Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us is a fair and open rule that allowed every single Member of this body to offer any amendment that they wished to debate after simply having it preprinted in the Congressional Record. On March 4, the Committee on Rules publicly notified Members of the possibility that it may report a rule to give every Member of Congress an opportunity to have their amendment heard on the House Floor, giving Members ample time to draft and submit their amendments for consideration. The rule also provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and allows the amendment in the nature of a substitute to be considered an original bill for the purpose of amendment, and that it shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute and provides that only the authoring Member or a designee may offer a preprinted amendment. Finally, the rule provides the minority with one motion to recommit either with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the rule for H.R. 339, the Personal Responsibility and Food Consumption Act. This bill is common sense legislation that requires courts to dismiss frivolous lawsuits seeking damages for injuries resulting from obesity and its attendant health problems that are filed against the manufacturers, distributors, sellers, marketers, and advertisers of any food product by a claimant or their spouse, parent, or child. That is, simply put, what this bill does, and I would like to congratulate our chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the bill's sponsor, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) for their hard work in bringing this legislation to the floor for its consideration today. Despite its opponents' claims to the contrary, what this bill does not do is to relieve manufacturers of their existing Federal and State responsibilities for manufacturing, marketing, distributing, advertising, labeling, or selling their products, nor does it affect existing State laws against deceptive trade practices or lawsuits filed for the relief of claimants who become sick from tainted food products. This bill is a carefully crafted bill to address a specific problem: to put an end to frivolous lawsuits that have been filed against the lawful and productive food services industry, an industry that provides 12 million Americans with jobs and is the Nation's largest private sector employer. And, it accomplishes this while protecting all of the other rights currently given to consumers. This bill simply codifies the current tort law of every State in America that already has preventive injury claims based on obesity and makes permanent what a recent Gallup poll has shown that 89 percent of Americans already knew: that lawsuits against the food industry are an attempt by the trial bar to make an end-run around our Nation's established democratic process through litigation. H.R. 339 creates a narrow, national solution to the problem of these costly and wasteful lawsuits, and establishes in Federal law the simple concept that consumers, not the plaintiffs' bar or a government agency, shall have the right to choose what they eat. Every Member of this Chamber understands that obesity and the greater health problems that it causes, such as heart disease and diabetes, is a dangerous and growing problem to America. Over the last 20 years, obesity rates have increased by more than 60 percent among adults, and the rate of increase in obesity among young people has risen even more rapidly. To address this problem, President Bush has demonstrated his leadership by providing funds in his budget for general health promotion activities, including efforts to educate the public on preventing diabetes and obesity. President Bush has also outlined a fitness challenge to all Americans by asking adults all across America to get at least 30 minutes of physical activity each day, for children and teenagers to get at least 60 minutes of physical activity each day, and for parents to commit to family activities that revolve around physical activity. But the American people understand that fitness, health, and well- being is not something that can be legislated, nor something that lawyers can sue for. A commitment to a healthy lifestyle is something that everyone must make for themselves, and it is a matter of personal responsibility. People all across this country understand that since 2002, trial lawyers have been sizing up the deep pockets of the food industry and are ready to pounce upon them when they see a golden opportunity to reap billions of dollars for themselves by filing these lawsuits against the productive food industry. John Bahnzaf, one of the lead litigators of these frivolous suits, has publicly announced that his goal is to ``open the floodgates'' of the litigation against the food industry because, he says, ``Somewhere there is going to be a judge and a jury that will buy this, and once we get the first verdict, as we did with tobacco, it will open up the floodgates.'' All it will take to do irreparable harm to consumers, the economy, and millions of jobs is just one judge making a nonsense opinion by falling victim to what the trial lawyers wish to do. I believe it is Congress's obligation to allow commerce to proceed by preventing these suits from wasting the time of our courts and the resources of a lawful industry. By passing this legislation today, the House will tell consumers, investors, and countless employees of local Mom and Pop burger joints all across America that we care about them and their jobs, and that we will make sure that we will protect them. We will be telling Americans we think that they are smart enough to decide what they choose to put in their own mouth, and we will be helping those everyday working Americans who rely on fast, affordable nutrition in their hectic lives, not by allowing the courts to increase the price of food that they freely choose to eat. If the House fails to pass this legislation, where will the madness end? Will sit-down restaurants, which some studies have shown often, serve food with a nutritional and caloric content similar to fast food? Will they be next on the trial lawyers' hit list? Will trial lawyers target chicken producers who supply countless moms across America with the raw materials for homemade fried chicken, or the beef producers who conspire to provide them with raw ingredients for fattening homemade meatloaf? Or will they simply wait for the next fad diet trend to come along and go after whoever is producing the unfashionable food of the moment? Mr. Speaker, there is a cure to the obesity problem in America. By taking the road to reducing the medical costs associated with obesity is the right way to do it, not in the courtroom. It begins when Americans decide to leave a little bit on their dinner plate and to run that extra mile. It begins when a parent decides to take an active role in their child's life and coaches their son or their daughter's Little League team. It begins the next time you or I step up to the counter and order the salad, not the extra cheese pizza. But that should be our choice as Americans, because we know best that we make better decisions than the government or than trial lawyers can make for us. These are decisions that Americans can and should make for themselves. Unlike the opponents of this bill, I trust the American people and believe that Americans are smart enough to make these decisions for themselves. Mr. Speaker, I support this rule, and I support the well-crafted underlying bill of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller). Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to notify my colleague that we do not have any further speakers at this time, and I would entertain him to please feel free to run down that time and then I will choose to close.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I believe we had an open rule last week.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman for allowing me to respond. The Committee on Rules, when we file the rule and when we prepare these documents ahead of time, we notify every Member of Congress of our intent to have a meeting at the Committee on Rules to consider a subject. We ask them to please preprint those things that would be necessary. We ask every Member to please work with legislative staff who would help in preparing those documents to make sure that they are in order, would be made in order under the rule, under the rules of this House, and we believe we are trying to do things to move legislation forward, allow time just as we have done here, notify people ahead of time. One of the things about this process is that for years and years the House has worked off Jeffersonian rules. We have a Speaker who is up here. We have a parliamentarian. We have people who make decisions about what is right and what is wrong and what is fair and what is not, and we believe what we have done here today from March 4 was said here on the floor of the House, all Members of Congress----

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to make my tribute to Orvil Jones of Highland Park High School on the occasion of his retirement. I have the pleasure of representing Highland Park High School in Congress, and I am proud to have four alums from Highland Park High School on my staff, and two of them that played football under Coach Jones. Coach Jones has been a fixture at Highland Park High School for 36 years, and he will be leaving behind a great legacy of service to his students and players. Jones started his career with the Highland Park Independent School District (HPISD) in 1968 as a mathematics teacher and coach at Highland Park Junior High. When ninth grade was moved into the high school within the HPISD, Coach Jones joined the faculty of Highland Park High School in 1970 and has been coaching and teaching there ever since. During his tenure with Highland Park High School, Coach Jones worked under seven head coaches, eleven principals, and four school superintendents. His day in and day out work ethic will be greatly missed by his fellow coaches and the players that he instructs. Highland Park's football team has historically been one of the best programs in the State. Highland Park ranks fourth in the State for all- time victories with 637 and is fifth in all-time playoff victories with 62. Most recently, Coach Jones coached the defensive secondary for Highland Park's varsity football team, and his players considered him to be the hardest working coach on the staff. Coach Jones taught his players that, whether or not they are blessed with the most natural talent, they can succeed by working harder than their competition. Coach Jones provided the perfect example of hard work by always being the first coach to have his players in the film room or on the field and by working with his players on the field even after the other coaches and players had retired to the locker room. While Coach Jones has made a lasting impact on thousands of students and players, his family has been the center of his attention. I congratulate the Jones family, his loving wife Elaine and their three children and two grandchildren, on this momentous occasion. I commend Coach Jones on his proud career of service that spans five decades within HPISD, and I wish him and his family all the best for a nice start to a well-deserved retirement.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Don Richardson from Highland Park High School on the occasion of his upcoming retirement. I have the pleasure of representing Highland Park High School in Congress, and I am proud to have four alums from Highland Park High School on my staff and two of them that played football for Coach Richardson. Coach Richardson retires as the defensive coordinator for the Highland Park Scots football team. Don Richardson has been a career educator for 34 years, including 31 distinguished years with the Highland Park Independent School District. In his capacity with the Highland Park football team, Coach Richardson has been a jack-of-all- trades. In his tenure, he has served as the head football coach, offensive coordinator, offensive line coach, and defensive coordinator. I salute Coach Richardson for the positive influence that he has had on his players and students over the last 31 years. Off the playing field, he has been an outstanding government and history teacher for Highland Park High School. Coach Richardson was selected by his teaching peers as the Highland Park High School Teacher of the Year for 1998-1999. He is a role model of leadership and dependability, and he will be greatly missed by future Highland Park football teams and by his former players and fans in the stands on Friday nights. Highland Park's football team is a benchmark of success within Dallas County year in and year out. Coach Richardson's coaching abilities greatly contribute to the team's victories on the field, as he puts his players in the best positions to make game-changing plays. Highland Park's football team has historically been one of the best programs in the State. Highland Park ranks fourth in the State for all- time victories with 637 and is fifth in all-time playoff victories with 62. Coach Richardson's family has played a vital role in his success over the years. Don's loving wife, Carolyn, and children, Sharla Cassiano and Kyle Richardson, have brought him great warmth and support. Sharla was an All-Sun Belt Conference volleyball player at Louisiana Tech, and Kyle played linebacker for the University of Texas Longhorns. I wish Coach Richardson and his family a pleasant start to his well- earned retirement, and I thank him for his years of dedicated service in education.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, in the last ninety years, Taiwan and the United States of America have been allies, partners, and friends. In times of need and turmoil, both countries have always come to each other's aid. In the aftermath of the tragedies of September 11th, 2001 Taiwan immediately offered condolences to the victims of those terrorist attacks, expressed shock over the attacks and condemned such violence. Moreover, to show solidarity with the American people, Taiwan's government ordered flags be flown at half-mast for two days, took every action to protect U.S. citizens on the island, including stepped-up security at the American Institute in Taiwan, and asked all Taiwan offices in the U.S. to cancel their National Day celebrations. Today Taiwan is under pressure by China. China accuses Taiwan's planned peace referendum as a move toward Taiwanese independence and says it would push Taiwan to the ``abyss of war.'' Such rhetoric is a clear distortion of Taiwan's true intent. In the face of an overwhelming military threat against Taiwan, Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian in this referendum is asking his voters whether they should buy more anti-missile weapons if China refuses to withdraw missiles targeted at Taiwan and whether Taiwan should open up talks with China about issues of peace. Taiwan has no intention to provoke China into conflict. It merely aims to avoid war and free its people from the fear that they now face on a daily basis. Taiwan, our ally and friend, is a democracy with a competitive party system and they should have the inherent right to self-determine their own policies and the future of the island without the prospect of fear. I sincerely urge a continuation of peace across the Taiwan straits as well as the good relations between the Taiwanese people and Americans.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 503 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate what the gentleman is saying. I appreciate that he wants to know what the agreements are between the bodies as they work together. I respect that, but I would say to the gentleman that I respect more the 315 votes from this body that chose to speak on the subject the last time we voted. Perhaps it is true there are some frustrations that come about as a result of the business which we engage in. Certainly there are frustrations that 315 people, time after time after time that vote for this important bill, are thwarted in the process; but I believe rather than becoming frustrated, it is up to us to think through how we will accomplish those things that are necessary, to retry, to renegotiate, to do those things that are dealing with negativism of, oh, it will never happen, to keep searching, and that is what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, has done. He looked at a piece of legislation with 315 vote, and knew how important it was. Rather than accepting a defeatist mentality, he took the attitude he would be proactive and work on behalf of our special constituencies that all of us as Members of Congress have, the American people. Mr. Speaker, 315 votes is a clear and simple overwhelming majority of this body. I am proud of what we are doing. Obviously, what we are trying to do here is to make sure that we pass this bill. Since 1986, this ad hoc approach which has talked about reauthorizing chapter 12 relief has allowed this relief for small farms to lapse six times. Today we are going to make it permanent. Today we are providing an answer. Today it is a change. I am proud of what we are doing. Our great chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), has not only worked diligently on behalf of farmers but also on behalf of consumers of this country. I think we will pass this bill. I think it is the right thing, and I welcome the opportunity to join the chairman down at the White House when our great President signs this legislation into law. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. SESSIONS. The American people will have a lot to say about that as they talk with Members of the other body; and based upon that wisdom and as a result of what the leadership does, we will catch a good signal. We believe it will be on their agenda, and we are proud of what we are doing.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, time after time after time sitting in the Committee on Rules, we hear about all of the pieces of legislation that will never go anywhere and will never move. We have heard this about bankruptcies many times, about our budgets; and we have heard this about bills that are related to welfare reform and tax bills. It is amazing how often the other body and whoever sits as our great President, whether it be President Clinton or President Bush, have found the ability and a way to work with the leadership of both bodies. That is part of what this experiment is about. We have great confidence that the American people, who are the special interests to each and every one of us, the special interests and the needs of farmers and the needs of Americans, will be heard by our President, by each Member of the Senate and this body; and that is why we are moving this legislation forward. I do not think that we would ask someone ahead of time what they are going to do with that, but rather to allow them the chance to debate and work through the changes. Compromise happens all of the time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that we are intensely interested in passing this piece of legislation today, moving it to the Senate, believing that our colleagues on the other side of the building will see the wisdom of this bill and move this very expeditiously. This is to make permanent relief for farmers. I believe that the wisdom of the entire bill will be seen by that body, and then we will be able to have it on the President's desk very quickly for signature.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman, my friend, from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today is a fair rule that provides 1 hour of general debate on the bill and on the amendments made in order under the rule to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It provides that it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule a substitute amendment consisting of H.R. 975 as passed by the House, and it shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute and makes in order only the amendments preprinted in the Committee on Rules report. It provides that the amendments made in order may be offered only in the order printed in the report and may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, and shall be considered as read and debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. The rule also provides that these amendments shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. It waives all points of order against the amendments preprinted in the report, provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions, and provides that if the Senate bill, as amended, is passed, then it shall be in order to move that the House insist on its amendment to S. 1920 and to request a conference thereon. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today that this House will have the opportunity to once again during the 108th Congress consider and send to the Senate much-needed bankruptcy reform legislation under this fair rule. I am proud of the tireless efforts on behalf of many Members and their staffs, who have put in countless hours towards the passage of this legislation over the last four Congresses. Their efforts allow us today to again urge Senate action to ensure that our Nation's bankruptcy laws operate fairly, efficiently, and free of abuse. Congress has the opportunity to once again end, once and for all, the loophole to debtors who are able to repay some portion of their debts to game the system and increase the cost of credit, goods and services for other law-abiding citizens. Between 2002 and 2003, the Federal court system reported that there was a 9.6 percent increase in bankruptcy filings to over 1.650 million filings, and these filings have a real cost not only to every consumer but also to simple, everyday Americans. In 1998, debtors who filed for bankruptcy relief discharged more than $44 billion of debt. When amortizing on a daily basis, this amounts to a loss of at least $110 million every day; or put more simply, bankruptcies cost each American family that pays their bills on time $450 a year in the form of higher costs for credit, goods and services. As the other body continues to stall on this legislation to protect the system from further abuse, these numbers and totals only continue to mount. It has been estimated that if current practices continue, one out of every seven households will have filed for bankruptcy by the end of this decade, with many of these losses as a result of the misuse of the law by irresponsible, high-income filers. The Credit Union National Association, known as CUNA, reported last year that credit unions have lost nearly $3 billion from bankruptcies since Congress began considering bankruptcy reform legislation in 1998. We should not forget the other indirect costs associated with bankruptcy fraud. Because the law currently allows people to game the system for their own benefit, the number of Federal bankruptcy filings per judgeship has increased from 71.1 percent, from 2,998 per Federal judge in 1992 to 5,130 in 2003, the largest caseload in our Federal court system. This backlog in this workflow slows down the progress for a countless number of legitimate bankruptcy filings and increases disrespect for the entire judicial system. This bill is crafted to ensure the debtor's right to a fresh start while protecting the system from flagrant abusers by those who can, should, and, we believe, will be paying their own bills. Bankruptcy should not be a convenience or just another financial planning tool, and this legislation will ensure that it will remain a safety net for those who genuinely need it while trying to prevent bad actors from imposing their costs on everyone else. Congress has spoken on this issue many times before. As is widely known, Mr. Speaker, the 105th, 106th and 107th Congresses passed legislation addressing bankruptcy reform. In the 105th Congress, the conference passed the House, but time expired before the Senate voted on final passage. In the 106th Congress, a conference report received overwhelming bipartisan support in both Chambers. However, President Clinton chose to pocket veto the bill. In the 107th Congress, and again earlier this last year, we came extremely close again to the final passage of a conference report; but in the end, it was not accomplished. Today, due to the outstanding work and leadership of our Committee on the Judiciary chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), we have the historic opportunity to make modern bankruptcy reform a reality. As we debate and vote today, we should keep in mind the two important tenets fulfilled by this version of bankruptcy reform. First, the bankruptcy system should provide the amount of debt relief that an individual needs, no more and no less; and that bankruptcy should be a last resort and not a convenient response to a financial crisis. One important part of this legislation that I would like to highlight is also known as the ``homestead provision.'' Protection of one's homestead is something that is very important to me and many people in Texas and other States across this great Nation. The homestead provision in this legislation maintains the long-held standard that allows States to decide if a homestead should be protected, yet prohibits those who would purchase a home before filing a bankruptcy as a means to evade creditors. By tightening our current laws and making it more difficult to escape fraud by declaring bankruptcy, we are expressing no tolerance for those who would game the system to make up for their own wrongdoing. Modern bankruptcy reform has taken a long and somewhat arduous journey, which makes the much-anticipated result of our work today even more rewarding. It has required not only hard work but also some difficult decisions on the part of this Congress. The result is what I believe to be a carefully balanced package that protects women, children, family farmers, low-income individuals, and provides access to bankruptcy for all Americans who have a legitimate need. I believe that today's vote will finally make modern bankruptcy reform a reality. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote with me in supporting this rule and the important underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the anniversary of the founding of the Dallas Cowboys. On this day in 1960, Clint Murchison, Jr., and Bedford Wynne were awarded an expansion franchise by the NFL at the league's annual owners meeting in Miami Beach. The Dallas Cowboys have been a pillar of strength in the NFL since their founding 44 years ago. Legendary Coach Tom Landry guided America's Team to five NFC championship titles and two Super Bowl victories. Jimmy Johnson then returned the team to glory with back-to- back Super Bowl championships in 1993 and 1994. Barry Switzer then capped off the Cowboy's claim to the title of ``Team of the Nineties'' with their win in Super Bowl XXX. The Cowboys also lead the league in producing seven Super Bowl Most Valuable Players and hold the record for playoff victories with 32 wins in the postseason. During this past season, the Cowboys recorded their 400th career franchise victory, including regular season and playoffs, in the Monday night overtime thriller against the New York Giants. I congratulate Owner and General Manager Jerry Jones, Head Coach Bill Parcells, current and former Cowboys players, and the team's loyal fan base in Texas and across the country on the occasion of this great anniversary. With the arrival of Coach Parcells this season, the Cowboys were able to make an unexpected bid into the playoffs, a tremendous improvement for the team. I wish Mr. Jones, Coach Parcells and all of the Cowboys players all the best for continued improvement for next season and congratulate them on this anniversary.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this competition angle is an important part of what this Medicare bill will be. You see, we Members of Congress that occasionally go home who are aware of the things that happen at home in the real marketplace, some of those things that are very exciting in the world of competition are happening in health care. They are happening all across this country. Sometimes when you go home and you open up a newspaper, or you watch on TV and they talk about LASIK eye surgery. LASIK eye surgery used to be $1,200 an eye. Due to competition, due to machines, due to procedures now becoming available, they are $299 an eye. That means that as a result of competition, as a result of physicians, medical doctors, learning how to do these procedures, we have sent these teachers all across the country, and they have perfected this technique. That is an example of where competition does work. Over 1 year these surgeries have gone from over $1,200 to $299 an eye. We think competition will be a huge part of the success of this Medicare bill. But let us go back to the process. The process is that this has been debated not only in the public and in newspapers and TV and on this House floor since January, or before, when many of our colleagues on the other side were saying, where is that prescription drug bill? Where is that prescription drug bill? Mr. Speaker, we now have it on the floor of the House of Representatives. It will be in the Committee on Rules today and on this floor very quickly. It will be something that has, by popular demand, been asked for, and it comes as a result of these two bodies, the House and the Senate, working through very difficult negotiations. It is a process that has been followed, it is a process that works, it is a process that I think has allowed people for a long time to know the answer as to what is in this bill, so much so that the Democrat leadership has already blasted the AARP a week ago for supporting the bill because they knew what was in the bill. So I think it is a misnomer to think that we just do not know or do not understand. People who wish to know, people who wish to be a part of this bill could gain the information. I am proud of what we are doing today. The gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) will open up the Committee on Rules in about 20 minutes, and the debate there will start. But, let us not forget, this is not about amending a bill. This is a conference report. This is not like one Member in this body can change one word that is in this document, because that is not our process or procedure. It will be an up-or-down vote. It will be based upon what a Member thinks is the right thing to do. I trust their judgment. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there was a statement that was made that I think we just need to set the record straight on, and that is that this bill does not talk about reimportation from Canada, where Congress makes a decision on that issue. We allow the FDA to make that decision. It is not the Congress that makes that decision. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Committee on Rules begins testimony in 2 minutes. We came down to the floor this morning to make sure that we were going to have the ability to have a same-day rule. I am satisfied that we have broken into a lot of other things to talk about this morning. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I thank the time that the Speaker has given us this morning to debate this rule. I believe it is a fair rule. I have not heard much debate about it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for yielding me this time. There is a lot of talk today about what is occurring with procedures and whether it is right or wrong, but I want to stand up today and talk about the bill. I want to talk about the bill and the things that it does for not only families like mine, but also for millions of other families across this great Nation. What this bill does is it modernizes Medicare and so much more because it then gets into health care for families. It talks about the opportunity for families to be able to save money on a pretax and tax-free basis. Why is that important to my family? That is important to me because I have got a beautiful wife of 19 years, I have got a son who is 14 years old, who plays football and wrestles, and he sometimes gets hurt, and I have a 9-year-old Down's syndrome son who spends an extensive amount of time needing help with physicians and health care professionals. Not always do we get an answer back from the insurance company that they want to cover the needs of my family. Sometimes the needs of my family go well beyond those needs of what insurance pays for. But my family, like millions of other families, will now be helped because of the extreme generosity of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) who have written a bill that will allow families to save up to $5,000 a year. Even if it is just $2,000 a year, if that is what we have got left over, then we can put that money in there, and it means that this money can grow, tax free, and then be used, tax free, on health care. It means that my family and myself will now be able to supplement those things that may not be covered under our health care. It means that we will be able to be decision-makers to get the right things if we need something that goes beyond what insurance pays for. I cannot tell the Members how important that is because there are millions of other families that are less fortunate than mine who many times go without the ability to have the services that are necessary for their children. This is a way that people can help. They can help their children. They can help their families. They can make sure that they supplement those things that insurance provides, and that is good. We have heard today that all this is about is about rich people or about rich organizations. Let me tell my colleagues, when you have someone who is sick or hurt in your family and you find out that insurance does not cover everything you need, and then you look at the tab that is out there, you will look and say, thank goodness for what Republicans have done. I am proud of what this bill does. It modernizes health care today the way it ought to be, where we can participate, where we can do the right things. So I am proud of what the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) is standing up for today, to stand for this House to confirm this rule, to make sure that this Republican body can deliver to Americans and their families and senior citizens not only the health care that they need, but as a result of listening to what people need, we will deliver prescription drugs and those things that America has been asking for. And then we will have a President who will sign this bill and do the right thing. And in the scheme of things, us doing the right things to help people today and to make sure families can be prepared for tomorrow is part of the oath and obligation that I took when I said I will support and defend this Constitution and make sure that the people I represent get the best from what we can come up with. Mr. Speaker, I support this rule. I support this bill. I encourage every single Member to think about what this is about. It is not about politics. It is not about ourselves. It is about our families, our children, and our future.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the great chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), and also the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for working with me on an important aspect of this Fair Credit Reporting Act. I learned, Mr. Speaker, from one of my constituents, Bill Asher back in Dallas, Texas, during a town hall meeting about how the Federal Trade Commission had applied privacy rules to workplace misconduct which meant that in a workplace misconduct circumstance, a person who violated another person or who broke the law would actually have to be given information about any investigation that might take place against that individual under privacy rules and regulations passed by and supported by the Federal Trade Commission. This Federal Trade Commission now will be reversed; their ruling will be reversed by this Fair Credit Reporting Act to make sure that misconduct in a workplace, privacy rules do not apply. I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for his work on this, to ensure this became law, and also our great chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), and our great chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).