Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Sali).

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, I think unfortunately this whole argument today has boiled down to a desire from the Democrat majority to simply tax Big Oil, and it's used over and over and over and over and over and over and over again as the reason we ought to have pay-fors to get taxes paid for, to get schools paid for, stick it to Big Oil. There's almost no germaneness. There's no reason to do that. The opportunity that we have in this country, the Republican Party stands here day after day saying we need oil companies to be able to deliver American resources in this country. And every time you just go and raise their taxes, all you do is do what we're very effectively doing, and that is, we have to buy our resources from somewhere offshore. That's why we've almost doubled the amount of payment now overseas. I mean, it's gone to $800 billion our foreign payments, and it's double. That's how they keep building Dubai, that's how they build big cities, big countries, because the Democratic Party wants that. They want America to come to its knees, to have to pay higher and higher taxes. They don't like oil. They want oil to have to dwindle to nothing, and I think it's a sad day. I think it's a sad day that we have to do it in this bill. We already know where they are. We know where the Democrat Party is. They do not like oil companies. They do not want to drill. They do not want the price of energy to come down. If this election is held, the American people will have a chance to decide what the answer is. We already know what that answer is, but once again, on a simple bill, stick it to Big Oil. Well, that's how you stick it to consumers, and I think it's pretty sad. Madam Speaker, we've been through this all day. The bottom line is that the gentleman from Oregon is going to get a vote on the amendment that we talked about. The Rules Committee did not make it in order, not once but twice did not make it in order. 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, of which I'm going to ask that the opportunity for the amendment offered by myself for Mr. Walden be a part of what the previous question, when it's defeated, we will do.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge October 10, 2008 as the 97th anniversary of the Republic of China, more commonly known as Taiwan. It is important for Congress to recognize the accomplishments of Taiwan and its democratic government. Taiwan is a loyal friend of the United States and a staunch ally in Asia. Taiwan is a shining example of a solid democracy, recently exemplified by the free and orderly Presidential elections in April and the peaceful transfer of power to President Ma. This transfer of power is a hallmark of a true democracy. On the eve of Taiwan's anniversary I congratulate President Ma, Washington Representative Ambassador Jason C. Yuan, and all of the Taiwanese people for their unwavering pursuit of freedom.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we're here on the floor debating a bill today that may have unintended consequences of drying up the ability that families have and people have and small businesses have for getting credit. I do acknowledge, I think every Member of this House acknowledges, that gasoline prices, energy prices are way too high. Food prices are way too high. But people who are trying to live their lives need the opportunity to have credit, the opportunity to be able to have a credit card, and to be able to place those expenses on their credit card, and then manage their own ability to pay back. That is the essence of what we should be about is trying to help people do that today. Not about creating another credit card crunch. Not about creating credit cards where people don't know whether they're going to be able to get credit or not, and perhaps, more importantly, the opportunity for us to give this marketplace for American consumers stability where they know what they can count on and move forward to take care of their families and their small businesses. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say also that we believe that the provisions that were put in the rule specifically addressing the earmark reform or earmarks is unacceptable. It's unacceptable to say that this House will quite likely be voting on a massive bill only to find out weeks later we'll find out what was in the bill and those earmarks that accompany that. As the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) noted, that is disappointing. It's disappointing because this House was advised over 2 years ago that this would be the most honest, open, and ethical Congress in history. Mr. Speaker, I have seen very little to no action on behalf of this new Democrat majority that is open about what they do, that is transparent in what they do. And once again, today, with a record shattering breaking new closed rule, we find that they aren't even willing to take ideas from people in their own party, and I think that's disappointing. As we wind down this last week that we're here before the election, we find that there are new tricks of the trade that take place in this Rules Committee. I'm disappointed that this new Democrat majority continues that. I support the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and what he said; and, Mr. Speaker, I would say that that's why I'm asking Members of this body not to support this rule and the underlying legislation. I yield back my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, since taking control of this House, this Democrat Congress has totally neglected its responsibility to address the domestic supply issues that have created the skyrocketing gas, diesel and energy costs that Americans are facing today, and no doubt, part of the credit crunch that we are facing today and credit card costs that Americans are facing today is as a result of the high cost of gasoline right now that all Americans are paying. By going on vacation for 5 weeks over August, while I and 138 others of my Republican colleagues stayed in Washington to talk about real solutions for American families, this Democrat majority has proven that they do not believe that the energy crisis facing American families and business was important enough to cancel their summer beach plans or book tours to get the job done. So, again, today, the Republicans are here on the floor of the House of Representatives asking each of our colleagues to vote 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 that will allow Members to be able to vote for a pro-energy bill and prevent Members from going home to campaign for reelection without actually passing a bill which will pass and have meaningful reform so that we can lower the price of gasoline at the pump. This legislation that I will be proposing that can be voted on today and that would turn into law would allow States to expand the exploration and extraction of natural resources along the Outer Continental Shelf. Not allowed in the Democrat bill that passed one week ago. It would open the arctic energy slope and oil shale reserves to environmentally prudent exploration and extraction. Not included in the Democrats' bill of a week ago. It would extend expiring renewable energy incentives. It would encourage the streamlining approval of new refining capacity and nuclear power facilities. Not included in the Democrat bill of a week ago. It would encourage advanced research and development of clean coal, coal-to-liquid, and carbon sequestration technologies, which was not included in the Democrat bill a week ago. Perhaps most of all, it would minimize drawn out legal challenges that unreasonably delay or prevent actual domestic energy production. Not included in the Democrats' bill of a week ago. Mr. Speaker, this requirement would finally force the Democrat leadership to take positive, meaningful action to increase the supply of American energy. It would reduce the price at the pump for American families and use, what we term in the Republican Party, an all-of-the- above strategy combining increased supply of American-made energy, improved conservation and efficiency, and provide for new and expanding energy technologies to achieve American energy independence. 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. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for extending me the time. I rise in opposition to this new, record-breaking 62nd closed rule being offered by this Democrat-led Congress, and I object to the timing of bringing this underlying legislation to the floor at a particularly fragile and vulnerable time for American consumers, for American small businesses, and for the entire American economy. As every Member of this House, in fact, probably every single person on this planet with a working television already understands and they're very acutely aware, the United States capital markets for commercial credit have been frozen. And later this week, this Congress is going to be asked to vote on a massive and currently unfinished proposal to try to stem this enormous threat to our economy and to prevent it from spilling over into everyday Americans' lives who are simply trying to make ends meet. The enormity and complexity of this crisis and its corresponding legislative solutions makes me question why, Mr. Speaker, why, with all the other problems in our financial markets that require our immediate, fixed and unwavering attention, this House leadership would bring this bill to the floor under a closed rule, instead of focusing on the much larger problem that economists and editorial boards across this country believe has the potential to do catastrophic damage to global financial systems. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, I'm confused as to why this Congress is choosing this path because, despite whether the House considers this Democrat majority's 62nd closed rule, or this legislation today, it makes no difference, absolutely no difference as to whether the issues contained in this legislation to protect consumers from unfair or deceptive practices will even be addressed in a timely fashion. To protect consumers from questionable practices, the Federal Reserve has already proposed broad new rules. But rather than allowing the Fed to finish its job, this Congress thought it was important enough to pass a new law to give to them, and this Congress is passing a bill that preempts all of the work that Congress has asked these regulators to do, while doing nothing to strengthen the Federal Reserve's already existing consumer protection mandate. Like every other Member of this House, I am concerned about the crushing economic impact that rising food and fuel prices are having on American families. I'm even more concerned that passing legislation like this will discourage investment in credit card lending to fewer consumers and smaller businesses getting access to the credit that they need to stay afloat. Unlike the Democrat leadership bringing this bill to the House floor, I do not believe that it is wise policy to create a consumer credit crunch at the same time that our economy is already experiencing a massive commercial credit crunch. And I'm greatly concerned that current market conditions have the potential to greatly amplify the unintended consequences of this legislation at a time when families and small business need it the most. The ``it'' is credit. Limiting the ability of consumer credit issuers to base their prices according to risk, as this legislation proposes to do, will only increase rates and fees for everyone, while also severely constricting the availability of credit to higher risk consumers altogether. So, at a time when our constituents most need the flexibilities of these products, i.e., credit, this Democrat Congress is trying to preempt the focused efforts of three different regulators and restricting the access to credit card credit that is made available to American families and to small businesses. Mr. Speaker, I believe a far more reasonable course of action would have been the one that was suggested by 14 members of the Financial Services Committee, a bipartisan group of seven Democrats and seven Republicans, when they asked the chairman of the committee to hold hearings on the Federal Reserve proposed rules before deciding whether passing legislation limiting consumer credit was necessary. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record a copy of this bipartisan letter to Chairman Frank, as well as a copy of the administration's statement of administrative policy on this bill, which makes their concerns about unfair and deceptive practices as clear as their opposition to this underlying legislation that would ``result in less access to credit and higher interest rates for consumers.'' That is what the White House has said, and I will once again quote: This legislation will ``result in less access to credit and higher interest rates for consumers.'' Mr. Speaker, this comes at a particularly bad time, when consumers in our economy already have had enough stress to deal with without having to worry about unintended consequences of legislation passed by Congress that would make it even more difficult for families and small businesses to make ends meet. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, September 22, 2008. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 5244--Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2008 The Administration is concerned about unfair and deceptive credit card practices and supports efforts to protect consumers. Credit card plans have become more complex, and it is important that disclosures are transparent and clear so that consumers can understand their contracts and compare products. Transparency alone is insufficient to protect consumers from all unfair credit card practices, and legislation likely to result in higher interest rates for consumers is not the answer; deceptive practices must also be prohibited. The Federal Reserve, Office of Thrift Supervision, and National Credit Union Administration are currently finalizing regulations to prohibit unfair and deceptive credit card practices and make disclosures more transparent. The proposed regulations, which are expected to be finalized in December, address a number of goals of this bill. Those proposed regulations eliminate universal default, prohibit double- cycle billing, require advance notice of rate increases, and rein in over-the-limit fees. Regulations are better suited to addressing these problems than legislation because they can be adapted more readily to changes in market conditions. The proposed regulations are the result of extensive research and consumer input, have received extensive public comment, and should be finalized without legislation. The Administration opposes H.R. 5244, particularly section 2 of the bill, because it would broadly constrain the ability of financial institutions to price risk, likely resulting in less access to credit and in higher interest rates for consumers. For the credit market to operate efficiently, creditors must have the flexibility to react to changes in customer risk and market conditions. Section 2 would restrict when lenders may change terms of the credit agreement, significantly constraining the ability of financial institutions to adapt to changing credit risks and market conditions.

Mr. SESSIONS. I would like to yield the gentleman an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of my colleague, the gentleman, Mr. Welch, if he has additional speakers. I, at this time, do not appear to have any additional speakers.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that the gentleman from Vermont is through with his speakers at this time, if I could confirm that.

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

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Do you believe that 3 hours' notice--you had indicated there were no Republican amendments--would be enough time for a Member that's a Republican to go down to Leg Counsel to get an amendment that's prepared to get it to Rules Committee? Do you believe that could be done? Because what you're saying is, well, no Republican even submitted an amendment.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman. I would also like to ask the gentleman, was the gentleman aware that the gentleman, Mr. Conaway, had asked on this floor of the House of Representatives and was given, through your words of support, that you would work with him before the bill came back to the floor?

Mr. SESSIONS. Can you please tell me exactly what you think it was?

Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman, my friend, the gentleman who's chairman of the committee.

Mr. SESSIONS. I would like to advise the gentlewoman that I do have an additional speaker.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, last night on the floor of the House of Representatives, the gentleman, Zach Wamp, came down to make a thoughtful argument about the predicament that this country is in with not having enough energy available at the gas pumps and that that has caused prices to rise very dramatically and that there really is an answer and something that can be done. I'm pleased to welcome the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), and I'd like to extend him 4 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his thoughtful comments. Madam Speaker, since taking control of this House, this Democrat Congress has totally neglected its responsibility to address the domestic supply issues that have created skyrocketing gas, diesel, and energy costs the American families are facing. We heard the gentleman, Mr. Wamp, talk about how there were good ideas that should have been available, including a bipartisan working group and bipartisan legislation that, when it really came down to it, somebody put pressure on a whole bunch of our friends in the Democrat Party to then vote against even their own bill so that it was not bipartisan. By going on vacation for 5 weeks over August, while I and 138 other of my Republican colleagues stayed in this body on this floor to talk about real energy solutions with American families, this Democrat majority has proved that they do not believe that the energy crisis facing American families and businesses is important enough to cancel their summer beach plans or book tours. They claimed they were going to come back and do something about it. However, enough of their Members must have heard from frustrated constituents over August who were tired of this shell game that the Democrat political leadership is pushing off on the American people. We would think that it should warrant some kind of action. Because today we are considering yet another measure to provide their Members with political cover, we're going to see that there will be nothing that will be done. Even their own chairman of the committee said this isn't going to become law. It's not going to pass. We didn't even really know it was going to come up. No notice was given to Republicans till 3 hours before it was going to come to the Rules Committee, and perhaps worse than that, then people said, and Republicans didn't even present any amendments. So today I urge my colleagues to vote with me to defeat the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule to allow this House so that we can take up the measure that prevents Members from going home to campaign for reelection without actually passing an energy bill that will be signed into law. Madam Speaker, we should do better. We should allow States to expand the exploration and extraction of natural resources along the Outer Continental Shelf. We should open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and oil shale reserves in this country, and we can do it in environmentally sensitive and prudent ways. We should extend expiring renewable energy incentives. We should encourage the streamlined approval of new refining capacity and nuclear power facilities. My gosh, if France can have 82 percent of their power from nuclear, why can't the United States get above where we are? We should encourage advanced research and development of clean coal, coal-to-liquid, and carbon technologies, and perhaps more importantly, which is the sham about the entire Democrat leadership's bill is, we should do something about stopping the lawsuits which are creating a circumstance in courts to where none of these leases are able to move forward for production because they're in lawsuits, and the Democrat leadership did not even address this. It's simple. Consolidate and expedite the drawn-out legal challenges that unreasonably delay or prevent actual domestic energy production. Why wouldn't we want, if we're going to pass this bill, to make sure that it would happen, when in fact every Member of this body knows that for every single, 100 percent, of all the leases that have been agreed to are wrapped up in court right now, in Federal court right now. Why not do something that would give relief to the American people? Why not say let's at least one of these opportunities take place for drilling, just one? How about 10 percent? No, it's got to be 100 percent, and the American people are going to learn what the Democrat Party already knows, and that is, that the Democrat leadership does not want any drilling. They want no drilling. Senator Obama, I'm sure was correct. He is opposed to drilling so that America can be competitive with the world. This requirement would finally force the Democrat leadership to take meaningful action. If we were going to get what I just talked about, that would mean somebody who's in control of both Houses of Congress wanting to do something. And we stand here today, the Republican Party, once again, as we did all of August, asking for us to do something that will work to bring relief. It's a supply side issue. So, Madam Speaker, here we go. A shell game, a Rules Committee that allows no good ideas--except their own that the Democrat leadership has; agreements, which were talked about on the floor, which, when it really came down to it, not sure we really want to live up to at all. There is always a bigger problem. Well, that's not what this floor of the House is for, that's not really what the Rules Committee is for. That's not what Congress is for. Congress should be about, especially in a crisis, coming to an agreement and working together. I think we can do better. I think it's going to be something that the American people are going to have to decide what the tie is between Republicans and Democrats. I guess it's going to come to an election, where the American people are going to be told the facts of the case, and they will see what kind of action is necessary in Washington, D.C. Madam Speaker, the Republican Party is again on giving the American people and this body notice that the Republican Party is for us doing the things which will bring down the price of energy, which will create long-term economic stimulus and opportunity for this country. Because we recognize that energy prices are too high and it impacts every sector of our economy--trucking, the food that's made, produced, the food that gets to marketplace, the opportunities for school systems to operate within their budget, the chance for American families who have to go to their job, many times who have to commute. We need real action, not a slam-dunk Rules Committee that will set a record every time they go to meet for a new closed rule, not offering new ideas, not listening to the American people about the ability that we need to have to bring to bear American energy products. Instead, we get the same worn-out message of what's happened over the last 2 years where America has lost 14 percent more of market shares, where we have to go overseas to those countries that will produce and will drill. The American people look up and find out now that this Congress says no, no drilling in Florida, and so other countries will come off our shores and take our energy.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

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