Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. By direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 547 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today we were furthering this debate that we have had for quite some time. I completely understand where the Democrats are coming from. They completely understand where we are coming from. We would like an agenda that is going to help taxpayers. We want an agenda that will help investors. We want an agenda that will help this country to come back from the problems that it has had. But the bottom line is the consensus that these bills have represented, including just one of these bills, got 308 votes. It is a consensus about doing something that will work. I understand how difficult it is to beat up the status quo, just beat it up. But the answers that the other side has, just like when they present their budget, it does not even come close to passing. The measures that they have time after time do not come close. But the provisions that we have put on the floor have virtually bipartisan agreement with over 308 people who vote for it. These are the ideas that we bring back to the floor today. The ones that have received over 300 votes of this body, the votes that make a difference, the ideas that make sense. It is easy beating up these ideas. I understand that. I also understand a lot of the frustration that they have got. But now is the time for us to make sure that we are pushing these. These three provisions are important. Yes, it is true. Two of them simply make permanent the things at the end of 10 years that we passed in the past few years. But I believe they are very important and I believe they represent more than a consensus of this body. And that is why it makes sense that what we passed previously, that we will debate again. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), the sponsor of the Marriage Penalty Relief Act.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we promised at the beginning of this debate on the rule that it would be contentious, that we understood that the Democrat Party opposed what we were doing, and we understood what we were supporting. We believe what we are talking about here is good for investors. We believe it is good for people to have 401(k)s, pension plans, the opportunity to save more money. We have had a chance to debate these important issues. We have had any number of speakers on both sides of the aisle who have talked about the things that are good and bad about these resolutions that we are talking about; but the bottom line is that Members will get a chance to vote now after hearing this debate. Mr. Speaker, I think the previous question will pass, that we will pass these resolutions, that the vast majority of Members will understand what we are doing, the importance to the American people, and the importance to people who are trying to make a go of it with their own savings account. I think the American public understands what we are doing, and I think they understand what the Republican Party stands for.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, today what we are talking about is the effectiveness of the United States Government. Today is yet another attempt by those who wish to place handcuffs and arbitrarily stop the government from making sure that the best available worker is available to do a job that is very important for the American people. This administration understands what this amendment is about, and they said the following: ``The administration understands that an amendment may be offered on the floor that would effectively shut down the administration's competitive sourcing initiatives to fundamentally improve the performance of the government's many commercial activities. If the final version of the bill would contain such a provision, the President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.'' Mr. Chairman, it is very plain what this is about. This is about an opportunity to hamper the President of the United States, the OMB, from their ability to manage what is a dynamic workforce today on behalf of the United States Government, a workforce that is not just someone who is concerned about inherently governmental activities that the government performs, but about tens of millions of other jobs, tens of thousands of other jobs, that the government can no longer effectively manage and be able to properly make sure that the American taxpayer gets their dollar in return. I am in favor of this government having every single penny that they need, but not more than that. We need to make sure that this government has the ability to manage its resources, whether we are talking about cooks, or people who take care of lawns, or whether we are talking about people who provide secretarial services or administrative services. What this will do today is to say directly to the OMB, who falls underneath this bill, that they cannot manage outsourcing activities to make sure that the government is properly organized and run.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate that. The gentleman is a friend of mine. This is an honest discussion. The fact of the matter is that it stops dead in its tracks the Bush Administration for reform to make sure that every single government job that is performed on behalf of a grateful Nation is reviewed and looked at in terms of its ability to be price competitive and efficient, and that is what this is all about. And I believe that even those people who stand up today who are offering this amendment would argue with me. We want a more efficient Government. But this is a process that will be stopped dead in its tracks. It is not something that would maybe balance out a circumstance. The Bush Administration, now more than ever, in dealing with the events of September 11, has had to employ many, many people outside of the Government because the Government is busy doing the things they do. The Government is having to provide all sorts of things to help people even in New York City today that would not come from a Government organization but would come from the Government. The Government simply needs the help, they need the ability, and they need the flexibility. This is about stopping the Bush Administration from providing efficiency and the flexibility to Government. Not on a balanced measure, but on a total stopping basis because they did it right. The people who do not want this went right to OMB and where they are funded. I urge my colleagues, I urge Members, please do not do this when now more than ever this Government needs the flexibility to address people's issues, to do it effectively and efficiently.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, you have heard the truth today. This is all about employee labor unions, government labor unions, versus the White House. But there is so much more that needs to be said. We have talked about government efficiency. The fact of the matter is that this United States Congress is going to provide the most money we have ever provided, ever, to the United States Government to perform its tasks and duties that need to be done. The Bush White House believes that government will and should get every dollar it needs, but not a penny more that might go to waste. What this Bush Administration is asking for is the ability that they have to manage the workforce with the dollars that have been given to them. There are things that happen every day, not just September 11, but disasters across this country. The Bush administration may want to do the right thing by outsourcing things that might be done to where people can be helped. The bottom line is this is about whether we are going to stop the Bush Administration from doing those things that are oriented to reform, about whether the Bush administration is not going to be able to manage its resources and assets out of the OMB. It is real simple. I understand it, and I get it. I think this body should respond by saying we need to give this President the opportunity to not only reform government, but to make sure that efficiency and correctness is done with the efficiency and assets that are given to the government. George Bush is honest and sincere about taking care of people's problems and needs, but he needs the ability to manage that in a dynamic workplace and in a dynamic country where the needs pop up every day. If you say all the work only has to be done by government employees, then I think that the American people are missing out. I support what we are doing today to say no to the Moran amendment, because it is wrong and does not help government efficiency.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, today I propose and ask the Transportation Secretary to put in place a separate aviation employee screening process by September 1 of this year that will allow airlines to safely and efficiently comply with Federal law. This separate aviation employee screening process would be uniform from airport to airport, performed by TSA personnel at separate portals from passenger screening, and must take advantage of the new aviation employee credentials that are presently under development. I ask Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta to appoint a task force to include airline, labor and airport representatives to provide necessary and helpful real-world input and resources in creating and implementing this process. This task force can greatly enhance the government's ability to meet the proposed September 1 implementation deadline and facilitate acceptance in the aviation community.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Rochester, Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, 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. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us is an open rule that provides for consideration of H.R. 2733, the Enterprise Integration Act of 2002. The rule allows for 1 hour of general debate and provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Science shall be considered as an original bill for the purposes of amendment. Priority in recognition will be given to Members whose amendments were preprinted in the Congressional Record. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider H.R. 2733, the Enterprise Integration Act. The bill authorizes the National Institute of Standards and Technology to work with major manufacturing industries to set standards for developing and implementing electronic enterprise integration. Before the Internet, factories were automated on their own with no consideration of how to share manufacturing data. Factories installed software packages that best met their individual needs or customized software to address particular problems. This resulted in a typical supply chain where suppliers used a variety of different and incompatible software packages. The burden resulting from incompatible software was more pronounced further down the supply chain as smaller companies had to comply with all the manufacturers higher up the chain. These companies, who must bear the greatest burden, tend to be the ones least able to afford multiple software systems. However, the Internet and other technological advances have made it possible for manufacturing companies to work together electronically, something that was impossible just a few years ago. This seamless exchange of information, along with the vertical supply chain, is known as enterprise integration. For example, if Ford Motor Company decided to change a design specification for a bumper, every one of the suppliers that contribute to that part would then have the ability to easily and quickly see the new specification and how it would impact their component. This integration helps large and small businesses all along the supply chain to reduce costs and productivity times. A 1999 study commissioned by the National Institute of Standards and Technology estimated that enterprise integration in the auto supply chains of General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler would result in a potential savings of at least $1 billion annually. This estimated savings from just select companies in the automobile industry is an example. Similar savings are also possible all across other industries such as shipbuilding, major construction, home- building, furniture manufacturing, and electronics manufacturing, just to name a few. One solution to compatibility problems in design and manufacturing is to develop standards for the exchange of product data. Through this legislation, the NIST, which has 20 years of experience in this area, will be tasked to work with government and industry representatives to identify and develop ways of enterprise standardization and integration. The measure also requires NIST to work with companies and trade associations to raise awareness of enterprise integration activities, as well as developing training materials for businesses to participate in an integrated enterprise. Manufacturers today must be more flexible, efficient, and responsive to the changing needs and preferences of consumers. The European Union understands the importance of enterprise integration and has already been aggressively developing standardized protocols in such areas as I have talked about. In order to maintain and remain competitive to ensure that international standards are compatible with U.S. software packages, the United States must be active in helping to develop these standards. Mr. Speaker, in this day where technology is so intertwined with our economic prosperity, we must take the necessary steps to streamline our operations and ensure that there is coordination from top to bottom. I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the chairman of the Committee on Science, and the Committee on Science for taking this necessary first step to ensure that our manufacturing industries are not only able to function more efficiently, but also to remain competitive worldwide. I urge my colleagues to support this fair and open rule, as well as 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 474 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Committee on Rules brought this rule forward. It is great legislation. It makes sense. It will aid not only small business but encourage the opportunity for big business and small business to be more competitive around the globe. In my prior life, I worked for a company that was called Bell Communications Research, formerly known as Bell Labs. It was our mission at that time to make sure that we ensured the standards for the telecommunications industry were the same across the United States, albeit the world. The ability to speak together in the same language, as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) talked about, is so critical to the success of people who are trying to provide products worldwide. This not only makes sense, what we are doing, but it will help America be more competitive. I wholeheartedly support not only this rule but the underlying legislation. And I would say, Mr. Speaker, that this is a great bill; and I urge my colleagues to support this. 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 such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Grand Rapids, Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), the rocket scientist from the Republican Conference.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, it is not often a $1,000 investment becomes a $21.5 billion powerhouse. But a modest investment is how Electronic Data Systems (EDS) started 40 years ago today. EDS is a leading provider of information technology and business consulting services to businesses and governments worldwide. During its first 40 years, EDS changed the face of information-technology (IT) services while helping IT services grow into a global, half-trillion dollar market. For 40 years, EDS won its customers' trust through diligence and innovation. American business could learn a lot from EDS' focus on long-term trust-building. EDS had an unconventional operation when it opened for business on June 27, 1962. The company that would found the information-technology services industry didn't own any computers. So managers convinced a Dallas insurance company to rent EDS time on its idle computers at night. With only 30 employees and a shoe-string budget, EDS relied on employees to sell data-processing services during the day and process that data at night. Everyone wore more many hats and put in long days. EDS' first contract was with Collins Radio in Iowa, and its next was a five-year agreement with Frito Lay to provide facilities management, a service in which EDS assumed responsibility for operating, maintaining, and upgrading companies' computers. It was 1965 before EDS bought its first computer. By 1969, EDS owned 31 computers, employed 1,407 employees, and earned revenue of some $100 million. Besides computers, the 1960s brought EDS new public-sector business that would ultimately transform the small company into an industry giant: Medicaid and Medicare, fundamental components of the Great Society. The late '60s found states struggling to implement these essential health-care programs for the elderly and the economically disadvantaged. The workload was overwhelming. EDS was prepared to help with proprietary systems and processing methods, many adapted from its previous transaction-processing work. The many partnerships among EDS and states' Medicare and Medicaid programs flourished. By 1981, EDS processed Medicare claims in 16 states. The corporation now processes more than a billion health-care transactions--public and private--every year. That's one claim for every four Americans. From its 1960s position as a modest Texas company that processed health-care insurance claims, EDS grew into a global corporation with 140,000 employees worldwide and more than 35,000 clients in more than 60 countries. In EDS' early years, few understood how IT would change business. No one yet grasped how crucial information and access to it would become, not just for companies, but for the approaching global information culture. From the beginning, EDS understood information's importance. That's why the company spent the last four decades ensuring the security of its clients' information and infrastructure technologies. EDS has a rich history serving the federal government. In 1977, EDS signed its first major U.S. government contract with the National Flood Insurance Program. Some 25 years later, EDS continues that relationship. In 1982, the U.S. Army awarded EDS Project Viable, the largest IT contract ever let by the U.S. Army at the time. The $650 million, 10- year contract called for EDS to build an information technology system for the Army to support its worldwide human resources activities. EDS' work on Project Viable not only launched the systems-integration market, but demonstrated EDS' ability to handle the largest and most complex IT projects on the planet. Despite its focus on thorny information-technology projects for corporations, governments, and military organizations, EDS people know that IT has humane applications. In 1990, for example, EDS helped develop In Touch, which enabled veterans to find the families and friends of Americans who died during the Vietnam conflict--veterans' buddies, friends, confidantes, and commanders. EDS has replicated the In Touch system during the last 10 years for similar humanitarian applications. Also in 1990, EDS collaborated with the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., to create Information Age, a hands-on exhibit that walked visitors through the decades to witness information technology's progress from ENIAC, the first electronic digital computer, to high- definition television. In 2000--some 18 years later--EDS won the $6.9 billion Navy Marine Corps Intranet contract, the largest IT-services contract ever awarded by the U.S. government. NMCI gives the Navy state-of-the-art information security while providing it the technology and bandwidth for business transformation. EDS became a wholly owned subsidiary of General Motors in 1984. GM bought EDS to manage its global telecommunications network to link suppliers and dealers and thereby create the first large-scale electronic data interchange. The GM relationship gave EDS swift access to new markets, resulting in explosive growth. EDS zoomed from some 13,000 employees to more than 60,000 in just a few months. EDS also helped prove the relationship between companies' IT investment and their productivity. Based on the performance of EDS' clients, many came to understand that efficient IT investment leads to more efficient business operations. It became clear that IT turns data into information and information into the kind of knowledge that drives growth. By the 1990s, EDS was a global corporation with operations in some 30 countries. EDS designed and installed the official Results Reporting Information Systems for the 1992 Olympic Games in Spain, making it easier for fans and the press to get results faster. Also during the '90s, EDS won a $1.5 billion contract with the United Kingdom's Inland Revenue, and a similar contract with New Zealand's tax-gathering agency. The government of South Australia followed suit. Meanwhile, Rolls Royce contracted for EDS to it with a full range of IT services, including infrastructure, network, systems, and applications. The Commonwealth Bank of Australia also became a major EDS client. In 1998, EDS technology helped more than 12 million Internet viewers watch the 1998 World Cup live. As 1999 drew to a close, EDS worked with its global clients, and even non-customers, to ensure a flawless transition of myriad public and private IT systems to the Year 2000. EDS was so confident of its Y2K solutions that it opened the Millennium Management Centre to the press so everyone could witness what ended up as a flawless transition from December 31, 1999 to January 1, 2000. On Super Bowl Sunday 2000, millions watched the Cat Herders, EDS' first Super Bowl commercial. It humorously explained what EDS does better than anyone else in the IT industry--help clients work better, smarter, faster, and cheaper. EDS originated the idea of a Service Excellence Dashboard, a two-way interactive on-line tool EDS leaders and EDS clients can use to gauge and critique EDS' performance. The innovative dashboard and became a differentiator for EDS. It is continuously updated and improved based on client feedback. Others in the IT industry now use similar systems. So, please join me in congratulating EDS on this auspicious occasion. At a time when ``dot-coms'' popped up and then, just as abruptly, disappeared, EDS continues to offer insight on how to be successful: Offer clients what they need, then provide even more. Happy 40th anniversary, EDS.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the gentleman from Tennessee and his comments. You raise taxes, you increase spending. We know there are two sides to this equation. What the gentleman talked about that he offered in the Committee on Rules last night was to balance the budget and not borrow any more money. But we have also got to make it more difficult to raise taxes. The fact of the matter is the last tax increase we had in 1993 that was retroactive, that reached back, the bottom line is they increased taxes to pay for more spending. That is what they did with it. They spent the money that they taxed on the American people. That is what the party did, and that is why we believe it ought to be more difficult to do that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) who is really the father of this fabulous tax limitation amendment, a gentleman who carried not only the ideas but also the legislation, a fabulous friend of Texas and a fabulous friend of the taxpayer. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate that what the gentleman is talking about is very important; but part of this equation that was not talked about was every single time that we have a new person that gets employed in this country, the Social Security trust fund shows a deficit, and every single time a person goes to work and draws a paycheck in this country, that shows as a deficit also. So by America working harder, with the old, antiquated Social Security system that we have, it all increases what is known as the debt of this country, because we do not save that money, we spend it. So what the gentleman has talked about is part of our own system which is creating the deficit, which is why we need to change it. So whoever comes to work for the first time tomorrow and for whoever is drawing a paycheck today, simply by working, we are creating a debt, because it is a liability that this government has to pay for. But that should not imply that that is necessarily irresponsible. It is the system that we have. Yes, it is Republicans and some Democrats that have suggested that we change that too. But let us not suggest it is spent, it is a future liability. Being responsible and being irresponsible should have been something that I wish the gentleman had spent some time on also, because this debt that is being set before us is from people who work in this country. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Houston, Texas (Mr. Culberson), a bright young gentleman.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The opportunity to be able to come to the well of this House and to speak is really a wonderful thing. It is an opportunity for people to express their views and visions, but we should remember that a majority of the Members have voted for this each of the six times that we voted on it, and today is another opportunity for us to seek that supermajority that it will require. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 439 provides for the consideration of H.J. Res. 96, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with respect to tax limitation. The rule provides for 2 hours of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule provides for one amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional Record, if offered by the minority leader or his designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, today the average American pays more in taxes than for food, clothing, shelter, or transportation combined. For too long, the tax burden imposed by the government has been going up, not down. The Tax Limitation Amendment starts from this very simple premise: it should be harder, not easier for the government to raise taxes. Raising taxes should be an absolute last resort, not an easy, quick fix for excessive government spending. I have observed with great interest the spirited debate surrounding our efforts to make portions of our President's tax cuts permanent. Last week, the House passed a bill that would permanently repeal the death tax. In the same manner, the House will later this week consider a bill that makes permanent relief from the marriage penalty tax. Throughout these debates, it is apparent that there are those who would support repealing parts, if not all, of this historic tax bill. These individuals would prefer that married couples be penalized for entering into holy matrimony. They feel that the Grim Reaper and the tax collector should visit American families and farmers on the same day. They believe that the Federal Government makes better decisions than families about how best to spend their hard-earned money. This line of reasoning is inconsistent with the fact that people all across this Nation overwhelmingly support tax reduction. I only wish that both bodies of Congress would reflect the sentiment clearly expressed by the American people. The people of this great Nation will not be fooled by those who would support a tax cut during an election season, only to work to repeal it the very next session of Congress. Many Members have stood on this floor of this distinguished House extolling the virtues of lower taxation. Today they will have the opportunity to show their constituents exactly where they stand. The annual floor consideration of the Tax Limitation Amendment gives us an opportunity to take a stand on the side of the American taxpayer. By enacting the Tax Limitation Amendment, we protect the taxpayer and pledge that we as a Congress will focus inward on cutting waste, fraud and abuse instead of immediately raiding the pockets of American taxpayers. By requiring a supermajority to raise taxes, an incentive for government agencies would be created to eliminate waste and create efficiency, rather than simply turning to more deficit spending or increasing taxes. Mr. Speaker, this legislation does recognize and make allowances for times of extenuating circumstances such as during a time of war, a national emergency, or when taxes may need to be raised. The Tax Limitation Amendment would allow Congress to raise taxes in those circumstances; but in the meantime, it would prevent the intrusive and penalizing tax increases that have been enacted with recklessness to fund government expansion for the last few decades. It is time the Federal Government joined the States and listened to the voices of Americans: it should be harder to raise taxes. Had this amendment been adopted sooner, the four largest tax increases since 1980, which occurred in 1982, 1983, 1990, and 1993, all would have failed. The tax increase in 1993 was the largest tax increase in American history, and it passed by just one vote. These tax increases today from 1993 total $666 billion, taken from the American taxpayer. The bottom line of this debate, Mr. Speaker, and let us make no mistake about it. Those Members who support this amendment are here to support the hard-working taxpayers of America. Those Members who are opposed to it are here to defend the tax collectors of America. To me, it is really just that simple. The Tax Limitation Amendment also allows for a simple majority vote to eliminate tax loopholes. The de minimis exemption would allow nearly all loopholes to be closed without the supermajority requirement. Mr. Speaker, we will also hear that the government will be unable to function if a supermajority is required. We all hear this as Members, but I encourage Members to look at the States. Thirteen States have some sort of supermajority limitation in effect. The millions of Americans living in these States have enjoyed slower growth in taxes, slower growth in government spending, faster growth in economies, and lower unemployment rates. Today we can take one step closer to retaining liberty and ensuring future generations the freedom our Founding Fathers intended America to enjoy. This debate is about requiring a two-thirds vote to raise taxes, and it boils down to a debate about liberty and freedom for the American people. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 439 and ask for its immediate consideration.