Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Officer Garland C. Thompson's retirement from the United States Capitol Police after thirty-five years of service. Founded in 1828, the Capitol Police have protected countless lives and secured our nation's historic Capitol complex. Officer Thompson first joined the Capitol Police on June 6, 1975. His deep sense of patriotism and dedication to upholding the rule of law is evident to all. Known as a strict enforcer, Officer Thompson has ensured the safety of elected officials, staffers, journalists, and tourists alike and the corner of First and C Streets will not be the same without his friendly face. I have had the pleasure of knowing him and am proud to call him my friend. I know he will be greatly missed. Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in expressing our heartfelt gratitude for Officer Thompson's thirty-five years of dedicated service to the Capitol Police and this great Nation. I wish him and his family all my very best.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I would like to, on behalf of my Republican colleagues, congratulate you for your wonderful new responsibilities that you will have at the State Department, and congratulations on your Senate confirmation yesterday.

Mr. SESSIONS. I would yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, and I thank the gentleman, but congratulations very much, Ellen. At the very top, Madam Speaker, I would like to ask unanimous consent to the gentlewoman from California if we could extend the time of debate. I am inundated with the amount of requests and would like to ask that we extend it 30 minutes, extending both sides an additional 15 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. You do object. I would like to ask the gentlewoman if we could extend the time on both sides by 5 minutes then.

Mr. SESSIONS. I would like to see if we could extend by 1 minute this debate on both sides.

Mr. SESSIONS. You object. Okay. Madam Speaker, good morning. I yield myself such time as I may consume. And I appreciate the gentlewoman extending me these few minutes that she has given us to debate this very important bill. I rise in opposition to this lockdown rule and the underlying legislation which, if passed, The Wall Street Journal correctly notes will become the ``biggest tax in American history.'' After limited committee hearings and only one markup on this 1,200- plus page bill, the negotiations that have brought this bill to the floor have completely excluded Republicans and ignored our good ideas on how to stop the most economically devastating and job-killing parts of this bill. For example, during the bill's brief deliberation in committee, Republicans offered three commonsense amendments, one to suspend the program if gas prices hit $5 a gallon, one to suspend the program if electricity prices rise 10 percent over 2009, and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15 percent. But, unfortunately, the committee's Democrats defeated them all. To make matters worse, for the past 2 weeks, despite numerous contrary promises to our Democrat colleagues and to the American people, Speaker Pelosi and her handpicked lieutenants on the Rules Committee have limited open debate and, once again here on the floor, debate to talk about this unprecedented bill that is before the American people. While this behavior is undemocratic and mildly irritating when dealing with bills like Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009, it is simply unacceptable when it comes to legislation of such great importance to the future of American jobs and families. So once again, early this morning in the Rules Committee, after--and by the way, that was about 2-3:30 this morning--after being handed a brand-new 309-page revision of the bill, this unacceptable behavior continued. My Republican colleagues and I offered numerous good ideas and improvements to this brand-new bill this morning, which not one Member has even read. As a matter of fact, we even joked about that as we walked in at 2 o'clock this morning about, sure everybody had a chance to read the bill, that's why we were up so late last night. This legislation that Republicans proposed would have provided commonsense relief for farmers and small businesses that drive our economy. Unsurprisingly, each of these good ideas was rejected by our Democrat colleagues along party lines. Whether or not to impose the biggest tax increase in American history is a very serious issue, and one that affects every American family, legislation that the Heritage Foundation estimates will cost working families in the 32nd Congressional District of Texas, just one district which I happen to represent, some 4,178 jobs in 2012. We believe that this bill should actually be debated and openly read so that everyone doesn't just rush through this day but, rather, understands the true impact of what we're doing. The rule being proposed here today is a grave mistake and an undemocratic embarrassment. And I, for one, think this body can do better. We owe it to the American people to allow Members, Members of this body on both sides, who have good ideas to be heard, especially the ideas to address the needs of rural and working class people who will see their incomes and choices slashed by this bill. Instead of an inclusive debate on how to conserve our resources and provide clean, affordable energy for American businesses and families, the Democrats' answer to the worst recession in decades is a national energy tax, thinly disguised as a climate change bill. Billions of dollars wasted on extra energy costs and millions of jobs lost is an extremely high price to pay for a bill that is estimated, at best, to slow the Earth's temperature rises by one-hundredth of a single degree by 2050, and no more than two-tenths of a degree by the end of this century. Madam Speaker, the facts are clear: Nancy Pelosi's national energy tax will kill American jobs, it will raise prices on hardworking Americans, and do almost nothing to clean up our environment. But the American people watching today's debate don't need to take my word for it. President Obama and his senior administration officials, and many prominent Democrats, agree that cap-and-trade is actually cap-and-tax. In January of 2008, President Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle that under his preferred cap-and-trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Then on February 26, 2009, the President's own budget estimates that the climate revenue generated by this legislation to pay for Washington bureaucrat-run health care and a jobless stimulus package would cost American manufacturers and energy producers $646 billion over 10 years. Three weeks later, the administration's top economic advisers disagreed with this lowball figure, suggesting that cap-and-trade could actually cost up to $1.9 trillion over 10 years. Next, former Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman, John Dingell, stated in a hearing on cap-and-trade: ``Nobody in this country realizes that cap-and-trade is a tax, and it's a big one.'' As recently as this week, Congressman Gene Green of Texas stated in an op-ed: ``Instituting a cap on nationwide greenhouse emissions will raise the price of energy for consumers and businesses alike.'' Madam Speaker, I'm confused. Why on this Earth would my friends on your side of the aisle create such a big tax on all American families and businesses during a time that a recession is so serious? Why are we rushing to do this with a $1 trillion spending plan that will have such a large impact on the American people, killing jobs and making it more difficult for us to come out of this recession? On June 15, I received a letter from the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts stating that the current plan to implement mandatory mission caps would weigh far more heavily on Texas than any other region in the country. It goes on to note that ``based on rising fuel prices as a result of the cap-and-trade provisions of this bill, Texas could see 135,000 to 277,000 fewer jobs in 2012, the first year of the bill.'' Madam Speaker, Texas leads this country in jobs, and people are coming to Texas from all over the United States just to have jobs. Why would we go and diminish the opportunities for people to find those jobs that were available to help their families? Madam Speaker, families all over Texas are already hurting; and with all the other troubles plaguing the economy, they simply cannot afford the additional and completely avoidable economic assault that the new Democrat majority is placing on the American people. Perhaps worst of all, Madam Speaker, the economic damage created by this legislation actually favors foreign companies over American ones. China, the number one emitter of greenhouse gases, and India, who is set to expand its emissions, will not be required to modify their behavior at all. That means that this new Democrat majority is taking the astonishing position of asking American small businesses and consumers to carry the global load for the world's carbon consumption because, as everyone understands, if only Americans tax their manufacturing and productions, then only Americans will be losing out while China, India and other countries gain an advantage over our domestic manufacturers, businesses, jobs and future. Every Member of this Chamber understands that in an era of rising energy costs, Congress must and should be doing everything in its power to ensure that domestic production of clean energy is available at the cheapest price. However, I recently received a letter from the American Petroleum Institute expressing concern that this legislation could add as much as 77 cents to each gallon of gasoline. Very simply, this legislation means that every American business and consumer will pay more to fuel their vehicles, heat their homes, and purchase everyday goods. The facts are clear: Nancy Pelosi's national energy tax will kill American jobs, will raise prices on hardworking Americans, and do little to clean up our environment. I encourage a ``no'' vote on this lockdown rule and a ``no'' vote on the underlying legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman, the ranking member of Energy and Commerce from Ennis, Texas (Mr. Barton). (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's coming down and speaking this morning. There's an estimate that in her congressional district, there will be 5,334 jobs that will be lost in the first year of this bill. Madam Speaker, at 3 o'clock, 2:30 this morning, we received the manager's amendment, 309 pages, brand new. And this is the text of the ideas that Chairman Barton was talking about that were completely ignored by the Democrat majority last night in the Rules Committee. The Members had come up to speak plainly about their ideas. Completely ignored. Completely ignored. At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Upton.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from Florida's coming down. A vote for this bill will lose 3,500 jobs in her congressional district in the year 2012, the first year of its implementation. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the Fifth Congressional District of Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman, the chairman of the Republican Conference, Mr. Pence. (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/ 2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Broun.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, could you please advise us how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I would yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, if I can please ask my colleague, the gentlewoman from California, in an effort to get our time back to an even balance, if she could have one of her speakers up at this time. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. At this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. SESSIONS. At this time I would yield a grand total of 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. SESSIONS. If I could, Madam Speaker, is the gentlewoman through with her speakers now? We still have some disparity in the little bit of time that was given. I would like for there to be some parity.

Mr. SESSIONS. If she has additional speakers, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. At this time I yield 1 minute to gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. SESSIONS. At this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

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

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of this amendment which restores $1.2 billion to the Missile Defense Agency's budget. However, I would like to express my deep concern regarding the misguided and downright dangerous priorities of this Administration and the Democrat Majority with this Defense Authorization. For the past three years, the defense of our nation has been ranked at the bottom of this Democrat Majority's agenda. Between FY 2007 and FY 2009, the Democrats have increased non-defense funding by 85 percent; an increase of $358 billion. However, funding for our national defense is found at the very bottom of the list with spending increases of only 9 percent. With the increasing threats of nations like North Korea and Iran-- especially considering North Korea's preparations to launch a ballistic missile in the direction of Hawaii on or around July 4th--it is essential that Congress provides the U.S. with the appropriate defense mechanisms to protect our country. Yet the Democrat Majority still has the audacity to cut $1.2 billion from our missile defense systems. Mr. Chair, this Majority has a false set of priorities which is not only misguided but endangers the security of our nation.