Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the Energy and Commerce Committee, Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida as we begin a new year and a new Congress with an opportunity to work not only with the gentleman, but also my colleagues from the Rules Committee, and you, Madam Speaker, during this new Congress. And I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time that he has done. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule and to the ill-conceived underlying legislation. I think the premise that I have heard my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about today of making sure that we just expand this program to meet every single need of every single child is not what this program was designed for, and a $35 billion expansion of the program will help bankrupt this country and the States that try and provide the services also. I do not support this bill or the way it has been brought to the floor either. My Democrat colleagues on the other side of the aisle who promised to be the most open and honest ethical Congress have once again given Republicans absolutely no say in the process, and they are completely disregarding President-elect Obama's promises to work together to solve the problems of this country. Today, House Democrats have once again chosen to force their own legislation through a biased rule that we are here debating on the floor of the House right now. This bill has been brought to the floor today without one committee hearing or markup. The current SCHIP program expires on March 31, and so I would ask my colleagues, why aren't we having hearings? Why aren't we having input from House Members? Why aren't we consulting Republicans in this process? In fact, Republicans only received the text yesterday morning. And today's rule once again limits the Republican opportunities for any chance of reform or ideas, confirming the Democrats' plans to govern this House without any input from Republicans. Democrats over the past few years have demonized me and my Republican colleagues for not expanding the current State Children's Health Insurance Program to unprecedented levels, and they continue to cry out that Republicans are anti-children. I would like to remind them that it was a Republican Congress that initiated this program over a decade ago. It was begun to make sure that children that had no health coverage could gain that coverage. However, my colleagues and I recognized the need for SCHIP, and we see that we need to help low-income, uninsured children whose families earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to buy private coverage. For that reason SCHIP was created and today covers about 6.7 million children in our country. However, today we find that the Democrats' proposed $35 billion expansion of a program that has not yet accomplished its original intent is now being taken to unprecedented levels by my friends on the other side of the aisle. My Democrat friends want to continue to push their government-run health care agenda even though this legislation moves some 2.4 million children who are currently on private health insurance to an inferior public program with less access. I'll repeat that. The numbers that my friends have been talking about of expanding this to children across this country, 2.4 million of them already have private insurance. That's a mistake. It's a mistake. So now what we're looking at is that Medicaid programs facing extreme shortfalls and physicians who are scaling back on Medicaid and SCHIP patients due to extremely low reimbursement rates will now take on these additional children. Why would we want to subject 4 to 6 million more children to this kind of care? Madam Speaker, it seems like my Democrat colleagues are putting their agenda first, not our American children. This legislation turns an innovative idea on its head by increasing government spending exponentially, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill when their budget gimmicks fail to create the necessary ability to fund properly these programs. This bill has no income limits for eligibility. None. And it allows coverage for families making up to $83,000 a year and has no annual authorization limit and allows States to decide who qualifies, leaving adults and illegal immigrants to compete against low-income American children. Madam Speaker, it should be important that we should meet the current goals of the program and expectations before we expand that program. For that reason some of my Republican colleagues and I sent a letter to our new President-elect, President Obama, and Speaker Pelosi outlining what we think Republicans would like our Democrat colleagues to understand and consider before expanding the current SCHIP program. I would like to include this as part of our deliberations today. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, January 12, 2009. President-elect Barack Obama, Presidential Transition Office, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC. Dear President-elect Obama and Speaker Pelosi: Thank you for expressing your desire to work with us to address the needs of the American people. We recognize that reauthorizing the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is an early legislative priority, and we hope that you will consider this legislation to be one of the first opportunities for bipartisan cooperation. During the last Congress, significant efforts were made in an attempt to address concerns raised by House Republicans about how the underlying bills would impact uninsured children. Despite the progress that was made, there are still a few outstanding issues that we hope you agree should be addressed when we work to reauthorize the program this year: Serving Eligible Low-income Children First SCHIP is intended to serve those that are neediest first. As low-income families continue to face more economic insecurity, providing access to affordable health care coverage, regardless of any job change or displacement, should be our first priority. The legislation should demand success from the states in enrolling poor and low-income children below 200 percent of the federal poverty level, especially those who are currently eligible for Medicaid and/ or SCHIP, but are not yet enrolled. Demanding success from the states could be as simple as requiring that states meet a threshold of enrollment before further expansions. Nearly all the states have demonstrated over the past year to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that meeting this standard is indeed possible. Furthermore, in the current economic environment, several states have indicated that they will be experiencing shortfalls that could impact their ability to provide Medicaid benefits and services. Asking states to expand their SCHIP program before they are able to finance their existing Medicaid program would be a mistake. Expanding SCHIP to higher income families will only exacerbate the real access to care problem in the Medicaid program. Citizenship Status We believe that only U.S. citizens and certain legal residents should be permitted to benefit from a program like SCHIP. We also think it is fair to say that both parties believe that our immigration system is broken. That is why it is so important that the legislation include stronger provisions to prevent fraud by including citizenship verification standards to ensure that only eligible U.S. citizens and certain legal residents are enrolled in the program. Protecting Private Insurance Options We agree that those with private coverage should not be forced into a government-run plan. SCHIP legislation should focus expansion efforts on children who are currently uninsured instead of moving children who have private health insurance options into government-run health insurance. Moving a child from private health insurance to government- run health insurance should not be part of your stated goal of providing SCHIP for 10 million children, a number we assume to be targeted towards low-income uninsured children. Stable Funding Source In order to guarantee access to the program and long term stability, SCHIP should be funded through a stable funding source, not budget gimmicks. Further, the legislation should not include extraneous provisions unrelated to SCHIP that limit patient choice or prohibit access to quality medical care. Our nation's Governors need a stable SCHIP program so they may properly budget. Every American faces the crushing burden of a declining economy. This should not be a time Congress raises taxes, especially on the poorest Americans, to finance program expansions as part of the SCHIP reauthorization bill. We believe these to be critical elements to improve this vital program that if fully incorporated would dramatically increase bipartisan support for the legislation. Thank you for the consideration of this request. We look forward hearing from you and working with you towards a bipartisan agreement. Sincerely, Robert Aderholt, Steve Austria, Michele Bachmann, Spencer Bachus, Gresham Barrett, Roscoe Bartlett, Joe Barton, Judy Biggert, Gus Bilirakis, Rob Bishop, Marsha Blackburn, Roy Blunt, John Boehner, Mary Bono Mack, John Boozman, Charles Boustany, Kevin Brady, Paul Broun, Henry Brown, Ginny Brown-Waite, Michael Burgess, Dan Burton, Steve Buyer, Ken Calvert, Dave Camp, Eric Cantor, John Carter, Bill Cassidy, Jason Chaffetz, Howard Coble, Mike Coffman, Tom Cole, Michael Conaway, Ander Crenshaw, John Culberson, Geoff Davis, Nathan Deal, David Dreier, Mary Fallin, Jeff Flake, John Fleming, Randy Forbes, Jeff Fortenberry, Virginia Foxx, Trent Franks, Rodney Frelinghuysen, Phil Gingrey, Louie Gohmert, Bob Goodlatte, Kay Granger, Sam Graves, Ralph Hall, Doc Hastings, Dean Heller, Jeb Hensarling, Wally Herger, Peter Hoekstra, Duncan Hunter, Bob Inglis, Darrell Issa, Lynn Jenkins, Sam Johnson, Walter Jones, Jim Jordan, Steve King, Jack Kingston, Mark Kirk, John Kline Doug Lamborn, Christopher Lee, Jerry Lewis, Blaine Luetkemeyer, Cynthia Lummis, Daniel Lungren, Don Manzullo, Kevin McCarthy, Thaddeus McCotter, Patrick McHenry, John McHugh, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Jeff Miller, Sue Myrick, Devin Nunes, Pete Olson, Erik Paulsen, Mike Pence, Joe Pitts, Todd Platts, Ted Poe, Bill Posey, Tom Price, Adam Putnam, George Radanovich, Hal Rogers, Mike Rogers, Thomas Rooney, Peter Roskam, Paul Ryan, Steve Scalise, Jean Schmidt, Aaron Schock, James Sensenbrenner, Pete Sessions, John Shadegg, John Shimkus, Bill Shuster, Michael Simpson, Adrian Smith, Lamar Smith, Cliff Stearns, John Sullivan, Lee Terry, Glenn Thompson, Patrick Tiberi, Fred Upton, Greg Walden, Zach Wamp, Lynn Westmoreland, Ed Whitfield, Joe Wilson, Robert Wittman The first priority should be to make our Nation's poorest, uninsured children covered. This is the intent of the program, and we should fulfill that program and that goal. Currently, at least two-thirds of children who do not have health insurance are already eligible for Federal help through either SCHIP or Medicaid. We should enroll these children first before expanding to higher income brackets. The second priority is to ensure that SCHIP does not replace or significantly impact those who already have private health insurance with a government-run program. Last year Hawaii created a new government-financed program to fill the gap between private and public insurance in an effort to provide universal coverage for children. But State officials soon found that families were dropping private coverage to enroll their children in the government plan. The Governor of Hawaii terminated the plan when she realized Hawaii could not and should not subsidize the cost for children already receiving private health insurance. Madam Speaker, should this legislation pass, we know that 2.4 million more children will be ``crowded out'' from their private insurance plan and moved to SCHIP. In days where Congress is faced with a second $350 billion bailout plan and a possible $1.3 trillion stimulus package, is the Federal Government in any financial shape to be financing health care costs for children who are already receiving private health insurance? Lastly, a citizenship verification standard is critical to ensuring that only U.S. citizens and certain legal immigrants are allowed to access the taxpayer-funded benefits, not illegal immigrants. The underlying legislation offers no safeguards to ensure American children come before illegal immigrants. Republicans understand how important and personal health care decisions are for individuals and families. We believe in freedom of choice, and allowing patients and doctors to make health care decisions, not government bureaucrats, is the direction we should go. Allowing for a tax credit or tax deduction for the purchase of health care insurance would give an individual or a family the choice of an affordable health care plan that fits their needs. Said another way, a family and their children should be able to choose their own doctor and go to that doctor day in and day out, not simply to have to shop to find what is then available through a government-run program. This would bring the ownership and control back to the individual and the family. Madam Speaker, additionally, if we allow individuals to purchase health insurance across State lines and let businesses and associations band together to purchase insurance, we guarantee choice, portability, and flexibility for families and employees. Rather than limiting choice like my Democrat colleagues, Republicans strive for quality, affordable health care for every single American. Madam Speaker, another fatal flaw with this huge government expansion is how our Democrat colleagues are going to pay for this plan. The proposed budget uses gimmicks to comply with PAYGO rules, masking the true cost of the expansion. Democrats will increase taxes on cigarette packs by 61 cents to $1 and included taxes on cigars of up to $3 to come up with the majority of the $35 billion expansion. The problem is that this tobacco tax disproportionately burdens low-income Americans because the majority of smokers are young adults and individuals and families making less than 300 percent of the Federal poverty level. To produce the revenues that Congress needs to fund the $35 billion SCHIP expansion would require a tax for 22.4 million new smokers by 2017 or 80 percent of the beneficiaries would lose coverage in 5 years. That means that we are going to tax these users and rely on that stream of revenue that will be diminishing very quickly. That is not a responsible way to fund the program. Eliminating physician ownership and health care practices is another way that the Democrats plan to pay for expansion. The current state of our community hospitals is in disarray. Community hospitals are overcrowded and understaffed. Physician-owned hospitals run more efficiently, have higher patient satisfaction and higher quality outcomes than their community counterparts. Yet my friends on the other side of the aisle want to eliminate that option for individuals. So while dumping children in a government-run health care plan, they also want to limit health care choices for everyone by eliminating physician-owned facilities. Rather than limiting choices, Congress should be in the business of creating more avenues and opportunities for individuals and families to find affordable insurance for their choices that provides them and leads them to quality care. This legislation does the opposite. I encourage my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier). (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, you know, it's pretty incredible. A number of speakers that we've had here today sat through the hearing yesterday and understood that this bill is not going to become law anytime soon. Yet we are down on the floor of the House of Representatives touting how this will be the first bill that our new President, President Barack Obama, will sign; and yet, testimony in the Rules Committee yesterday, a full admittance that we don't know whether this is all going to make it or not. It will be interesting to see. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Energy and Commerce, Mrs. Blackburn.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/ 2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/ 2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Miami, Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, we believe we are in agreement with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) that we will allow their side to catch up at this time.

Mr. SESSIONS. We continue to reserve.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Lewisville, Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Lincoln, Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, we continue to reserve our time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, the gentleman, the majority leader, indicated he had not had an opportunity to see the Congressional Budget Office report to the gentleman Mr. Waxman, dated January 13. I would like to insert this into the transcript of today's debate. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate H.R. 2--Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 Summary: The legislation would authorize the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) through fiscal year 2013 and increase federal funding for the program above current levels. The bill would provide performance bonus payments to states for enrollment costs resulting from specified enrollment and retention efforts. H.R. 2 would establish a child enrollment contingency fund to cover state CHIP expenditures beyond the amount allotted in statute for the 2009-2013 reauthorization period. The bill also would add an additional state option to use CHIP funding to provide a premium assistance subsidy for children enrolled in a qualified health insurance plan, provide additional funding for outreach grants, and improve access to dental benefits and mental health parity in CHIP plans. H.R. 2 includes other provisions related to the Medicaid program and CHIP. These provisions include ones that would allow states the authority to waive the restriction on providing Medicaid and CHIP coverage to certain legal immigrants before five years of residency, provide an alternative citizenship verification process for states when determining Medicaid eligibility, and provide grants for increased outreach and enrollment activities. Finally, the bill would increase the federal excise tax on tobacco products. The effects on direct spending and revenues over the 2009- 2013 and 2009-2018 periods are relevant for enforcing pay-as- you-go rules under the current budget resolution. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2 would increase direct spending by approximately $32.3 billion over the 2009-2013 period, and by $65.4 billion over the 2009-2018 period. In addition, the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates that certain provisions of the bill would increase federal revenues by $31.3 billion over the 2009-2013 period and $64.7 billion over the 2009-2018 period. Accounting for those effects and other revenue effects stemming from provisions in H.R. 2, CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would reduce deficits by $1.1 billion over the 2009-2013 period and by $1.7 billion over the 2009-2018 period. CBO has reviewed the nontax provisions of the bill (Title I through Title VI, excluding section 311(a)) and determined that they contain no intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). CBO has determined that those provisions contain private-sector mandates on group health plans and issuers of group health insurance. In aggregate, the costs of the mandates on private entities in the nontax provisions of the bill would not exceed the annual threshold established by UMRA for private-sector mandates ($139 million in 2009, adjusted annually for inflation). Estimated cost to the Federal Government: CBO's estimate of the impact of H.R. 2 on direct spending and revenues is shown in the following table. The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 550 (health). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By fiscal year in billions of dollars--

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, we reserve our time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, we will continue to reserve our time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, we will continue to reserve our time.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman. I have no further speakers and would yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I will be asking for a recorded vote on this closed rule. With the current program not expiring until March 31 of this year, we have seen enough Members question the underlying legislation, and I think we deserve an open and honest debate in the committees of jurisdiction before we take a vote on such a large expansion--$35 billion more of government programs. This legislation spends billions of dollars to substitute private health insurance with government-run coverage. It enables illegal aliens to fraudulently enroll in Medicaid and in SCHIP. The bill creates the most regressive tax increase in American history, using funding gained from taxing the poor to pay for expanding SCHIP eligibility to higher income families. This legislation increases the number of adults on SCHIP, allowing even more resources to be taken away from the low-income, uninsured children who need it the most. Madam Speaker, this legislation moves us closer and closer to a government-run program and further and further away to access for quality health care of our choice. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and to vote ``no'' on the underlying legislation. We should ensure that SCHIP meets its original intent and that it covers the poorest children first. We have been very clear about saying that the Republicans in this body have asked for the opportunity to have regular order to discuss this issue in committee and have asked for the opportunity to have Republicans and Democrats present their ideas and hear them accepted for amendments before the Rules Committee. We object to the way that this Rules Committee has handled this issue. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, by the direction of the House Republican Conference, I send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the observance of America's annual National Folic Acid Awareness Week, which began on January 5, 2009. It is my hope that this awareness week gives the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) further awareness to reduce the prevalence of preventable serious birth defects in women of childbearing age across all segments of our population. Enriched cereals and grain products are fortified with the B-vitamin folic acid, but only one-third of U.S. women of childbearing age consume the scientifically recommended daily amount. Folic acid, a B-vitamin, is particularly critical for proper cell growth and has been scientifically proven to prevent birth defects of the brain and spine, called Neural Tube Defects (NTD). Women especially need folic acid, even if not planning to become pregnant since 50 percent of all pregnancies are unplanned. Consuming the recommended amount of folic acid each day before pregnancy can reduce the risk of a birth defect of the brain and spine by seventy percent. The prevalence rates of NTDs has declined by 27 percent since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's mandatory addition of folic acid to enriched grain products in 1998. Even with this improvement in the reduction in the Neutral Tube Disorders of Spina Bifida and Anencephaly birth defect births, there still are 3,000 babies born each year with serious birth defects, and an estimated 5,000 that die from a serious birth defect. Since 1998, over 100 peer-reviewed scientific studies have been published and been reviewed by a distinguished group of leading birth defect scientists and researchers. These individuals concluded that more folic acid to already fortified enriched grain products, and folic acid to corn-based products, is important to our country's public health and should be examined by the DFA. In 2006, the Congressional Spina Bifida Caucus petitioned the FDA for review and the FDA refused the request, saying there was not enough science to merit the agency's review. A recent Center for Disease Control (CDC) study, published in December of 2008, the agency found that only 21 percent of Hispanic women of childbearing age are consuming the recommended amount of folic acid to effectively prevent serious birth defect births, compared with 40 percent of Caucasian women. Hispanic babies are 1.5 to 2 times more likely than other children in the U.S. to be born with a neural tube defect (NTD). The CDC reports that Hispanics across the United States consume the least amount of folic acid, and have the least knowledge about the role that folic acid plays in preventing a serious birth defect birth among all racial or ethnic groups in our country. This leads to an important goal of National Folic Acid Awareness Week, education. Birth defect prevention education is alarmingly low, so public education is essential. Surveys since 1998 have found that only 24 percent of women know that folic acid helps prevent birth defects. Of those who do know, only 40 percent know how much should be taken every day. Over ten years, public education efforts on the parts of the CDC, various birth defect prevention groups, and State and federal prevention awareness programs have been a great start in informing women of the necessity of folic acid during childbearing years, but we still have our work cut out for us. I would like to recognize the National Folic Acid Awareness Week and increase public awareness of the need for all women of childbearing age to get the recommended amount of folic acid each day. A continued effort on all fronts is necessary, I encourage the FDA to look at the research and consider adding more folic acid to enriched grain products and corn-based products. I will be reintroducing a resolution calling for this action and I ask my colleagues to join me in this education effort.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier). (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. I want to thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me the time and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to these new record-breaking 65th and 66th closed rules being offered by this Democrat-led Congress under their ``anything goes'' martial law and to this process which continues to elevate politics over good policy and which continues to produce legislation that even Senate Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid has referred to as an attempt to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. These last few hours that we're here, this Democrat majority continues to do that because it guts a carefully negotiated and bipartisan compromise reached in the Senate, leaving many of the deal's most important provisions in limbo rather than addressing them responsibly today. Earlier this week, the Senate passed a comprehensive tax extenders package by an overwhelming and bipartisan vote of 92-3. This legislation included an $18 billion, fully offset energy tax policy proposal as well as a partially offset tax relief package, including an AMT patch to prevent middle class families from being hit with an unprecedented and unintended tax bill, along with important extensions of current tax policy, disaster-related tax provisions for the victims of the Midwest floods and Hurricane Ike, and mental health parity legislation. Understanding the delicate balance in his Chamber, Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid begged Speaker Pelosi not to send the Senate back a different bill, he said, ``because it won't pass'' and that, if the House ``messes with our package, it will die.'' Rather than heeding these dire warnings from their own party leader, this Democrat leadership has decided to chop the legislation up into a number of separate pieces, making substantive and negative changes to many of them, engaging in a game of legislative chicken with the Senate rather than doing the responsible thing in making sure that important measures like help for victims of natural disasters, tax relief for middle class families who are at risk of being unintentionally caught by a tax created for the super wealthy and fairness for our Nation's rural schools are passed by this Congress before we leave town. I am disappointed that this Democrat majority thinks that scoring political points on the eve of an election is more important than passing these measures. But, unfortunately, this kind of political gamesmanship has become all too common in what Speaker Pelosi once promised would be the most honest, open and ethical Congress in history. This new House Democrat package, just introduced as a legislative package at 5:30 this evening, includes much of the same legislative trickery that Democrats have already employed this week. Just before that, the Senate had already pronounced it dead on arrival, making it a pointless and wasted endeavor, and also making it yet another missed chance for this Democrat House to do the right thing for American businesses, families and for rural schools. Since this legislation was just introduced, neither I nor most of my colleagues in the House know what is actually included in this legislation. If this rush to the floor with tax legislation feels familiar to some Members, it should. They have seen this in the past, and we have had enough. My colleagues and the colleagues on the other side of the aisle will remember that earlier this week, when this legislation was first rushed to the floor without proper review, it contained a $100 million disparity that forced the House to pull their first rule from the floor and amend it to correct their work in the Rules Committee. According to the Democrat staff, the legislative gimmick now being used consists of bringing two separate bills to the floor. The first includes a number of energy tax incentives for energy efficiency and conservation, which along with the upcoming October 1 expiration of the ban on drilling for American energy will go a long way towards fulfilling the House Republicans' long-term commitment to making sure we have an all-of-the-above strategy to achieve America's independence. The second bill includes important tax provisions for America's families trying to make ends meet and for American businesses trying to create jobs here in America, and to be competitive with companies around the world. Measures like the research and development tax credit, the State and local sales tax deduction, and the deduction for out-of-pocket expenses for teachers are particularly important for families, schools and businesses in my home State of Texas, and I am sure it would be true across the country. I strongly support their inclusion in this legislation. I do not support, however, the inclusion of measures to permanently raise taxes on the American economy during a time when the economic crisis is so great. To simply extend these, they could have simply extended tax policies, which would give people more money back home. Instead, we see what we have on the floor tonight. I ask all of my colleagues to vote with me to defeat this rule so that this House can end this political charade and cover vote for its vulnerable Members and take up the better Senate option, which has already passed, to provide American families and businesses with the tax relief they deserve. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of my colleague from New York if he has any speakers on his side.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I really do enjoy having our colleagues come down and debating the issues at hand. I have heard over and over that there is really nothing objectionable in this bill, except there is a new billion dollar permanent tax that is in the bill. I object to that. I object to that because what this is about is to tax employers a billion dollars more over a period of time than what they pay today. That's how you lose jobs. The gentleman wants to suggest that tax cuts is the reason why we have this horrible economy. Oh, not true. It is because we spend too much. We spend too much money. What we ought to be doing is we ought to be having more and more tax cuts to spur this economy, just like these tax cuts are doing here. We need to have a real energy plan, not a fake energy plan, and the plan we need supplies more gasoline and the availability for America and Americans to have more energy prepared and ready for us rather than having to seek what we need from overseas. We need to quit paying an extra incremental $400 billion to our friends across the ocean who we buy oil from. They are using this $400 billion to build new cities and new countries. That is what Dubai is about. So it is not just a matter of blaming this on tax cuts. It is a reality that today what we need to do is to have a comprehensive plan that deals not only with energy and the tax cuts that are on the floor tonight, but to make sure that we quit spending so darn much money. That's what the problem is. If we would approach that from a perspective that the American people understand, just like they do in their own homes, then I think we would get a better sense of things. The bottom line is we are here. We are here on a weekend, after we should have been at home, because we are dealing with a national crisis, a national emergency. There is no question about that. But the way you deal best with it is not to then have new tax increases to take care of and pay for the tax cuts that you wanted that would offset each other. So on the one hand you say sure, we are for you having a tax cut, but somebody else has to pay for it. In this case it is the employers. The employers in this country are the people who employ people. We should not be placing the tax on employers. This is a similar plan to what has taken place all around the country. Many States tax employers. We can take one, for example, Illinois. The State of Illinois, 48 out of 50 in job creation because they enjoy doing what the bill does tonight, taxing employers. That is not a way to run a railroad. It is very difficult for me to hear people say it is just a de minimis tax, but we are providing all of these tax cuts for business and research and development and all these things, and then turn around and say on the other side, it is not much of a tax. It is just de minimis. Well, it is equal. It is equal. That is what happened, they equaled this out. It is a offset. And the offset is a big tax on employers. That's a problem. The Republican Party is pleased to be here tonight. We are pleased to argue the important issues of the day. But we are going to vote no on raising taxes. We are going to vote no on the things that will hurt employers and employment in this country. It is a very difficult thing for the country to look up and know who to believe any more. That is why this Congress is at a 9 percent approval rating. You can't say on one side you've just got to do this and help out all these people, and then call whatever you did a de minimis tax on the other side because it is equal, it is harmful, and it hurts people and it hurts employers. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from San Dimas, California.