or Login to see your representatives.

Access Candidates' and Representatives' Biographies, Voting Records, Interest Group Ratings, Issue Positions, Public Statements, and Campaign Finances

Simply enter your zip code above to get to all of your candidates and representatives, or enter a name. Then, just click on the person you are interested in, and you can navigate to the categories of information we track for them.

Public Statements

Providing for Consideration of House Resolution 72, Directing Committees to Review Regulations from Federal Agencies

Floor Speech

By:
Date:
Location: Washington, DC

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, as we meet this afternoon, there are 15 million Americans who are unemployed, and for them, this is another day of searching the Web or the want ads to try to find a job they've been unable to find after months of diligent searching. So what is the Congress of the United States doing about this? We are wasting yet another opportunity to work together, Republicans and Democrats, to create an environment in which small business people and entrepreneurs can create jobs for our country, the way we did work together at the end of last year and passed legislation that 80 Senators voted for, 270-some House Members voted for across party lines.

The majority says that this process will somehow help to create jobs. It is important to understand what this resolution really says. It says, in response to the 15 million unemployed people we have in this country, let's have a bunch of politicians have a bunch of meetings they were already scheduled to have; right? So their response, Mr. Speaker, is let's spend 9 1/2 hours debating a bill that says a bunch of politicians should have a bunch of meetings they would have had anyway to talk about the problem.

You know, if we called 911 to report a fire in our home, we wouldn't be very happy if the fire department said, ``We are going to immediately have a meeting to decide whether to put the fire out at your house.'' We would expect the fire company to come put the fire out at your house.

The majority is not putting on the floor regulations they want to repeal. That would be a worthy debate. We should have that. What they are doing is saying let's, for 9 1/2 hours, talk about whether to have a bunch of meetings to talk about the problem.

In the last 5 weeks, there has not been one word in one bill or 1 hour of debate about a plan to create jobs for the American people. So now we are going to spend 9 1/2 hours talking about whether to have a series of political meetings.

Why don't we put on the floor and argue the pros and cons of a plan to put our people back to work building schools and bridges and highways? You can be for or against that, but it's a real plan that would actually put people back to work.

Now, the majority says that they do want to create jobs by cutting spending and reducing the deficit. But of course the very first bill they passed increased the deficit by more than $1 trillion over the next 20 years. Then they ran on a promise--a promise--to reduce the current year's budget by $100 billion, but 2 days ago, the Appropriations Committee reported out a bill that reduces it by $32 billion.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

The American people are placing a 911 call to Washington that says this country needs help. It needs a real plan to produce real jobs for the American people. What they are getting from the majority once again is wasted words, wasted time, wasted opportunities.

Yes, looking at regulations is a good thing to do. We support that. But, Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between analysis and paralysis. The majority is giving us paralysis. All talk, no jobs. The right vote on this resolution is ``no.''

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend.

I think we can have a very worthy debate about whether that rule is a good one or a bad one. Why aren't we having that debate? Why don't you just put on the floor a bill that says let's repeal that rule and have a debate? Why aren't we doing that?

Mr. SESSIONS. Well, that's a good point. I don't think the gentleman was up in the Rules Committee yesterday to hear this, but the Rules Committee has original jurisdiction on this bill. We are sending this bill, when passed on the floor, to 10 committees, asking them to look at specifics, and dust will be one of those issues. It will be in front of a committee, probably the Agriculture Committee. Perhaps it could be in front of the Resources Committee, where they will look at what this proposed ruling is.

Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SESSIONS. I continue to yield to the gentleman.BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, as we meet this afternoon, there are 15 million Americans who are unemployed, and for them, this is another day of searching the Web or the want ads to try to find a job they've been unable to find after months of diligent searching. So what is the Congress of the United States doing about this? We are wasting yet another opportunity to work together, Republicans and Democrats, to create an environment in which small business people and entrepreneurs can create jobs for our country, the way we did work together at the end of last year and passed legislation that 80 Senators voted for, 270-some House Members voted for across party lines.

The majority says that this process will somehow help to create jobs. It is important to understand what this resolution really says. It says, in response to the 15 million unemployed people we have in this country, let's have a bunch of politicians have a bunch of meetings they were already scheduled to have; right? So their response, Mr. Speaker, is let's spend 9 1/2 hours debating a bill that says a bunch of politicians should have a bunch of meetings they would have had anyway to talk about the problem.

You know, if we called 911 to report a fire in our home, we wouldn't be very happy if the fire department said, ``We are going to immediately have a meeting to decide whether to put the fire out at your house.'' We would expect the fire company to come put the fire out at your house.

The majority is not putting on the floor regulations they want to repeal. That would be a worthy debate. We should have that. What they are doing is saying let's, for 9 1/2 hours, talk about whether to have a bunch of meetings to talk about the problem.

In the last 5 weeks, there has not been one word in one bill or 1 hour of debate about a plan to create jobs for the American people. So now we are going to spend 9 1/2 hours talking about whether to have a series of political meetings.

Why don't we put on the floor and argue the pros and cons of a plan to put our people back to work building schools and bridges and highways? You can be for or against that, but it's a real plan that would actually put people back to work.

Now, the majority says that they do want to create jobs by cutting spending and reducing the deficit. But of course the very first bill they passed increased the deficit by more than $1 trillion over the next 20 years. Then they ran on a promise--a promise--to reduce the current year's budget by $100 billion, but 2 days ago, the Appropriations Committee reported out a bill that reduces it by $32 billion.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

The American people are placing a 911 call to Washington that says this country needs help. It needs a real plan to produce real jobs for the American people. What they are getting from the majority once again is wasted words, wasted time, wasted opportunities.

Yes, looking at regulations is a good thing to do. We support that. But, Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between analysis and paralysis. The majority is giving us paralysis. All talk, no jobs. The right vote on this resolution is ``no.''

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend.

I think we can have a very worthy debate about whether that rule is a good one or a bad one. Why aren't we having that debate? Why don't you just put on the floor a bill that says let's repeal that rule and have a debate? Why aren't we doing that?

Mr. SESSIONS. Well, that's a good point. I don't think the gentleman was up in the Rules Committee yesterday to hear this, but the Rules Committee has original jurisdiction on this bill. We are sending this bill, when passed on the floor, to 10 committees, asking them to look at specifics, and dust will be one of those issues. It will be in front of a committee, probably the Agriculture Committee. Perhaps it could be in front of the Resources Committee, where they will look at what this proposed ruling is.

Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. ANDREWS. It still seems to me to be all windup and no pitch, that if you really believe that that regulation should be repealed, why don't you put a bill on the floor that repeals it and let's do something rather than just talk about it.

Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, the answer is because this floor is the wrong place to do it, and we need to do it in reverse order. We need to go--and I know this is a new concept to a lot of people on your side. We are going to send it to the committees. We are going to let there be hearings about it. We are going to let the Democrats and the Republicans have an opportunity--for instance, the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Collin Peterson, as the former chairman of the Ag Committee, will have an opportunity in working with Mr. Lucas, the chairman of the Ag Committee now, on who those witnesses will be who are experts.

I don't think we have enough intellectual content because we don't spend time on farms, I don't, to where I can make an accurate decision. But if I review the transcript and listen to what happens in the committee of jurisdiction, regular order, like the 10 other committees, then it gives us a chance to realistically understand, study, talk about, and receive feedback.

Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman further yield?

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. ANDREWS. I appreciate his courtesy.

The gentleman just makes a very good point about the importance of hearings before legislation takes place. How many hearings have there been on the renewal of the Patriot Act?

Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, and I do appreciate the gentleman. This House of Representatives, after 9/11, debated to the fullest extent not only the issues of the Patriot Act, but we have had continuing hearings and dialogue on that. There's a requirement that these be looked at, and we intend to make sure that there's a full debate on this.

Mr. ANDREWS. It still seems to me to be all windup and no pitch, that if you really believe that that regulation should be repealed, why don't you put a bill on the floor that repeals it and let's do something rather than just talk about it.

Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, the answer is because this floor is the wrong place to do it, and we need to do it in reverse order. We need to go--and I know this is a new concept to a lot of people on your side. We are going to send it to the committees. We are going to let there be hearings about it. We are going to let the Democrats and the Republicans have an opportunity--for instance, the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Collin Peterson, as the former chairman of the Ag Committee, will have an opportunity in working with Mr. Lucas, the chairman of the Ag Committee now, on who those witnesses will be who are experts.BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, as we meet this afternoon, there are 15 million Americans who are unemployed, and for them, this is another day of searching the Web or the want ads to try to find a job they've been unable to find after months of diligent searching. So what is the Congress of the United States doing about this? We are wasting yet another opportunity to work together, Republicans and Democrats, to create an environment in which small business people and entrepreneurs can create jobs for our country, the way we did work together at the end of last year and passed legislation that 80 Senators voted for, 270-some House Members voted for across party lines.

The majority says that this process will somehow help to create jobs. It is important to understand what this resolution really says. It says, in response to the 15 million unemployed people we have in this country, let's have a bunch of politicians have a bunch of meetings they were already scheduled to have; right? So their response, Mr. Speaker, is let's spend 9 1/2 hours debating a bill that says a bunch of politicians should have a bunch of meetings they would have had anyway to talk about the problem.

You know, if we called 911 to report a fire in our home, we wouldn't be very happy if the fire department said, ``We are going to immediately have a meeting to decide whether to put the fire out at your house.'' We would expect the fire company to come put the fire out at your house.

The majority is not putting on the floor regulations they want to repeal. That would be a worthy debate. We should have that. What they are doing is saying let's, for 9 1/2 hours, talk about whether to have a bunch of meetings to talk about the problem.

In the last 5 weeks, there has not been one word in one bill or 1 hour of debate about a plan to create jobs for the American people. So now we are going to spend 9 1/2 hours talking about whether to have a series of political meetings.

Why don't we put on the floor and argue the pros and cons of a plan to put our people back to work building schools and bridges and highways? You can be for or against that, but it's a real plan that would actually put people back to work.

Now, the majority says that they do want to create jobs by cutting spending and reducing the deficit. But of course the very first bill they passed increased the deficit by more than $1 trillion over the next 20 years. Then they ran on a promise--a promise--to reduce the current year's budget by $100 billion, but 2 days ago, the Appropriations Committee reported out a bill that reduces it by $32 billion.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

The American people are placing a 911 call to Washington that says this country needs help. It needs a real plan to produce real jobs for the American people. What they are getting from the majority once again is wasted words, wasted time, wasted opportunities.

Yes, looking at regulations is a good thing to do. We support that. But, Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between analysis and paralysis. The majority is giving us paralysis. All talk, no jobs. The right vote on this resolution is ``no.''

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend.

I think we can have a very worthy debate about whether that rule is a good one or a bad one. Why aren't we having that debate? Why don't you just put on the floor a bill that says let's repeal that rule and have a debate? Why aren't we doing that?

Mr. SESSIONS. Well, that's a good point. I don't think the gentleman was up in the Rules Committee yesterday to hear this, but the Rules Committee has original jurisdiction on this bill. We are sending this bill, when passed on the floor, to 10 committees, asking them to look at specifics, and dust will be one of those issues. It will be in front of a committee, probably the Agriculture Committee. Perhaps it could be in front of the Resources Committee, where they will look at what this proposed ruling is.

Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. ANDREWS. It still seems to me to be all windup and no pitch, that if you really believe that that regulation should be repealed, why don't you put a bill on the floor that repeals it and let's do something rather than just talk about it.

Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, the answer is because this floor is the wrong place to do it, and we need to do it in reverse order. We need to go--and I know this is a new concept to a lot of people on your side. We are going to send it to the committees. We are going to let there be hearings about it. We are going to let the Democrats and the Republicans have an opportunity--for instance, the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Collin Peterson, as the former chairman of the Ag Committee, will have an opportunity in working with Mr. Lucas, the chairman of the Ag Committee now, on who those witnesses will be who are experts.

I don't think we have enough intellectual content because we don't spend time on farms, I don't, to where I can make an accurate decision. But if I review the transcript and listen to what happens in the committee of jurisdiction, regular order, like the 10 other committees, then it gives us a chance to realistically understand, study, talk about, and receive feedback.

Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman further yield?

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. ANDREWS. I appreciate his courtesy.

The gentleman just makes a very good point about the importance of hearings before legislation takes place. How many hearings have there been on the renewal of the Patriot Act?

Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, and I do appreciate the gentleman. This House of Representatives, after 9/11, debated to the fullest extent not only the issues of the Patriot Act, but we have had continuing hearings and dialogue on that. There's a requirement that these be looked at, and we intend to make sure that there's a full debate on this.

I don't think we have enough intellectual content because we don't spend time on farms, I don't, to where I can make an accurate decision. But if I review the transcript and listen to what happens in the committee of jurisdiction, regular order, like the 10 other committees, then it gives us a chance to realistically understand, study, talk about, and receive feedback.

Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman further yield?

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. ANDREWS. I appreciate his courtesy.

The gentleman just makes a very good point about the importance of hearings before legislation takes place. How many hearings have there been on the renewal of the Patriot Act?

Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, and I do appreciate the gentleman. This House of Representatives, after 9/11, debated to the fullest extent not only the issues of the Patriot Act, but we have had continuing hearings and dialogue on that. There's a requiBREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, as we meet this afternoon, there are 15 million Americans who are unemployed, and for them, this is another day of searching the Web or the want ads to try to find a job they've been unable to find after months of diligent searching. So what is the Congress of the United States doing about this? We are wasting yet another opportunity to work together, Republicans and Democrats, to create an environment in which small business people and entrepreneurs can create jobs for our country, the way we did work together at the end of last year and passed legislation that 80 Senators voted for, 270-some House Members voted for across party lines.

The majority says that this process will somehow help to create jobs. It is important to understand what this resolution really says. It says, in response to the 15 million unemployed people we have in this country, let's have a bunch of politicians have a bunch of meetings they were already scheduled to have; right? So their response, Mr. Speaker, is let's spend 9 1/2 hours debating a bill that says a bunch of politicians should have a bunch of meetings they would have had anyway to talk about the problem.

You know, if we called 911 to report a fire in our home, we wouldn't be very happy if the fire department said, ``We are going to immediately have a meeting to decide whether to put the fire out at your house.'' We would expect the fire company to come put the fire out at your house.

The majority is not putting on the floor regulations they want to repeal. That would be a worthy debate. We should have that. What they are doing is saying let's, for 9 1/2 hours, talk about whether to have a bunch of meetings to talk about the problem.

In the last 5 weeks, there has not been one word in one bill or 1 hour of debate about a plan to create jobs for the American people. So now we are going to spend 9 1/2 hours talking about whether to have a series of political meetings.

Why don't we put on the floor and argue the pros and cons of a plan to put our people back to work building schools and bridges and highways? You can be for or against that, but it's a real plan that would actually put people back to work.

Now, the majority says that they do want to create jobs by cutting spending and reducing the deficit. But of course the very first bill they passed increased the deficit by more than $1 trillion over the next 20 years. Then they ran on a promise--a promise--to reduce the current year's budget by $100 billion, but 2 days ago, the Appropriations Committee reported out a bill that reduces it by $32 billion.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

The American people are placing a 911 call to Washington that says this country needs help. It needs a real plan to produce real jobs for the American people. What they are getting from the majority once again is wasted words, wasted time, wasted opportunities.

Yes, looking at regulations is a good thing to do. We support that. But, Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between analysis and paralysis. The majority is giving us paralysis. All talk, no jobs. The right vote on this resolution is ``no.''

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend.

I think we can have a very worthy debate about whether that rule is a good one or a bad one. Why aren't we having that debate? Why don't you just put on the floor a bill that says let's repeal that rule and have a debate? Why aren't we doing that?

Mr. SESSIONS. Well, that's a good point. I don't think the gentleman was up in the Rules Committee yesterday to hear this, but the Rules Committee has original jurisdiction on this bill. We are sending this bill, when passed on the floor, to 10 committees, asking them to look at specifics, and dust will be one of those issues. It will be in front of a committee, probably the Agriculture Committee. Perhaps it could be in front of the Resources Committee, where they will look at what this proposed ruling is.

Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. ANDREWS. It still seems to me to be all windup and no pitch, that if you really believe that that regulation should be repealed, why don't you put a bill on the floor that repeals it and let's do something rather than just talk about it.

Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, the answer is because this floor is the wrong place to do it, and we need to do it in reverse order. We need to go--and I know this is a new concept to a lot of people on your side. We are going to send it to the committees. We are going to let there be hearings about it. We are going to let the Democrats and the Republicans have an opportunity--for instance, the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Collin Peterson, as the former chairman of the Ag Committee, will have an opportunity in working with Mr. Lucas, the chairman of the Ag Committee now, on who those witnesses will be who are experts.

I don't think we have enough intellectual content because we don't spend time on farms, I don't, to where I can make an accurate decision. But if I review the transcript and listen to what happens in the committee of jurisdiction, regular order, like the 10 other committees, then it gives us a chance to realistically understand, study, talk about, and receive feedback.

Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman further yield?

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. ANDREWS. I appreciate his courtesy.

The gentleman just makes a very good point about the importance of hearings before legislation takes place. How many hearings have there been on the renewal of the Patriot Act?

Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, and I do appreciate the gentleman. This House of Representatives, after 9/11, debated to the fullest extent not only the issues of the Patriot Act, but we have had continuing hearings and dialogue on that. There's a requirement that these be looked at, and we intend to make sure that there's a full debate on this.
rement that these be looked at, and we intend to make sure that there's a full debate on this.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT


Source:
Back to top