Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I would like to extend to the gentleman 3 additional minutes. The Republican Members in this body and the rest of the Members were given 3 hours' notice that this bill would be on the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman, my friend from Ohio, for extending the time to me. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this once again closed rule, and to the underlying previously failed legislation that this Democrat majority is bringing to the House floor, without having made any substantive improvements to it since it last failed on this House on July 30, and despite an agreement during that time that they would work with members of the Republican Party to try and better the bill. Like every other Member of this House, I'm concerned about the crushing economic impact that rising food and fuel prices are having on American families. That is why I strongly support the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's recent steps to increase transparency in the oil futures market and their continued vigor in enforcing existing laws governing U.S. futures markets, including the long-time prohibition against market manipulation. My concern for the economic and retirement security of American families is also why I do support certain parts of this bill, including its increased data reporting requirements, and its authorization of at least 100 new full-time employees to increase the public transparency of operations in agriculture and energy markets, and otherwise monitor price manipulation and commodities futures market. However, it is this same concern for American families and our American economy that forces me to oppose a bill that has the potential to destabilize commodity prices and dry up market liquidity at a particularly vulnerable time for our entire economy, instead of simply increasing transparency and improving enforcement. While I disagree with his approach to improving our Nation's commodities market, the chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture and I do agree about several things. First, yesterday evening in the Rules Committee, my friend, Collin Peterson, chairman of the Agriculture Committee, testified that he was not, was not bringing this bill to the floor because he thought that it would bring down the price of energy at the pump for American families. He does not believe it will. I don't believe it will bring down prices at the pump. And he's exactly correct. This bill, like the no-energy sham legislation that the Democrat majority brought to the floor just earlier this week, this bill will do absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing to increase the supply of American-made energy that is the root of the high energy prices that are taking an enormous toll on American families and businesses. Second, I agree with Chairman Peterson's assertion in his testimony yesterday to the Rules Committee that he did not believe this bill would actually become law. So here we are, taking time on the House floor, when the American people need action by this Congress to do something about energy legislation that will be signed into law, that will include doing something about the price at the pump. And instead, Chairman Peterson said, I don't even think this bill's going to become law. We're not going to agree to this. Like him, I do not think that this bill represents a serious attempt, which is what Congress should be about, especially as we near the end of the session, a serious attempt at providing legislative solutions to the very serious problems facing our economy, and that it is little more than a second opportunity this week for Members to claim, ah, but we're up there doing something, up there working 5-day workweeks. We need to be doing something about addressing the high cost of energy. Without taking real and meaningful action to open up energy reserves, it simply will not happen. That's what the economy needs. We need to do something about the high price of energy. If this were a serious attempt to solve our Nation's problems, Democrat leadership forcing this bill onto the floor would have made more than technical changes to the bill that failed just last time it was here, July 30, changes like the one proposed by my good friend and former CPA, Mike Conaway of Texas, where he, in a colloquy with Chairman Peterson, talked about the need to create a common understanding of risk management needs which market participants should be eligible for in a bona fide hedge exemption. Of course there was an agreement on the floor, talk is cheap, about, yes, we'll work with you. And, in fact, that never happened. Never happened. And then last night, given an opportunity in the Rules Committee, the Rules Committee, once again, even seeing the agreement that was made and that the offer was not accepted, did not even want to make Mr. Conaway's amendment in order. A real shame. A real shame for a House where there was a promise of the most open, honest and ethical Congress in history. Instead, this House is getting something that is even worse than nothing, a bill that the Democrat majority didn't even see fit to include in its first so-called energy bill this week, which is also bringing to the floor its record-shattering 61st closed rule for this Congress. Open. Honest. Ethical. Madam Speaker, yesterday we had a chance to help just correct that just a little bit and level the playing field. Mr. Conaway was slam dunked in the Rules Committee again, despite what was said on this floor about working with members of the Republican Party. Better idea, a better way to make the bill happen. Madam Speaker, unfortunately, this kind of closed process and this kind of cynical, political motivated work product has become characteristic of what we have seen now for almost 20 months. The most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history, as promised by Speaker Pelosi back in 2006, and it's no wonder that the American people are giving Congress historic low, record low ratings on approvals for the job that Congress is trying to do. I think we ought to be serious about our work. I think we should not bring bills to the floor where the committee chairman, at the time he presents his bill to the Rules Committee, admits this is never going to become law. It's a shame. So, Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying legislation which the Democrats don't believe will bring down energy prices when they crafted this supposedly comprehensive energy package earlier this week, and which the chairman of jurisdiction does not believe is a good reason for doing so now. The American people are hurting. Our economy is hurting. People back home want leadership in Washington, and once again, the majority party has failed. I think we should deserve more from the leadership. I believe that the Democrat Party should not have a closed process. I believe running for political cover for a vote that will go nowhere is a mistake. But I do know it's for their vulnerable Members, Members who want to pretend that they're doing something. What a shame. I oppose this process. I oppose this rule. I oppose the underlying legislation, and I hope all of my colleagues will do the same. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Is the gentleman aware that Republicans and others in this House were given less than 3 hours' notice for the bill?

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SESSIONS. Can you please tell us when the majority leader gave an announcement to this Congress that this bill would be considered? That's fair game.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I extend myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this is why last night or yesterday afternoon in the Rules Committee there was a very polite discussion and a request made by Republicans in the committee once we recognized that there were some problems that took place that were unavoidable on behalf of the chairman of the committee, on behalf of notice to Republicans, on behalf of a colloquy that engaged Members on this floor where we realized, Oh, I'm sorry. That just didn't happen. And we will not say it was anybody's fault, but there was agreement that there was a problem. This is where the Rules Committee comes into play. The Rules Committee is a body that should have the ability to look fairly and equitably at an issue and then make a decision. I had a discussion with the committee. I have only served on the committee 10 years. But I have seen people bring legislation to the committee and ask for relief and receive relief. Normally, if we were in January, February, March, April, May, some other time, open rules are not always allowed or amendments aren't always allowed because they seem to open up all other issues and ideas. This was a very specific idea. This was an idea that was agreed upon that there would be a discussion, and the Rules Committee slam dunked the gentleman from Texas as well as Republican Members after hearing positive testimony from both sides, not even giving relief. This is exactly what Republicans are talking about, and I believe the American people, that this Democrat majority and the Rules Committee, which set a record-shattering 61 closed rules--for any Congress a record--simply is so flatlined upon doing politically what they choose to do and by showing their power that there is not even a voice that's open. What the gentleman has suggested to us today is that he knew of no other process for the gentleman to go through. Well, it's called an amendment that would be on the floor of the House of Representatives where our colleagues cannot only hear the issue but then get a chance to vote on it. So today we're here without the ability to vote on it, but we have the gentleman, Mr. Conaway, and I would like to yield him 5 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I really agree a lot with the gentleman from Vermont. What I disagree with and believe the problem is that we don't have enough oil that's available to the marketplace, and that's where Republicans are trying to bring more oil where we don't have to have speculation for people who absolutely, positively must have the oil available. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Midland, Texas (Mr. Conaway).

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Hispanic servicemen and women that have chosen honorable paths of public service and devoted themselves to the cause of defending this great Nation. Since 1968, the United States has set aside a designated period of time to recognize the contributions of Hispanic Americans and to celebrate Hispanic heritage and culture. Our soldiers put themselves in harm's way and make sacrifices to protect the freedoms we enjoy. The uniform they wear knows no gender, no social status, and no political affiliation. It knows that these brave souls share only one thing--a deep love for America. Master Sargeant Roy Perez Benavidez and Staff Sargeant Marcario Garcia were two remarkable individuals that proudly served in the U.S. Army. They were awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for their courage and heroic actions; Roy for his service in the Vietnam War and Marcario for his service in Germany during World War II. While these are two notable examples, there are many other Hispanic American soldiers that deserve our gratitude. These are the men and women who leave their loved ones to serve the greater good. They are the ones who put on the uniform everyday knowing that their sacrifices today guarantee us our freedom and safety tomorrow. Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in expressing heartfelt gratitude to these soldiers.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, as you might guess, I rise in opposition to this rule, to the underlying legislation, and, I believe, to the entire process that got this bill here today, which I believe represents little more than an opportunity for this Democratic majority to thumb its nose at the Supreme Court's recent ruling upholding an individual's right to keep and bear arms, while also providing some of its vulnerable Members with a meaningless political cover vote leading up to this fall's election. Since taking control of this House almost 2 years ago, Mr. Speaker, this Democrat majority has done everything in its power to prevent Republicans who agree with the Supreme Court that residents of the District of Columbia have the right to self-defense, like every other American citizen, having a vote on this issue, is very important. In fact, last year it was the Democrats' need to prevent a vote on this very issue that brought the debate on providing the District of Columbia with a voting Member of Congress to a screeching halt. Today, however, the Democrat majority has been forced to bring this measure to the floor because of a rapidly growing bipartisan support for a competing measure to comply with the Supreme Court's affirmation of D.C. residents' constitutional rights. Isn't it amazing? The District of Columbia went to court and found out that they had to follow constitutional rights. And there's also a fear by the Democrat majority that a discharge petition that has already won the support of 166 Members of Congress, the passage of which the Washington Post has recently said would be ``deeply embarrassing to the House leadership and could infrastructure the party's House contingent.'' Mr. Speaker, instead of providing real, meaningful policy solutions to make the lives of law-abiding citizens of the District of Columbia safer, today we are taking up a measure that would continue to subvert the wishes of our Founding Fathers, as recognized and affirmed by the Supreme Court, while also allowing Members to have a vote on an excellent substitute amendment which I fear will be dead on arrival when it reaches the Democrat-controlled Senate. This substitute amendment, which I strongly support and have cosponsored, along with 115 other bipartisan colleagues, would recognize that D.C.'s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the second amendment, as does the District of Columbia's prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. To correct this injustice, the substitute amendment would repeal the District's illogical ban on the most popular home and self-defense weapons, restore the right of self-defense in the home, repeal the District's intentionally burdensome registration process, and allow D.C. residents to finally purchase handguns and defend themselves in their own homes. Mr. Speaker, I understand that as early as today, that the D.C. City Council may be meeting to address this issue. But I remain concerned about what the same authors of the so-called ``emergency'' legislation that violated the Supreme Court's ruling just a few months ago, may try to pass in order to continue to drag their feet and to deny D.C. residents their constitutional rights to protect themselves and their families in their own home. This Congress should not be on record trying to avoid what is the law of the land. Because of the Council's demonstrated past willingness to abide by our Nation's laws, I believe that it is important that this House pass the substitute amendment on behalf of all law-abiding citizens who want to exercise their constitutional rights within the District of Columbia. Additionally, as the administration notes in their statement of policy on this legislation, the underlying bill in its current form would do nothing more than direct the D.C. City Council to reconsider within 180 days the emergency firearms legislation it passed in July, and which will expire in October, regardless of this House's action on this matter. This means that if this legislation is passed without the substitute amendment provided for by this rule, the legislation's only effect would be to give the City Council even more time to drag its feet and remain non-compliant with the directives of the highest court in our land. Mr. Speaker, it really should not be so difficult to write a law that is compliant with the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit this Statement of Administration Policy in opposition to this bill and in support of the substitute amendment in the Congressional Record. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 6842--National Capital Security and Safety Act (Del. Norton (D) District of Columbia and Rep. Waxman (D) California) The Administration supports the objective behind H.R. 6842 of revising the District of Columbia's firearms laws to ensure their conformity with the Second Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller. The bill in its present form, however, would do nothing more than direct the District's City Council to reconsider the emergency firearms legislation that it unanimously passed in July. Because that emergency legislation must by law expire in October, H.R. 6842 simply requires the Council to do what it is effectively required to do already (in far less time than the 180 days that would be required by this bill). Therefore, the Administration strongly opposes this legislation unless it is amended to include the provisions of H.R. 6691, the Second Amendment Enforcement Act. The Administration strongly supports H.R. 6691 because it would immediately advance Second Amendment principles by directly protecting the individual right of law-abiding District residents to keep and bear commonly used firearms not only to protect themselves and their families but also to protect their homes and property. H.R. 6691 would ensure that law-abiding residents of the District have a meaningful opportunity to procure lawful firearms without undue delay, as well as the ability to keep those firearms readily accessible for self-defense without having to unlock or assemble them in the face of imminent danger. H.R. 6691, which has bipartisan support, would responsibly balance individual rights with the public safety by expanding the practical opportunities to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes in the District within the reasonable limits imposed by the Federal firearms laws. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to support the substitute amendment to hold D.C. accountable to the Supreme Court, to the laws of this land, and to provide its residents with all the constitutional rights enjoyed by other American citizens, and to oppose the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, you know, I find it very interesting that the gentleman from Massachusetts talks about ``those Republicans that have forced us into having to bring this bill to the floor today.''

Mr. SESSIONS. I will yield.

Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman clarifying that. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman accused those who are on the other side of the debate of forcing this issue today. Well, Mr. Speaker, this is an internal struggle within the Democratic Party. The gentleman who brought the bill to the floor today chaired the Rules Committee last night. I heard no voice opposition to the rule, to the substitute; and yet today we hear they were being forced into doing this by the other side, those who opposed the bill. But it's their bill. It's their internal fight. It's their internal disagreement. It's their argument that they're having among their own family members. So for the record, let me just state the Republican Party is for following the law. We do believe the Supreme Court got it right. We believe that it is wrong to bring a bill to the floor as the majority party, the Democratic Party, has done to try and circumvent and lengthen out the time that was given by the Supreme Court for someone to come into compliance with the law. And we do believe that what the Rules Committee did last night was not open and honest and not about more accountability. We believe what they did was to handle a political matter that is a fight that they're having among themselves. The Republican Party is pleased to be here on behalf of taxpayers and law-abiding citizens who want to protect themselves. We believe that this substitute amendment, which has been made in order by the Rules Committee, is the better of the two bills. But to say that somebody is struggling or some outside forces are forcing this bill upon this Democrat majority is absurd. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia and my former colleague on the Rules Committee, Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'd like to yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we respect this Congress's ability to consult with and work with city councils and local governments. But to suggest in any way that this Congress should be trying to help anyone or collude with them to extend time frames that have been established already by the highest court of this land, that I believe was a reasonable answer--the gentleman from Wisconsin believes it was a reasonable answer--is a different kind of issue. And that's all this bill really does today, gives the city council more time; wait till after the election before this tough issue can be decided any further by that body and by this. I think it's a mistake to wait. I think it's a mistake to intervene, and I think it's a mistake not to follow the law that the Supreme Court has laid out for the D.C. government. D.C. government needs to follow the law, needs to follow the Constitution. They've been told that a long time. They've fought it. They've done all they can. They lost. The Supreme Court issued the decision. It's time to follow the law. Mr. Speaker, we reserve our balance.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. SESSIONS. 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 American families today and in the future are facing. By going on vacation for 5 weeks over August while I and 138 other of my Republican colleagues stayed in Washington to talk about real energy solutions for American families, this Democrat majority has proven 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 to get their work done. However, enough of their Members must have heard from their frustrated constituents over August who are tired of the political games that the Democrats are playing and they want some kind of action. Because today, we are considering yet another measure to provide their Members with a political cover vote that will do nothing to bring down the cost of energy at the pump because it does nothing to encourage participation by States in a program to increase the amount of American-made energy. We are simply wasting our time on a sham, and something that will not materialize to help energy prices. Mr. Speaker, last Friday, an influential Democrat Senator stated what everybody in this House knows, that any bill excluding energy production revenue sharing for the States will never pass the Senate, making the cynical and political exercise that the House will engage in shortly even more transparent. So today, I urge my colleagues to vote with me to defeat the previous question so this House can finally consider a real and comprehensive solution to rising energy costs in addition to today's bill to buy the District of Columbia more time to avoid compliance with the Supreme Court's ruling on the second amendment. If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule to allow for additional consideration of H.R. 6566, the American Energy Act. This real, all-of-the-above bill would increase the supply of American-made energy, improve conservation and efficiency, and promote new and expanding energy technologies to help lower the cost at the pump and reduce America's increasing costly and dangerous dependence on foreign sources of energy. I encourage everyone that believes a comprehensive solution to solving this energy crisis and achieving energy independence includes increasing the supply of American energy to defeat the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of this amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, today, I pay tribute to Col. Michael Shupp, United States Marine Corps. His service to our country and the Corps has demonstrated true patriotism and exceptional military leadership. On September 17, I will have the personal honor of presiding over Colonel Shupp's retirement ceremony, and I want to take this moment to recognize his 28 years of dedicated service. Colonel Shupp was born and raised in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and is a graduate of the Virginia Military Institute and Marine Corps Officer Candidate School. Since the beginning of his career, he has been a true professional in every sense of the word. His assignments have ranged from serving as a young platoon commander in Japan, to instructing our future leaders at the Naval Academy, where his performance was recognized by President George W. Bush. He served combat tours in Iraq and a peacekeeping tour in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Wherever he was, he always set the highest standards of professionalism and leadership for all those around him. His superb leadership has been evident in numerous command and staff assignments throughout the Department of Defense, including a tour as the Marine Corps' Liaison to the House of Representatives and his current duty as the Legislative Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington DC. Colonel Shupp served this Nation twice in combat. In 1990, Captain Shupp deployed Company ``A'' of the 1st Light Armored Infantry Battalion to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Once the ground war commenced, his company led the advance of the First Marine Division. His unit cut through Iraqi resistance and led the first Coalition Forces into Kuwait City. Company ``A,'' under Captain Shupp's leadership, then participated in the capture of the Kuwait International Airport. In 2004, Colonel Shupp returned to the Persian Gulf and assumed command of Regimental Combat Team-1 (RCT-1) at Camp Fallujah, Iraq. He commanded the Regiment during counter-insurgency operations, the second Battle of Fallujah, humanitarian assistance and reconstruction efforts, and the first free Iraqi National election. After leaving Iraq, the Marine Corps and Department of Defense chose to capitalize on his experience. He was selected to serve as the Chief of Staff for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization in Washington, DC. For 28 years, Colonel Shupp has served this great country from locations all over the world. Whether he was training new recruits, commanding marines in combat or working with Congress, he served with both honor and distinction. He will indeed be remembered as an exceptional marine, a true patriot, a courageous warrior and a dedicated leader with the highest integrity and compassion for all who had the distinct honor of serving with him. His loving wife, Sherrye, and daughter, Jessica, have demonstrated unwavering support throughout his time in service, and this Nation owes a debt of gratitude to their sacrifice.

Mr. SESSIONS

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