Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have had a vigorous debate again today about an important issue. I simply believe it should be more difficult to raise taxes. I think that that will help America. I think most Americans understand what we are talking about. It is so easy to raise taxes today. That is why they have been raised in the past. I am going to continue to bring this effort to the floor. I am going to keep talking about a balanced budget. We are going to keep talking about the things that will bring honor and dignity to the taxpayer of this country, and will solve our problems with the deficits. This is part of that overall debate. I am proud of what we are going to do here today. This vote is on the rule. The rule is a fair rule. It is a rule that was passed yesterday in the Committee on Rules by a voice vote. I am going to ask all my colleagues to please vote for this rule. We will have a vigorous debate here in just a few minutes on that bill, but I would like to ask that we support the rule. 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 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot said about how we are doing this for the seventh time. I understand that the gentleman from Texas is simply opposed to the concept of making it more difficult to raise taxes. That is what this is all about. The gentleman has stated his point very clearly. I would also like to point out that it was conservatives and Republicans in this House who made sure that the idea of a balanced budget was talked about for many, many, many years, and tried many different ways. We did not grow weary. We knew it was the right thing to do; and despite the onslaught of Members voting against it, we kept going. I am sure we did it more than seven times, but the American people understood what it meant. I did not know this until today, Mr. Speaker, but the 27th amendment to the Constitution was proposed on September 25, 1789. It was declared to have been ratified by the legislatures of 39 of 50 States dated May 18, 1992. What was this? This was known as the Madison amendment. This was the Madison amendment to the Constitution, which I think made sense, and I am sure it took a long time, as we have heard. And what that was all about was to say Members of Congress could not get a pay raise during the term in which they are serving. They have to wait another term. Our Constitution is a wonderful document, but occasionally we run into some things that need to be perfected. We are about a perfecting amendment today, and I am proud of what we are doing. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose 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 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. 4775, the Supplemental Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, and it waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. Additionally, amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. This rule also contains a very important deeming provision as we move into the appropriations season, and it is important that we address this. Upon passage of this resolution, the rule provides that House Concurrent Resolution 353, as adopted by the House, shall have force and effect as though adopted by Congress. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering the emergency supplemental appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. This wartime supplemental comes 8 months after the September 11 attacks against our Nation. While Americans have begun the process of healing and recovery, we must be mindful of the threats that continue to face our Nation. The alerts and intelligence reports that we receive are constant reminders that the war against terrorism is far from over. After last September, America responded by fortifying our homeland and launching an aggressive global war on terrorism. Mr. Speaker, this wartime supplemental is absolutely critical to our continued ability to fight and win this war. There are a number of important provisions in this bill, but none more important than the funds that will go towards helping America win this war on terrorism, both abroad and at home. The bill provides $15.77 billion for the Department of Defense. This money will go towards ongoing military operation costs, personnel costs, and costs associated with forced mobilization. Fighting the war is expensive, and this effort is no exception. However, I believe that the American people are united in their support for making sure that our military has the necessary resources to carry out its mission of insuring our national security. In short, we need to help our President to make sure that our military and the men and women who are dealing not only in law enforcement, but also our military, have the necessary elements to win. Mr. Speaker, with the frequent announcement of possible terrorist attacks, many Americans are dealing with a sense of fear about our future. I want to emphasize that this bill addresses this uncertainty about the future and will hopefully help to instill confidence in people. Priorities and funding have been given to allow our intelligence operations to track, analyze, and prosecute global terrorist threats against the United States and our allies. With the $1.5 billion included in the supplemental, intelligence funding has increased to record levels since September 11. This bill also provides funds to improve the Federal Bureau of Investigation's technology systems. These additional funds will enhance the FBI's overall counterterrorism and intelligence processing capabilities, allowing for better electronic sharing of information between Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies. In addition to protecting our national security, this wartime supplemental also provides funds to help secure our homeland. One area of particular attention since September 11 has been Immigration and Naturalization, the INS Service, and its operations. In March 2002, the INS mailed a letter to a Florida flight school informing them that Mohammed Atta and another hijacker had been approved for student visas. Needless to say, many still-shaken Americans were very concerned when this news came out. The supplemental builds on what Congress has already done to address this issue, and provides additional money to the INS to help them better account for individuals who have committed immigration violations and who have not followed orders to leave this country. Since last September, a number of changes have been implemented to improve safety at our airports. For those of us who fly frequently, these changes can take some getting used to. I must confess that I too have been pulled out of the line and searched from head to toe on more than one occasion. However, these safety changes are necessary to restore confidence in our airlines. Americans should be further assured because this bill provides additional funds for checking baggage, explosive inspection systems, as well as baggage screening and security enhancement at United States commercial ports. Other initiatives targeted at improving our homeland security include funds for secure transportation of nuclear weapons and materials, as well as money for the increased security at nuclear weapons facilities. After the September 11 attacks, this Congress acted with expediency to pass a $40 billion emergency supplemental for recovery and to fight the war on terror. Today, we build upon our past efforts and continue to remember those who lost their lives in New York, Pennsylvania, and here in Washington, D.C. As our President has committed, and I quote our President, ``We will direct every resource at our command, every means of diplomacy, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network.'' This shared commitment means that we will continue to provide and fund whatever is necessary to winning the war on terrorism. Yet this bill also advocates for fiscal discipline and restraint in other areas. On March 20 of this year, the House passed its budget resolution, H. Con. Res. 353. However, the absence of a budget resolution conference report makes it necessary for us to consider language that would deem the House-passed budget resolution to be a conference report. In effect, this language would bind the House to the spending and revenue levels established in the budget resolution, and the corresponding 302(a) allocations, and any related rulemaking provisions. This language is necessary both to establish parameters on discretionary spending and to implement such mandatory initiatives accommodated in the budget resolution such as a prescription drug benefit under Medicare, concurrent receipt of military retirement and veterans disability benefits, and a new tax benefit for charitable giving. I want to take a minute to remind my colleagues that this House- passed budget was a carefully crafted bill that balanced our priorities of winning the war and securing our economic and personal security. From providing the largest increase in 20 years to the national defense to growing our economy and paying down the debt, this wartime budget makes America safer, the economy stronger, and secures the future for every single American. I am pleased that the measure that is before us today recognizes the critical needs associated with our continued war effort, while maintaining our commitment to fiscal discipline. I urge my colleagues to support this open 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 428 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest parts about the rule that we are doing here today, is it is an open rule. We can stand up on the floor of the House and talk about whatever we want to talk about. We are not trying to sneak anything through. We are doing it right out in the open. The light of day will be the best disinfectant, and that is why this debate is so powerful, because the truth can be told. We are going to tell the truth about this supplemental, because it is all about helping the United States and our military and men and women who are in law enforcement get the money that they need to keep this country going, and to make sure that we win this war. That is what this is all about. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Mobile, Alabama (Mr. Callahan).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from San Dimas, California, (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Columbus, Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Evidently we have failed to communicate this openly to all Members. This is an open rule. This is an open rule for any Member of Congress, including the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), to offer any sort of amendment that he would like to. This is no gag rule. This is no sham. This is no trick. By presenting an open rule, it means that both sides are presented an equal opportunity to present their case. There has been a lot said today about Social Security. The fact of the matter is that there is a part of this rule that says, ``The United States Government shall take all steps necessary to guarantee the full faith and credit of the government.'' That is what we are trying to do. We are trying to make sure that this supplemental bill has an opportunity to be debated under an open rule today to where we have an opportunity to pass this bill and to where we can engage the other body, the Senate, which is controlled by the other party, the other body who controls that, to where we can work together as Republicans, as Democrats, with the President of the United States. The fact of the matter is the song is always the same. The bottom line is that for years a clear majority of Democrats have been opposed to funding the military, and that is exactly the same way it is today. This is about funding our military. This is about a wartime budget. This is about trying to make sure that we win the war. I know where the opposition comes from. We hear it over and over and over again. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham). Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I do not.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The song is always the same. The bottom line is that for years a clear majority of Democrats have been opposed to funding the military, and today is no different. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to, if I could, engage with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and let him know that the time appears to be unbalanced at this point, and I would like to see if he would like to get us to more of an even stance.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Savannah, Georgia (Mr. Kingston), who is a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. What the majority party, my Republican Party, is trying to do is to make sure that our President, that our law enforcement, that our military has the money that is necessary to fight this war. It is not a war we wanted to get into; it was a war that was thrust on America on September 11. It was a war that America was thrust in and now our President and our Vice President are leading our Nation. We all saw the destruction and the damage that happened. We stood up with pride and in awe of the men and women of the New York City Fire Department and Police Department as they battled these terrorists and then looked after the people of New York. We, as Members of this body, responded within days. We are now trying to respond again. We believe it is honest and forthright that we follow procedures that people out in Dallas, Texas, and all across this country understand, not just in my congressional district but all the Members, when we say that we are trying to do the things that the President has asked for and that are in the best interest of this country to fund our military and law enforcement and the men and women who protect not only our borders but our parameters well out, including Afghanistan and our allies. What we have said is very plain and simple. We are following a constitutional process where we have to go and negotiate with another body called the United States Senate. We are trying to make sure that while this negotiation is going on that we can say that the United States Government shall take all steps necessary to guarantee the full faith and credit of the government. I think to do anything different would be irresponsible. I cannot say what the debt is going to do between now and the time we reach an agreement with the United States Senate and the President signs this bill. But what I can say is that we are responsible enough to say that the United States Government will stand up for what it should. 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 money that we are spending in this bill is for the national defense, and it is for men and women who protect us. Tonight when Americans go to sleep after hearing this great and vigorous debate, they can go to sleep knowing that this House is talking about the things that are important to make sure that our sons and brothers and fathers and aunts and uncles, the freedoms that we enjoy as a result of this House talking about the debate that will get our military and law enforcement the money that is necessary to make sure that we win this war. That is what this debate is simply about. I am proud of what we are doing here. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering this rule and the debate that certainly concerns our support of the United States military and the men and women who represent us. We are talking in this bill about a better pay raise, a pay raise where we are able to keep the brightest and the best. We are talking about better housing for our men and women; we are talking about increasing our readiness; we are talking about research and development; we are talking about counterterrorism. We are trying to talk about the issues which I perceive are important to the military in this country. However, perhaps the most key component is we are going to talk about homeland security today, and there is one amendment which will be discussed today that says that no funds for 2003 appropriations for the Department of Defense may be used for space-based national defense programs. Mr. Speaker, I would tell my colleagues that I believe that now, more than ever, this Congress should focus on not only ballistic missile threats that face this country, because it is not just what is aimed at our military, it is what is aimed at our homeland. Our homeland security is now an issue. Mr. Speaker, there are more than 28 countries outside the United States that possess not only ballistic missiles, but the desire and the threat to not only threaten America, but also our allies. These 28 countries, as we look around, many of them represent belligerent countries who would wish for America to be harmed. These 28 countries possess the ability to threaten the United States and our military and our allies. What is important about this debate is that we need to understand what our President has said about it. President Bush has said, America's development of a missile defense is a search for security, not a search for advantage. Mr. Speaker, homeland security for America is what this bill is also about. I support this rule, I support this bill, and I hope Members will focus on homeland security and the support our President gives for this bill.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). His service not only to this body but also to this Nation has been well deserved and done well, and I believe what he speaks about is the fairness of not only what the Committee on Rules has done today to make sure that there are two substitutes and other actions that will be available so the minority can be debated today, can be brought for full debate on the floor but also about our ability to not overregulate. By not overregulating means that we will in essence bring the light of day, which is the best of all standards. The light of day will now be available not only to the SEC for them to have the ability to come and look at companies with that authority and responsibility of the Federal Government but also some changes of the things that we have learned as a result of the Enron circumstance with accounting firms. I believe that what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) has talked about means that this is a fair opportunity today on this floor to talk about problems that have been seen, and this is yet another opportunity for this body to address things that we see; and I am proud of what we are doing here. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire how much time is remaining on both sides.

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, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have had a vigorous debate about this important rule that is in front of us. I would ask the Members to give due consideration to supporting this bill.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 395 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes 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 purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today is a fair, structured rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 3763, the Corporate and Accounting Accountability, Responsibility, and Transparency Act of 2002. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill shall be considered as the original bill for the purposes of amendment and shall be considered as read. All points of order against the bill, as amended, are also waived. Only the amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying the resolution are made in order. These amendments shall be considered only in the order printed in the report and may be offered only by a Member designated in the report. They shall be considered as read and debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. They shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. Points of order against the amendments are also waived. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that today we are going to debate the Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, and Transparency Act of 2002, known as CARTA. Two weeks ago, the House considered and passed the Pension Security Act, which focused on providing workers with new options and resources concerning their pensions. Today, we are considering legislation that affects the corporate accountability side of that issue. Mr. Speaker, currently, more than half of all U.S. households invest in mutual funds, pension funds, or 401(k) plans. The face of the American investor is younger and more diverse than ever today. I firmly believe that encouraging Americans to help secure their own future through savings is vitally important for their own success. While savings must begin with the individual, there are also ways that the government can, must, and will help to encourage people to save. The positive ripple effects of this bill are far-reaching. Restoring investor confidence in the financial stability of companies doing business in this country leads to more jobs and a stronger economy. Increasing accessibility of timely and accurate investment information helps American workers not only plan for retirement, but also better assures them of a secure retirement. For those of us who are still planning for our children's college educations, we can be assured that greater corporate responsibility will help protect these and other investments that, as American workers, we make. This legislation focuses on several principles, all designed to protect investors and employees. First of all, we must restore confidence in accounting. In order to ensure auditor independence, firms would be prohibited from offering controversial consulting services to companies that they are also auditing. Additionally, under CARTA, a new public regulatory board with strong oversight authority would be established, and under the direction of the Securities and Exchange Commission, they would work together. This bill recognizes that strong and healthy accounting companies that provide investors with accurate information are critical to ensuring the financial soundness of companies that investors rely upon. CARTA also contains provisions that increase corporate disclosure and responsibility. This bill increases the amount of information that would be made available to American workers, investors, and the general public. Instead of presenting this information using legal jargon, investors would receive increased information in real time English and in real time words, where they can understand the essence of not only financial accountability, but also the financial standing of a company. This is good news for me, because it means we do not need an advanced accounting or legal degree in order to decipher the information. The average American investor will be able to obtain meaningful information, and they will be able to obtain it in a timely fashion. CARTA also creates parity between senior corporate executives and rank and file workers. During blackout periods, which are routine times when a plan must undergo administrative or technical changes, employees many times are unable to change or access their retirement accounts. What we saw from Enron was an egregious example of disparity, where corporate executives were able to sell off their investments and preserve their savings while rank and file workers were barred from making those same changes. CARTA would prohibit insider sales during blackouts for every single employee. I have also mentioned some additional responsibility that this bill requires of the Securities and Exchange Commission. However, this legislation also recognizes that we must make sure that the SEC has adequate resources and staffing in order to do an effective job. The SEC's budget would be increased by 62 percent, allowing them to perform its additional tasks and oversight duties. Among those duties would be regular and thorough reviews of the largest and most widely- traded companies in America. One thing that has come out from the seven Enron-related hearings in the Committee on Financial Services alone is that investors are not receiving the necessary unbiased information needed to make responsible investment decisions. It is clear that Wall Street research practices are in need of reform. CARTA also addresses this by directing the SEC to study the new regulations and report back to Congress through annual updates on the effectiveness of current rules and standards. This is a critical step towards reducing and resolving conflicts of interest for analysts. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to today commend the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), and the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Baker), for their efforts in putting together a carefully crafted and balanced approach. When something such as Enron happens, we as Members of Congress must fight the temptation to react by overlegislating, thus doing more harm than good. These two gentlemen, through their leadership, have made sure that this did not happen. I believe that the committee of the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) has diligently worked to make sure that the bill we consider today is a balanced and appropriate step towards addressing issues which were highlighted and brought to bear to all Americans as a result of the collapse of Enron. I am pleased that this bill will help create more jobs and strengthen our economy by restoring confidence in corporate financial stability. I urge my colleagues to support this fair rule. I urge my colleagues to support the 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, we have heard a lot of political rhetoric about how the Federal Government should be engaged in the oversight of companies, the oversight of CEOs. We hear about how CEOs are arrogant and think that what they want to think should not fall into compliance of what many of us others think. But the fact of the matter is that we live in an environment where the free market has an opportunity to have success and have failure. The free market has that balance which they have to follow, and, in fact, we did; we have learned something as a result of the circumstance with Enron. But that balance continues to come back to us, and we as Republicans, while listening to the exact same words and the questions that were spoken throughout these committee hearings, also heard something that the Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said, and I would like to quote him at this time. He said, We have to be careful, however, we have to be careful with how the Congress and the American public react. We should not look to a significant expansion of regulations as the solution to current problems. I believe that perhaps this statement made by the Federal Reserve Chairman is among the most important, and one that Members of Congress should take seriously as our duties as Members of Congress, and understand that while we saw, and many of us sat by helplessly and watched as the Enron problem began and then got worse, and then we watched the fall-out from it, we should learn lessons from what happened and not overreact. We should not go out and place rules and regulations across the entire industry, not only in accounting practices but also across CEOs at other companies, that will cause them to do the wrong things, which will cause them to not share information. That is where this carefully crafted legislation by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and this fabulous committee are not going to overreact. They are going to look at what will be the essence of a comeback for America, confidence that people will have. And our message is very clear today. We want more jobs and create a stronger economy. We want to make sure that confidence in financial services is what we get, not overregulation. We want to make sure that there is more secure retirement in retirement plans by providing investor information and accountability, not rules and regulations that will inhibit people and give them another skirt to hide behind. We want to make sure that savings is available for people who are just like my wife and I, who are saving for college for our children, and we want to make sure that the corporate responsibility becomes a part of a person's own financial plan also. That is why we are not going to fall victim to believing that emotions should override common sense. This plan that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the Committee on Financial Services put together on the floor today is not only common sense but is something that will provide confidence for our future. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the favorite son from San Dimas, who is the chairman of the Committee on Rules.