Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we're talking about something that is real important today. We've been talking about something that is real important, and I think the point that's made today is that the Republican Party supports the extension of the PATRIOT Act that we're doing here today. These three provisions are very important. We're questioning why we have to move these on a piecemeal basis. We should move them. They should become permanent law. We believe that the enemy that is at our doorstep, that is all around this world, that is attacking our allies, our friends, people who love freedom, that that is not going to go away. We need to give our intelligence officials the ability to know that they are going to hard-code this in their books and their training and what they do instead of exceptions to, well, we might not want to do this in the future. Mr. Speaker, we need to give our team that's protecting us all of the tools that are available. We're going to vote for this today because we think it's the right thing, but we think it ought to be made permanent. We think it ought to be a provision that all of our law enforcement, all of our intelligence officials understand why we're doing this, and we want to send them a strong signal: Protecting this country is not something that should be taken lightly from a perspective of what might expire. We want to give them all of the tools that are necessary. We want to make it permanent. Let's put it in their permanent training manual, not in an exception rule that they have to follow up and retrain people about what the law is. Protecting this country should not be something that is related to whether we have an expiring provision or not. Let's make it permanent. Let's get that done. It would be my hope that the Intelligence Committee of this House would move to get that done as soon as we've passed this today. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, no surprise, I rise in opposition to this closed rule. The charade of Speaker Pelosi running ``the most open, honest, and ethical Congress'' is once again confirmed today that that's not happening. That is not happening here again on the floor, and it's related to this activity that we went through in the Rules Committee upstairs just yesterday. At a time of record deficits and record unemployment, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are simply trying to blame Republicans and George Bush rather than looking at their own responsibility of what they have done in the last year that has placed enormous, enormous financial strain on this country. Never once did they talk about that responsibility, that they led this country, saying, We must go and spend this money because it will lend itself to jobs. And we're going to have the stimulus bill. We're going to call it the stimulus bill. The President went all over the country and Members of Congress went all over the country and sold this. It didn't work it. It didn't work. It didn't work big time. I didn't hear any offer of, Whoops. As Vice President Biden said, We guessed and it didn't work. I think it would have been appropriate this morning for the gentleman from Massachusetts or anybody from the Democratic Party to stand up and say, You know, we did guess. I know those Republicans told us this wouldn't work, but we really guessed and we guessed wrong. The Vice President has the guts to say that. I think this body should say the same thing, rather than trying to blame this on George Bush. Today, we're here to raise the debt limit an additional $1.9 trillion. Now, the first question is: My gosh, why so much? Because so much burden and debt has been added. The bottom line is we're only here because what our friends Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic Party have done did not work. They took out a monster loan that is not paying off. But today, there is not even a vote. It's required, but not even a vote or a debate on the issue of raising the debt limit. In fact, the majority party has used deceitful procedural games to hide the fact that they are raising the debt limit again, for the sixth time, six times since they took control of the House. Why, you ask? Well, it's to give their members political coverage and a vote on statutory PAYGO again. I guess we're going to keep blaming George Bush, President Bush, for this. The bottom line is, Madam Speaker, as I speak to each of the Members here on the floor today, this is about raising the statutory debt limit $1.9 trillion. And my colleagues and I are going to spend the time today discussing the current economic climate, the reason why things aren't working. The majority's principles and priorities of spending and taxing and borrowing and the President's fiscal year 2011 budget-- $3.6 trillion--that was just released this week tell the reason why. Madam Speaker, we've told you over and over again, if you take the investor out of the equation, if you tax the American people, if you destroy job creators, if you go at employers and have a battle with them, they will get it. They will quit employing people. Our President seems to have, every time I watch him, he's always after somebody. He's always got a problem; the bankers, the doctors, insurance. Every time I look up, our great President, Barack Obama, has an ax to grind with somebody, and it's generally employers. And then he wants to turn around and say, How come we don't have any jobs? Oh, we're going to get those. We'll get those. This is America. We can do anything. But the policies are not creating jobs; they're creating debts. They're creating circumstances where this country has to again today borrow for the debt limit and pass a bill here today that says we're going to raise the debt limit $1.9 trillion so our government doesn't go belly up. Madam Speaker, that is over $46,000 per American family, just what we're doing now. Since September 2007, the year our friends the Democrats took control, over $3.8 billion, on average, has been added to the national debt every single day. The President's budget borrows too much, taxes too much, and spends too much. But what it does is it kills the goose that lays the golden egg. Then we wonder why we don't have jobs in this country. The $3.6 trillion budget represents nearly a 30-percent increase in total outlays since 2008. The budget includes more than $2 trillion in job-killing tax hikes, with nearly a 20-percent jump in the first year alone. I get it. I get it as an individual taxpayer, and that's why I virtually sold all my stock. I got out of the stock market because this administration and this Congress want to kill economic growth and opportunity, and I can't take that and everybody else can't take that. And so that's why you're seeing employers and others say, Enough is enough. That's what we're saying here today. This tax includes taxes on small businesses, investors, and families earning less than $250,000 a year, also. I thought we heard the President say that he was going to give everybody a tax cut. They keep talking about it. Boy, it's a great idea to float. Sure wish you'd deliver on that one. But let's also go to the high side. We need investors to be in the game, Madam Speaker. We need investors, and this bill taxes the stuffings out of them. Additionally, the President's budget runs up a record budget deficit again. We're going to vote on it again. Democrats, Yea, we support the President. All these great priorities. The national debt is predicted to double once again over 5 years and triple by 2019, and that's a mistake. Interest alone would set the American taxpayer back roughly $6 trillion, just the interest over the next decade. The American people want Congress, want Washington to rein in borrowing, taxing, and spending. They don't want more of it. They want Congress to stop talking about what they will do about helping jobs and to actually make the environment better. There's still an experiment going on out there, Madam Speaker, and people are not buying it because they are concerned about Washington and what they're going to do next. Taxing, spending, and borrowing is not a way to start this new year. During last week's State of the Union, President Obama stated, Starting in 2011, we will prepare to freeze government spending for 3 years. Great. Great, Mr. President. That was Thursday night. I went upstairs just yesterday and I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee on H.R. 4061, the Cybersecurity bill, the first bill right out of the bag, and I took the President up on that and said, Hey, I think we ought to have an amendment added to the bill, since the bill doesn't do it, that would have frozen spending just on two programs for 3 years. My amendment would have saved a paltry $47 million. That's all, just $47 million. I know it's not a lot. And you would not have believed the calls at me about how out of line I was and how this was the most important thing in the history of our country. This body is not prepared to make tough decisions. This body is not prepared even to cut $47 million after we clapped for the President just the other day. This Democrat majority continues to pursue initiatives and policies that will lead to more unemployment and bigger and more deficits. This administration and the Democratic majority promised the American people they would aim for jobs and economic recovery, health care, cleaner energy, better education. That list goes on and on and on. And I will tell you what we've got for it: record deficits, record spending, and record unemployment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, by the way, I like this PAYGO thing that my friends, the Democrats, are pushing. But when it comes down to it, they waive PAYGO on a regular basis. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Chico, California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, it's a good thing we're here on the floor of the House where we're exempt from things like deceptive practices, because this body would be guilty today. Here we are with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010. Madam Speaker, 32 pages of this 56-page bill are exemptions to pay-as-you-go. So 32 pages are--Oh, we say we're going to have pay-as-you-go--but 32 of the 56 pages are, I'm sorry, but it does not apply to the following items. Madam Speaker, that's deceptive. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the favorite son of Dallas, Texas, the gentleman Mr. Hensarling.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, once again, a hyperbole that does not match the action. Out of the 56 pages of this bill, 32 pages are exemptions to pay-as-you-go, 32 of the 56 pages that our good friends are touting as the answer and the right way to do it. But most intriguing is that we've heard that the way to do it is the way it's being done here, because it's open and honest. There is not even a vote on the debt limit; it's self-executed in the rule. So let's go and vote for PAYGO and talk about how responsible we are. Oh, at the same time, make sure we fund what we've done, $1.9 trillion. The Rules Committee is pretty good up there, Madam Speaker. Know how to hide things. Know how to obfuscate the real facts of the case. The facts of the case are the American people know what's going on. They K-N-O-W what is going on. Over the last year, I've heard from constituents also, and they want a good economy and they want jobs. And the Democrat majority is simply not stepping up to this. I'm going to encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous question and a ``no'' vote on the rule when it's our time to get that done. Just so our colleagues understand this, we're going to have a vote on this one here today. Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Lubbock, Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I'd love to engage the gentleman if he would take the time; but I'd like to ask him, if he says it's so good, why are 32 of the 56 pages exemptions to PAYGO? And I would like to find out if this is so real----

Mr. SESSIONS. Good. I'd like the gentleman to address why are 32 of the 56 pages----

Mr. SESSIONS. Oh, we're going to blame it on Ronald Reagan now. I reclaim my time and I appreciate the gentleman for blaming this on Ronald Reagan. I tell you what, I would be very pleased to engage in a dialogue with the gentleman if you'll answer one question.

Mr. SESSIONS. Why are you down on the floor, your party saying this is the real deal and yet 32 of the 56 pages exempt spending?

Mr. SESSIONS. I would enjoy the gentleman doing that. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SESSIONS. Then why are we--we did the same thing but now it's okay for you.

Mr. SESSIONS. I am engaging with the gentleman.

Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman. You know, I think the best evidence, and reclaiming my time, I think the best evidence that this is not working is the deficit rising from $161 billion in 2007, to $1.4 trillion last year and $1.6 trillion this year; $161 billion in '07 to last year, $1.4 trillion and this year $1.6 trillion. I would say that the preponderance of the evidence does not support the hypothesis. Today, in this rule, we didn't really debate the debt limit about being honest about the vote; but we're going to go ahead and have an opportunity, Madam Speaker, when my colleagues vote ``no'' on the previous question, that we will be allowed to amend this rule to consider an end to the TARP Act to stop the bailouts which are a part of this problem. This act would immediately terminate the Troubled Asset Relief Program and reduce the debt ceiling by the amount of remaining authorized TARP funds, which is nearly now $200 billion. We cannot continue what we're doing, spending taxpayer dollars and having these bailout programs. This is an ineffective program. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, America is calling for fiscal responsibility. And I welcome the gentleman from Tyler, Texas (Mr. Gohmert) to speak for 2 minutes.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, if I could engage Mr. McGovern for the purpose of letting him know that I am down to my final few minutes, I have two additional speakers. He has a lot of time remaining. I would ask that he engage his speakers and his time as we roll it down.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, spin zone. I love it. The gentleman is talking about all these Republicans want to privatize Social Security and Medicare. We're responsible. Well, what the gentleman forgot is it's the Democrats' proposal that takes $400 billion out of Medicare, $400 billion. Those are not only talking points from the 1990s that the gentleman is hung up on, it's not truthful. I would like to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen) 1 minute.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, in the remaining time, I would just like to say that I think the American people are watching and they are listening, and they heard a good debate here on the floor about these corporations that Republicans try and get all of these tax breaks for. I'd like to remind the gentleman those are called employers, and employers in this country have the second highest tax rate of any country in the world. Darn right Republicans are trying to cut taxes, because we want the American people to get employed again, and attacking employers is the key thrust of what the Democratic objective is all about. No wonder we've lost jobs. We're attacking employers, attacking employers. The President, the gentleman Mr. Hoyer, the Speaker, Mrs. Pelosi, attacking employers. No wonder we've got an unemployment problem. But this budget is filled with reckless spending and unsustainable debt. Don't blame that on somebody else. Accept the responsibility yourself. This is the biggest budget we've ever had. And for the President to come and say, as a takeaway, Just as you know, American people, we're going to start this spending process to where we freeze spending, it's really a joke. The bottom line is the American people know what the problem is. They've clued in on it. They even know the pages of the bills where they have seen the majority party try and take advantage of the taxpayer, rip health care out from their advantage where they could have their own health care, take dollars away from their employers and tax them.

Mr. SESSIONS. I will tell you, the Republican Party is going to stand up for jobs again today.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule, yet another closed rule before the Congress, and I object to the process by which this bill was brought to the floor. Last week, both of the bills we're discussing today under this rule failed to get the two-thirds vote in this body. Instead of working together to resolve the differences with the bills between the leadership, my friends on the other side of the aisle, the majority, simply rescheduled them for floor action today with no Republican input. Today, Mr. Speaker, we're going to debate these bills, and once again, the Democrat leadership's priorities in this Congress--let's be honest about that--it's about spending money. Spending money, Mr. Speaker, is what this Democrat leadership priority is all about. However, tonight our body will welcome the President of the United States. And the President will be here for the State of the Union, and we will be able to hear from the President about his priorities and about--I think we will hear about how he wants us to work together, work together. Ideas from both sides. Hey, I get it. The Republican Party is not in the majority. The American people get that. We're in the middle of Democrat majorities that have been in place for 3 years now. And I suspect we'll hear from the President about how important it is to work together and use bipartisan measures to reconcile our differences for the American people so that they can have confidence in Congress, our ability to work together on big issues and small issues, set priorities that the American people can understand. Yet, Democrat leadership just last week took down the Idaho Wilderness bill and then placed it on the calendar for today with the exact same language, but they removed my colleague, a Republican, Dr. Mike Simpson, as sponsor of the bill and replaced him with a member of the majority party. Payback time, I guess, is once again in order here on the floor of the House of Representatives, on the exact same day that we're going to welcome the President, and we're all going to put that big smiley face on tonight. We're all working together. Boy, we don't know what's wrong with the problems of the country, but we're going to work together, and then be admonished about telling the truth, which is, Congress is the problem. Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party is here to do the people's work. We're here to work together. We continue to have ideas that are shut out in the room just above this floor, just above this body, up there called the Rules Committee. We've been trying for years to do that. I wonder if the President would consider that working together by the way we're doing this. I hope he does not. I hope he admonishes us, and I hope he takes us to task and says that foolish political gamesmanship is wasting America's money and America's time, because time is important to the American people, because there are a whole lot of people who are without jobs. They're without jobs because of the lack of bipartisanship and working together in this body, all for spending money because that's what this Speaker wants to do. I think the American people want Democrats to rein in their borrowing, taxing, and spending ways. That's what I think. I don't know. Maybe you'd have to ask the American people. Oh, by the way, I think they've spoken in New Jersey and Virginia and again last week in Massachusetts. I think they want Congress to stop talking about what they will do to provide jobs and talk about all the things that are happening and actually get to the work of getting it done. Mr. Speaker, I have a lot to say today, but at this time I'd like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) who, last night, very clearly in the Rules Committee, as ranking member talked about what Republicans' hopes and dreams were just on this bill and the process. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield the gentleman an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the gentleman said. I know he was busy. I find times when I cannot attend a Rules Committee meeting, and I know the gentleman was not there yesterday. But I need to help him with what actually happened. As a matter of fact, the Republicans did ask for an open rule. We were not without ideas. You have to open the rule to get amendments in, and we were denied. I also would point to, you know, the idea that we're all sitting around here, Oh, golly gee, we're all bipartisan-- when, in fact, the gentleman voted against the bill just this last week, I assume because he disagreed with the substance of the bill. But he was joined by lots of Democratic colleagues that actually took down the bill because once again, I assume substance--not because it was a Republican's name on there. It will be interesting to see what happens today when there is a Democrat Member's name on there to find out if the same policy differences that existed last week, even though it's the exact same bill, whether those same policy problems still exist today or really whether it was just politics. And we'll be able to know this afternoon. We'll be able to know because it's the exact same bill and the argument the gentleman is making, We're just all getting our job done around here. Mr. Speaker, we disagree with the bill. And we spoke yesterday not just about Dr. Simpson's bill; we also spoke about the bill with the $50 million in St. Croix. And I am going to outline part of that here. But it's based upon substance. And the substance that we believe is important is directly related to the National Park Service giving us their study which they spent $500,000 doing. And last night upstairs, we just blew it off: don't worry about that recommendation; National Park Service, they're going to say it's okay. I'm sorry. In testimony: Do you know what the substance, what they're going to say? No, but I have a good idea. You know, I sit on the committee. I am a ranking member or I am the committee chairman. Mr. Speaker, that's the wrong way to run this House. It's the wrong way to run the Rules Committee. That's the wrong way to do things, to ask somebody to do a study and spend half a million dollars and just go ahead and move the legislation without even hearing from people about the substance of the issue. Forget about it being beachfront property, $50 million, $9 billion backlog of taking care of national parks in this country, and yet it's going to take another million dollars annually just to take care of this beachfront property that the Democratic leadership wants to push. Americans across the Nation are struggling, Mr. Speaker. They're struggling to provide for their own families and their loved ones. Last week, the Department of Labor released data showing that 12 million Americans are collecting unemployment benefits and over 15 million are currently unemployed. That is double, that is double in 1 year. There is only so much blame that goes around. At some point the Democratic leadership is going to have to say after 3 years of running this economy into the ground, they're going to have to stand up and be big about it. It's the policies of taxing and spending that the Democratic leadership, the Democratic Members are letting them get away with in this body. I think somebody is going to have to explain the priorities at some point: why they're putting these two bills back to back, why they're trying to oppose it 1 week with the same policy, the next week presumably will pass it. I will watch with great interest, Mr. Speaker, to see exactly what happens today on the vote. I reserve the balance of my time.