Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Congressman Larry Combest for his service to this chamber and to the people of Texas. The 19th Congressional District of Texas has been diligently represented by Congressman Combest for over eighteen years since his initial election to Congress in 1984. Larry's greatest accomplishments came during his reign as Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee. Under the leadership of Chairman Combest, the Agriculture Committee completed years of work in passing the Farm Bill that President George W. Bush signed into law last year. Prior to being elected to the House of Representatives, Larry was no stranger to Capitol Hill. He served as a legislative assistant to Senator John Tower of Texas from 1971 to 1978. I've had the privilege of working alongside Larry since I came to this body in 1997. I have come to know Larry to be not only a hard- working colleague, but also a wonderful friend, He and his lovely wife Sharon will be greatly missed around these halls. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the very capable and intelligent staff of Congressman Combest. Among the staff, Congressman Combest's Senior Legislative Assistant, Taylor Bledsoe, will also shortly be leaving the Hill. Taylor has been a great asset to Congressman Combest, and is a good friend. I wish Taylor and his wife Jen all the best for their move back to the Lone Star State. Larry leaves behind Texas-sized shoes for his successor to fill. I wish Larry and his family well. Thank you Larry for your service to Texas and to the nation.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to congratulate Taiwan President Chen on his third anniversary in office. Taiwan and the United States have enjoyed a close relationship with each other for more than 50 years, both economically and politically. I hope that in the very near future we will increase trade opportunities with Taiwan by launching trade negotiations on a free trade agreement with Taiwan. America must let all countries know that we firmly stand behind the Taiwan Relations Act and that we believe that a peaceful solution is the only answer to the so-called Taiwan issue. I also strongly support Taiwan's democratization at home and its campaign to join international organizations abroad. Taiwan is a strong ally of ours which stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States after 9/11. To Taiwan and President Chen I say, America appreciates your friendship and partnership.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern about the outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in Taiwan. Despite the World Health Organization's categorization of the disease as ``a worldwide health threat,'' it has refused to help Taiwan during this time of need. What the WHO has failed to realize is that ``worldwide health threats'' do not remain neatly behind political borders. Taiwan may not yet be a member of the WHO or a recognized independent state by some countries, but that does not make SARS any less of a threat to the Taiwanese people. This crisis underlines the need for Taiwan to be granted observer status in the WHO, much like their status in the World Trade Organization. Global health risks must be addressed wherever they may occur and regardless of the political environments surrounding them. We should not expose the Taiwanese people to unnecessary health risks simply because their status in some intergovernmental organizations is uncertain. I urge my colleagues to remain outspoken in their support of Taiwan's bid to gain observer status in the WHO so that dangerous diseases like SARS may be battled wherever they occur.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire upon the time remaining for both sides.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 206 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to let the gentleman know that I would be pleased to have them consume several speakers so that we can get more closely aligned on the time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank several people who have been a part of our success today, not just the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and the gentleman from Delaware (Chairman Castle), but also from the Committee on Education and Workforce, David Cleary and Sally Lovejoy; from the staff of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), Sarah Rittling; from the Committee on Rules, Adam Jarvis and Eileen Harley; and from my staff, Bobby Hillert and Tucker Anderson. Mr. Speaker, this is about a decision that this House is going to make to debate today, IDEA. That is what the vote on the rule is about, are we going to proceed with regular order? I am in favor of what we are doing. I believe that the clay that we have put in front of us today will be a better model. We will rebuild IDEA and we will make it better than what it is today. As the parent of a child who will fall under IDEA, I can tell you obviously there are risks involved any time you get into a new circumstance. I am convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that the opportunity that this great body has to make IDEA better for every single student, for the teachers and the administrators who will work underneath these new processes and the students who come into contact with our children, will find that this will be a better way. We have learned from the last 7 years. We will learn on a going-forward basis. It is the right thing to do. Mr. Speaker, I ask every single one of my colleagues, please support the rule. Let us debate IDEA, and let us get it passed today. 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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and with great respect to the gentleman from Massachusetts, I would tell him that I too have received a good number of letters which involve feedback from parents who are concerned about changes in the law; they are concerned about what any IDEA reauthorization would look like. As a parent of a son, a person who has Downs Syndrome and is affected with the afflictions that come with that syndrome, I can tell my colleagues that I too am concerned about these things and approached this entire effort with an open mind, instead of saying I do not want any changes. I said, what are the things that we have learned from time; what are the things that we think we can do to get closer to not only better inclusion but to have better results from our children who fall within the IDEA guidelines? Mr. Speaker, my son, who is 9 years old, and who is in first grade, is making progress. And I see where these things occur. But this committee and this subcommittee, under the leadership of the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), have done things to go in and instead of keeping the status quo, they have gone in and made things dynamic. We are going to be more inclusive, we are going to provide more money, we are going to do those things that will enhance the relationship that a parent has in an IEP, which are these individual times processes that one goes through where they sit down and look at their child and try to map out and plan out a way for them to fully meet their needs and also those educational opportunities that are ahead of them. After looking at the entire package, not just a piece or a part, I am satisfied; and I believe that what has occurred here is a better bill. Is it perfect? Probably not. But under the current law, there are still parents and still students that suffer needlessly as a result of either people not understanding the law or people not complying completely. That will always be a part of the process. But the advantages of this new bill come about as a result of the intuitive nature of this committee and subcommittee, who wanted to enhance and learn from the past and make it better. So as a parent of a child who is affected by what this legislation will do, and as an advocate on behalf of this community, I am asking those people who have written in, those people who have called, and I have talked to a good number of them, to allow us an opportunity to speak fully about the entire bill, to put it into context; and I believe that by the end of today, as the smoke has cleared, as we have talked about it, the advantages will be very apparent for not only the parents but also the students that are impacted. It is ultimately the parents who are put out on the front line in trying to negotiate. Parents are scared and they are worried about this; but if we walk through the things that this bill will do, including providing more funding and more flexibility, they will see where the advantages will be true for each one of them and their children. So I would politely address the concerns that the gentleman from Massachusetts has, because it is a real question that does exist in real parents' minds; and I respect the gentleman for his discussion. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wilmington, Delaware (Mr. Castle), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) and the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) were at the Committee on Rules last night and spoke eloquently about their desire to ensure the funding levels. There are several issues there, but one of the most important ones was requiring that additional increases in funding above fiscal year 2003 levels be passed down directly to the local level. There was a very important discussion in the Committee on Rules about Governors and the responsibility they would have as they managed their State budgets. I would like to make sure that the Members of Congress understand this will be part of the debate that takes place today. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman 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 purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules met yesterday afternoon and granted a structured rule for H.R. 1350, Improving Education Results for Children With Disabilities Act of 2003. This rule makes a total of 14 amendments in order, including 3 minority and 1 bipartisan amendment. I am very proud of not only the Committee on Rules, but also the Committee on Education and the Workforce for preserving the greatest hallmarks for democracy while setting the stage for today's votes on H.R. 1350. I believe inclusion, deliberation and full participation was achieved in making sure that this important Act is brought forward. Mr. Speaker, since I want original enactment in 1975, the purpose of IDEA has been to ensure free appropriate education is achieved nationwide for disabled students. When IDEA was first enacted, this was the goal. Today we are here to improve upon the things that we learned since the last IDEA reauthorization in 1997. As you know, Mr. Speaker, as through IDEA, the Federal Government is, in fact, authorized to cover 40 percent of the costs that schools nationwide spend to educate special needs students. However, the Federal Government today picks up only about 18 percent of the total cost of educating our special needs students and we must do better than that. The good news this year, Mr. Speaker, is that the budget agreement reached by the House and the Senate this month includes an increase of $2.2 billion for special education in 2004. This unprecedented funding to increase for special education programs means that the Federal share of the special education will be brought up to 21 percent this year. The good work for the Committee on the Budget this year also establishes a clear pattern to reach our State goal of funding fully 40 percent of the total cost of the special needs education within the next 7 years. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the fact that from fiscal year 1996 to fiscal year 2003, overall IDEA funding has increased by nearly 21 percent, from $3.2 billion to $10 billion annually. In fact, the 2003 funding level is more than a 15 percent increase over the 2002 funding level. This is a positive trend and proves that we are serious about attaining our goals and meeting our commitment to special education needs. But there is so much more that this bill does, more than just increasing funding. And I would like to provide some of the major provisions of H.R. 13 where Members of Congress will be able to see that this committee and the committee work that was done not only by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) but also the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) really has made a difference in the life and ongoing life of IDEA. The underlying bill ensures that State will align their accountability systems for students with disabilities to the No Child Left Behind Act system and requires each child's Individual Education Plan, known as an IEP, to specifically address that child's academic achievement. H.R. 1350 makes significant changes to the Department of Education's activities on research of special education, establishes a center for special education research within the Institute of Education Science and authorizes the creation of a commissioner for special education research to oversee the Institute's research into special education and related services. It incorporates elements of the gentleman from Florida's (Mr. Keller) Paperwork Reduction Bill, H.R. 464, including the 3-year individualized education plan known as IEP; it creates a 10-State pilot program that allows State to reduce the IEP paperwork burden on teachers in order to increase instructional time and resources and improves results for disabled students. For these and so many other reasons, Mr. Speaker, I have ask that you and each of my 434 other colleagues join me in supporting the dream of the greatest realization of our beloved, compassionate and democratic Nation. The realization that we have inherent worth and that here in America we will provide opportunity, love and compassion for every single one of our children. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Speaker's help. Regular order, please. So, Mr. Speaker, what happens is that anyone who chooses to mislead those people that are in this body today, that they would not be held liable, is simply not true. That is not what this bill is about. The bill that we know and the underlying legislation makes perfect sense, and that is why we are here. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the original author of this bill. I, as an original cosponsor, am pleased to have him. (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I will close after this speaker. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I have one additional speaker. Mr. Speaker, what is the time remaining?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes some points. They are that he felt that these amendments were denied through the process. But the way we operate here is that the Committee on Rules operates in the daylight. We come and tell people when they may file amendments. Either those amendments may or may not have ever seen the light of day in another committee. This Speaker and this Committee on Rules chairman want to make sure that we are open for business, that we tell people when we will be there; that we have, in my opinion, an appropriate number of people who sit through the hearings, as I have done, as I did in this case again; and responsible people listen to the arguments and the debates about the merits of those things which they wish to have placed in order. We then hear the deliberation, we hear the debate, and then we go back and make a decision about it. Then there is a vote. The votes are in the open where everybody can see them happen. Mr. Speaker, my chairman allows many times more debate than what I probably would think would be reasonable, but he does it. It is a fair and open process. We know what this bill is about. We know where there is disagreement. We know why we are doing this. It is the right thing to do. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 181 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, I am exceedingly pleased today that we will consider legislation protecting interstate commerce in firearms and ammunition under the direction of a structured rule that allows for a total of five minority party amendments to be made in order. Today, Mr. Speaker, I call up H. Res. 181 to do my part to ensure that businesses in the United States that are engaged in interstate and foreign commerce through the lawful design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, importation, and sale to the public of firearms or ammunition are not and should not be negligent through lawsuit for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products or ammunition products that function as they are designed and intended. The people who choose to bring these lawsuits want to hold manufacturers negligent for the criminal abuse of their products, but it is like suing the Louisville Slugger for harm caused by criminals using one of their famous products to unlawfully threaten or harm a third party and not for hitting baseballs, for which that product was intended. It is my intention today to provide Members with information about this fair and balanced rule and also the underlying legislation that will be on the floor today. This underlying bill must be passed today if we are to beat back the forces who believe that responsible gun ownership is an oxymoron and those who are bent on destroying a citizen's right to firearms for lawful purposes. Lawsuits have been filed nationwide and are pending in our courts today that seek to hold these businesses responsible on a negligence theory for the harm caused by criminals or unlawful use of firearms or ammunition by others, when the product functioned and was designed and was intended to perform and it did, once again, a dangerous and slippery proposition which the underlying bill will prevent. Guns can be dangerous and deadly when criminals and others who unlawfully use them do so. But then again, so can automobiles, especially when they are used illegally, which I will never condone, and which the underlying bill does not condone or seek to excuse from negligent causes of action. In fact, under the provisions underlined in this bill, H.R. 1036, plaintiffs may still bring negligence causes of action for harm caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of guns or ammunition. The forces arrayed against this bill today believe that guns have no constructive purpose in American society and believe that all firearms are so inherently dangerous that no level of responsible caution and education could ever render them useful or enjoyable to a law-abiding citizen. It is on this most tenuous, dangerous, and shaky logic that the gun haters have mounted their present flank maneuvering on the second amendment in both our State and Federal courts through these negligence lawsuits. These hostile forces to the second amendment can only be repelled when every single American who believes in the right to keep and bear arms shall be firmly entrenched by passage of this underlying legislation. I believe today that the House of Representatives is rightly and correctly again invoking its right to regulate interstate commerce in the name of protecting our citizens' constitutional rights, in this case, the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Without it, the myriad lawsuits nationwide advancing a negligence theory for the harm caused by the criminal or unlawful use of firearms or ammunition by others, when the product is functioning as it was designed and intended to do, will form a very real threat, completely halting the movement of these lawful products in interstate commerce. In fact, this is the very intent, what this bill is all about. It is to stop the chilling effect that would stop the design, production, trade and ownership of legal firearms and ammunition in the United States by lawsuits. Mr. Speaker, I want to wrap up what I have said today by stating that the interstate commerce clause thankfully gives us the power and the right to be here in the House today to protect the Second Amendment from these dangerous attempts by others who would twist the common law to meet their goal of eroding its protections by flanking maneuvers in State and Federal courts. I am proud of this legislation that we are on the floor to pass today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is the very end of the debate about a very, very important commonsense piece of legislation. The amendments that were before the Committee on Rules would have done a lot of things. I disagree with us having the Federal Government print a list of all the people who have a gun in this country. I think that is dangerous. I think that is dangerous precedent for us as consumers to think that we would purchase a product and then someone would print our name about a product that we buy. But that is what we were asked to do yesterday, and we denied them. We did allow the minority the chance to have its debate on five amendments. That is what is going to take place today. This legislation is common sense. The process has been open and fair. The Committee on Rules was available yesterday. The Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman, intentionally went out of their way to make sure that we would have a vigorous debate today because we think the light of day is the best disinfectant there is to fairness. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the original sponsor of this bill, the author of this bill, showed up on the floor and offered a hardy debate. We have had others that have done the same. So I think America is free. I think we are using this body for what it was intended, as a sharing of issues and ideas. And most of all I would like to applaud the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who is the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. The gentleman has been to the Committee on Rules, placed himself available before each and every Member to answer questions. I think that the commonsense legislation that he brings forward at this time with respect to what we are going to do on floor debate is important and good. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that Members would support this bill, this rule, and of course, all the underlying legislation.

Mr. SESSIONS. 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. Speaker, the gentleman was allowed his opportunity to speak, and I am sure that the minority has lots of time left.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The previous speaker just hijacked the intent of this law, and he misled people who are listening in this body today. The fact of the matter is that any gun manufacturer who is negligent for their product by what they produce would be held responsible under this bill, and for any person to assume otherwise means they have not read the bill. They would be incapable of understanding, and they choose not to, they choose not to.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we are continuing the debate today on the floor after we had an opportunity yesterday in the Committee on Rules to talk about this, and the bill is pretty straightforward. It says that a manufacturer of a gun, ammunition or other product that might be used, with the gun working as it was intended, we would hold them harmless; but if a person was illegally or unlawfully using these guns or obtaining these guns under some measure, that they would be held responsible. The interesting part about this, and there are so many analogies that could be used, but it would be like an automobile, which kills millions of Americans every year. It would be like an automobile that was properly designed, properly structured, properly placed upon the roadway, and there is not one parent or one person that I know of that has years of experience in using an automobile that would not say to an occupant or to someone who was going to use their car that this could be a dangerous product. But if we use it properly, then we have no worry about it. But if the manufacturer of that product, the car, manufactured it, designed it or did something that they know they should not have done, and it has happened in the automobile industry, it has happened with side fuel tanks, it has happened with any other number of defective parts of that product, then they would be held liable. Such is true today also if gun manufacturers do something that is inherently wrong with their product. But what this bill says is, once that gun or ammunition, just like a car is designed properly, is sold legally and properly under the laws of this country, and if it is utilized properly, that they could not be held liable. Such is true with guns. The bottom line is that what is true is that the Democrat Party chooses to take this up as an issue because they are antigun. That is what this is about. We see these forces every day. We see them on the street. We see them with the things that they do. This is another way to get in the way of the second amendment of the Constitution of the United States. So the reasonable legislation that we propose today is one that says that if someone has a legally manufactured product that they obtained legally, and it is used properly within the laws of this country, that a gun manufacturer will be held harmless. It is as simple as it is. I think it makes sense. We support what we are doing here with this underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules took a lot of time yesterday. We heard a lot of testimony. The gentleman is correct, he did come and approach the Committee on Rules, as well as other Members of this great body. I think the Committee on Rules, through the leadership of the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), heard the testimony and, in fact, Mr. Speaker, made in order several amendments, five, and two from the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt). That gives him the ability today to have two amendments for a total of 40 minutes. Three others are allowed for a total of 60 minutes, 20 minutes each. I think that is pretty good. I think that does allow debate on the floor of this House, more than almost 2 hours of debate, to talk about these issues. Best of all, they are going to get their own vote. They are going to get their vote that they asked for up on the board, and every single Member will be here, so they have a chance to tell their story. I think that this process, while it may not always work the way every single Member wants, the Committee on Rules did the right thing. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) from the Committee on Rules.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.