating them on achieving this nationally recognized status.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman, Mr. Dreier, for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, last night at the Rules Committee, we had a very vigorous and spirited debate. It is continuing, although with less fervency, on the floor today about the insistence of the Democratic Party to blame corporations for the ills, blame George Bush for all the problems, when, in fact, it's been 15 straight months of unemployment, over 9.5 percent that the Democratic Party is personally responsible for. The substance of this bill is not just about teachers. We already know it's about a lot of other issues. One of them is about the competitiveness of America as we do business overseas. The U.S. Chamber says about this bill, it ``would impose draconian tax increases on American worldwide companies that would hinder job creation, decrease the competitiveness of American businesses, and deter economic growth.'' Madam Speaker, the Democratic Party is hung up on this issue, and yet they will blame George Bush for the bad legislation that they passed. The facts of the case are simple. Americans invest in the stock market, American companies need to seek markets all around the world, and this bill will make it far, far more difficult for American companies to invest in their operations that make money. Making money is what keeps the stock market, 401(k)s, and lots of other retirement plans up to where they are able to receive the funds as a benefit of a worldwide economic opportunity. Madam Speaker, the Democratic party is once again going to go and harm not just the stock market but employment and our ability to make a comeback. The National Association of Manufacturers says, ``Imposing $9.6 billion in tax increases on these companies will jeopardize the jobs of American manufacturing employees.'' It is Americans who work here who produce goods and services that are sold overseas, and what we want to do is to take away the ability that companies have to sell overseas. That is the legacy of this Democratic Party, higher taxes, more rules and regulations, debt, and record unemployment. This is not how you give opportunities to people to build jobs. It is job destruction, and that's what the Democratic party is known for. This comes in line with the three largest political items of this Democrat majority that net lose America 10 million American jobs. Don't blame somebody else, Madam Speaker. Please stand up and admit. You have been in office now, not just Ms. Pelosi, for 4 almost years now, but the President now for a year and a half. Pin the tail on the donkey. Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear back from my colleagues about how this change is doing such a great job for their constituents back home. Robust, I am sure, economic times in Massachusetts to where they don't have to worry about an adequate supply of energy or the costs associated with that. But, Mr. Speaker, today I received a copy of a Key Vote Alert from the U.S. Chamber. The U.S. Chamber represents employers and employees all across this country. They have some things to say about this bill, too, which every single Member of Congress has a chance to receive. That doesn't mean they agree with it or want to read it. But it says this: ``There's a bright line between increasing safety and creating a regulatory environment so unfit for business that oil and gas companies that operate in the United States will take their business elsewhere. That line is crossed repeatedly throughout H.R. 3534.'' I continue from this Key Alert, U.S. Chamber. ``At this time, it is premature for Congress to legislate prescriptive solutions when the causes of the well blowout and any associated failures that led to the catastrophe have not yet been conclusively determined.'' Mr. Speaker, once again it's a ready, aim, fire by our friends the Democrats, who bring bills to the floor, once again a mundane bill that really nobody knew was going to be here on the floor, and here it is. I continue, ``The bill would make it economically nonviable to lease or explore offshore for energy resources, and the offshore energy industry would be driven largely out of U.S. waters. This outcome would increase U.S. dependence on foreign oil at higher costs in the short-and long- term, and could cripple the gulf coast economy by jeopardizing the 46,000 jobs''--they should say that remain--``the 46,000 jobs that the oil and natural gas industry supports in the gulf coast region.'' Mr. Speaker, they've got it right. They've got it exactly right what this bill does. What they fail to talk about is the reason why. The reason why is it's an assault on the free enterprise system. It's a continued assault on people who are workers in this country, a continued assault to raise the price at the pump and to raise the price of heating and fuel that fuel our businesses. Mr. Speaker, as we already understand, and we know this, the cost of energy now exceeds the cost of employees. And if we keep this dangerous trend up, rather than providing reliable sources of energy at a cost- effective price, it means that America will continue to be noncompetitive. Once again, a direct result of this Congress, a direct result of the votes that take place in this body. The facts of the case are the Chamber also strongly opposes new energy taxes, which will cost consumers $25 billion at the pump and in their homes. It's a continued assault on America. And I am disappointed. The Chamber nailed it. They got it right, Mr. Speaker. Congressional and Public Affairs, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Washington, DC, July 29, 2010. To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation representing the interests of more than three million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region, strongly opposes H.R. 3534, the ``Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources Act of 2010,'' in its current form. There is a bright line between increasing safety and creating a regulatory environment so unfit for business that oil and gas companies that operate in the United States will take their business elsewhere. That line is crossed repeatedly throughout H.R. 3534. As the Chamber has stated in prior communications, Congress should resist the rush to act on legislation in the midst of the ongoing catastrophe in the Gulf; priority number one must remain permanently sealing the well and mitigating the extensive environmental damage. At this time, it is premature for Congress to legislate prescriptive solutions when the causes of the well blowout and any associated failures that led to the catastrophe have not yet been conclusively determined. The Obama Administration's National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling has not yet reported its findings, and the Chamber believes that an independent commission, similar to the one included in bipartisan legislation reported by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, would inform the legislative process by providing important data, technical analysis, and expertise. H.R. 3534 would have serious and negative impacts on U.S. energy and economic security. The bill would make it economically nonviable to lease or explore offshore for energy resources, and the offshore energy industry would be driven largely out of U.S. waters. This outcome would increase U.S. dependence on foreign oil at higher costs in the short- and long-term, and could cripple the Gulf Coast economy by jeopardizing the 46,000 jobs that the oil and natural gas industry supports in the Gulf Coast region. Provisions eliminating the cap on liability provided in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 could discourage major integrated oil companies as well as independent producers from exploring in domestic waters, as they would be unable to afford adequate insurance to cover the potential liability risk, if they could obtain insurance coverage at all. Independent producers, which hold approximately 90 percent of Gulf leases and produce approximately 30 percent of the oil and 60 percent of natural gas in the Gulf, would be particularly hard hit. Moreover, the retroactive application of the liability cap raises serious constitutional issues that may, if stricken down by the courts, force Congress to readdress the issue in the future. H.R. 3534 would force the CEOs of energy companies to attest personally that their systems will never, ever fail and that their companies are in strict compliance with all environmental and natural resource laws. Violations would subject CEOs to civil penalties, through citizen suits and enforcement actions, and criminal liability, which could include imprisonment. In practice, these provisions in H.R. 3534 are unworkable, and few--if any--companies could meet them. The intent of this provision appears to be political demagoguery of energy company CEOs. However, the real impact of these provisions would be severe; few domestic or foreign energy companies would be willing to explore for energy in U.S. waters. The Chamber strongly opposes the new energy taxes included in H.R. 3534, which Congressional Budget Office analysis indicates would ultimately cost consumers $25 billion. Termed a ``conservation tax,'' it would do nothing of the sort; all monies raised by this tax would go directly to the federal treasury for Congress to appropriate. Congress should not exploit the tragedy in the Gulf as a rationale to levy excessive new energy taxes on American consumers and producers. The nascent economic recovery cannot afford additional extreme taxes on domestically produced commodities that the entire United States depends on every day. Ultimately, such new taxes could encourage American operators to move investments elsewhere. Excessive taxes levied exclusively on domestically produced energy would also increase U.S. dependence on imported energy as it did in the 1980s, further increasing the risks to U.S. energy security. The Environmental Diligence provisions, purportedly intended to ban BP leases, would set conditions so that virtually no firm could develop Gulf energy resources. H.R. 3534 would create a ``doomed to fail'' policy, making certain isolated violations of safety, health and environmental statutes punishable by a ban on leasing or exploration on federal land. When viewed in conjunction with the CEO liability provisions, the Environmental Diligence provisions would create, in essence, a system whereby making even one mistake could bar future access to leasing. Rather than enduring the hostile and risky relationship with federal regulators that this legislation would force upon both regulators and the regulated community, firms would likely forgo further investments in U.S. waters. H.R. 3534 would expand dramatically the reach and scope of federal environmental law by imposing unnecessary layers of duplicative environmental reviews, prolonging decisions on permits, and changing the criteria agencies must consider when issuing a lease or permit. Furthermore, the legislation would minimize the ability of federal regulators to consider the economic benefits of energy exploration projects. As a result, the economic growth of communities along the Gulf Coast and U.S. energy security would become much less relevant to federal regulators under

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Here we are, Mr. Speaker, today, a brand new day. It is the 35th time this Congress that I have handled a rule. Once again, it is another closed rule. In fact, as we aim for our 6-week recess, we recognize how important it is for Members of this body to go back home and to receive feedback about what a great job we are doing here in Congress, to have the American people be very supportive of increasing taxes and of more rules and regulations. Today, we are sticking it to the consumer again at the gas pump because we are going to take it out on energy companies. It is going to be a very interesting recess. Mr. Speaker, as I talk about this being my 35th time during this session to handle a closed rule, in fact, the Democratic majority has not allowed one open rule, not for me and not for my colleagues. There has not been one open rule this entire Congress. Yet, this week, we are passing two appropriations bills, which, under normal rules and regulations, at least before the Democrats took over, would have been open to all Members to have come in and to have not only openly debated but to have shown up on the floor and to have offered their ideas about appropriations bills. I just don't believe that closing down debate, limiting Members' abilities to come talk, having limited amendments, and really shutting out Republicans and Democrats--that is, unless you are in the leadership of the Democratic Party--is really the way that we should run this ship. Once again, during the break, I think the American people are going to have a chance to provide some feedback to Members. It is my hope that we will listen. Today, we are discussing two bills that are reactions to the gulf oil spill crisis. While reforms are clearly needed to make the American offshore drilling safer and cleaner, today's legislation requires new blanket regulations without a good sense of, I think, what the problem was and what the facts say. The investigation of events should be completed so that Congress can act intelligently and correctly. The focus should be on permanently stopping the leak, on cleaning up the oil, on assisting gulf coast communities, on holding BP accountable, and on finding the cause of the disaster. We ought to wait until we get that. What we are doing is trying to put through a bill here where we already assume that we understand what the problem is, and, of course, if you are in Washington, you understand these energy companies just need to be taxed more. We need to raise taxes on them to discourage the drilling in the gulf. There was a comment made a few minutes ago that the Democrat majority wants to save jobs from going overseas. In fact, that is exactly what this will do. It will keep America continually reliant on energy from other nations around the globe, nations that not only do not like America but, perhaps, even worse than that, will use those resources that we give them against America. It is a bad deal. Anybody who listens to this debate can figure out in half a heartbeat that using American resources, keeping American jobs and more fully working with the industry instead of trying to punish the industry would be what any rational American would do. Once again, we are not rational in this town. It is about punishing people. It's just like President Obama, who wants to pick a fight with everybody in town in order to go and ruin the free enterprise system. Well, that is what we are doing again today. We are on record. We are going to have the vote today. We are going to lose thousands of jobs. Yesterday, the gentleman Mr. Scalise from Louisiana and the gentleman Mr. Cassidy from Louisiana came forward to the Rules Committee. They talked about this moratorium in the gulf and that, if it continues, thousands of jobs will be lost in their home State. Thousands of middle class Americans who need to have work, once again, will be in trouble. The Obama moratorium on deepwater drilling has already cost tens of thousands of jobs. This bill will eliminate even more American energy jobs, making it harder and more expensive to produce both energy on- and offshore. Additionally, this legislation will only further enhance our economic troubles in the gulf region and throughout the Nation because it will create a diminished supply of energy which will be available at a higher cost, and the American consumers will be the people who will be paying for this--I'm sorry--the taxpayers, also, because they will be the people who will be unemployed. Mr. Speaker, my good friends on that side of the aisle are using H.R. 3534 to exploit this oil spill tragedy as a political opportunity to rush to Washington and put energy items on their agenda. The underlying bill imposes job-killing changes and higher taxes. This underlying bill imposes job-killing charges and higher taxes for both onshore natural gas and oil production and offshore. The bill creates over $30 billion in new mandatory spending, $30 billion in new mandatory spending for two new government bureaucracies that have absolutely nothing to do with the oil spill. It raises taxes over $22 billion in 10 years. This is a direct tax on natural gas and oil that will raise energy prices for American families, businesses, hurt domestic job creation, and increase our dependence on foreign oil. But don't worry, I'm sure we can blame George Bush for the passage of this bill and the outcome that will come from that. Additionally, H.R. 3534 requires a Federal takeover of State authority to permit in State waters which reverses 60 years of precedence of law in this country. Why are we rewarding the mismanagement, corruption and oversight failures of the Federal Government and giving them expanded authority now? They were a joint partner down in the gulf, and they failed too. We should not empower them even more. The bill includes unlimited spill liability for offshore operators, which could effectively eliminate all independent producers from offshore drilling if they cannot obtain insurance policies to cover their operations. However, this does not mean that drilling up and down our coasts will stop. Nope. Countries like China and Russia are in the process of negotiating with Cuba for access to these same oil fields right now, which means that others will come and reap the benefits, sell it to us at an exorbitant price, and we will be shipping American jobs overseas. According to an independent study from IHS Global Insight: ``By 2020, an exclusion of the independents from the Gulf of Mexico would eliminate 300,000 jobs and result in a loss of $147 billion in Federal, State and local taxes from the gulf region over 10 years.'' The gulf region has suffered enough, Mr. Speaker. Our consumers and businesses need an adequate supply of natural gas and energy. What this Congress does is only going to diminish jobs, lower local revenue in areas, and cause our businesses to be noncompetitive because we will pay more for the energy to supply the needs to business. Week after week, Mr. Speaker, I come down to this floor to debate the importance of economic growth and job opportunities, and my friends on the other side of the aisle continue this same agenda, the same agenda that does not work. And then they question, Why don't you Republicans-- at least one of you--come vote for this? Well, the answer is, We're not going to vote for what's not going to work. And what does not work, Mr. Speaker, is the taxing, the borrowing, the spending policies that week after week after week diminish jobs and push our economy into further debt. Unemployment is the highest it's been. More people are unemployed in this country than since the time of the Great Depression and for a longer period of time. That is not a record of success, Mr. Speaker. It's one that I would be embarrassed about. Americans want solutions. They want Congress to produce results, and this bill does not do that. It's my hope that when we go home for the August break once again that the American people say what's on their mind, and I think it's up to us, as Members of Congress, to listen. Additionally, in the Natural Resources Committee, Congressman Cassidy from Louisiana offered an amendment that passed the committee without any objections for Congress to establish a bipartisan independent commission to investigate the oil spill, yet it has been stripped from the bill, and that amendment was not made in order last night in the Rules Committee. This Democrat majority continues to use their power to shut out bipartisan solutions to everyday issues that are here on the floor. Under this rule, we're also providing consideration for H.R. 5749, the Offshore Whistleblower Protection Act. While providing whistleblower protections for offshore workers is essential to the safety of those workers and others, I remain concerned that H.R. 5749, which was just introduced on Monday evening of this week, should have gone through regular order review, allowing Members the appropriate time not only to read the bill--I'm sorry, did I say read the bill? Yes, Members need to be able to read the bill, understand the content, have some dialogue, and then it would allow them an opportunity to provide feedback. Of course, I know and you know, Mr. Speaker, that in the Rules Committee, anything that deals with common sense, bipartisanship, or that might be a position taken by some part of the free enterprise system is shut out of the Rules Committee week after week, day after day. So with the current fiscal crisis our government faces and record unemployment, why do we have this bill on the floor today? To make unemployment even worse--in particular, in Louisiana and Mississippi-- increase taxes, further implode the debt and the deficit. Mr. Speaker, it makes no sense why week after week this Democrat majority does that. We should be doing job-saving and job-creation bills, not job-killing bills. But once again, this is the agenda of the Democratic Party. Mr. Speaker, the voices of the American public have been clear. Americans need this Congress to get it. We need pro-growth solutions that will encourage job creation and keep America competitive with the world. This legislation further diminishes private sector jobs while adding billions to our national debt. So I don't know when my friends on the other side of the aisle are going to catch on; but it is my hope that at the August break, they will have an opportunity to hear from Americans who are unemployed, seeking an opportunity to find a job who look to this Congress to do something about the jobs. Mr. Speaker, the question once again today, Where are the jobs? Where is the agenda on this floor that will be about saving jobs? And, Mr. Speaker, perhaps more pointedly, when will we quit killing jobs in this country with an agenda by the Democratic Party that the Democratic Members vote for that diminishes America's ability to compete? Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentlewoman for letting me know that she is through with her speakers. Mr. Speaker, here we are on the floor talking about raising energy prices, diminishment of jobs, further debt, a Federal Government that's going to be empowered to do more in the gulf with regulation, and yet we haven't even taken time to find out what really happened, what needs to be corrected, and how that needs to take place. Secondly, we learned very clearly that a bipartisan idea about us making sure that we do look into this, to give the American people the confidence that we can work together in Washington that went through the Natural Resources Committee without objection on a bipartisan basis, goes up to the Rules Committee, rejected. Rejected straight up. We learned again today, no open rule in this entire Congress. My 35th time to come to the floor leading the charge for Republicans on a rule, not an open rule. Today we had an opportunity just a minute ago to provide the information from the U.S. Chamber. What's the impact of this bill? Diminishment of American jobs. More taxation on consumers at the pump. And perhaps worst of all, people who will lose their jobs. Tremendous job loss. And in the long run, we learned that what happens is that it's not an unintended consequence when these jobs move overseas; it is a direct result of the pressure, the taxation, the rules, the regulations, the absolute meaning of the bill to diminish American jobs and to push our reliance on foreign oil and jobs overseas. That is the agenda of the Democratic Party: higher taxes, higher spending, more debt, pushing jobs overseas. We don't need those jobs here. Higher prices for consumers and incredible unemployment and debt. You would think, Mr. Speaker, that instead of us being on the floor to diminish and kill jobs, which is what this Democratic majority does, we should be enhancing jobs. I am disappointed to know that, as the gentleman from Louisiana came to talk about people who they represent, those ideas were tossed out of hand. It's a real shame. We do not have a body that's interested in encouraging economic development, investment, or the creation of jobs. In fact, what we are for is a political agenda that we are working through now, about two- tenths through this agenda, that will net lose 10 million American jobs, the continued assault against employers and certainly the workers of this country. Mr. Speaker, I think it's, once again, another sad day. I know it's another new day in Washington, but a sad way to look at this. Mr. Speaker, I have a letter from the National Association of Manufacturers, and what they say is, ``While we appreciate efforts made earlier this week to improve H.R. 3534,'' meaning their members lobbied, I assume, Speaker Pelosi, ``NAM members continue to oppose this bill, as it would, in its current form,'' the form that we have here on the floor, ``drive up energy costs, create uncertainties in the availability of supply and adversity affect U.S. jobs.'' Once again, these are people that are job creators and people that are trying to hang on at a time of continued assault against the American worker by the Democratic Party. I think Mr. Jay Timmons, executive vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers, has it right. They are asking all Members of Congress, regardless of party, please oppose this job-killing, tax-increasing, consumer-higher- payments-at-the-pump bill that will result in more unemployment, higher costs. National Association of Manufacturers, Washington, DC, July 29, 2010. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representatives: The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the nation's largest industrial trade association representing small and large manufacturers in every industrial sector and in all 50 states, urges you to oppose H.R. 3534, the Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources Act of 2010. Our nation continues to face a setback in energy security and independence every day the drilling moratorium remains in place. Thousands of jobs in the oil and gas industry have been lost. Companies that make and supply equipment, services, engines, boats and materials such as steel and concrete will soon feel massive economic consequences from the moratorium. Manufacturers believe it is critically important to understand the causes of the Gulf of Mexico accident and its long-term environmental impacts before enacting policies that could make a serious problem much worse. While we appreciate efforts made earlier this week to improve H.R. 3534, NAM members continue to oppose the bill, as it would, in its current form, drive up energy costs, create uncertainties in the availability of supply and adversely affect U.S. jobs. While there appears widespread agreement in the industry and on Capitol Hill that the $75 million liability cap needs to be updated, requiring an unattainable level of insurance coverage for domestic energy producers on the Outer Continental Shelf is not the solution. By eliminating the cap, H.R. 3534 would effectively retain the moratorium on offshore drilling for all but a handful of the world's largest international companies, forcing the vast majority of American companies out of U.S. waters. NAM members support energy policies that: (1) expand domestic supplies in an environmentally safe way; and (2) lower costs for U.S. consumers and for manufacturers, which use one-third of our nation's energy. Access to competitively priced energy helps U.S. companies compete in the global economy and preserves high-paying jobs here at home. The NAM's Key Vote Advisory Committee has indicated that votes related to H.R. 3534, including votes on procedural motions, may be considered for designation as Key Manufacturing Votes in the 111th Congress. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, jay Timmons, Executive Vice President. Mr. Speaker, Republicans continue to offer commonsense solutions to rein in the current spending spree, and the best way to do it is not to tax and not to lose jobs. The creation of jobs is how you go about turning this economy around. There was talk about Social Security earlier. It is the Democratic Party that is losing the jobs in this country, and that is why Social Security is in trouble. I think blaming someone else is a sad way to go through life. Republicans, like the American people, would like some transparency and accountability. They should expect it. American people should expect it from their leaders, Members of Congress, and I don't think they're getting it. Democrats are using the oil spill as an excuse to raise $22 billion worth of new taxes and over $300 billion in new, unrelated mandatory Federal spending. I don't see a lot of people down here who are exactly worried about this on the Democratic side. I hear people who are down here talking about that it's the right thing to do, and that is what the Democratic majority will get credit for with this bill: more taxing, more spending, more rules and regulations, more unemployment, more high debt, pushing jobs offshore. Mr. Speaker, reforms are needed to make America more competitive. The reforms should be about making sure that the drilling that takes place in the gulf or anywhere else is done safely and that we do follow best practices and rules and regulations. It should be done to encourage the government to work successfully with business, with industry, with the American worker, but that's not what we have here. What we have is a bill designed to kill the industry, to diminish its effectiveness, to increase costs for consumers, and to make pump costs and costs on natural gas more expensive. I think that this economic plan by the Democratic majority they should get full credit for: higher taxes, more spending, assault on the free enterprise system, more unemployment, more debt, more things that are not working. I'm going to give the Democratic majority credit today. Good for you. Now we know what that is. I know you're two-tenths through this agenda of killing 10 million American jobs, but you need to know this. You're going to get credit for this, and I hope the American people, in just a few days, when we go home, talk to their Members of Congress about changing that, because we ought to have a jobs bill on this floor to create jobs, not kill jobs. The Republican Party is for the creation of jobs. We are for balancing the budget. We are for stopping the assault on employers, and we're for empowering the American people to have a brighter future, not one that simply empowers Washington, DC. Mr. Speaker, the numbers are stunning. Over the time that President Obama has been in office, we have lost 2.5 million free enterprise system jobs, and yet 500,000 Federal Government jobs have been added in that period of time. The assault on the common man of this country is unrelenting by the Democratic majority. For that reason, I encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous question to bring some fiscal sanity and sense and restraint to this body, and I'm going to offer a ``no'' vote on the rule. Mr. Speaker, the facts of the case are simple. The American people have got it. It is time for a real change. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, once again this morning my Democratic colleagues are trying to scare this country. The facts of the case are that, as a result of the economic downturn of this country because of high taxes and more rules and regulations, more people are unemployed in America today than since the Great Depression. That is what will kill Social Security. Republicans are not interested in killing Social Security. They are interested in America having a vibrant economic output. They are interested in people being employed and being able to take care of their families. And so perhaps the Democratic message will be to scare seniors and scare people about what Republicans would do to Social Security. Let's get it right: Republicans want to make sure that we have a vibrant economy. We are for Social Security. We support Social Security. I am disappointed that the Democratic agenda is going to be-- that we heard about today--to scare seniors about their future.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the chairwoman of the Rules Committee for yielding me this time, my friend, Ms. Slaughter. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this will be the 34th time I have handled a rule on the House floor, and this will be the 34th time I have yet to handle one open rule this session of Congress. In fact, over the 130-plus rules this Congress, we have not yet debated an open rule. I guess I could add the word yet, but I would presume that moving forward during this session of Congress I don't think we expect to. What a shame, Madam Speaker. I don't believe that closing debate or limiting amendments or shutting down Members of Congress who are elected by their colleagues and peers back home to come and represent them, whether they are Republicans or Democrats, makes a lot of sense. As a matter of fact, I think it's wrong. Yet today here we are again with my handling of the 34th time this session a closed rule. I would once again question this agenda. I would question the agenda of the majority party, the Democratic Party, that we already know is about taxing, spending, and more rules and regulations, and more debt to this great Nation. But I think that it's important to look at how bad process delivers a bad outcome. And today that's exactly what we're looking at again, another flawed process to bring something to this floor that should be treated more respectfully than the topic that it is. But I am going to use my time also to talk about some Republican ideas. One thing I have the opportunity today, Madam Speaker, is to call for a vote on the previous question to allow for this week's YouCut winner. We've over the weeks heard about YouCut. YouCut is a Republican idea that's an online idea. It's a voting tool, a tool where people who are back home have an opportunity to pick what they consider to be wasteful government spending, something which this Congress is incapable of doing because the agenda does not allow for making wiser choices or even feedback from our colleagues about how we would cut and make this government more efficient. Over a million Americans have voted this week alone. This week's YouCut winner is the elimination of subsidies to first- class seats on Amtrak's long-distance routes. This initiative would yield $1.2 billion in savings over 10 years. And these people who have voted are hardworking Americans who are paying attention to what we're doing here in Washington. They don't want to have their tax dollars subsidize first-class travel on Amtrak. I have long advocated for reforming Amtrak, especially the long- distance routes. These routes lose money year after year after year. They continue to receive money from the Federal Government, and Amtrak has no incentive to improve their operations as long as Uncle, that's Uncle Sam, is willing to pay. This Congress I have introduced H.R. 5377, a bill that would require Amtrak to eliminate service on long-distance routes whose total direct costs are more than twice the revenue. That is, where the costs are more than twice the revenue that comes in, the Federal Government should not be paying for that. The taxpayers should no longer be footing the bill for Amtrak's inefficiencies. And today you're going to have a chance to hear from the Republicans about how we think we ought to streamline this government and provide savings to the taxpayer. Additionally, we're here today to discuss H.R. 1264, which would expand the National Flood Insurance Program, known as NFIP, to include wind storm insurance coverage. But once again today, based upon the agenda that this Democratic majority has, it would create a massive new government program to offer government-paid coverage backed with taxpayer dollars. And while this legislation may be well-intended, I have no doubt that it would have a crushing impact on a very fragile U.S. job market that would add billions to the Federal deficit. That's why we're talking about YouCut today. We're talking about YouCut today because the bill we're getting ready to pass here in just a few minutes is not even paid for. And our friends in the majority keep talking about, oh, we pay for things. We make the tough decisions. Well, another day in Washington where another tough decision is not being made by the leadership of this House, and the agenda of taxing and spending and more debt and long-term destruction of the free enterprise system is exactly what's on the floor of the House today with this bill. Transferring these liabilities from the private sector to the NFIP would be fiscally irresponsible. The NFIP currently owes the U.S. Treasury over $18 billion--yet we're going to give them some more, we're going to empower them some more--the amount that it's been forced to borrow from the American taxpayers to pay claims and expenses in excess of the premiums collected. Since 2006, the Government Accountability Office has included the NFIP on its list of high-risk government programs in need of comprehensive reform. And here today we're empowering a program that's on the high-risk series and encouraging them to do more business, taking business from the free enterprise system. Additionally, the Property and Casualty Insurance Association of America, known as PCI, estimates that the legislation will eliminate 41,775 private-sector jobs so that Uncle Sam and the government can add jobs. Madam Speaker, that is the hallmark of this Democrat majority. It is to empower the government against the free enterprise system. We saw this in May numbers, when the May numbers came out, 431,000 net new jobs. And our friends in the Democrats come down every day and say, Look at us, look at all these jobs we're creating. Yeah, 431,000 jobs in May, but of that figure 400,000 were government jobs. They were census jobs, they were temporary jobs, and you're trying to fool this country. In Texas, if we were in the Texas legislature, that would be deceptive advertising. It should be deceptive advertising in Washington and be against the law. With an unemployment rate at 9.5 percent and a loss of over 3 million jobs since January of 2009, now is not the time to be diminishing more. That's 41,775 jobs is the estimate. By increasing the taxpayers' exposure also, this program is $22.1 billion in premiums that could be taken out of our economy. But it doesn't stop there. More than $20 billion of investment in mutual, municipal, State, and local bonds will completely dry up. A line of business that the free enterprise system handled that the government did not need to. And government at all levels, State, Federal, and local, will lose billions in tax revenue from the free enterprise system. During the last Congress, the Senate rejected this proposal by a vote of 74 to 19. Even the administration, shockingly, even the administration voiced opposition to adding wind to the NFIP, citing concerns that it would threaten the long-term viability of the program. Exactly right. It's called bankruptcy. Never forget the taxpayer is there, so it probably won't go bankrupt. With the current Federal crisis, the financial crisis, and the government crisis, and record unemployment, why would the majority party be pushing for legislation to make unemployment worse? Or would this simply be to help the U.S. Treasury? I don't know. But either way it's government jobs. And I guess we should be careful and not complain too much, because I guess Uncle Sam needs the help. Madam Speaker, the voices of the American public have been clear. Americans want pro-growth solutions that will encourage job creation and investment and that would keep Americans competitive with the world. Instead, today we find 41,000 more jobs that will dry up in the free enterprise system, jobs back home. This legislation further diminishes not only these jobs but adds billions of dollars to our national debt. That is the hallmark of this administration and this Congress: more taxing, more spending, more taking of jobs from the free enterprise system to the government, and perhaps worst of all, a debt we may never, ever pay for. When my friends on the other side of the aisle start to promote positive solutions instead of federalizing more sectors of our free enterprise system, they can count on receiving our support. I can't do it today. Today's another vote. I reserve the balance of my time.