Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment. I want to thank Tammy Baldwin from Wisconsin for not only working with me but also other members of my conference, the Republican Conference, on important issues related to eye and retinal health. I appreciate her recognizing today as the 40th anniversary of the National Eye Institute, H. Res. 366. Also I appreciate her dedication to people that are suffering with retinal and eye diseases; and these visions issues that we speak about today, as a result of our support and the support of the National Eye Institute, make a difference to thousands of people who have these eye diseases in their families. I am very proud of this resolution. Last Congress we, meaning Ms. Baldwin and I, joined together in support of National Glaucoma Day, and today we're here to recognize the 40th anniversary of the National Eye Institute and to express support for the designation of 2010 through 2020 as the Decade of Vision. The National Eye Institute, also known as NEI, was established by Congress in 1968 to protect and prolong the vision of the American people. NEI research leads to sight-saving treatments, reduces visual impairment and blindness, and improves the quality of life of people of all ages. Vision research has been supported through the NEI by over 600 research grants and training awards made to scientists at more than 250 medical centers, hospitals, universities, and other institutions across the country and around the world. With congressional and public support, the national investment in vision research has yielded substantial dividends to treat many potentially blinding eye diseases and visual disorders. Vision impairment and eye disease is a major public health problem for the world to face. As you have heard, vision-related costs here in the United States approach $68 billion annually. There are some 38 million people in the United States over the age of 40 currently experiencing blindness, low vision, or age-related eye disease. This number is estimated to increase to 50 million people by 2020. NEI benefits children born with eye diseases and vision loss, as well as older citizens and everyone else that fits in between. NEI actively works to predict, prevent, and preempt aging eye disease and visual impairment thereby enabling more productive lives and reducing vision costs. The National Eye Institute is the world leader in basic research with the National Institutes of Health's Human Genome Project to translate discoveries of genes related to eye disease and vision impairment which compromises one-quarter of genes, discovered to date, into diagnostic and treatment modalities. The NEI has been a leader in collaborative research with so many private funding entities such as the human gene therapy trial with the Foundation Fighting Blindness, or this lead organization known as FFB, for individuals with Leber congenital amaurosis, a rapid retinal degeneration that blinds infants in their first year of life. This trial has demonstrated measurable visual improvement even with initial safety trials. I am a big supporter of the Foundation Fighting Blindness, and the work that they have done in the past continues to carry out in our daily lives. This resolution recognizes the 40 years of service from the National Eye Institute and commends them for their leadership while supporting their mission to prevent blindness and save and restore vision. Additionally, this resolution designates 2010 through 2020 as the ``Decade of Vision'' to maintain awareness in the next decade of public health challenges associated with vision impairment and eye disease, as well as to emphasize the need for prevention and early detection, access to treatment, and rehabilitation. Lastly, we commend the National Alliance for Eye and Vision Research for its efforts to expand awareness of the incidence and economic burden of eye diseases through this Decade of Vision initiative. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of supporting not only this 40th anniversary but also to say that the United States Congress has what I believe is a realistic opportunity to work with the National Institutes of Health to make sure that we continue to push the envelope for people who are in this country and around the world who are counting on research and development to cure blindness during this Decade of Vision. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution. I thank the gentlewoman from Wisconsin for her concentrated and special support of blindness issues. I look forward to working with her. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. My amendment would affirm the United States' complete support for Israel's absolute right to defend itself from an imminent military or nuclear threat from Iran, from terrorist organizations or from nations that harbor them. Israel is currently being threatened on three fronts--by Hamas in the south, by Hezbollah in the north and by Iran. Iran provides financial and material support to both of these terrorist organizations. This threat culminated on May 20 when Iran successfully tested a surface-to- surface missile with a range of 1,500 miles. Iranian leaders continue to express their hatred for Israel, and they refuse to acknowledge its right to exist. Their incendiary words and actions are an existential threat to Israel and to the entire region. No nation should be subjected to these continued threats. Israel has demonstrated tremendous restraint in the face of these dangers despite being continually questioned by some in the global community regarding its approach to dealing with these threats and terrorist attacks on its citizens. Israel has been and remains one of the United States of America's strongest allies. Israel seeks only peace with its neighbors and a homeland secure for its people; but if an attack from Iran or from a terrorist organization becomes imminent, this Congress should declare that Israel, like the United States, should reserve for itself the inalienable right to defend itself and to protect its people. I encourage my colleagues to demonstrate their strong support for Israel by supporting this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman, the chairman of the committee, Mr. Berman, for his words of support. In fact, this Member sees the need to make sure that not only the people of Israel but the people of our country understand it should be the express purpose and policy of the United States of America to yield to other nations--yes, those we call dear friends--to make sure that they are very clear in understanding our support for them. They should reserve the same right that we do to protect this country. Notwithstanding that, we've had a change of administrations. Notwithstanding that, we've had many, many, many people who are supportive of Israel come and speak to me, personally, about just the question as it might occur: Where does the United States stand in its support of Israel? Today is a great day. Today is the bill that's very appropriate to make sure that we understand that the United States' support of Israel is strong and that we stand behind Israel and that we understand that it is they, Mr. Chairman, who are just miles away from imminent threat through missile attack. I believe it is the right thing to do. I appreciate the gentleman's feedback. I hope we vote for this. I hope it's accepted. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman, the chairman of the committee, Mr. Berman, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for speaking today. Mr. Chairman, we live in a dangerous world, and there are some of our friends and allies who live in, perhaps, a more dangerous neighborhood than we do here in the United States. I believe that this amendment is one we should support because it makes sure, unequivocally, that the world understands where the United States of America is in our support of not only a friendly nation but of a democracy, one of the few democracies in the region. United States policy in the United States and in this House of Representatives should be to support it openly and to make sure the world understands, not where, Oh, I thought we had done that, and I know that's what both of my colleagues are saying. I thought we were there; we don't really need to do this. We need to do it. We need to do it. It's the right thing to do. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from California for yielding this time to me to discuss the proposed rule for consideration of the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I've heard a lot of arguments here on the floor of the House of Representatives. I'm not a psychologist, but I would tend to bet that probably more than the first 12 weeks of a child's life is very important to their development. I'm kind of surprised that we don't have evidence today that says that the first 13 or 14, 16 years of a child's life is really the most important point, and maybe we just ought to let Federal employees take 16 years off since that's the defining moment. There's just no reality with this about the first 12 weeks of a child's life. Let me tell you, it's about probably the first 14 or 15 years; and as a parent, I can tell you, I remember the first 12 weeks. I remember them very vividly for both of my boys. I'm sure that there is some bit about what my children understood about the bonding with me. Let's just go straight to this. This is expensive. It's going to cost a lot of money, and it's for Federal employees at a time when this Federal Government needs to be more efficient, and the people of this country cannot afford it. We've done without it for this number of years, and I'm surprised that we're doing it today in the economic times that we have. Today I will discuss my opposition to the structured rule, which limits debate and does not provide for the ``open and honest Congress'' my Democrat colleagues have always called for for the past 3\1/2\ years. I also rise in opposition to putting taxpayers further in debt, those people that don't work for the government, to pay for this new extension of benefits by expanding an already generous government paid leave. The economy is in a recession. Hello. Hello. Wake up, Washington. We're in a recession, and somebody else is going to have to pay for this. Oh, I know. It's about the kids. I know it's about this bonding for the first 12 weeks. Unemployment is at a 25-year high. Government spending is out of control, and individuals and retirees that have lost trillions in their savings and retirement are now going to have to pay another billion dollars for this plan. The government should be ensuring the future of the economy before taking on additional government benefits for those who have some of the greatest job security at the expense of the people who are paying for it, namely, the taxpayer. I rise in opposition to this so-called structured rule and to this legislation, which would provide more government benefits to bureaucrats with benefits already in excess of what most hardworking Americans in the private sector have. I guess we're supposed to sacrifice a little bit more to make sure our government employees get more benefits. Madam Speaker, as the father of two children, I return to my home every weekend in Dallas, Texas. I have only been in this body 13 years. I have never spent a weekend in Washington, D.C. I go home when the votes end to be with my family; and I, like every Member of this body, love my family. We understand the importance of family and how strong families are to our country. Additionally, I know how hard Federal employees work. I honor them for their work and their devotion to the people of this country and the devotion to their jobs, and they do deserve competitive compensation and a good benefits package. At the same time, I believe at this time this bill sends the wrong message at the wrong time to working Americans, the taxpayers and their families that they, themselves, are struggling to sacrifice to give a select few in this government additional new benefits. In February of this year, my Democratic colleagues passed a $1.2 trillion economic stimulus package with absolutely no--zero--Republican support. This was their failed attempt to provide jobs to the struggling economy. The U.S. has eliminated 663,000 jobs in March alone, an additional 563,000 in April. Over the past 12 months, the number of unemployed has risen by 6 million people to 13.7 million, and the unemployment rate has grown from 3.9 to 9 percent. We should be thinking about how we're going to struggle to get people employed in this country, not give additional benefits to government workers. One would think that this massive amount of spending that was done this year by my friends on the other side would ensure job growth, investment and economic output. Instead, the failed policies of the Democratic Party and of this administration have led to a budget deficit that already has been announced, it's not just $1 trillion, it has now grown to $1.8 trillion, about $89 billion more than was predicted in the President's budget. That is nearly four times the record set last year by my Democrat colleagues of this House. This has led even to the President's chief economic adviser, Dr. Christina Romer, while speaking on CNN to acknowledge that it is ``pretty realistic'' that there will be no job growth until 2010, and the U.S. will hit 9.5 percent rate of unemployment this year. Well, let's just be honest about it. The Democratic plans are that there would be 9 percent unemployment next year. That was the Democrats' blueprint, their plan that was in the budget. Nine percent, that's their best estimate, their guess. We're going to rise to 9 percent. Well, the question is not whether Congress should support families but whether it makes sense when so many Americans are already struggling with unemployment rates, increased taxes, thanks to our good friends in the Democrat majority, and an economic recession in the 3 years that the House and the Senate have been run by Democrat leadership, to increase their tax burden to pay for this increased paid time off from work, especially in light of the fact that government workers, in my opinion, have not even asked for it. Madam Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle often argue that Federal employees need greater benefits to be more competitive with private industry. There could be truth to that. But even the Office of Personnel Management has determined that Federal and private sector benefits compare favorably, and additional benefits would not help with retirement and retention. Additionally, this bill does not assist the older workforce facing retirement since it specifically deals with paid leave for having a child, adopting a child or taking care of a foster child. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this new benefit-in- search-of-a-problem will cost taxpayers $938 million over the next 5 years. Madam Speaker, at a time when average hardworking American families are already struggling and working many, many, many more hours and trying to find additional income through a job that they cannot find to pay their bills, I don't believe it's appropriate for Congress to increase the paid leave of Federal bureaucrats beyond their already generous levels by using taxpayer dollars to do it. Since June of last year, the Federal Government workforce has grown by 37,000 employees while the private sector has shed more than 4.4 million jobs at the same time. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have spent trillions of the taxpayers' dollars over the past 6 months. Americans are faced with a $1.8 trillion deficit this year alone from the Democrat majority in this administration. Their plan. Taxpayers are reaching a breaking point when it comes to subsidizing higher Federal spending at their expense. It is costing the free enterprise system jobs and the opportunity to get a job tomorrow because of the massive spending that is taking place by this Democrat majority. Responsible American families are cutting back their costs. They are dealing with the job loss. They are doing the things to help their families and their friends, and they are looking at the destruction of their savings and retirement accounts. I think it is simply wrong. It is wrong for the Democratic Party to move this bill. Rather than trying to create jobs, they are trying to get new benefits for Federal employees. Madam Speaker, I will be honest. You are darn right that this is going to be a tough vote for Members of Congress. Are we going to pay attention to what is happening back home or are we just going to come up here and spend another $1 billion? I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Vote ``no'' on this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from New York. Madam Speaker, I did engage in an agreement with the gentleman from California. The gentleman has given concurrence. We had another speaker from the Republican Party who would choose to speak, and so, going back on my word, but with agreement, the gentleman is allowing me to extend 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, we have had two wonderful speakers on the majority side tell us--I think they were contradicting each other. One said it only costs $100 million a year. Another speaker said, oh, there is no cost. As a matter of fact, PAYGO says there is nothing to it. Well, maybe the PAYGO rules of this House say that, but let me tell what you what the Congressional Budget Office says, their cost estimate. The Congressional Budget Office says, 5 years, $938 million; $938 million. Almost $1 billion over 5 years. Now, that is real money. Oh, no, no, no. You got it wrong. We are already going to give them the money anyway, so it doesn't cost any more. That is not reality, and that is not the way it works. The CBO is right, $938 million over 5 years. We had our President just 3 or 4 weeks ago say, after spending all these trillions of dollars, the President said, I'm going to ask my budget to cut a whopping $100 million from all their budgets across government; 100 million. Well, that is this bill just for 1 year, as the gentleman says, just 1 year. But the bottom line is it is $938 million over 5 years. You just can't have it both ways. You can't try and explain to the American people that you are really trying to do something good for them but turn around and make it more difficult. I think our friends that are in the majority party don't understand that you just can't sneak up here to Washington and do this and get away with it back home. People are going to pay attention to this. Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Clovis, California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for that opportunity to move forward on this important bill. Madam Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record the cost estimate for H.R. 626 from the Congressional Budget Office. H.R. 626--Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009 Summary: H.R. 626 would amend title 5 of the United States Code, the Congressional Accountability Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) by creating a new category of leave under FMLA. This new category would provide four weeks of paid leave to federal employees following the birth, adoption, or fostering of a child. In addition, the legislation permits the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to increase the amount of paid leave provided to a total of eight weeks based on the consideration of several factors such as the cost to the federal government and enhanced recruitment and retention of employees. Under current law, federal employees who have completed at least 12 months of service are entitled to up to 12 weeks of leave without pay after the birth, adoption, or fostering of a child. Upon return from FMLA leave, an employee must be returned to the same position or to an ``equivalent position with equivalent benefits, pay, status, and other terms and conditions of employment.'' Employees may get paid during that 12-week period by using any annual or sick leave that they have accrued. The leave provided by this bill would be available only within the 12-week FMLA leave period. CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 626 would cost $67 million in 2010 and a total of $938 million over the 2010- 2014 period, subject to appropriation of the necessary funds. Enacting H.R. 626 would not affect direct spending or receipts. The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 626 is shown in the following table. The costs of this legislation would fall in all budget functions (except functions 900 and 950). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman for the inquiry. As a matter of fact, I do have at least one more speaker. I would anticipate that if you do not have any additional speakers, I will then offer my close and then we could allow you to do the same, and then we can move on through this rule.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record a newsletter with information provided by the National Federation of Independent Business, known as the NFIB. This letter provides information about strongly opposing this bill. NFIB: FMLA Should Not Grant Paid Leave for Federal Employees Washington, D.C., June 4, 2009--Susan Eckerly, senior vice president, public policy for the National Federation of Independent Business, the nation's leading small business association, released the following statement asking the U.S. House of Representatives to defeat the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009 (HR. 626). ``This legislation mandates an alarming expansion of the Family and Medical Leave Act from an unpaid leave program into one that would provide partial paid parental leave for federal employees. By carving out four of the 12 weeks of FMLA as paid parental leave, we are deeply concerned that H.R. 626 sets a precedent for future discussions over expansion of FMLA. ``In addition to creating a new paid leave component of FMLA at a great cost to the taxpayers, the bill doesn't require federal employees to first use accumulated vacation or sick leave before taking the paid parental leave. Again, this would set a bad precedent for the private sector. Currently, if an employee has accrued paid time off, an employer may require them to use some or all of their accrued paid time for some or all of the FMLA leave. ``Small businesses are struggling to survive in our tough economic times, and are very concerned that creating an expensive, new paid leave benefit for federal employees will eventually lead to new paid leave mandates on small business, something that's neither practical nor affordable. We are strongly urging the House to defeat this bill.''

Mr. SESSIONS. At this time, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lee).

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Virginia, not only for coming to the floor, but also the gentleman from California for allowing me to extend to an additional speaker. And I thank the gentleman very much. Madam Speaker, we should have a different title to this bill. This bill should be the bill for what Congress needs to do to expend Federal benefits, benefits to Federal employees, while knowing that in April there were over 611,000 private sector jobs that were lost. That should be the name of the bill. This is what this Congress is going to do to respond to some almost 3 million jobs that have been lost, while this administration is in power. That's what this bill really should be known for. This is the answer to 3 million job losses in the private sector. We're going to extend benefits, further benefits to the Federal Government. Hey, I understand that because the Federal Government employment has risen about 100,000, and with, you know, car companies and banks and everything else, no telling how many Federal employees that we'll end up with at the end of this year. So maybe I was wrong. Maybe there is a strong demand out there for Federal Government employees who want additional benefits. But we should remember that back home, where I'm from, and where a lot of people are from, 611,000 jobs disappeared in the month of April. And this is the response from our Democrat majority and our President: let's go spend more money, new benefits for Federal Government employees. I get it. I think you will too, Madam Speaker, when we hear from people back home. Madam Speaker, in closing I'd like to reiterate the horrible precedent that I think this legislation sets to those Americans who today that I just talked about, some 611,000 in April alone in the private sector who lost their jobs. Millions of Americans are jobless, and due to the out-of-control spending of this Democrat Congress, no analyst or White House official believes jobs will bounce back this year. None of them. Nobody. As a matter of fact, the Democrat Party is on record and it's going to get worse next year and we're planning on it already. We already understand that. We ought to be saying that instead of extending benefits that it's going to cost another billion dollars. Why are my friends on the other side afraid of risking more of the taxpayer dollars to provide Federal employees who already have the most job security and excellent benefits? Why are they afraid to back away and wait on this? Why are they pushing this? I wonder. I wonder really who is more important and who they're hearing from, because evidently it's not people back home. Maybe it is the government workers that they're listening to. Maybe government workers are more important to this party than people back home. Maybe that's why this is happening. Look, Republicans are providing quality solutions. We think we understand what the American people are going through. We understand what's happening with the taxing, the borrowing and the spending. Huge deficits and unemployment rates continue on and on and on. I oppose this bill, and I hope that the American people understand that the taxpayer was heard today on the floor of the House of Representatives. They were heard by the speakers of the Republican Party who said we should not be extending benefits right now. We should not increase the spending and the cost of $1 billion over the next 5 years. We should understand what real people are going through. I'm going to vote against this bill. I yield back my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Jack E. Singley, former Superintendent of the Irving Independent School District (IISD). Mr. Singley first joined Irving ISD as a math teacher at MacArthur High School in 1965. Over the past forty-four years, he has served in various roles from teacher to vice principal to personnel director to Superintendent. Upon taking the reins as Superintendent in 1988, Irving ISD has undergone tremendous change. Irving ISD added eight schools, enrollment grew from 21,887 to 33,233 students, over 30,000 students graduated from high schools, and employees increased from 2,309 to 4,177. He exhibited great leadership skills and carried out his vision to improve Irving ISD, helping students achieve their full potential. Aside from being one of the longest serving Superintendents in the State of Texas, Jack will be remembered for his commitment to public education and dedicated service to Irving ISD. He has touched countless lives and will be greatly missed. Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Singley for devoting his career to public education and expressing our heartfelt gratitude for his forty-four years of service to Irving ISD.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a teaching legend, Mr. Larry Cavitt and to celebrate his forty years of dedicated service at St. Mark's School of Texas. I am proud to represent St. Mark's in the 32nd Congressional District of Texas. Mr. Cavitt first joined St. Mark's faculty on August 28, 1969 after receiving his M.A. from Southern Methodist University. In his current role, he serves as the 5th grade humanities teacher and senior class advisor. During his tenure at St. Mark's, he has also taught 7th, 8th, and 9th grade Social Studies, 8th grade Humanities, U.S. History, and Advanced Placement Law and Government. Outside of the classroom, members of the basketball and baseball team know him as ``coach.'' In his forty years of service, he has helped shaped young impressionable minds, providing them a firm educational foundation for success. He always encourages his students to chase their dreams and I know these young men have greatly benefitted from his teaching, wisdom, and insight. St. Mark's is a successful institution because of dedicated and caring teachers such as Mr. Cavitt. I admire him for his passion for teaching and ask my colleagues to join me in expressing our gratitude for his continued service. I congratulate Mr. Cavitt on reaching his forty-year milestone and wish him all the best.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) and 114 years of dedicated service to our service men and women. Founded on August 25, 1895, the War Department envisioned an exchange at every post where practical to bring our troops a taste of Americana. Since then AAFES has expanded to over 3,100 facilities worldwide. The growth and success of this exchange service is due in large part to the numerous employees, now totaling over 43,000 associates, dedicated to serving and supporting our service members and their families. For Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, over 450 associates annually volunteered for deployment, choosing to follow our troops wherever they may go and proudly upholding the AAFES motto of ``We go where you go!'' Their dedication, courage, and patriotism are commendable and resonate deeply within each of us, as we stand united in our support for our soldiers and AAFES. Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in congratulating AAFES for 114 years of exemplary service and in expressing our heartfelt gratitude for their unwavering support of our armed forces.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Bill Kysor's 40 years of teaching at St. Mark's School of Texas. I am proud to represent St. Mark's in the 32nd Congressional District of Texas. For forty years, Mr. Kysor has inspired young men and fostered their artistic capabilities and appreciation. During his tenure, Mr. Kysor has taught Middle School art and Upper School Art Elements, Painting, and Sculpture, but he is best known for his Ceramics class. In addition to his work in the studio, Mr. Kysor has introduced scores of boys to the wonders of the outdoors during Middle School campouts and the annual Pecos Wilderness Trip. Playing his beloved drums, he co-sponsors the Blues Club. Mr. Kysor also has the distinction of being the only ``Honorary Member of the Science Department,'' an honor awarded to him as thanks for creating the ceramic Periodic Table of the Elements that graces the Cecil and Ida Green Science Building. In 2006, Mr. Kysor escorted his student, Jason Sanford as he received a Presidential Scholar in the Arts award for his command of the art of ceramics. Mr. Kysor was appointed to the St. Mark's faculty on August 28, 1969, after receiving his M.A. from Southern Methodist University. He is an icon at St. Mark's, and I admire him for continuing to teach even after reaching his forty-year milestone. I wish Mr. Kysor all the best.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding the appropriate time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule and to the underlying legislation. This closed rule does not call for the open and honest debate that has been promised time and time again by my Democrat colleagues. Today's action by my friends on the other side of the aisle is yet another example of the Federal Government overstepping its boundaries into the private marketplace. Mr. Speaker, today I will inform you of the parliamentary games that my Democratic colleagues are playing on this bill with a gun provision adopted by the Senate. We will discuss why Congress is pushing a bill that already exists in Federal statute, which not only limits credit and raises interest rates to responsible borrowers today. Small business will feel the impact also; and, finally, to review Congress' need to regulate every sector of the economy while they refuse to manage their own gross spending habits of the taxpayer dollar. The Senate managed to add a provision in this legislation that would allow visitors of national parks and refuges to legally carry licensed firearms by a large bipartisan majority of 67-29. While this does not add power to the overregulated credit bill, it does provide an important legislative victory for Second Amendment rights. Yet my Democratic colleagues have separated the vote on this bill in two separate sections, one vote on the gun provision and one vote on the credit card bill. Mr. Speaker, I would like to know why is this? Why is this that we take a piece of legislation from the Senate and because it is not liked by the Democratic leadership here, we separate that bill? Have my friends on the other side of the aisle split this vote to increase government regulation while voting against constitutional rights? Not even 6 months ago, the Federal Reserve passed new credit card rules that would protect consumers and provide for more transparency and accountability in our credit market. These new regulations are set to take effect in July of 2010, an agreed-upon date to ensure the necessary time for banks and credit card companies to make the crucial adjustments to their business practices without adversely hurting consumers. With the growing Federal deficit, the current economic crisis and the growing number of unemployed, why is Congress now passing legislation that already exists in Federal statute? This legislation allows for the Federal Government to micromanage the way the credit card and the banking industry does its business. If enacted into law, it is not credit card companies that will suffer. It will be everyone that has a credit card and, I might add, those who would like to have a credit card in the future. Every American will see an increase in their interest rates. And some of the current benefits that encourage responsible lending will most likely disappear, for example, cash advances and over-the-limit protection. My friends on the other side of the aisle not only remove any incentive for using credit cards responsibly, but they punish those who manage their credit responsibly to subsidize the irresponsible. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats also want to limit the amount of credit available to middle and low-income individuals, the very Americans who need to take most advantage of credit. A Politico article written last Friday discusses that the changes in this bill ``will dramatically raise the costs of extending loans to cardholders and cause the riskiest cardholders to be dropped altogether.'' It goes on to mention how bad this bill is in regard to the current economic downturn and how restricted access to credit cards will make it increasingly harder to purchase the essential family staples while dealing with job layoffs and temporary unemployment. Additionally, the strain of this legislation could have a direct and adverse impact on small business. Small businesses are critical to this economy in making sure that we have economic and job growth in this country. For individuals starting a small business, this legislation will increase their interest rates, reduce benefits and shrink the availability of credit, potentially limiting their options even to succeed in the marketplace. Meredith Whitney, a prominent banking analyst, predicts, in a Wall Street Journal article from March, a $2.7 trillion decrease in credit will be available by the year 2010 out of the current $5 trillion credit line available in this country. That means it will almost be cut well in half. Mr. Speaker, with the current state of the economy, we urgently need to increase liquidity and lower the cost of credit to stimulate even more lending, not raise rates and reduce the availability of credit. This is not a solution for the ailing economy. This type of government control of private markets is all about what our Democratic colleagues and this administration have been exploring. Whether it is federalizng our banks, credit markets, health care or energy, the list goes on and on. That said, this administration has taken their power grab a step further. Now they are considering a take- over of the financial industry. Converting preferred shares into common equity signals a dramatic shift towards a government strategy of long- term ownership and involvement in some of the Nation's largest banks. Millions of Americans are rightfully outraged at the mismanagement of TARP and the reckless use of their tax dollars. And I believe that taxpayers are increasingly uneasy with the Federal Government's growing involvement in the financial markets. Bloomberg.com had an article yesterday which highlighted that three of our large banks have applied to repay $45 billion in TARP funds. That means they had to tell the government we would like to pay back the money, is that okay, largely due to these burdensome regulations that the Treasury Department continues to place on them. But just last week, Secretary Geithner announced that he is considering reusing bailout repayments for smaller banks. This is completely unacceptable, and why I have repeatedly called for a solid exit plan for American taxpayers to be repaid by these TARP dollars. TARP dollars were never set up to be used as a revolving fund for struggling banks. To preempt de facto nationalization of our financial system, on February 3, 2009, the House Republican leadership, including myself, sent a letter to Secretary Geithner regarding what was called the ``range of options'' this administration was considering in managing the $700 billion of taxpayer moneys. Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record a letter that was sent to Secretary Geithner at that time. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, February 3, 2009. Hon. Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC. Dear Secretary Geithner: Recent reports indicate that the Administration is considering a ``range of options'' for spending the second tranche of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) released last week and that the Administration is considering whether to ask the Congress for new and additional TARP funds beyond the $700 billion already provided. We are writing to raise serious questions about the efficacy of the options being considered and to ask whether the Administration is developing a strategy to exit the bailout business. Because the Administration has committed itself to assisting the auto industry, satisfying commitments made by the previous Administration, and devoting up to $100 billion to mitigate mortgage foreclosures, it has been reported that President Obama might need more than the $700 billion authorized by the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (``EESA'') to fund a ``bad bank'' to absorb hard-to-value toxic assets. In light of these commitments--which come at a time when the Federal Reserve is flooding the financial system with trillions of dollars and the Congress is finalizing a fiscal stimulus that is expected to cost taxpayers more than $1.1 trillion--it is not surprising that the American people are asking where it all ends, and whether anyone in Washington is looking out for their wallets. Indeed, a bipartisan majority of the House--171 Republicans and 99 Democrats--recently expressed the same concerns, voting to disapprove releasing the final $350 billion from the TARP. As we noted in our December 2, 2008 letter to then- Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke, we realize that changing conditions require agility in developing responses. However. the seemingly ad hoc implementation of TARP has led many to wonder if uncertainty is being added to markets at precisely the time when they are desperately seeking a sense of direction. It has also intensified widespread skepticism about TARP among taxpayers, and prompted misgivings even among some who originally greeted the demands for the program's creation with an open mind. Accordingly, we request answers to the following questions: 1. How does the Administration plan to maximize taxpayer value and guarantee the most effective distribution of the remaining $350 billion of TARP funds? 2. How is the Administration lending, assessing risk, selecting institutions for assessing, and determining expectations for repayment? 3. Will the Administration opt for a complex ``bad bank'' rescue plan? How can the ``bad bank'' efficiently price assets and minimize taxpayer risk? Will financial institutions be required to give substantial ownership stakes to the Federal government to participate in the program? 4. Is a ``bad bank'' plan an intermediate step that leads to nationalizing America's banks? 5. Can you elaborate on your plans for the use of an insurance program for toxic assets? Specifically, will you seek to price insurance programs to ensure that taxpayer interests are protected? If so, how will you do so? 6. What is the exit strategy for the government's sweeping involvement in the financial markets? Thank you for your consideration of these important questions. Sincerely, John Boehner; Mike Pence; Cathy McMorris Rodgers; Roy Blunt; Eric Cantor; Thaddeus McCotter; Pete Sessions; David Dreier; Kevin McCarthy; Spencer Bachus. This letter outlined a host of questions that deal with ensuring that the taxpayers would be paid back and also having an exit strategy for the government's sweeping involvement in the financial markets. Today is May 20, and over 3 months later, there has been no response by Secretary Geithner to the Republican leadership letter. A couple of weeks ago, the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP, published a report that reveals at least 20 criminal cases of fraud in the bailout program and determined that new action by President Obama's administration are ``greatly increasing taxpayer exposure to losses with no corresponding increase in potential profits.'' This is why you see the Republican leadership asking questions. This administration has not responded to our letter. This administration is not above oversight and accountability. The American people deserve answers for their use of tax dollars and an exit strategy from taxpayer-funded bailouts, including how their investment in TARP will be returned. That is why I sent another letter to Secretary Geithner on April 23 of this year expressing grave concern to the recent reports of the Treasury moving taxpayer dollars into riskier investments in banks' capital structures. Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Congressional Record a copy of this letter dated April 23 to Secretary Geithner. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, April 23, 2009. Hon. Timothy Geithner, Secretary, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC. Dear Secretary Geithner: I am greatly concerned by recent news reports that the Administration is considering converting the government's preferred stock in some of our nation's largest banks--investments acquired through the TARP program--into common equity shares in these publicly-held companies. As you are aware, these investments were originally made to their recipients at fixed rates for a fixed period of time-- signaling that their intent was to provide these banks with short-term capital for the purpose of improving our financial system's overall position during a time of crisis. Converting these shares into common equity, however, signals a drastic shift away from the Administration's original purpose for these investments to a new strategy of long-term ownership of and involvement in these companies. I am concerned that converting these preferred shares into common equity would have two serious and negative effects. First, it would bring the banks whose shares are converted closer to de facto nationalization by creating the potential for the government to play an increasingly activist role in their day-to-day operations and management. Second, I am concerned that moving these investments further down the bank's capital structure into a riskier position puts American taxpayer dollars at increased risk of being lost in the event of a recipient's insolvency. To date, no Administration official has provided the House Republican Leadership wish any comprehensive answers to the serious questions raised in our February 2, 2009 letter to you about the Administration's exit strategy for the government's growing involvement in the financial markets. In absence of the Administration's response to that letter, I would appreciate your prompt assurance that converting these preferred shares to common equity--thereby taking these companies closer to nationalization and putting taxpayers' money at increased risk--is not a part of the Administration's yet-to-be-articulated strategy on getting out of the bailout business. Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this issue of critical importance to me, the residents of Texas' 32nd District and the entire taxpaying American public. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to have your staff contact my Chief of Staff Josh Saltzman. Sincerely, Pete Sessions, Member of Congress. As this Democrat Congress continues to tax, borrow, and spend American's hard-earned tax dollars, we move even closer to nationalizing our banks and credit systems, which will only deepen our current economic struggle. The Federal Government's interference in hindering our progress is apparent, while they should be there to help solidify making our system stronger and better. When Congress or the administration changes the rules, it should be in the best interest of the American public. But I can honestly say that this is not the case today. Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate to consider new ways to protect consumer credit and consumers from unfair and deceptive practices and to ensure that Americans receive useful and complete disclosures about terms and conditions. But in doing so, we should make sure that we do nothing to make credit cards more expensive for those who need this credit or to cut off or hinder access to credit for small business with those less-than-perfect histories. While reading the Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago, I came across an op-ed called ``Political Credit Cards'' discussing this very issue. It states: ``Our politicians spend half their time berating banks for offering too much credit on too easy terms, and the other half berating banks for handing out too little credit at a high price. The backers should tell the President that they'll start doing more lending when Washington stops changing the rules.'' This speaks to exactly what happened with TARP, health care, welfare, taxes, and lots of other legislation, including that underlying legislation today. Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better from their elected officials. I encourage my colleagues to vote against this rule. And I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we spoke just a minute ago about how banks had accepted these TARP funds and accepted them because it was necessary at the time to ensure the financial success of the banking system. And yet now here we are a few months later and the banks have undergone their stress tests. The banks understand more about the risk that is out there. And yet even as companies like JPMorgan Chase want to refund $45 billion or give it back to the government, the government is balking at them doing that. The reason why is, as this article in Bloomberg.com states, because the government has a methodology that they want to follow which would cause banks to be in a different position because--in other words, not run their business the way they want--because government wants to tell them what the rules and regulations would be. And it appears as though that that is what this Treasury Department wants to do, that they have delayed banks paying back the money so that they can then put rules and regulations industrywide on anyone that took this money. Mr. Speaker, what should happen is we should have a Treasury Department that eagerly, gleefully wants to get back money that was given to them on behalf of the taxpayer. And instead what happens is we have a Treasury Department that is delaying this. It is making it, I believe, more difficult, all under the guise, then, of trying to make sure that they get what they want, and that is exacting more rules and regulations on these banks. I think that the Treasury Department should respond back to our letter. They should tell us what the exit strategy is, how people should pay back the money, and let the free enterprise system go about its job of creating not only a better economy, but also creating an opportunity to raise stock prices and employment in this country by doing their job in the free enterprise system. I will include this article from Bloomberg.com as part of our testimony today. Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan, Goldman Said To Apply To Repay TARP (By Christine Harper and Elizabeth Hester) May 19 (Bloomberg)--Goldman Sachs Group Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Morgan Stanley applied to refund a combined $45 billion of government funds, people familiar with the matter said, a step that would mark the biggest reimbursement to taxpayers since the program began in October. The three New York-based banks need approval from the Federal Reserve, their primary supervisor, to return the money, according to the people, who requested anonymity because the application process isn't public. Spokesmen for the three banks declined to comment, as did Calvin Mitchell, a spokesman for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. If approved, the refunds would be the most substantial since Congress established the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program last year to quell the turmoil that followed the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Banks want to return the money to escape restrictions on compensation and hiring that were imposed on TARP recipients in February. ``It really is a way for them to break from the herd,'' said Peter Sorrentino, a senior portfolio manager at Huntington Asset Advisors in Cincinnati, which holds Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan shares among the $13.8 billion it oversees. ``It's a great way to attract customers, personnel, capital.'' Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said on April 21 that he would welcome firms returning TARP funds as long as their regulators sign off. He added that regulators will consider whether banks have enough capital to keep lending and whether the financial system as a whole can supply the credit needed to ensure an economic recovery. Geithner's ``Broad Constraints'' One of the people familiar with the efforts by the banks to repay TARP said he anticipates that the government would prefer to issue industrywide compensation guidelines before allowing any major banks to repay TARP money. Geithner said yesterday that he would like to establish ``some broad constraints'' on compensation incentives in the financial industry instead of setting limits on pay. A law that went into effect in February sets a cap on the bonuses that can be paid to the highest-paid 25 employees at banks that have more than $500 million of TARP funds. Banks are awaiting guidance from the Treasury on how to implement the rules, such as how to determine which people to count in the top 25. JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley were among nine banks that were persuaded in mid-October by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to accept the first $125 billion of capital injections from the TARP program to help restore stability to the financial markets. Stress-Test Results The refunds would be the first by the biggest banks that participated in the program. As of May 15, 14 of the smaller banks that received capital under the program had already repaid it, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The 19 biggest banks were waiting for the conclusion earlier this month of so-called stress tests to determine whether they would require additional capital to withstand a further deterioration of the economy. Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan, the fifth- and second-biggest U.S. banks by assets, were found not to need any more money. Morgan Stanley, the sixth-biggest bank, raised $4.57 billion by selling stock this month, exceeding the $1.8 billion in additional capital the regulators said the bank may require. ``Wrong Time'' While executives at Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan have expressed a desire to repay their TARP money for months, Morgan Stanley Chairman and Chief Executive Officer John Mack told employees on March 30 that he thought it was ``the wrong time'' to repay the money. Morgan Stanley, which reported a first-quarter loss, also slashed its quarterly dividend 81 percent to 5 cents. On May 8, when the company sold stock, it also sold $4 billion of debt that didn't carry a government guarantee. Selling non- guaranteed debt is a prerequisite for repaying TARP money. The banks will also have to decide whether to try to buy back the warrants that the government received as part of the TARP investments. The warrants, which could convert into stock if not repurchased, would add to the cost of repayment. JPMorgan, which has $25 billion of TARP money, would need to pay about $1.13 billion to buy back the warrants, according to a May 14 estimate by David Trone, an analyst at Fox-Pitt Kelton Cochran Caronia Waller. Morgan Stanley's warrants would cost $770 million and Goldman Sachs's would cost $685 million, Trone estimated, using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model. Bank Shares Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley shares have climbed since Oct. 10, the last trading day before the banks were summoned to a meeting by Paulson and informed of the government's plans to purchase preferred stock in them. Goldman Sachs, whose stock closed today at $143.15 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading, is up 61 percent. Morgan Stanley, which closed today at $28.28, has almost tripled from $9.68. JPMorgan shares, by contrast, are 11 percent lower at today's $37.26 closing price than they were on Oct. 10, when they closed at $41.64. Banks could open themselves up to lawsuits if they repay the money too quickly and end up needing to ask the government for help in the future, James D. Wareham, a partner in the litigation department at Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker LLP said last week. CNBC on-air editor Charlie Gasparino reported on May 15 that Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan believe they have been given permission to exit the TARP. He reported yesterday that Morgan Stanley is seeking preliminary assurances that it can exit the program.

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

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman letting me know that she has no further speakers. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we spoke about earlier was the letters that the Republican leadership has sent to Secretary Geithner asking questions about Treasury's plans now about not only the use of TARP funds, how they will be paid back, what that process is, and finally, the exit strategy from the TARP program. The Republican leadership in this House sent a letter to Secretary Geithner months ago. We have not heard anything back, certainly not in writing. So we have looked across the news media for releases that came from the Secretary, and among other things, we have seen things that disturb us greatly. One of those is that the Secretary has openly talked about the wanting to have this Federal Government change the investment that was made in these banks from, in essence, one type of instrument to another. In this case, it was from preferred stock to common stock. In other words, since they put the money in the system, in the banks, and they cut a deal about what they would do, they now want to change the rules of the game. I believe that is not only unhealthy, I think it would absolutely be against the spirit of the law that we passed about the intent. What happens when you do this is now the Federal Government would then become a common shareholder, meaning that the government would be investing in the stock market. The government would become a partner in that effort, meaning that the government, as such a large player, could determine the stock price up and down. I think that is a bad deal. I think that's a bad deal not just for the free enterprise system, but I think that's a bad deal for this government. It puts them into a position where the government helps control the stock market and the stock price. We've asked Secretary Geithner what he thinks about that. Secretary Geithner has not responded except to say that that is reserved as an option. And now on May 13, we see that Secretary Geithner announces that the bailout repayments will be reused for smaller banks. That means that the money that was lent as part of the TARP program, when the money comes back in, Secretary Geithner is now going to reallocate that to smaller banks. It should be noted that what happened is a number of these banks have already received the money. But the TARP program, by the way it was set up, it said that when the money comes back in, it will go back into general funds. In other words, it was taken out of general funds. It was expected that it would be paid back plus interest and would come back to us. Despite what Secretary Geithner says, there are some Members of this body who are very clear about what they think about that. And as this ABC News, off their Web site, dated May 13 article said, Despite the warm welcome Geithner's announcement received from the assembled bankers, some Capitol Hill lawmakers are none too happy with the plan to repay taxpayer money back out to smaller banks. And it talks about Representative Brad Sherman, who is a Member of this body and a Democrat from California, ``blasted Geithner on the House floor today, citing part of the original TARP bill--Section 106D--that he said meant that these plans were `illegal.' ``It is being widely accepted in the press and on Wall Street and in Washington that whatever the Secretary gets back from the banks will instead be part of some revolving fund from which the Secretary of the Treasury may make additional bailouts in addition to the first $700 billion of expenditures.'' It says, ``Sherman went on, `Well, the statute is very clear to the contrary, whatever is returned to the Treasury,' '' it is returned to the Treasury. It goes into the general fund. Mr. Speaker, what we're talking about is the Secretary of the Treasury has the authority and the responsibility to manage these funds. I do recognize that as these funds were given, there was a change of administration. I believe, and I think this Congress believes, that Secretary Geithner was a part of that transition. But now that the Secretary has been in office and he has assembled his team, it's time that the Secretary be very plain and write back at least those people who are writing letters, including the Republican leadership, asking what the plan is. Seeing press releases as they come out one at a time as the Secretary chooses to do this is not a plan. We're after a thoughtful idea and process now that we've been through the stress test about how the American taxpayer can be paid back. And I think the $700 billion plus interest is what needs to come back to the Treasury and go into the general fund. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Roswell, Georgia, Dr. Price.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman for his thoughtful comments. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'd like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Lubbock, Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.