Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding the gentleman is going to pull the bill, and that's okay. I can understand that. And I appreciate the gentleman letting me know that. As best I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, you have heard very eloquent discussions tonight by both the majority leader of the United States House of Representatives, from the gentleman, Mr. Dreier, former chairman of the Rules Committee. I would have added that there is one common denominator between the good times and the bad times, and that common denominator is the House of Representatives that was run by the Republican Party. If you look at the first 4 years of President Clinton's tenure, it was a horrible economy. Once Republicans came in, it was all about getting a balanced budget. And we did achieve a balanced budget. We had to fight to do that. That's what 1994 was all about; 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001--until 2001, surpluses. During that period of time, we doubled the size of the economy in 12 years. Doubled the size of the economy in 12 years. That was a goal. That's growing the economy. We did that because we need to do that in the face of world competition. During our first 219 years, we went from a zero to a $6.5 trillion economy, and then in 12 years doubled it to $13.8. I do admit, and I'm sorry, and I have to take the blame for it, we have had too much spending under Republicans not last year and this year, but for the years prior to that because we did things that were necessary to protect this country. Finally secured our border, made sure that we had, within this country, a safe airline system, the Department of Homeland Security. Lots of spending. Lots of money. Lots of employees. We've avoided getting an attack on this country since 9/ 11/2001. I'm proud of what we're doing, and we need to keep giving confidence to the American people that the United States Congress can debate the ideas, and present them to the American public.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize the life of my good friend and co-chair of the Capital Fraternal Caucus, Stephanie Tubbs Jones. Stephanie and I shared a passion to help ensure a secure future for fraternities and sororities on campuses all across the country. Together, we worked to form and mature the Capital Fraternal Caucus to be an organization to celebrate Greek Life both as an undergraduate and throughout post-collegiate years. Stephanie dedicated her life to ensuring that every young person had the opportunity for a college education. As a member of the Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Stephanie understood first-hand the life-long friendships that fraternities and sororities foster in young people during their undergraduate years. It was these friendships which fostered mutual respect and collaboration of ideas. I am so honored to have shared this friendship with Stephanie and to have enjoyed our bonds of Greek Life as co-chairs of the Capital Fraternal Caucus. As the first African-American Chairman of the Capital Fraternal Caucus, Stephanie used her position to champion the Greek cause and quickly became a favorite member of interns working on Capital Hill who are affiliated with Greek organizations. While always lending a helping hand to students in Washington, Stephanie never forgot about the hundreds of thousands of students on every college campus. Through her dedicated work, she helped to pass the College Housing and Infrastructure Act. This leadership was recognized by the North- American Interfraternity Conference who presented her with the NIC's Silver Medal. This is one of the Conference's highest honors which recognizes significant leadership for causes that advance the highest ideals of fraternalism. In honor of her dedication and enthusiastic work, the North-American Interfraternity Conference is naming a summer program for young people in Washington DC after her. The ``Stephanie Tubbs Jones Memorial Legislative Fellowship'' will afford outstanding student leaders from fraternity and sorority chapters throughout the country to work with legislative leaders on Capitol Hill to help preserve the rich undergraduate traditions represented by the communities on campuses across the Nation. I look forward to meeting the next generation of leaders which Stephanie's legacy will bring to Washington. A wonderful example of the type of person our public school system produces, Stephanie went on to attend Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. Following her graduation from college she began her career in public service by earning a degree in Social Work. This passion for helping others led her to pursue a law degree from Case Western Reserve School of Law in 1974. Ultimately, Stephanie was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1998 and served the 11th Congressional District of Ohio until her untimely and unfortunate death in August of this year. During her time as a Congresswoman, Stephanie never lost her zeal for public service nor her passion to help young people. She constantly sought to improve public schools and ensure that every American student had the best possible education. Stephanie was a well-respected member of this Congress and her presence will surely be missed.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I would yield.

Mr. SESSIONS. I would continue to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object. Under my reservation, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. SESSIONS. I would like to yield to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I want to thank the gentleman, my friend, Mr. Arcuri, for the time that he has yielded me, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. ``Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this martial law rule and in opposition to the outrageous process that continues to plague this House. We have before us a martial law rule that allows the leadership to once again ignore the rules of the House and the procedures and the traditions of this House. Martial law is no way to run a democracy, no matter what your ideology, no matter what your party affiliation.'' I strongly agree with these words, but I cannot, in good faith, take credit for them because I did not write them. I simply just read them. My staff did not write them, nor did any of the Republican staff on the Rules Committee. In fact, as far as I know, not one Republican had any hand in the composition of this eloquent defense of democracy in the House of Representatives, because their author is actually the gentleman from Massachusetts and a senior member of the Democrat Rules Committee, the gentleman, Mr. McGovern. He spoke these exact same words on the floor 2 years ago regarding what he eloquently and accurately called a martial law rule, which is what we are being asked to consider here today. Although these are not my words, I associate myself with them fully because they are as true and relevant today as when they were first used. And since I have already borrowed one selection of the gentleman's words, I would like to point out another comment my esteemed Rules Committee colleague made regarding martial law rules. On December 6, 2006, just 1 month before Democrats were to take control of the House of Representatives, Democrats made a number of promises on how they would run the House which, unfortunately, have not held up well in the contrast to reality. Before they had control, Mr. McGovern said, ``Mr. Speaker, there is a better way to run this body. The truth, Mr. Speaker, is that the American people expect and deserve better. That's why the 110th Congress must be different. I believe we need to rediscover openness and fairness in the House. We must insist on full and fair debate on the issues that come to this body.'' I would like to ask my friends on the Democrat Rules Committee and this Democratic leadership: What happened? What happened? Where is that openness and the fairness? Where was the openness on the no-energy bill rule where over 90 amendments were closed out, including a Republican substitute? Where was that openness when we first considered SCHIP reauthorization and we were handed two closed rules by the Democrat leadership? Where has it been over these last 2 years when Democrats have forced a record number of lock-down, closed rules through this House of Representatives with no opportunity for Members, Republicans or Democrats, to improve that legislation? And where is that openness today when we are being asked to consider this tax extenders rule by once again suspending regular order in this House of Representatives? I know where it is. Our friends, the Democrats, left it out on the campaign trail. And with an upcoming election, I suspect that is where we will be able to find these broken promises once again this next January. It was an empty promise when they made it, and the emptiness of this promise was fulfilled on the opening day of the new majority when the Democrats wrote into the rules of the House closed rules for consideration of the first six bills that they were able to take up, in effect discharging the Rules Committee from its duties for the first six bills they were going to consider. Ah, yes, 6 in '06. The remedy for examples of unfairness, they criticized the Rules Committee for the way they did their work, and that trend has started, sadly, and continues today. As the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) said, ``Mr. Speaker, there is a better way to run this body. The truth, Mr. Speaker, is that the American people expect and deserve better. That is why the 110th Congress must be different. I believe we need to rediscover openness and fairness in this House. We must insist on full and fair debate on the issues that come before this body.'' Mr. Speaker, with these wise words, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I have several speakers. At this time I yield for such time as he may use to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) has now for at least the last 2 years made himself available, built bipartisan support, spoken to people in both parties, built a case, invited people to see the circumstance, and talked on behalf of 42 States, people who live in rural areas that have timber. The gentleman invited me out this last August, notwithstanding that I am a friend of his, but he invited me out. I landed in Portland, drove east on the beautiful highway that goes to Hood, Oregon, and had an opportunity to meet a lot of the people in the area. They are fabulous. They are outstanding people who live in the very midst of Mount Hood. I had an opportunity to see Mount Hood from a different perspective than the three climbers from Dallas who were trapped and who died earlier last winter. I had a chance to see Mount Hood in the summertime. As I was there with the gentleman, Mr. Walden, he told me the story about the big blowout in the mountain which happened on a separate event, that devastated the area as a result of what Mother Nature had done. He spoke about how the communities got together, how they worked together and solved their problems, just as they did when the three climbers from Dallas perished on the mountain. But he forthrightly, along with others, reminded me that it is really up to us to get our work done here in Washington. And by no means did the gentleman task me with doing it, but he knew, he knew that I would have the opportunity, along with our colleague, the gentleman from Pasco, Washington, Doc Hastings, who is also greatly affected, that we could come back to a committee that we have served on for 10 and 12 years respectively between the two of us, that we would be able to talk to our colleagues whom we have served with on that committee for the past 10 years, that we would be able to express to them the need and the desire for public policy to be addressed at the appropriate time. Well, the appropriate time is now. The Senate has spoken. Today the bill came over from the Senate, overwhelming vote, and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) rushed to me to find out what the Rules Committee would do, really just to find out what was in the bill. We found out about the bill only minutes before, which once again is against the rules of the House that you don't consider a bill until it is laid out publicly for 24 hours. But that didn't matter again today. And so we asked on behalf of the gentleman, Mr. Walden, the other members of the Rules Committee what we thought was a bipartisan basis because I believe it is true to say that there are five people on the committee who serve rural areas also or who had heard the compelling story that impacts people all across this country. So I told Mr. Walden, I think we stand a good chance because we are able to come to our colleagues whom we have spent hundreds of hours with over the last 10 years and to say if it is not in your bill, and we found out it was not, but it is in the package that came from the Senate, will you please just include that?

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, you're hearing a story that happened just minutes ago up in the Rules Committee where the members of the committee had within their sole jurisdiction the ability to handle this issue, to take what is referred to as the ping-pong, the bill that moved over, that was completely in the bill that the gentleman, Mr. Walden, and the gentleman, Mr. Hastings, have worked so diligently for the last few years to do. The Rules Committee chairman, the gentlewoman, Ms. Slaughter, said, well, you know, I had to wait 13 years for one of my bills. That was the response. The answer was, we came back and reasked the Rules Committee if they would please vote for it. Well, what they did is they turned it down on a voice vote. So we asked for a recorded vote. On a party-line basis, every single Democratic member of that Rules Committee said no to something that is completely within their jurisdiction, completely within their endeavor. And I fail to know where there's any opposition. It was obstinate, and it was a slap in the face to the members of the committee who have served with them for making a very simple, honest request. Open, honest, and ethical. These were the words that we were told and the American people were told. Well, the people in these 41 States are going to have to judge that, but they will know, they will know that it was the Rules Committee and the Speaker of this House, not the United States Senate, who voted 93-2. It's not the President of the United States. He's already said he'd sign the bill. It was the Rules Committee, under the complete jurisdiction of the gentlewoman, Ms. Slaughter, and the Speaker of this House. So we're on the floor today, a little upset. Being slam dunked I can handle. I think being treated in the way that we were is wrong. I think it's wrong to this committee. I think it's wrong to the members who are on it. We reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, if I could inquire the time remaining on both sides.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pasco, Washington, a gentleman who has spoken very eloquently and consistently up in the Rules Committee, and has worked his heart out for the needs of the 41 States that fall within the same position that the gentleman Mr. Walden and the gentleman Mr. Hastings have. He's a strong advocate. I would like to yield him 5 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. I will yield the gentleman 1 additional minute with only 2 minutes remaining. I thank the gentleman for his courtesy. So as I said from the outset, Mr. Speaker, sometimes I don't understand how this process works because these extenders have to pass. We know that. And further, we know that the President will sign this bill with the Secure Rural Schools language in it. We know that. We know that. So, Mr. Speaker, I'm kind of frustrated here, and I think this issue should pass. I think the best way to do that, frankly, is to pass the Senate bill and be on with it.

Mr. SESSIONS. I would like to reserve my time

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, in the remaining time I have, I want you to know that, however, despite everything you have heard, I have good news, good news for the American people. Right now with the passage of this continuing resolution yesterday, Republicans have finally removed the main Democrat roadblock to increasing the domestic production of American energy. This underlying legislation--which I am going to put on the floor right now--which contains tax credits for energy efficiency and conservation will also help this House to implement what Republicans have advocated for months: an all-of-the-above strategy, including nuclear power. So today I urge my colleagues to demonstrate the courage of these convictions by voting with me to defeat the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule to allow this House to take up a measure right now right here today that will prevent Members from going home to campaign for reelection without actually passing a comprehensive energy bill into law. It would make it plain and permanent for their support. It would allow States to expand their exploration and extraction of natural resources along the Outer Continental Shelf; it would open the Arctic energy slope and oil shale reserves to environmentally prudent exploration and extraction; it would extend expiring renewable energy initiatives; it would encourage the streamlining approval and refining of capacity for nuclear power facilities; it would encourage research and development of clean coal, coal-to-liquid, and carbon sequestration technologies and minimizing drawn-out legal challenges that unreasonably delay or prevent actual domestic energy production. This requirement would force the Democrat leadership to take positive, comprehensive, permanent, and meaningful action to increase the supply of American energy. Mr. Speaker, all across this country there are cities without gasoline--there are cities without gasoline--and it stands exactly at the feet of the Democrat leadership, the new majority, who is making sure that the American consumer pays record high prices and yet we've done nothing to make sure that the supply side is taken care of. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I'd like to inquire, if I could, from the gentleman from New York if he has any additional speakers?

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I thought we were going to get done real quickly here. We're not. The gentleman is right. It's a simple matter. Republicans are upset, also, about the high price of oil. We do not want to pass on higher taxes. The Democrat majority seeks something every single day to have Big Oil pay more and more and more money in taxes. Well, all that does is raise the price of oil. And you're right. You're darn right. The Republican Party is not for that. I would also remind the gentleman that it takes a two-thirds vote, not a simple majority. And so it failed on a higher standard. I would yield at this time 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009. Requesting Member: Congressman Pete Sessions. Bill Number: H.R. 2638. Account: Defense, Navy, RDT&E; Manned Reconnaissance Systems. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: L-3--Geneva Aerospace. Address of Requesting Entity: 4240 International Parkway Carrollton, Texas 75007. Description of Request: I received an earmark of $2,400,000 for the Unmanned Force Augmentation System, UFAS, project which supports research, development and testing of advanced Unmanned Aerial Systems, UAS, technologies. Specifically, $1,600,000 is for engineering; $400,000 is for materials procurement; and $400,000 is for field testing. The program is intended to facilitate the rapid transition of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, UAV, systems to the warfighters that offer order-of-magnitude improvements in usability, capability, and, hence, operational effectiveness. Requesting Member: Congressman Pete Sessions. Bill Number: H.R. 2638. Account: Defense, Army, RDT&E; Advanced Weapons Technology. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Jim G. Ferguson, Inc. Address of Requesting Entity: 4727 Cherokee Trail Dallas, Texas 75205. Description of Request: I received an earmark of $1,600,000 to design, develop, and construct a cross-scale airship serving as a platform / test-bed for airborne and space sensor technology development, demonstration and testing. Specifically, $416,000 is for management, $832,000 is for technical and engineering, $96,000 is for administration, $96,000 is for patent maintenance and development, $80,000 is for legal, and $80,000 is for travel. The airship will also provide a low cost solution to the military need to rapidly and economically transport very large, very heavy and outsized cargos strategic distances in support of global military surge, support and logistical operations. Requesting Member: Congressman Pete Sessions. Bill Number: H.R. 2638. Account: Defense, Army, O&M; Central Supply Activities. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: PulseTech Products Corporation. Address of Requesting Entity: 1100 South Kimball Ave. Southlake, Texas 76092. Description of Request: I received an earmark of $800,000 to provide battery maintenance management systems that incorporate pulse technology to increase equipment readiness, reduce hazardous material/ environmental waste and reduce operating costs. Among these systems are rolling chargers for motor pool operations, pallet chargers for use in battery shops throughout the Army, and solar chargers for on-vehicle applications when vehicles are stored for extended periods of time. PulseTech will continue, at no cost to the government, to offer battery management training. Requesting Member: Congressman Pete Sessions. Bill Number: H.R. 2638. Account: Defense, Army, RDT&E; Medical Technology. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: National Neurovision Research Institute. Address of Requesting Entity: 11435 Cronhill Drive, Owings Mills, MD 21117-2220. Description of Request: I received an earmark of $800,000 funding to continue its expansion and operation of the ``National Eye Evaluation and Research Network'', NEER Network. This Network was established to enhance and accelerate military and civilian patients' accessibility to specialized centers for evaluation of serious eye diseases affecting the retina and facilitate their rapid referral for treatment and possible participation in research studies and clinical trials. The budget breakdown shows that $104,853 will be spent on the National Neurovision Research Institute's budget which will include materials and supplies, travel and salaries. Another $648,766 will be spent on the Clinical Trial and Evaluation Units which will be used to study the inherited orphan retinal degenerations of the eye. The remaining $46,381 will be used for contracts and medical review boards.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009. Requesting Member: Congressman Pete Sessions. Bill Number: H.R. 2638. Account: Defense, Army, RDT&E; Night Vision Advanced Technology. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Optex Systems (subsidiary of Irvine Sensors Corp.) Address of Requesting Entity: 1420 Presidential Drive Richardson, Texas 75081. Description of Request: I received an earmark of $800,000 for the InfraRed Goggle Upgrade System (IRGUS) which is a miniature system that adds thermal imagery to standard issue Night Vision Goggles. Specifically, $400,000 is for the design for unit production cost, $100,000 is for production readiness, and $300,000 is for Block 1 build, integration, and testing. This technology allows legacy NVGs to be upgraded to provide fused thermal/Image Intensification (I\2\) imagery for improved threat detection, target identification, and situational awareness in low or no light or obscured battlefield conditions.