Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Chris Murzin who was named University Park's 2008 Citizen of the Year. Chris and his family moved to University Park in 2006 and have been active members of our local community. As a father of a child with special needs, he was quick to identify local accessibility issues and has dedicated himself to improving the lives of the disabled. He is constantly on the forefront of our community--educating the public, meeting with officials from Highland Park Independent School District and PTA members, and coordinating a citizen-based fund drive to build a barrier-free playground. I know he will continue to strive for a better life for the disabled by serving as a vocal advocate. His vision and commitment to this cause has already led to greater awareness in University Park and will soon be evidenced by a barrier-free playground at Coffee Park. Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in expressing our sincerest congratulations to him and our heartfelt gratitude for his dedicated efforts to better the lives of the disabled.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Vermont, for not only yielding me this time to discuss the proposed rule for consideration of the alternative minimum tax, but I want to thank him for his friendship in the committee and the professional nature of the way he conducts himself. Mr. Speaker, today we are going to debate a tax increase on America. No surprise. The American public has gotten used to this. The tax-and- spend Democrat Congress, the new Congress, the new way to run Washington, D.C. has resulted in not only economic failures here in this country the last 18 months but also higher gas prices, the inability that we have to control the flow in energy that comes into this country and has made us now more than ever to where we have to go get our energy overseas, send our money overseas, and not be able to be energy sufficient here in this country. But now I find out that the excuse for raising taxes on Americans today is that there's a loophole in the tax law--a loophole--and unintended consequences. The bottom line is that it's the tax law, it was therefore reasoned, and the opportunity for us to grow our economy and build jobs and have job creation and to protect the American consumer is why these were parts of the tax law. It is not unintended consequences, it is not a loophole, it is the law, the tax law of the United States that I am very proud of, and I am disappointed to see that the Congress today will be debating new tax increases on the American people. So I rise in strong opposition to this closed rule, yet another closed rule by this new majority that we have here, and to the underlying legislation, which takes the baffling approach, once again, of raising taxes on Americans and on the American economy during a downturn of our economy, rather than taking a way to prevent a tax increase on hardworking and unsuspecting middle class taxpayers, which sets the stage for even more job-killing tax increases in the very near future just to prevent the current low-tax policies that Republicans in Congress worked so hard to pass and to support on behalf of American taxpayers. I think it's interesting, Mr. Speaker, that when Republicans bring tax bills to the floor of the House of Representatives, we are able to tout how many jobs our tax bill will create, how many jobs the economy will create. I have never, ever heard of a Democrat tax-and-spend bill that then touts how many jobs will be created, because they don't. They kill jobs. They kill jobs in America every time we do what we are doing today with the new Democrat majority to raise taxes on America. Under the Democrats' flawed policy of pay-as-you-go logic used to defend this legislation, in just 2 short years--when a number of critically important tax policies like the $1,000 Republican tax credit and the Republican lower tax rate on income and capital gains and dividends are set to expire, that created job growth--the new Democrat majority pay-as-you-go rules will require more than $3.5 trillion in tax increases, and that is what they stand for today, increasing taxes on the American people, killing jobs all across the country, and yet they want to blame President Bush. Just incredible. It makes no sense to me why we are hamstringing our economy and saddling working families with higher taxes when revenues aren't the problem. Washington is already collecting more taxes as a percentage of GDP than the historical average over the last 40 years. We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. What Washington really has is a spending problem that this new Democrat majority can't fix and can't solve because they are all about taxing and spending. Federal spending is higher by nearly $530 billion more than the Congressional Budget Office's 2000 projection for the year 2007. So going back to 2000, and they projected how much money we would need to spend, we are $530 billion more this year, thanks to a new Democrat majority, making increased spending the main reason why 99 percent of our Nation's worsened budget picture over the last 7 years is occurring. We have got a downturn in the economy because we are raising taxes and spending to support a bloated government. Mr. Speaker, the American people have known for a long time that Republican Members of Congress support an economically responsible solution to solving the alternative minimum tax problem. Just contrast this year's Republican budget proposal, which prevented expansion of the AMT for the next 3 years and achieved full repeal in 2013, with the Democrat budget. If you compare them, the Democrat budget, which jammed a $70 billion tax increase into our economy to pay for simply a temporary 1-year fix, and did nothing about AMT for the next 5 years after that. A 1-year fix, raising taxes $70 billion, rather than fixing the problem. Mr. Speaker, taxpayers are already aware that last month, House Republicans unanimously supported a clean AMT patch without tax increases to prevent more than 25 million families--including 21 million families who didn't owe AMT in 2007--from paying an additional $61.5 billion that's going to come due this next April, just like we did in December of last year and just like we will continue to do if Republicans once again become the majority party in Congress. What taxpayers may not realize is that House Democrats used to be for the same thing--at least that was until they won the majority. And with it came the opportunity to salivate, to get all this money, and to couple what used to be a bipartisan, commonsense tax prevention policy with massive, unnecessary tax hikes that burden this country, and for 18 months we have seen the promise of higher taxes, and it's killing our economy. As recently as last December, the House passed a ``clean'' AMT patch, without crippling the economy with tax increases, by an overwhelming majority of 352-64. The only thing worse than House Democrats' tax-and-spend flip-flops on this issue is the fact that their comrades in the other body-- including Finance Chairman Max Baucus--have already recognized the reality that at the end of this day, the AMT patch will not be paid for, and that this cynical exercise meant to provide political cover is in fact dead-on-arrival the moment it passes this House. But let it be said: It's another opportunity for the new Democrat majority to show how much they want tax increases to ruin our economy. The cost of this political gamesmanship is really quite simple: the exposure of millions of middle class taxpayers to an average tax increase of $2,400, and the increased likelihood of a repeat of last year's mismanaged process in which the late enactment of the patch prevented the IRS from processing AMT-affected returns until about 4 weeks into the filing season. It was a disaster this year as a result of the new majority. What is worse, Mr. Speaker, is how the Democrat Congress proposed to raise the additional $61 billion of additional taxes just to prevent this tax increase. That's right. We are going to have a tax increase on the tax increase on middle class families who were never intended to pay this. First, and rather unsurprisingly, this Democrat ``Drill-Nothing'' Congress helps repeal a tax deduction that helps American companies to produce energy for American consumers, but they are going to take that advantage away from consumers. It will only hurt energy exploration in this country, and now what we are going to see is that the American consumer will pay more at the pump. While this proposal is laughable at best for everyone tuning in on C- SPAN across America today, it is about par for the course for the Democrat Party that also thinks that suing OPEC, not increasing the supply of American energy, will help bring down prices for consumers. Second, this bill increases taxes on entrepreneurs that create jobs and improve failing companies, and raises the long-term capital gains rate on them from 15 to 35 percent, or even higher. So the people that are the ``goose that are laying the golden egg'' are once again slaughtered by this new Democrat proposal. Once again, I know that most people around this country watching this debate understand that raising taxes on job creators reduces jobs and hurts our economy. But don't worry. You can blame President Bush for that, for the actions of this Congress. Unfortunately, this proposal is not a surprise, coming from a Democrat Congress that believes when real estate and credit markets are at their weakest, that is the optimal time to raise taxes and send our economy over the edge. Finally, the bill goes back on America's word by increasing taxes on transactions with treaty countries by mandating a new reporting requirement on private companies so that the IRS can know directly how much is being paid to merchants every year, including the Social Security or tax identification numbers associated with those transactions. Mr. Speaker, I have got to hand it to the new Democrat majority. Every single week, they find out a new way to assault the taxpayer, every single week they find a way to raise taxes, to increase spending, and more rules and regulations. They did it again this week. Congratulations to the new Democrat majority. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this tax increase, and I will tell you that I will continue to stand up on the side of taxpayers and middle class Americans who say enough is enough. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you--you've already heard me say it--this massive tax increase, once again, not only on the economy, but on Americans, could be done a different way. It could be solved. It could be solved by following through on promises that were made by both parties to do something about the AMT. We've got to do something. We continue to see middle class Americans caught in the crossfire. Today, we see it's not just a crossfire with inability to solve the problem, it's partially solved for 1 year by raising $61 billion worth of new tax increases on Americans that they will have to pay this next April. Mr. Speaker, since taking control of Congress in 2007, this Democrat Congress has totally neglected its responsibility to do anything constructive to address the domestic supply issues that have created skyrocketing gas, diesel and energy costs that American families are facing today. As a matter of fact, gas rose 10 cents a gallon across America just in the last few days. So, today, I urge my colleagues once again to vote with me to defeat the previous question so this House can finally consider real solutions to the energy problems and the high costs that we are facing. If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule to allow for consideration of H.R. 5656, which would repeal the ban on acquiring advanced alternative fuels, introduced by my good friend Jeb Hensarling of Texas back in March, almost 3 full months ago. This legislation would reduce the price of gasoline by allowing the Federal Government to procure advanced alternative fuels derived from diverse sources like oil shale, tar sands and coal-to-liquid technology--in other words, marketplace answers--just by allowing the government to do that. Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which this Democrat Congress passed, places artificial and unnecessary restraints on the Department of Defense in getting its fuel from friendly sources, like coal-to-liquid, oil shale and tar sands resources that are all abundant in the United States and Canada. Needless to say, it raises grave national and economic security concerns. Mr. Speaker, this new Democrat Congress wants us to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to go build another Dubai. They want consumers in this country to pay higher costs. By doing so, it is a national security issue. We must do something. Adding alternatives to the supply chain is what is important. Mr. Speaker, Canada currently is the largest U.S. oil supplier. It sent 1.8 million barrels per day of crude oil and 500,000 barrels per day of refined products to the United States in 2006. According to the Canadian Government, about half of the Canadian crude is derived from oil sands, with the oil sands production forecast to reach about 3 million barrels a day in 2015. Section 526, passed by this Democrat House, choked this flow of fuel from one of our Nation's most reliable allies and economic partners, and it increased our military's reliance on fuels from unfriendly and unstable governments around the world. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of that amendment and the extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for our military, for energy independence for Americans, and to help American consumers in this time of need and to support our economy by increasing the amount of oil we import and produce from friendly and reliable sources like Canada and from our own American, buy-American proven resources, these advanced alternative fuels, by voting to defeat the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman, my friend from Ohio, for yielding me the time to discuss this proposed rule for consideration of the Americans with Disabilities Restoration Act of 2007. And a hearty congratulations to the new Democrat majority for their openness as we celebrate the 58th closed rule, a new record for the United States Congress. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the underlying legislation, which would amend and improve the Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA as it is called, that was enacted into law in 1990 by President George Herbert Walker Bush with the strong bipartisan support of Congress. The ADA--which was passed to, and I quote, provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities--protects individuals from discrimination in hiring, firing, pay, and other terms and conditions of employment on the basis of a person's disability. Often referred to as the world's first comprehensive disability anti- discrimination law, the ADA specifies what employers, government agencies, and the managers of public facilities must do to ensure that persons with disabilities have the opportunity to fully participate in our society. The ADA consists of three major titles protecting Americans with disabilities: Title I prohibits discrimination in public or private employment; Title II prohibits discrimination at public entities, like public universities or hospitals; And title III prohibits discrimination at places of public accommodations like hotels and restaurants. Mr. Speaker, this law has made a world of difference for millions of Americans with disabilities. But, for all of the great results that have come from this law, I believe it can still be improved. For far too long, our Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have wrestled with some of the contents of Congress' intent in defining the ADA key concepts. For example, the ADA requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to facilitate employees with disabilities but not if this causes undue hardship, leaving the courts to decide what is reasonable and what is undue. Most of all, Federal courts have spent years being puzzled over exactly who is considered disabled under the law. But, today, we have the opportunity to pass this legislation and to clarify Congress' intent, finally settling these outstanding questions of law once and for all, or so we hope. I want to be clear that these shortcomings do not in any way minimize the great things that this legislation has achieved for disabled people in America. Today, many public accommodations like hotels, restaurants, and recreation facilities have opted for voluntary compliance. We have cut curbs, the areas where sidewalks slope down, to be at a level of the street to allow easy passage for wheelchairs and for other mechanisms that aid the disabled, which were virtually unheard of before ADA was passed and that now are in compliance in most major cities. Unfortunately, since 1999, several U.S. Supreme Court decisions have narrowly provided the definition of disabilities so much so that persons with serious conditions, such as epilepsy, muscular dystrophy, cancer, diabetes, and cerebral palsy have been determined to not have impairments that meet the definition of ``disability'' under the ADA. H.R. 3195 builds upon the ADA's original intent by clarifying what disabilities qualify an individual for coverage, and they address a number of the statute's further limitations that have been raised by disability advocates. Because of this ambiguity, today, I join with more than 250 of my colleagues in supporting this legislation, which passed out of the Judiciary Committee by unanimous consent and out of the Education and Labor Committee by a vote of 43-1. Like my colleagues, I support expanding the definition of ``disabled,'' which was the main goal of this legislation, as well supporting to ensure that people with disabilities do not lose their coverage under the ADA because their condition is manageable and treatable with medication. These policies have been endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Society for Human Resource Management, the Human Resources Policy Association, and many other pro-business organizations. From the disability community, this legislation was also supported by the National Epilepsy Foundation, the American Diabetes Association, the American Association of People with Disabilities, and other leading advocacy groups. Mr. Speaker, the ADA has transformed the American society since its enactment, helping millions of Americans with disabilities to succeed in the workplace and making transportation, housing, buildings, services, and other elements of daily life more accessible to individuals with disabilities. I applaud my colleagues for bringing this legislation, an important action, to the floor today, and I look forward to its passage. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Since taking control of Congress in 2007, this Democrat Congress has totally neglected its responsibilities to do anything constructive to address the domestic supply issues that have created skyrocketing gas, diesel, and energy costs that American families are facing today, including costs that are unacceptable for many disabled Americans who are struggling to be able to get to work or to live their life. So, today, I urge my colleagues to vote with me to defeat the previous question so this House can finally consider real solutions to the energy crisis. If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule to allow for consideration of H.R. 5656, yet another time this Republican party is on the floor to say we support consumers and that we support American independence and security. This bill, H.R. 5656, would repeal the ban on acquiring advanced alternative fuels, and this bill was introduced by my dear friend Jeb Hensarling of Texas way back in March, 3 months ago. This legislation would reduce the price of gasoline by allowing the Federal Government to procure advanced alternative fuels derived from diverse sources like oil shale, tar sands, and coal-to-liquid technology, commonsense marketplace answers to make sure that the American consumer and America is competitive with the world, rather than sending billions of dollars overseas, funding American enemies and providing the world with jobs and opportunities outside of what the consumer intended in this country. Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which this Democrat Congress passed, places artificial and unnecessary restraints on the Department of Defense. Perhaps it is no surprise that this Democrat Congress places artificial and unnecessary restraints on the Department of Defense in getting its own fuel from friendly sources, like the coal-to-liquid, oil shale, and tar sands resources that are abundant in the United States and in Canada, our friend to the north. Needlessly raising grave national and economic security concerns is what this Democrat Congress has done to our military. Mr. Speaker, Canada is currently the largest U.S. oil supplier. It sent 1.8 million barrels every day of crude oil and 500,000 barrels per day of refined products to the United States in 2006. That is according to the Canadian government. About half of the Canadian crude is derived from oil sands, with the sands production forecast to reach almost 3 million barrels per day in 2015. Section 526 is choking this flow of fuel from one of our Nation's most reliable allies and economic partners, and is increasing the military's reliance on fuels from unfriendly and unstable countries. On top of that, it is causing the American consumer to pay more at the pump. We saw a 10-cent rise in the price of each gallon of gasoline just in the last week. Mr. Speaker, now is the time for action. Now is not the time to be suing OPEC and to be saying ``no'' to a balanced energy proposal. 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 urge my colleagues to vote for our military and for our economy, including many disabled people who are having a tough time paying for the high energy costs as a result of this Democrat Congress' insensitive position to not allow Americans to have their own energy independence. It is time that we produce more from America and from friendly places, like reliable sources like Canada. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the National Association of Credit Management Southwest (NACMSW) who will celebrate its 100th birthday on July 18, 2008. Since its founding in 1908, NACMSW has served as a primary learning, knowledge, and information source for its members. They provide valuable education and research programs to address the ever changing and growing needs of its members. NACMSW remains a vocal advocate for business credit and financial management professionals and pushes for the highest ethical and professional standards. I know NACMSW will continue to be a valuable resource for the local community and remain on the forefront of the credit industry. Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in expressing our heartiest birthday wishes to the National Association of Credit Management Southwest.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor H.R. 6041.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Massachusetts for yielding me this time to discuss the proposed rule for consideration of the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act. I rise in opposition to this so-called structured rule which makes in order no Republican amendments and the only amendment that it does allow is a Democrat manager's amendment, and to this legislation, which would provide government bureaucrats with benefits in excess of what four out of five hardworking private sector employees enjoy. I disagree with the gentleman from Massachusetts, I think Federal Government work is very important to this country, but I believe that we do not need to extend benefits, to further ask for or to make ourselves available to as an incentive for hardworking people to come to work for the Federal Government. Thus, Madam Speaker, I am opposed to the underlying legislation. Madam Speaker, as the father of two children, one of whom is a person with Down's syndrome and whose birth was more medically complicated than most children's, I understand the importance of families and their ability to deal with their problems. I return home each week to Dallas, Texas, after votes to be with my family, and families are important. I, like every other Member, understand the importance of family and how strong families are important to our country. The question is not whether Congress should support families, but whether it makes sense when so many American families are already struggling with the high price of gas and other economic concerns to increase their tax burden to pay for this increased paid time off from work, especially in light of the fact that Federal workers don't really seem to need it or even be asking for it. Currently, Federal Government employees between the ages of 20 and 45, those employees most likely to take advantage of this benefit expansion, have an average combined leave of over 7 weeks a year. But for even those workers with the least amount of Federal service, between 1 and 2 years, this program is duplicative because on average they already have a balance of 3.4 weeks of combined leave already at their disposal. These generous paid leave policies already in place are why 88 percent of the 221,000 respondents to the 2006 Federal Human Capital Survey described themselves as ``very satisfied'' or ``satisfied'' with their paid leave for illness, including family care situations, for example what is talked about in this bill, childbirth, adoption or elderly care, and less than 5 percent described themselves as dissatisfied in any way. What a shame we are trying to give away a benefit that taxpayers are going to pay for when it is not needed, and most of all, not even asked for. Of course, creating this new, extra paid leave perk following the birth, adoption or fostering of a child, and include a provision that would allow the Office of Personnel Management to double the amount of paid leave to a total of 8 weeks, comes at a high cost. By the way, that 8 weeks may be asked for with no excuse or no reason necessary at all, simply by requesting it. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this new benefit in search of a problem would cost $850 million over 5 years. Pretty tough for a new majority that thinks that they want to have pay-as-you-go rules when now we are going to add a new $850 million worth of cost. Madam Speaker, at a time when the average hardworking American families are already struggling and working more hours to fill their tanks because of this Democrat Congress's refusal to do anything constructive to address the high cost of energy, I don't believe it is appropriate for Congress to increase the paid leave of Federal bureaucrats beyond their already generous levels, and using taxpayer dollars. As an alternative to today's legislation, the administration has proposed a fiscally responsible but functionally similar program: short-term disability insurance which would assist employees who need to use large amounts of time due to pregnancy, recovering from childbirth, accident or illness. Because the majority of Federal employees, almost 60 percent, are not within the standard childbearing age, this proposal would be a better and more efficient fit for both employees and for the taxpayer and the Federal Government in dealing with the needs and costs associated with employees that need an extended period of time away for a number of reasons. By providing Federal agencies with additional benefits that better meet the needs of the 21st century worker, the administration's short- term disability insurance proposal would safeguard Federal employees during a period of temporary inability to perform normal occupational duties while also safeguarding the pockets of the American taxpayer. Despite the Office of Personnel Management providing this commonsense legislation proposal to Speaker Pelosi on March 4, 2008, today this Democrat-run House will only have the opportunity to vote on one functionally closed rule and the underlying legislation, with all of the other good ideas provided by Republicans completely shut out on this debate. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote against this rule and the egregious underlying legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I really do appreciate the gentleman, my friend from Massachusetts' characterization of Republicans wrecking the economy and all these things, negative things that the Republicans have done at the expense of the American taxpayer. And yet I think that the American public understands who balanced the budget back in 1997. It was the Republican-led Congress. It was the American people who said we ought to balance the budget. When I first came to Congress some 12 years ago, I did this under the pretext of balancing the budget and, secondly, growing the economy, growing the economy through the creation of new jobs. So how well did Republicans do? Let's see. Balanced the budget in 1997 because we forced it; 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. In 2001 this country was struck by terrorists. That's right. We've not balanced the budget since. But what we have done during that period of time is created economic opportunity, economic opportunity for millions of Americans, created 5.3 million new jobs. That was the free enterprise system that did that, but it was done through the policies of this body, lowering taxes, giving working families more money back home, taking 5 million people completely off the tax rolls so they could take care of themselves. And now, here today what we see is a bigger government, a government that will cost almost a billion dollars more as a result of what we're doing here. So it's amazing to see how my good friends on the other side come and talk about how irresponsible we were, and yet, what we've done, when Republicans led, was to create new jobs in this country, to make sure that we grew our economy. I see nothing, nothing in the Democratic budget or the bills that they've passed that have created new jobs. As a matter of fact, the gentleman from Massachusetts referred to the Republicans and President Bush wrecking the economy. In fact, what happened is, you can just look at it directly on a calendar. The day America began having economic problems was the day this new Democrat majority was elected; came in and promised higher taxes, promised the opportunity for a new direction, higher gas prices. Then what are we told? We're told by the leaders of the Democratic Party, America, you're going to have to change the way you live your life. This sounds a lot like the mid 1970s when we had President Carter around. We're going to have to change the way you live your life. Government knows best. That's what we're here on the floor talking about today. Government knows best. We're going to give a group of very faithful Federal employees a new opportunity that will cost almost a billion dollars more to Federal employees. And yet, my colleagues will stand up and talk about Republicans ruining the economy. Now that's not what ruins the economy. What ruins the economy is bigger government, bigger government, more spending and continuation of the assault on the investor in this country. So the Republican Party, once again, is in favor of a balanced budget. We're not in favor of wrecking the economy. The Republican Party is in favor of us allowing drilling to take place in this country. Some of my colleagues this morning talked about, you know, all these millions of acres. Well, there's not oil under all those millions of acres. Trust me. Energy exploration companies will go where the energy is. And yet, now we're talking about adding almost a billion dollars' worth of new spending on the taxpayers that are already having trouble paying for their own gasoline. And we're going to talk about raising taxes. That is how you ruin the economy. That is how you lose jobs instead of job creation and balancing the budget. The Republican Party does get it. We do recognize that there are tough times there. I go back every weekend. I've never missed a weekend going back home in 12 years. I do get it. I see people at the grocery store. I know how much the cost of a gallon of gasoline is. I'm not sure all the leaders of this House of Representatives do know that. So we ought to be working to find ways to reduce cost, to make government more efficient, not to find a way to add overhead. Unfortunately, that's what this new Democrat majority is all about; raising taxes, more rules and regulation, making government more powerful by, in this instance, giving Federal employees who don't even ask for it, want it or need it, more time off, and have the taxpayer pay for it. Madam Speaker, I do disagree with the legislation. And I will tell you that I think the American public, as they learn more about it during this debate, will come to the same conclusion. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. I do not have any additional speakers other than myself.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I think what we have talked about today is an opportunity where the Republican Party presented an alternative to Speaker Pelosi, an alternative based upon a perception of a problem by the Democrat majority. President Bush, last March, came to the table and said, let's use a free market approach that does allow families the opportunity, when they need time, to have that time and to utilize it. But let's let those individual families make their own decision, based upon disability insurance. I understood a long time ago, from my previous job, when I had a very large team size of people that I worked with, that really, the American worker, at least where I was, was satisfied that they had a job and earned enough money to put food on the table, but also competed for family time and they needed time at home. That I understand. But I encourage that in terms of being able to take time off. And having unpaid leave through a disability insurance program, is the right way to do this. So the Republican Party, through the President of the United States, brought this to Speaker Pelosi. Instead, what we got was a billion-dollar answer to the taxpayer, a billion dollars more of spending, a billion dollars more of having the taxpayer have to pay things, and a billion dollars more, so the Republican Party comes to the table and says, why don't we try and balance our budget, rather than making government bigger and spending more money? That's what we're doing here today. We are politely coming to the table in this constitutional body and saying, we disagree. Since taking control of Congress in 2007, this Democrat Congress has totally been negligent in its responsibility to do anything constructive to address the domestic supply issues that have created the biggest problem that we have in America today, and that is energy and the cost of energy. Skyrocketing gas, diesel and energy costs are facing the American public today big time back home. Meanwhile, we find that the Congress is trying to spend another billion dollars. So today I urge my colleagues to vote with me to defeat the previous question so this House can finally consider real solutions to the energy costs. If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule to allow for consideration of H.R. 2279, which would expand the American refinery capacity on closed military installations. That's right. We're suggesting that we will use Federal installations that have closed to have a better way to make sure that we have more gasoline available. This bill was introduced by my dear friend, Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania, way back in May of 2007, over a year ago. See, Republicans saw it a year ago as a problem, and came to the table with answers and questions about what we can do. This legislation would reduce the price of gasoline by streamlining the refinery application process, and by requiring the President to open at least three closed military installations for the purpose of setting new and providing new, reliable American refineries. Madam 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 urge my colleagues to take a second look, to become a student, just as we're asking the American public, to look at who really is trying to address the issue of the cost of energy. We're asking the American public to look into, and to see who's really getting gouged. Who really is getting gouged? And it's families back home. It's businesses that are trying to provide services. It is our airlines that are trying to make sure that we keep this economy going. And what do we hear back from Washington, DC? Let's sue OPEC. Let's tax Big Oil. Let's stick it to Big Oil. Well, in fact, what we ought to be saying is that energy companies are our friends. Energy companies need to and want to supply cost- effective and reliable opportunities for the American public to have gasoline without long lines. What are the energy companies saying? They're saying, Please give us the opportunity to go where there is oil or the perception that there's oil and go looking for it and provide it to the American public. It's American security. It is the opportunity for America to be able to use its own resources. Is this the final answer? Heck no. That's not the final answer. What we're trying to do is bridge us through this until the technologies of, as we know, the battery-operated car and other technologies are coming to fruition, but in the meantime, we should not be spending our hundreds of billions of dollars that this Democrat majority is allowing to happen because they're cutting off American energy to go overseas to keep building Dubai and the next cities and countries that are after that off American money. Madam Speaker, I really believe that the American public, when they understand, because they will become students of this issue, they will see that the opportunities for American energy, American security, American independence, and American jobs are what are on the line. And then they will look up and know that there's very consistent behavior. They will know which group of people in Washington, DC is really for them. Today, we see where that same group of people, the United States Congress, is going to come together and say who is going to add another billion dollars to the price tag of running government, who is the same party that cuts off and won't even accept the good ideas of allowing more drilling here in the United States for American security. They're going to draw a conclusion. And that conclusion is going to be, they're going to see which group of people has the best ideas to empower job growth and investment in this country. Who are the people that really are aiming at balancing our budget? Who is the group of people that are trying to do every single thing that we can to protect this country? Madam Speaker, that is the Republican Party. The Republican Party is trying to make sure that the taxpayer of this country does not pay higher taxes. The Republican Party is trying to make sure that we have enough energy, American energy, available for consumers of this country. And we are standing up today saying we do not believe adding almost a billion dollars worth of new spending for Federal employee benefits is the right thing to do right now. So we're going to ask that our Members vote against this bill. We're going to ask that we do something by voting against this bill and voting for the motion to recommit. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple, straightforward, and fiscally responsible. It would prevent any taxpayer funds from being wasted on operating Amtrak's worst-performing long-distance route. Under this amendment, which is supported by Citizens Against Government Waste, Americans for Tax Reform and the National Taxpayers' Union, the determination about what constitutes Amtrak's most wasteful route will not be a political one made by Congress, it will instead be determined by Amtrak's own most recent monthly report, and it will not take effect if the Secretary of Transportation determines that the line is critical to homeland security. Amtrak's most recent performance report produced in March 2008 lists the Sunset Limited as Amtrak's worst performing long-distance route. And for the few lucky people who actually buy a ticket on this route, this journey constitutes a 48-hour ordeal from New Orleans, Louisiana, to Los Angeles, California. Amtrak's report indicates that this route had an astonishing loss of 26.3 cents per seat mile, which is unsurprising given the length of the trip coupled with the lowest ridership of all of Amtrak's long-distance lines. Right before I came to the House floor today, I went to Amtrak's Website and looked up how much a round-trip ticket on this line would be. The answer: an astonishing $522. For the purpose of comparison, a bus ticket for a similar trip leaving on and returning the exact same days, it would cost only $366, and riding the bus would take 19 fewer hours to complete the trip. Back in 1997, Congress passed the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act which required that Amtrak operate without any Federal operating assistance after 2002. Despite this decade-old, commonsense requirement that Amtrak cease their fiscal irresponsibility and mismanagement, without my amendment, today's bill would continue to waste taxpayer money by forcing American families to subsidize Amtrak's worst line. Amtrak's net loss in 2007 was over $1.12 billion, an increase of 5 percent over last year. In March of 2008 alone, Amtrak's net loss was $96 million. These awful performance figures prove that the time has come to restore commonsense fiscal responsibility at Amtrak, and that the time has come to at least take a small step in helping taxpayers' hard-earned money not to be used on long, expensive routes with low ridership. This amendment simply seeks to prevent further good taxpayer dollars from being thrown after bad by limiting the cost of Amtrak's number one least-profitable route. And if Members cannot support this simple, security-conscious amendment on behalf of fiscal discipline, I don't know if there is anything else that we can do to help not only this Congress be responsible, but also to be in support of American taxpayers. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman. This is a preemptive strike to get the correct measure done so we are not arguing 10 years from now what should have been done 10 years before. I now yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) in support of this amendment.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, we have now heard Chairman Davis talk about the articulation. We believe that something should be done immediately; that this is about the worst performing route that has existed for year after year after year. And while I have great respect and appreciation, not only for the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) to work towards this, we believe it's time for action. We believe that the worst performing route, one which not only underperforms from the number of passengers, but also costs taxpayers a lot of money, that we, as Members of Congress, should have a say about this. I will ask all Members to support this vote when it comes on the floor in this amendment. I yield back my time.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Highland Park Town Administrator George Patterson. After graduating from Texas Tech University, he began his public service career as an Administrative Aide with the City of Lubbock. He then moved on to become the City Manager for Pecos City and Snyder before accepting the position of Town Administrator with Highland Park in 1979. George will be retiring on June 24, 2008 with twenty-nine years of dedicated service to Highland Park. During his tenure, he has carefully managed and led his staff by example. With his vision and leadership skills, Highland Park is a better and safer community. His commitment to public service extended beyond the workplace. He is actively involved in numerous professional and community organizations such as the Texas City Managers Association and the Rotary Club. George leaves a legacy of civic duty that will be greatly missed. Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in expressing our best wishes to him and his family on this special day.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today and want to thank my friend from California, a member of the Rules Committee, for yielding this time to me to discuss the proposed rule for consideration of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act. I rise in opposition to this rule, and to the legislation, neither of which will meet the Democrats' campaign promises about how they said they would run the House in a fair and transparent manner, nor the American taxpayers' expectations how the Federal Government should manage tax revenues that it takes from hardworking Americans. The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 would reauthorize Government spending on Amtrak over the next 5 years at a cost of almost $15 billion without requiring any meaningful reforms in Amtrak's governance or operations and without allocating taxpayer dollars based on a demand for the service. As we know, Amtrak is a private corporation that continues to receive large Federal operating subsidies, despite laws passed by Congress requiring after 2002, over 5 years ago, that they should be able to run their operations without Federal grant funds. Despite the fact that the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved this legislation, I am not alone in believing that Amtrak should conduct its operations without picking the pockets of American families who are already being asked to do this by the do-nothing Democrat Congress to pay for record prices for energy, and can little afford to subsidize the inefficiencies of a transportation system that many of them will never use. Like me and many of my Republican colleagues, President Bush has urged this Congress to pass legislation that would: (1) create a system driven by sound economics where services are provided based primarily on consumer demand; (2) promote competition; (3) focus Amtrak on core operating competencies; (4) establish funding partnerships with States; and, (5) improve investment in and management of the Northeast Corridor. I include for the Record the Statement of Administration Policy for H.R. 6003. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget Washington, DC, June 9, 2008.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from New York, my friend, really made a great argument on exactly what I've been trying to say. But we've got to get our friends to come around the corner and see that if we would get Amtrak to do the things that are in their mission statement, rather than running all across the United States trying to do things that are not cost effective, are not within their main core mission, then we could find the money that would be available for them to support, as the gentleman said, the Northeast Corridor, to spend the money within the corridor to make them safer. But, instead, what happens is Amtrak is not held accountable, not by this Congress. We tell them, just go ahead and do whatever you choose to do, rather than focusing on their mission which they have, which is that which is required for traffic on the coasts, the west coast and the east coast. So, Madam Speaker, once again, we can't expect Amtrak to do the things that would be in the best interest if they won't stick to their mission, if this Congress will not hold them accountable for the taxpayer dollars that they are utilizing. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, the distinguished gentleman, Mr. Brown.