Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Charleston, West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I gather that the gentleman from Colorado is now, by shaking his head, through with other speakers, and I will go ahead and offer my close. And I thank the gentleman very much. Mr. Speaker, I think it's interesting that we blame George Bush, and yet he never got a bill to sign. It's a pretty interesting concept when we blame the President for something that never came to his desk. Mr. Speaker, Republicans continue to offer commonsense solutions to rein in the current spending spree by our Democratic colleagues. We, like the American people, would like to see some transparency and accountability from our elected leaders. I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material immediately prior to vote on the previous question.

Mr. SESSIONS. The legislation before us today brings some stability to the currently wavering housing market; but Americans are still concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the Democratic agenda, the Democratic agenda of taxing and spending, the Democratic agenda that the three largest political items by this Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and President Barack Obama will lose 10 million American jobs, ten million American jobs that still hang in the balance based upon the whims of this majority party. Mr. Speaker, I think that increasing deficits, increasing spending, more taxes on business, shrinking job numbers, it's a sad day if we want to look back and blame everything on George Bush, and yet we know why this is happening. For that reason, I encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous question to bring some fiscal sanity and restraint to this body and a ``no'' vote on the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my friend from Colorado, for giving me such time as the Republicans may have, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this will be the 31st time that I have handled a rule on this House floor in this Congress, and this is the 31st time that I have yet to handle an open rule. In fact, out of the over 120 rules of this Congress, we have not debated one open rule. Not one open rule this Congress. I don't believe that closing debate, limiting amendments, and shutting Democrats and Republicans out of thoughtful ideas is a good way to run this House. And I know and you know, and I say this often, that our Speaker, Speaker Pelosi, promised when she told the American people that she would run the most open, honest, and ethical Congress, I don't think she had this in mind, and I know we didn't as Republicans; and I don't think the American people did, not to have one open rule this Congress. I know we are getting ready to finish this Congress in a couple months. But one would think that when the Speaker spoke those words, she had something in mind other than closed rules or some modified rules. Open, honest, ethical. Not one open rule this Congress. One thing that I do have the opportunity to say today, however, Madam Speaker, is that the call for a vote on the previous question to allow for this week's YouCut winner will be good. YouCut is the new Republican online voting tool for Americans to pick what wasteful government spending they would like to see cut every week and which should be an agenda on this floor every week. I admire the majority for finally having a bill that saves the taxpayer money. Don't know how many times that's happened in this Congress or under this Speaker. But what I can tell you is hundreds of thousands of Americans this week have been on the YouCut site, and they came up with lots of answers. So I applaud the Democrat majority for coming up with, finally, a bill which will save taxpayers money. Additionally, today we are here to discuss an important step in providing the Department of Housing and Urban Development, also known as HUD, with the tools it needs to supervise and monitor the single- family mortgage insurance program run through the Federal Housing Administration, known as FHA. That's what we are here for, and I am glad that this bill is here. Saving money and running the government more efficiently, and providing the tools, is what Congress should be for. It is necessary to understand why these changes are important. And in my opinion, my colleagues, who really work across party lines, need to do more of this kind of work of helping rather than providing more rules and regulations. The continued importance of protecting the taxpayer is primary and important to people who are paying the taxes. They want to know that there should be more work like this being done in Washington. As the housing market collapsed over the last 2 years, private lenders have scaled back their activities, with the FHA significantly increasing its share of the single-family mortgage market from less than 5 percent to now more than 30 percent. With higher mortgage share comes increased taxpayer exposure. The elevated levels of delinquencies and foreclosures across this Nation have had a detrimental effect on the financial health of the FHA, which is why reforms in this legislation are an essential piece of fixing and addressing this problem today. I applaud the gentleman, Mr. Frank, and I applaud the gentlewoman, Mrs. Capito, for working together, for essentially bringing a huge part of Mrs. Capito's bill to the floor today. The taxpayers have already paid their fair share for bailouts and failed stimulus programs, resulting in record debts and record deficits. It's important to bring some stability and to recognize problems before they happen. H.R. 5072 incorporates a majority of the provisions from my friend, Ranking Member Shelley Moore Capito's, legislation, H.R. 4811, the FHA Safety and Soundness and Taxpayer Protection Act. This legislation from Representative Capito provides additional enforcement, the financial and risk assessment tools necessary to adequately administer the program, to detect fraud and abuse, and to strengthen underwriting standards and, perhaps best of all, to protect the taxpayer. While the legislation is a step in the right direction, it is important to note that the benefits of using government subsidies to promote homeownership to be more balanced against the potential risk of insuring less creditworthiness with borrowers, and exposing the taxpayer to additional risk, is perhaps the best part of this bill. It is extremely important to have proper underwriting, and to ensure that potential home buyers have the appropriate amount of personal funds invested in the transaction to make sure that the housing market does not collapse again. Madam Speaker, while this legislation is an important step, Congress should do more to protect the taxpayer from having to suffer the consequences of bailouts in another government housing program. Congressman Scott Garrett of New Jersey, also on the Financial Services Committee, offered several amendments which were not made in order by the Rules Committee, and so they will not be voted on today on the floor. These amendments, however, are worthy of speaking about it. They would have protected taxpayers from yet another government bailout as we were setting the rules for the future to say the Federal Government should not be in the bailout business. My friends on the other side of the aisle once again continued to shut out not just Scott Garrett but taxpayers and people who had ideas, that are called Members of Congress, and not allow a debate on commonsense solutions that save the taxpayer money. Once again, I applaud the gentleman, Mr. Frank, for bringing this bill to the floor, but we need more and more discussion about how we limit taxpayer exposure. I believe that Congress and the administration must be extremely cautious and always vigilant in their oversight of this program and others to make certain that the program is adequately capitalized and is run in a safe and sound manner that protects the taxpayer from the need not only for another bailout but wasteful government spending. Additionally, as the housing market begins to stabilize, we must begin to look for ways to decrease reliance on the Federal Government guarantees and encourage the reentry of private capital and investment in the mortgage market. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) to discuss his ideas on this bill.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, a couple times ago when I was on the floor and we were doing the rule, we got into this debate about blaming George Bush for everything, and I would simply remind my colleague, as I did that day, I'd pin the tail on the donkey. We know who controls the spending and taxing around here. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the favorite son from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I am glad the gentleman was forthright that he tried to kill the bill that passed the House, went to the Senate and died, the GSE reform bill. The gentleman did say he voted against it, and he did. I would also remind the gentleman, today is today, and where's the budget? Where's the budget for the House to vote on? Where's the budget? Deafening silence. We should be doing the budget, the budget where the people of the United States find out what the glide path and direction should be for this country for all this spending. Deafening silence, Madam Speaker. Where's the leadership there? We were talking about a small FHA bill. How about for the United States, all the spending that's going to happen? So, once again, pin the tail on the donkey. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), former mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina, now a Member of Congress.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wheaton, Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

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

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

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. It seems like every time I come to the House floor, I point out that my Democratic colleagues are using an unprecedented, restrictive, and closed process on the House floor, and here I go again to tell the exact same story. In fact, I am not even sure anyone on the House floor knows what we are debating or getting ready to vote on right now. It's amazing. Bill after bill, day after day. We were provided with a copy of the final bill at 9:06. I guess that beats 3:15 in the morning. Mr. Speaker, Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic majority promised the American people that they would run the most open, honest, and ethical Congress. To date, this Congress and I think the last one has seen more backroom deals, arm twisting, and more partisan negotiations than ever before. I think the American people are fed up with it. They want transparency, they want accountability, and I think what they are looking for is solutions. Standing up and touting this bill when nobody even knows what's in it and how great it is, I think, a sham. Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that the Democrats, and I repeat that, it is my understanding that the Democrats are planning to amend the rule to change the text of the underlying legislation that we are discussing here right now. Are they planning changes to the $100 billion in spending? I don't know. What are they going to do? I don't know. What's in the amendment? More spending? I betcha. More taxes? I'm sure. Are they gutting the State Medicare funding portion? Are they eliminating the COBRA extension? Will doctors see a 21 percent cut in reimbursement next week? I don't know, nor does anybody who is going to vote on this bill. Unfortunately, the answers to all of those questions, regardless to what's in their amendment, is yes. The Senate has already made it clear to this House and my Democratic colleagues, the press, and the American people that they will be going home--as a matter of fact, they've already done that--before acting on the extenders package that we are doing right now. So, Mr. Speaker, what is the point? Why is the Speaker having this bill today on the floor? This isn't about jobs. It's not about the unemployed. It's not about those without insurance or it's not even about physicians. It's about a political agenda. It's about taxing and spending and a message on this floor that tries to make it seem like it's the reverse. I would submit to you that if this Democratic majority were trying to help small business, they'd start with any one of the top five issues that small business has and that they present through the National Association of Manufacturers, and they've done this for years. That list is ignored. Yesterday in CQ Today, the chairwoman of the Rules Committee was asked whether the Democrats' backroom deals were going to hold up on the House floor, and her response, and I quote, Are you kidding me? We're Democrats. Mr. Speaker, what's in the deal? Does it provide any real solutions? Are we voting on this to accomplish anything? I would say in the next 2 hours we will be voting on legislation that this body will have no clue what is in the bill. Once again, par for the course. It's also my understanding that the Democratic priorities of implementing new and permanent taxes, increasing debt spending, deficit spending, and fixing errors and oversight in the Democrats' trillion dollar health care bill is exactly what it will also be in the bill today. But I don't know. Yet the majority continues to patch the Nation's problems together with expensive short-term fixes that create even greater budget shortfalls in the future rather than dealing honestly with them. Monday night in the Rules Committee, I asked Chairman Levin to quantify, please, how many jobs this bill would create since the majority insists on calling it a jobs bill. The fact is he couldn't. This legislation throws billions of dollars at a bunch of short-term solutions while creating permanent, new taxes on business. I know the Democrats like to call them corporations, but I call them employers. This legislation will increase the tax treatment of carried interest for real estate, energy, and investment partnerships, in some cases more than doubling the tax rate from 15 to 35 percent. That's it. The Democratic agenda: Tax and spend. Tax and spend employers, and then blame it on them when something bad goes wrong. Maybe better, blame it on George Bush. Also, this bill increases payroll taxes on S corporation shareholders as well as changes the longstanding U.S. International Tax Code law. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, these changes could saddle small business, American worldwide companies, and investment partnerships with draconian tax increases that will hinder job creation and decrease the competitiveness of American business. And that I quote. Yet my friends on the other side of the aisle are still calling this a jobs bill. I know what it is, and so do you. Taxing and spending--the hallmark of the Democratic majority. Job killing measures once again present on the floor of the House of Representatives today. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the extenders bill that is before us today has billions in additional health care spending, spending the Democrats couldn't find to offset for their $1.2 trillion health care bill. So they didn't include it because they wanted to mask the true costs of the bill that we passed on or around March 22. One key example, this legislation prevents a 21 percent cut to physician reimbursement for Medicare payments, but by preventing this cut for the next year and a half, they leave physicians with a 33 percent cut in 2012 that will cost over $300 billion to fix. That's not open; that's not honest, and I don't believe that's ethical. Mr. Speaker, today I talked about how Republicans over and over continue to be shut out of the process on the House side, even right now, where I suspect my colleagues would offer an amendment to change the text to something not one of my Republican colleagues have seen and no one on the House floor has read. This legislation provides us, for a couple of months, an extension for noncontroversial extenders by levying new permanent tax increases on small business--the engine of our economy--and, of course, investment partnerships. And lastly, this legislation uses budget gimmicks to push our Medicare programs further in debt, putting the care of our Nation's seniors at risk. Yet my friends on the other side of the aisle continue to move forward with this tax-and-spend agenda and then blame their inability to receive the results they want on somebody else. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question to bring some fiscal restraint back to this House and ``no'' on the rule. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, you know there is no way to get around this. This is a monster tax increase and permanent tax increase on taxpayers and business. I want to quote from the National Association of Manufacturers, which are all about American manufacturers: American companies who do business overseas will find a monster tax increase on them for doing business, penalizing them. It says many of the tax-increase proposals, which are mischaracterized as a tax loophole--you know, they are actually tax law--actually represent significant changes to a tax policy that has been supported by Congress and this administration. Now, they are going to come back and change that. You have got to blame somebody. It's obvious to me that what we will end up doing is pinning the tail on the donkey, because we know who is about trying to kill jobs. It comes through heavy taxation, and it comes through rules and regulation. I have got letter after letter after letter from businesses across this country who say this will harm American jobs. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier), the ranking member of the Rules Committee. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pasco, Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have our colleagues on the Democratic side come and talk about jobs. It's not going to happen. These are massive tax increases. Business is trying to say, through the letters which I will more fully get into in a minute, that's how to kill jobs in this country, permanent tax increases. Oh, no, those are corporations, those are evil corporations. My friends, they are called employers. You are putting permanent tax increases on employers, which means you will have fewer jobs in this country. Don't blame it on somebody else; blame it on yourself. Pin the tail on the donkey. That's the reason why we don't have jobs. We don't have jobs because 4 years ago, when the Democratic majority took over, all they talked about is taxes and spending, rules, regulation, more on business. And Members come to the floor and say, this is just about jobs. Read the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Grandfather community, North Carolina, Dr. Foxx.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond back that, in fact, we are doing well in Texas.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I'll reserve my time while they figure it out.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, in fact, the gentleman is correct. There were jobs that were added. They were government jobs. They were government jobs because of the census, and that is why we saw an uptick. Let's go back to Texas. I know there has been a lot said about Texas. In Texas, unemployment jumped from 6.8 percent in April 2009 to 8.1 percent in April 2010. That's an additional 188,600 people unemployed. I appreciate you all in trying to take credit for this great, robust economic boom that's going on in this country. The fact of the matter is it's not working that way. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter dated May 24, 2010, from IBM. I'm going to read just the last paragraph because it shows, really, the misnomer of my Democrat friend's argument about how great this bill is, the jobs bill. It reads, ``Despite the 1-year renewal of the R&D tax credit, which we and other technology firms have long supported, the late insertion of large, new, permanent tax increases, together with hundreds of billions in new deficit spending that has not been offset, leads IBM to strongly oppose this legislation.'' Hundreds of billions of dollars in new deficit spending. This reminds me a lot of the firefighter who goes out and sets a fire and then shows up to put it out, trying to get credit when, in fact, that firefighter is an arsonist. IBM gets it. IBM gets it and they understand: hundreds of billions of dollars of new deficit spending that has not been offset.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman for asking. You know, I had seen a report, and we received information up in the Rules Committee that there would be an expectation of 500,000 census jobs across the country.

Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman. I think the overwhelming context I had was that the jobs that are being created are in government.

Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman's yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Today we began this rule by talking about Republicans' having received a copy of the rule and the bill at 9:06. We talked about how the Senate has left town and that we are doing this bill today to no avail, because it expires when we will all be gone, which is next week. We've got doctors who will not be properly reimbursed. Oh, I'm sorry. That big cut occurred from this Democrat majority, and now we're trying to show up and show how we've got to help physicians. Once again, it reminds me of that firefighter who sets his own fire. This Democrat majority cut the doctors. Now we're hearing that doctors won't see Medicare patients, and now we show up to save the doctors. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line to this whole thing is that massive, new tax increases are in this bill, while at the same time, somebody is trying to take credit for all of these millions of new jobs that will be created. Yet, when asked, the chairman of the committee had no evidence to support that. It was just an opinion. That is exactly the same kind of opinion that we saw from the prior chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, who, when asked about the health care bill--and even though he knew it would diminish jobs because of the guesstimate of CBO of some 5 million jobs--wanted to push this as a jobs bill, wanted to push health care as a jobs bill, and now we are doing it again. The U.S. Chamber says changes to the tax treatment of real estate, energy, and investment partnerships will result in negative consequences for capital formation, innovation in real estate, energy, investment, and jobs in America. The bottom line is that this Democrat majority has three big political items, not just taxes and spending, but the three largest political items will net lose 10 million American jobs, as decided by the Congressional Budget Office. This Democrat majority is insistent on killing jobs in America. They are insistent on taxing and spending. They are for the diminishment of the investor, and they are going to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. I think it is a big mistake to try and show up and say, Those darned Republicans won't go along with us. They won't vote for an extension of unemployment. I will tell you what the Republican Party stands for: It is jobs, investment and the opportunity to have more jobs in this country. Mr. Speaker, we end our debate today.

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