Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the living legend of Emmitt Smith, the NFL's all-time leading rusher. I was among the legions of Dallas Cowboys fans who were saddened to see Emmitt leave the Cowboys after thirteen seasons with America's Team. I would like to take this opportunity to honor this future Hall-of-Famer for both his professional success and for his tireless community service efforts. Emmitt served as the Cowboy's representative to the United Way from 1994-1995 and is the founder of Emmitt Smith Charities, providing educational scholarships to his hometown of Pensacola, Florida, While Emmitt is only 5'10'' tall, his giving heart is the size of Texas. I was only too happy to be able to watch Emmitt rush for his NFL record of 17,162 yards. When Emmitt was drafted by the Cowboys in the first round of the 1990 NFL Draft, he had left the University of Florida as a junior without his college degree, Today, many pro athletes leave college early without a degree, or don't even go to college and leave high school straight for professional sports. To his credit, Emmitt went back to the University of Florida and received his Bachelor's degree in 1996. I will miss not being able to see #22 suit up for the silver and blue. However, I wish Emmitt Smith all the best, and sincerely thank him for all that he has done on the field, and off the field for the greater Dallas community.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules has been the subject of debate today; and the Committee on Rules met last night to talk about this bankruptcy bill, presented a fair, as they always do, rule to be able to discuss and debate this important issue. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this has been a vigorous debate. We go through this often. There are some nice things I would like to say about two nice gentlemen also. One of them is the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), and the other is the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner). These gentleman have ably, carefully taken in the views of witnesses, of thoughts and ideas not only about bankruptcy, but have included in that the thought processes of consumers and normal people and bankruptcy judges. These two gentlemen have worked diligently to make sure that this body, the United States Congress, has a chance to have before it not only good legislation, but legislation that is well thought out. In particular I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for his patience, guidance and leadership to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House, and also the body of the Committee on Rules, because the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) has done an outstanding job in making sure that today we have a great piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 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. The gentleman and I have spoken about this often, as a matter of fact, including in the Committee on the Judiciary. We will still hold on this side of the aisle that if you want to aim at millionaires, then make it to a millionaire level instead of to a middle-class issue, and that is $125,000. I do not get it, and I do not think they do, either. But the American public that loses their home does understand it. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about bankruptcy today again. We have done this four times. This rule will pass because it is a fair rule. The underlying legislation will pass overwhelmingly because it is great legislation that the American people not only asked for but want. It will help streamline and make better the bankruptcy procedures that are necessary as our courts deal with them, and as people who have gotten into financial trouble deal with the old legislation and find out what a problem it is. I am proud to be here today to talk about good legislation that is good for the American public, it is good for consumers, and I am very proud of what we are doing. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Massachusetts has been a very active player in this process for a very long time, and he speaks very forcefully about all these rich people who utilize the schemes within the bankruptcy law, but then the gentleman failed his own test when he spoke about millionaires because he moved the test down to a household of $125,000, not a house that a millionaire or some rich corporate executive that the gentleman speaks about would want to protect, but where the average American lives, where the average American who would have a chance to lose their own house in the event of bankruptcy, and that is the sad part about this, is that this clamoring, this beating of the drum about corporate executives and corporations and how bad they are for America and all these rich fat cats, and then the other party takes it out on the average person, and they want more. They want to make sure that literally any person who would have a bankruptcy could lose their house. The Republican Party disagrees; I disagree. I think that people who are Americans who get up and go to work and are hard working would find this really despicable, to take a person's home because they got into trouble. But now we say oh, no, down to $125,000, not the millionaire. So once again we learn the Democratic Party philosophy, and that is anybody who has a job or house is not protected. Oh, up to $125,000 is. I wonder who has those kinds of houses? The answer is millions of Americans, and that is what the other side of the aisle is out after on the floor of the House of Representative again today if one engages in bankruptcy. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, congratulations to the 2002 Calvert High School Trojan six-man football team upon winning Calvert's first Texas State football title in school history! Team members Herbert Kinney, Darius Smith, Chris Ford, Greg Ford, Sammy Wells, Deuantay Green, Torre Grimes, Joske Bowen, Tijon Green, Brandon Stewart, Brian Ford, Randall Green, Jay Green, Lionel Melton, James Ashley, Tranquille Kinney, Corey Gibson, Mario Smith, and Dekesselar Ford provided a natural well spring of notable Calvert championship athletic talent, the likes of which has not been seen since National Baseball Hall of Fame inductees and half-brothers Rube and Bill Foster. Head Coach and Trojan alumnus Coylin Grimes provided the unflappable leadership and football know-how necessary to mold this outstanding group of players into an unstoppable force and an unbeaten team (14-0). Upon realizing his team's championship ambitions last December way out in San Angelo, Coach Grimes remarked, ``This feels great. The kids deserved it; the city of Calvert deserved it. It's just a great time to be a Calvert Trojan fan.'' You did it, Coach, and we're all proud of you and your work in guiding this outstanding group of young and talented athletes towards achieving their highest goals for the 2002 football season. The lessons of determination, concentration, and dedication, along with the rewards attending these lessons will not be forgotten, and will be shared by every Trojan athlete and scholar for all time. We also congratulate assistant coach Randy Boley, team managers Kiemon Council, Kasey Burnett, and Javion Council, whose dedication to the success of the 2002 Trojan six-man football team should also be honored. The Trojans scored all 51 of their points in the final half of 2002 championship play, stunning the Sanderson Eagles who went into the locker room at the half up 32-0. The 4,000 football fans on hand at San Angelo's Bobcat Stadium were treated to a 50-yard score on the Trojan's final possession of the game by playmaker Darius Smith. Darius, who finished the game with 206 yards rushing, 88 yards receiving, and five touchdowns, caught a short pass on a flare route, broke two tackles, and took the ball over the goal line with less than a minute remaining in regulation to bring the Championship home to Calvert, 51-46. Congratulations to the Calvert High School football team and to their fans, friends and families in Calvert, Texas and throughout the country!

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Congress clarified that all injuries allegedly related to an ingredient in a vaccine should be heard under the quick and inexpensive, no fault Vaccine Injury Compensation Program established in 1986. Though this was a simple clarification of existing law, some people cried foul. They claimed these provisions were inserted into the bill as a favor to pharmaceutical companies and that they would somehow take away the rights of unfortunate people who have experienced an injury. In fact, it did no such thing. The vaccine ingredient provisions in the Homeland Security Act reaffirmed Congressional intent of the Vaccine Program's jurisdiction over all claims of vaccine related injuries, and that preservatives contained in vaccines were not subject to some special exception to the program. It did not change the state of the law, but ensured that those experiencing injuries from vaccine ingredients were not given false hope or having their time wasted having their lawsuit dismissed by the court for not going through the Vaccine Program. The controversy surrounding these provisions is over the process by which they were adopted, not the language itself Their repeal would not change the law in any way; as courts have correctly decided, injuries allegedly resulting from ingredients in vaccines fall under the Vaccine Program. Furthermore, the lack of these provisions may add uncertainty in the vaccine market and higher insurance rates for vaccine manufacturers something that our nation attempted to avoid in 1986 and may be even more important in today's environment. Nevertheless, repealing the provisions will remove the cloud cast over their benefit. If this language is repealed, Congress should reintroduce the provisions in another separate measure so that we may have more debate on the actual language and the public can be assured of the need for this clarification of the law.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate and waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. As we begin the 108th Congress I would like to point out that we intend to continue the courtesy that we began when the Republicans became the majority. This rule allows us to continue in the tradition of extending the minority party an opportunity to offer a motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today allows us to debate and consider a most important measure, S-23, which provides for a 5-month extension of the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002. Last Congress we passed the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002, which became Public Law 107-147. This economic stimulus bill includes a temporary extension of unemployment compensation and provides for the temporary extended unemployment compensation program. This program provided up to 13 additional weeks of federally funded benefits for unemployed workers in all States. Benefits were payable to qualified workers through December 28, 2002. Though several attempts were made, and language extending this program was passed by the House, the 107th Congress unfortunately adjourned without having passed an extension. Today, we have the opportunity to consider legislation that would immediately provide for a 5-month extension of unemployed benefits, through May 2003, with a 3-month phaseout. This also allows for newly eligible workers by the end of May 2003 to receive extended unemployment benefits through August of this year. Mr. Speaker, 1.9 million new recipients would be aided by this extension, as well as nearly 800,000 continuing recipients who have been affected by the December 28 ``cliff.'' This comes to a total of 2.7 million workers and their families who would benefit from the legislation that will hopefully pass today. This measure is similar to the language that was championed by Senators Clinton and Nickles at the end of the last Congress. Yesterday, the Senate passed this legislation by unanimous consent. Today, the House has the opportunity to pass and to send this measure to President Bush for his signature. By moving expeditiously, we could ensure that unemployed workers do not suffer from a significant delay in the receipt of their checks. I hope that we can mirror the Senate's actions on this bill with a strong, bipartisan vote. I believe that it would be a strong indication of this new Congress's commitment to American workers and their families. Furthermore, extending unemployment benefits and providing unemployed workers with additional purchasing power would be yet another way to help stimulate the economy which, in turn, would help us to keep unemployment down. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentlewoman from New York, I would like to offer a brief explanation of the second part of this resolution. Section 2 of this resolution provides that allocations referred to in section 3(a) of House Resolution 5 may be submitted by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle). This is merely a technical clarification of the rules package we adopted yesterday, which contained a provision to allow the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to have printed in the Congressional Record 302(a) allocations. This is necessary so that the House might complete its obligation to fund this through the current year FY 03 fiscal year. As everyone knows, the Committee on Rules is currently the only committee up and running, so my good friend, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), has technically not been appointed the chairman of the Committee on the Budget yet. This provision merely lets him carry out his duties as if he already were the committee chairman. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and the underlying legislation. 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 14 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker for allowing the gentlewoman to insert that into the Record. So now we are at the point where we have completed part of the process where we are going to vote on the rule, and in a few minutes, I assume after a vote on that, then we will have a debate where we will talk about the substance further of the bill. This has allowed both parties the time to place forward their ideas, and for anyone to think that we have not allowed free time or gagged someone to tell them what they can or cannot discuss is simply ludicrous. That is why we allow the time on the floor. I am proud of what the Committee on Rules has done. I am proud of the debate that we have had today, and I look forward to the President of the United States having an opportunity, perhaps as early as this afternoon or tomorrow, to sign this bill to get these benefits to the people that need it the most. I am proud of what we are doing. Mr. Speaker, once again, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and the underlying legislation which is so critical.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yielded to the gentlewoman for the purpose of allowing something to be placed into the Record. It is my time and I wish to gain that time back.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, it is my time and I do not choose to yield at this time. I am offering to close as is provided for by the rules, and I will allow the gentlewoman to insert something into the Record if that is a request.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. Today, we have had a fabulous debate, an opportunity to have people from both parties, both sides of the aisle to be able to talk about this bill that is before us, S. 23. It is a Senate bill. It is an agreement that was reached in the other body just last night. Last night, this body, through the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) had the Committee on Rules come into order. We had a hearing last night. We talked about this important issue. We deliberated. We heard from both sides. We followed the process. That process that the Committee on Rules went through is one that this body has gone through for many years, and we came up with a product. The product that we chose was exactly the same bill that the Senate had approved last year but made better, and was done all last night.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I have no further speakers. I would like to inquire from the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) as to how many speakers and the time remaining on both sides.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, speech after speech we hear about how we have been delayed in this process. I agree. Part of the process is, however, that the two bodies, the House and the Senate, have a process. What we are doing today is taking a Senate bill that is even more generous than the one which the Senate passed last year. We are accepting this because we believe it is the right thing to do. Our President, George W. Bush, spoke very clearly and very passionately about his belief that when the House of Representatives and the Senate would come back, this was several weeks ago when he spoke, that he was asking us to make sure that we held the necessary meetings and committee mark-ups to make sure that this bill did come to the floor. That is what we are doing today. I am proud of what we are doing. I offer no apologies for what our party stands for. We are here on the floor of the House of Representatives as a majority party with a great bill. It happens to be a better bill now than what was marked up last year and passed by the United States Senate. But it is one that we agree on, and it is one that we should be proud of. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to work on today is a bill that was passed by the Senate last night. Last year, this House passed a bill very similar to this. We tried to do the very best we could. The process is that two bodies of Congress, the House and Senate, have to get together. That is what is happening today. Yesterday, the Senate acted, or last night. Immediately last night the Committee on Rules had a meeting. We had a hearing where we talked directly about this bill. Today it is on the floor. I think we are doing the timely things. I think we are doing the right things. I do not think we are delaying this in any manner. It is process, and it is a process that we intend to follow. I am proud that we had this on the floor today, and I am also proud that by presenting this rule and by having this debate perhaps as early as tonight or tomorrow the President of the United States, George W. Bush, will have the chance to sign this bill. That is what this is about. I am proud that we are able to do that today. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the gentleman who is to be chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, last night the Committee on Rules had an opportunity to hold a hearing on this unemployment compensation bill. However, for months our chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), has been involved in the negotiations as a member of the leadership of the House and is a person who has taken a lead on this important issue. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, President Bush this week announced plans to make sure that in the tax proposals that this Congress will address that as part of that tax package we will not tax dividends, and I want to stand up and say how proud I am of what the President is doing because it is furthering the commitment that I believe this House of Representatives should have as well as the President to where we do not tax savings or investment in America. I believe as the vigorous debate takes place across this country and in this body we will find out that this will be good for people who will be able to save money, save money, and not have it taxed in between that period of time every year for tax purposes but will see their savings grow. I am proud of what this President is doing. I plan to support not only his tax bill but the things the President does, and I offer a hearty congratulations to the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose 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 purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, the resolution is the standard rule for consideration of conference reports and waives all points of order against consideration of the conference report. Mr. Speaker, on September 11, 2001, the collective memories of Americans were altered forever. The terrorist attacks resulted in an incalculable loss, both in loss of life and the destruction of buildings and businesses. While America has begun its recovery and is healing from last September, we must be mindful of the threat that continues to exist. Just yesterday, our intelligence officials indicated that terrorist groups may be planning a new wave of attacks against our homeland. Exposure to terrorism is not only a threat to our national security but is also a threat to the U.S. and the global economy. There is no doubt that these terrorist attacks have resulted in the most costly, catastrophic loss in the history of property and casualty insurance. However, the ripple effects of the attacks continues to last and will linger on. The shortage of terrorism insurance has left any number of our hospitals, stadiums, shopping malls, apartments, and office buildings either with astronomical rates for insurance or none at all. It goes without saying that the attacks have been a real threat not only to our homeland but also to our economic security. The United States Chamber of Commerce estimates that the economy has suffered a loss of more than $15 billion and 300,000 jobs in the construction industry alone. Mr. Speaker, insurance has been described as the glue which holds our economy together. Without reinsurance for the risk of terrorism, some insurance companies have been forced to specifically exclude it from their future policies. Without this terrorism coverage, lenders are unlikely to underwrite loans for major projects. This sequence of events could result in dangerous disruptions to the marketplace and further hurt our economy. In April of this year, a Washington Post article cited two real-life examples. One, J.W. ``Bill'' Marriott, chairman and chief executive officer of Marriott International, said that although the hotel company remained insured for terrorism, he was expecting a 300 percent increase in premiums when it had to renew its new policies. Another example was from Baylor University, which is located in Waco, Texas. According to David Brooks, vice president for finance and administration at Baylor University, the University had to go to 23 insurance companies searching for terrorism coverage. These snapshots from around the country form a composite picture of a dire situation that requires action from this body, the United States Congress. Heeding President Bush's call for Congress to act, the House passed H.R. 3210, the Terrorism Risk Protection Act, shortly after the September 11, 2001, attacks. The Terrorism Risk Protection Act provides a Federal backstop for financial losses in the event of future terrorism attacks. This bill establishes a system of shared public/private compensation for insured losses resulting from acts of terrorism to protect consumers and create a transitional period for the private insurance markets to stabilize. The Federal backstop is triggered when the Secretary of the Treasury determines that an act of terrorism has occurred with losses in excess of $5 million. The Federal Government would pay 90 percent of the insured losses that exceeded the insured deductibility, which increases each year of the program, up to $100 billion each year. The conference report provides for full payback protection for the American taxpayer by guaranteeing that the first 10- to $15 billion in losses would be paid by the insurance marketplace. The Secretary would retain the authority to fully recoup any additional costs as necessary. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues are fully aware, much of the recent attention has been focused on the tort provisions in this bill. The Joint Economic Committee released a study this May that estimated that lawsuits stemming from the September 11 attacks were already estimated to cost as much as $20 billion. These lawsuits typically pay 33 to 40 percent of the award to the plaintiff's lawyers. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six people, resulted in 500 lawsuits by 700 individuals, businesses and insurance companies. Mr. Speaker, it has now been 8 years and the cases are only now just getting to the trial stage, where hundreds of plaintiffs have yet to even receive one cent of compensation. Mr. Speaker, this is not a circumstance or a situation that we want to repeat. Though this bill does not solve the woes of our legal system, it does take the first solid steps towards reform. By providing reasonable reforms, victims of terrorism will more quickly and equitably receive compensation while also reducing the substantial uncertainty facing the insurance industry when pricing terrorism risk. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to commend the conferees who have labored to produce this fine work. I would also like to recognize the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), who has been so instrumental in the success of this critically important bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support me in not only supporting this rule but also the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, 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. This has been a vigorous debate today, one which has I think allowed the opportunity for both sides of our conference to speak forthrightly about the issues and the ideas which they see on this bankruptcy bill. I will tell my colleagues that I believe that this is an economic development package, part of the plan that we have from the Republican Conference to help consumers and to help make sure the economy moves properly. So I support not only this rule, but the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) to close.