Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, today is a classic example of what we have with one party that is for the taxpayer and one party that is for the tax collector. The tax collector in this case is that IRS that gets money after money after money from the American public. But we are telling the story today that we do not think that we cannot afford it and it is expensive because we have already given it to the taxpayer. Alan Greenspan said lower taxes equals jobs and a stronger economy. That is what we are after. We want jobs for people, and the way you do that is by giving people back their own money. What does this bill also do? This bill says today, we are going to make sure that the American people, that through the elimination of taxes, 3.9 million low-income Americans will be able to keep that money that we have already given to them. The tax collector, you see what their plan is. They want to raise taxes on 3.9 million low-income families. We think that is wrong. The tax collectors want to raise taxes for single moms by $770. We believe that the President's plan, the Republican plan, that we cut taxes by $770 for single moms, was the right thing to do. We believe the right thing to do is to give money to people so that they can make their own decisions in life. The bottom line is senior citizens count, too. This is not an expensive tax cut. This is giving money directly to people who deserve it. The tax collectors' plan, they want to raise taxes. We want to give money back; $920 is what would be taken for every single senior. This is all about spending and making priority decisions. One side can spend $2 trillion, but when it gets down to seniors and single moms and low-income Americans, they say, Sorry, you come last in line. The Republican Party believes it is your money and you should keep it.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the gentleman is in violation of House rule XVII, which requires a Member to confine himself to the question under debate.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 373 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 gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today is an open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 3924, the Freedom to Telecommute Act of 2002. The rule allows the chairman of the Committee of the whole to accord priority in recognition to those Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. Finally, the rule provides for 1 motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today that the House is considered the Freedom to Telecommute Act. Currently, a Federal agency may refuse a bid proposal from a potential contractor that utilizes telecommuting in its work force. This legislation would prohibit agencies from continuing this practice. That a potential contractor would allow its employees to telecommute when appropriate would not disqualify or reduce the chances of that company winning a Federal contract. The bill also requires that the GAO, General Accounting Office, make a report to Congress within 1 year of enactment on the compliance by agencies with telecommuting regulations. In the past 25 years, telecommuting has become an increasingly attractive option for employees in the workplace, and, I would also add, a commonsense addition to the workplace. Technology advances have allowed more and more employees to telecommute, allowing them to work from anywhere at any time. In fact, it is estimated that 19 million people enjoy the benefits of telecommuting today. As our country continues to engage in the war on terrorism, we are obviously all more sensitive to the concerns regarding safety and security. This bill takes into consideration these concerns, allowing an exception to be made if the contracting officer certifies in writing that telecommuting would conflict with the needs of that agency. For example, this exception could apply if a contractor deals with classified or sensitive information. Mr. Speaker, the rest of the workplace has recognized the advantages of telecommuting. The benefits include encouraging a more productive work force, increasing employee morale and quality of life, as well as helping the environment by eliminating pollution from increasing commuter traffic. Under the leadership of my good friend, the chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), the Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy has been a champion of developing and promoting telecommuting as an option in the Federal workplace. I believe that we should share the same vision and that the Federal Government should be the leading advocate for the best practices for the workplace, not lagging behind. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this open rule, as well as the commonsense legislation it underlies. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I am trying to advise Members that may be listening there is a potential to have a vote on the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order. I think the gentleman is in violation of House rule XVII, which requires a Member to confine himself to the question under debate. We are speaking today about telecommuting, and that is what this rule is concerning and on the floor at this time, and I would ask for the Chair to rule upon this again, sir.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, last night in the Committee on Rules we had a fabulous opportunity to speak not only about this telecommuting bill but also about the budget. And last night I spoke to the senior Democrat who is on the Committee on the Budget and I said is there one penny, one penny that is being taken away from Medicare, Social Security or Medicaid? Not one penny in this new budget. Not one penny. The second thing I would like to speak about that the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) talked about is the lock box. Dag-gum right we passed a lock box, but the other body has not. The other body has not taken this important legislation up so it is not the law of the country. So the things which we as Republicans have talked about in this House for a long time, of making sure that the American public has the growth and the opportunity and the take-home pay for jobs and opportunity in this country for retirement security is exactly what this budget is all about. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). (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, I would say that I appreciate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for his support of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), chairman of the Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, we have had a rule that we debated on telecommuting. We have underlying legislation that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), through his subcommittee, has brought to the floor today. We had a vigorous debate. Seems like we have agreement on this bill. I am very proud of not only the work that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) does but also the Committee on Rules for its fair rule, a one-hour debate which we provide on any piece of legislation that is important enough to come to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and the underlying legislation which will allow all workers to enjoy the all-around benefits of telecommuting, the Federal employees. 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 would respond to the gentleman and tell him that we do have one additional speaker and then I would close. We will go ahead and allow my speaker, allow the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) to close and then we will do the same. It is my understanding there will be a vote on this rule.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Schrock).

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) for allowing me a few minutes to talk about the budget, the Republican budget, that has run through committee. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) in that committee has done a fabulous job and I want to talk about some of the great things that this budget does. First of all, as the parent of a child with Down's syndrome, I am very pleased to know that we are going to continue providing schools with money for IDEA. It is important that this Congress understand that IDEA and the education of our children is important. We have increased funding. We have made sure that as we go through this budget that we make sure that not one penny has been taken from Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security. Last night in the Committee on Rules, I had an opportunity to speak with not only the chairman of the Committee on the Budget but also the ranking member and asked the question specifically, is there one penny that we have taken out? That answer is no. We have continued to make sure we pay down debt. We have continued to make sure that veterans receive not only an increase of the money we give them but that we continue to focus on the efficiency of those programs. We make sure in this budget that not only do we talk about homeland security, which is probably the number one issue combined with winning the war, but we fully fund those requests that come from our President to make sure that those things happen with making sure the military and homeland security gets their money. We are making sure that we do things to support funding of not only education and homeland security but we are also making sure that we are giving the money to NIH. NIH funding has doubled now since 1996. We are making sure that we take care of the needs of a growing Nation, a Nation that needs NIH to solve and give us cures related to medicine. So what we are doing in this budget is going through and making sure that the priorities of this Nation are taken care of. We are increasing funding some places, but we are making sure that homeland security and the defense of this country is taken care of. At a time when we are at war, what we are doing is not having deficit spending. We are making sure that we end with a balance here. And at a time when increasingly it is more and more difficult to find enough money to keep spending, we are making sure that priorities are taken care of. I am proud of not only what this Republican bill does, but last night we heard from the other side, the Democrats, that they do not intend to offer a budget. I think it is very insincere for someone to come and attack you for doing the heavy lifting when in fact they do not present their own budget. It is easy to attack one piece or another, one place or another, but when you put together an entire budget, which is what we have done, I think it deserves the support of this House, and that is what I support.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 354 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have heard it here today. Republicans have this hidden agenda. The other side of the aisle is right. Our hidden agenda is jobs and growing the economy, getting people back in their jobs, having an extension of unemployment benefits, having health care tax credits. And yet we have heard now what the other side of the aisle says about that. That is that they do not like the way that we have done it, and because they do not like the way we have done this, they oppose it. Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue this Republican conference, and Congress is going to continue passing things that are great for people, good for workers, continues economic opportunities. We are going to keep talking about how America's greatest days lie in our future. Opportunities for people who are going to school and want jobs, people who today may not have a job. We are going to rebound this economy. It is going to head back. I believe that the President, working with this Congress, will have a lot of success. That is what this is about. That is our hidden agenda. Our hidden agenda is simple. It is about jobs. It is about economic growth and the opportunity for people to get a job, keep a job and know that they can have more take-home pay. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we do have a broader agenda. It is about jobs in this country. It is about the ability that we have to make sure through stimulus or through tax cuts or through those things that will allow people to have more money in their own pocket. That is also what this is about. Yes, it is bigger than unemployment. It also includes health care. It includes the things that are the essence of what will maintain the vitality of this country. Mr. Speaker, I learned a long time ago when I came to Congress, some 6 years ago, that virtually every single bill, every single debate that takes place on this floor is about more government, more spending, more taxes, or about the reverse. I am falling off on the side of the people who want jobs in this country, who want to make sure we have a sound economy and make sure that what this government does, it does, and is done efficiently. I am proud of what we are doing and what we have passed. Mr. Speaker, I would remind this entire body that if we can lay aside our differences, lay aside the things that we think will not work and get to work on the things that we are going to propose that will work, that means real money to real people in the time of their need, that in fact we will achieve the things that we are after. Government should not pick the winners and losers. We should help the people that need help.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We can keep talking about this. It has passed this House four times. This body has dealt with this issue. Now what we hear is my colleagues on the other side suggesting we have to bow down to what the other body wants to do, that we must do what the other body wants to do. Well, that is not the way it works. This body has its own leadership, has the two sides of the aisle. We work on the things that we work on, just like the items that we passed and have sent to the other body. Mr. Speaker, we have been open and clear about what we are trying to do. We are offering an opportunity to put together unemployment benefits, health care, and, at the same time, make sure that it would be done in a way which we believe would work. Now, what we understand from the other side is, we disagree that it is not going to work that way, so we are going to oppose what you are doing. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have heard this lots of time. We heard this about the balanced budget. A balanced budget will never work. We can never have a balanced budget. Secondly, we heard when we went to welfare reform, oh, my gosh, welfare reform will never, ever work. We heard this about the capital gains tax cut, that it is going to cost our government $9 billion. In fact, it did work and brought in $90 billion to the government and created an economic stimulus that our country has lived off for several years now. Republican ideas are simply bad to the other side every time, and that is where they play politics, and I am sorry that it is that way. But what we are doing is proposing something that will allow families who today have to use pre-tax dollars to pay for their health care, and we are trying to make it easier to where they can then deduct this amount. Tax credits do work. They work for the families that use them over and over and over. Tens of thousands of African Americans, tens of thousands of Hispanics, and, oh, yes, tens of thousands of Caucasians will get this same tax credit. It works for people. It works for people who have health care today by helping them pay for what they want and they need. I am proud of what we are doing. I am sorry that my colleagues on the other side simply disagree and so they are not willing to venture in to helping anybody because they do not like what we have done. That is the politics, Mr. Speaker, and it is a real shame that it is happening again today on the floor of the House of Representatives right before our very eyes. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We are hearing a lot about this unemployment problem, and it is a problem, and the health care problems, and there are health care problems. This body has addressed this issue numerous times. This issue was prepared to be on the floor today, except there was some disagreement as to whether it would be on suspension or whether we would have long enough even to speak about it. The bottom line is, I do not believe we should be playing politics with the health and livelihood of American workers, whose families' jobs and their own jobs, their own problems, are right on the line. But for those who would call for a clean bill, I would quote Speaker Hastert, who yesterday said this is about as clean as you could get it. And I would add that it is also a straightforward approach to addressing the real needs of laid-off workers as we can get. That was what this bill was supposed to do. It was clean. It was about unemployment and health care tax credits. Oh, but then we find out that they simply do not like the way we have done it, and that is why the other side is opposed to what we are doing. Mr. Speaker, we disagree on lots of issues, and they are honest disagreements that we have in Washington, about taxes, about the size of government, about how much we are going to tax the American people, about who will be paying in and who will be receiving what. But the bottom line is that this Republican Congress has attempted expeditiously and carefully to address the needs and the issues of people who are having tough times. But we also believe, as Republicans, that it is important for us to put out a plan that addresses the needs of the Nation. That is why we asked for tax cuts. We believe that people not only want a job but they want the ability to have a secure job. Savings and investment and the opportunity for people to have more take-home pay to protect the jobs that we have is what the Republican plan is, also. It is not just about the health care needs, where we offer tax credits. It is not just about unemployment. It is about a broad, overarching idea that we believe that this government can, must and will react and respond properly to people. And that is what the Republican plan has been since September 11. I am sorry we are not addressing that issue today. We will continue to wait for the other body as they deliberate and deliberate and deliberate on this issue, but we will keep going with the things we know are good for people. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the 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, House Resolution 354 is a rule providing for the consideration of motions to suspend the rules at any time on the legislative day Wednesday, March 6, 2002. This is a fair rule that will allow for consideration of several pieces of legislation. Mr. Speaker, last night the Committee on Rules in fact had the debate and the vote about those things which we are going to choose to consider today and one of those that we talked about at the time we have now made a decision that we are not going to present at this time; and it should be noted that though, while the unemployment benefits bill is listed under the rule, it will not be called up for consideration today, meaning that it will not be a part of the package that we are seeking at this time. Mr. Speaker, since the tragic events of September 11, the House has worked with speed and deliberation to pass much-needed legislation that will provide an extension of critical-needed unemployment benefits to dislocated workers. It is regrettable that though this bill has passed several times with bipartisan votes that there will be no action on this today and also that there has been no action by the other body on this. As the 6-month anniversary of September 11 approaches us, there are people across the country who are still struggling to recover from the tragic events of that day, whether it be emotional, physically, financially or otherwise. It is my hope that the issue will stay at the forefront of our legislative business until we pass and enact a bill that will help each of those people. Mr. Speaker, I have outlined those things which we will be considering, or hope to consider, today under suspension of the rules; and I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule which will allow us to consider these pieces of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, after over 61 years of federal service, an icon of an exemplary, dedicated civil service has just retired. Mr. John Brigance, the former Director of Contracting for all of Southwestern Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, known as ``Mr. Procurement'' for his valued expertise in contracting, was recognized throughout the Corps. Underlining his commitment is the fact that in addition to his 61 years of federal service, he retired with over 5,100 hours of unused sick leave, about two and a half years' worth. During his career, Mr. Brigance has been called upon to accomplish many significant projects for the Corps of Engineers. A former Chief of Engineers dubbed him ``Mr. Procurement'' because he said Brigance quite literally wrote the book on contracting. That is a true statement. Between 1982 and 1995, he chaired a Headquarters task force and penned many of the regulations governing Corps contract procurement procedures. He has risen from an under clerk typist in the Corps' Galveston District, when he started on January 6, 1941, to a GS 14 in charge of all contracting for the Southwestern Division. In the late 1970s, he was a guest lecturer on small business contract administration at Syracuse University. In that same time frame, because of his reputation in emergency contracting procedures, he also prepared and taught the first-ever Corps contracting course on emergency management operations. Called to duty on November 27, 1942, Brigance served 3 years with the Army--18 months Stateside in training, and 18 months in the Pacific Theater working with an engineer parts supply outfit. Mr. Brigance has also been noted as a wonderful coworker and fellow human being. A former colleague called him ``a role model for courtesy, civility, and professionalism. He is, quite simply, the most decent man I have met in my career, and a living example of what has made the Corps of Engineers a great organization.'' Col. Carla Coulson, former Deputy Division Commander, called Brigance's career ``a lifetime of selfless service,'' commended his personal courage and commitment, and acclaimed him as ``a dedicated professional with wisdom to spare.'' Former co-worker Hector Vela, retired Division Counsel said, ``I've never known John to lie about anything, even his golf game.'' Vela described Brigance as one who ``never speaks bad about anybody'' and added, ``John made working for the Corps a pleasure.'' Brigance has been called a ``whirlwind'' for fast action and for wearing multiple hats--contracting, small business advisor, inspector general and equal employment opportunity officer. Those people he has mentored have echoed the same sentiments. All speak admiringly of John Brigance. His life has been well rounded by the many avocations he enjoys--from a love of golf, to annual deer hunts in the Texas hill country, collecting stamps, coins and proof sets, and dancing with his wife of 60 years, Peggy. He shows enthusiasm for each and every activity he pursues, his pronounced activity inspiring others to greater accomplishments. For his farewell luncheon, his friends and colleagues recognized him with numerous awards and mementos. Among those were the congratulatory letter from President Bush and a presentation by Texas Governor Rick Perry making Brigance an ``Admiral of the Texas Navy,'' an honorary position to recognize his contributions. Perry also named Peggy Brigance a ``Yellow Rose of Texas,'' an honor bestowed only on native Texans. None of that outdid what the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers gave Brigance after 61 years of service. The Corps' Principal Assistant Responsible for Contracting made the first-ever presentation of the highest Corps award for contracting, the A-F-I-R-E, which stands for ``Adaptive, Flexible, Innovative, Responsive and Effective/Efficient'', to Brigance. Brig. Gen. David F. Melcher, Southwestern Division commander, also hung the U.S. Army Engineer Regiment Silver Order of the de Fleury medal around Brigance's neck. Honoring John as the 35th inductee into Southwest Division Gallery of Distinguished Civilians rounded out the retirement accolades made in recognition of his commitment, leadership and esteem. Other awards he received throughout his career include the Decoration for Exceptional Civilian Service award granted by the Secretary of the Army, the Meritorious Civilian Service Award, the Assistant Secretary of the Army Coin and others much too numerous to mention. Mr. John Brigance and his daily contributions to the United States as a loyal, outstanding and dedicated federal civil servant serve as an inspiration to us all.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the House Resolution 344 and the latter order of the House today, I rise as the designee of the majority leader to announce the following amendments: If H.R. 2356 is the original bill, for the purpose of further amendments I hereby announce amendment 15 through amendment 24. If the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) becomes the original bill, for the purpose of further amendment I hereby announce amendment 25 through amendment 34. If the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the majority leader becomes the original bill, for the purpose of further amendment I hereby announce amendment 35 through amendment 44. If the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) becomes the original bill, for the purpose of further amendment I hereby announce amendment 45 through 54.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, today was a day that our majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), announced that he would not be seeking reelection in the 26th district of Texas, his hometown of Denton, Texas and the county of Denton. Mr. Speaker, Majority Leader Army, upon making this announcement, gathered his family together and spoke with his family about his hopes and dreams of a new life that he wishes to have outside of the Congress. He spent 16 years in this body. This body respects Dick Armey. This body loves Dick Armey. This body also understands that Dick Armey is a man who brought high energy, ideals, high ideals and ideas that have moved this country, that have been a part of the political debate of this country. I, as one Member, was asked to run for Congress by Dick Armey, and he described it to me as a place that would be not only an honorable place and a place where ideas would be talked about and discussed, but also a body upon which was an institution, the institution of the Congress of the United States. Dick Armey is one of the few people who have been to the very top who, upon their own choosing, has decided to leave. He served this body with honor and distinction, and he looks forward to those times that he will spend with his family. But today was a special time, for he had his beautiful wife, Susan, and his family gather with him in this body as he described not only his hopes and dreams of this country that he has served, but also the hopes and dreams of this country when he goes into retirement. It is Dick Armey who worked to make this a better place. It is Dick Armey who chose to bring ideas not only related to solving one of the more difficult problems of this country related to how we handle military base closings, but it is also Dick Armey who talked about and brought from his years as an economics professor, a doctor of economics, the understanding that what this Congress does when it taxes people, when it takes money from people, what those profound effects are upon not only families and businesses, but also on the psychology of the Nation that no longer could handle deficit spending. Mr. Speaker, it is Dick Armey who understood as a result of traveling all across this country the hopes and dreams that people have about America's greatest days lie in our future, and that is why Dick Armey became the father or the author of the Contract With America. Yes, he did work with Newt Gingrich on that, but it is Dick Armey and his staff who took it as a challenge, an opportunity, a sharing of ideas, where he stated unequivocally that if the Congress of the United States, the 104th Congress, would focus on those 10 important aspects that were embodied within the Contract With America that were, simply put, giving power back to people who are back home and taking power away from this body, that we could become not only more respectful of the taxpayer, but we could focus on the things that would make this country better. It is Dick Armey who led the battle. It is Dick Armey who had the ideas, who shaped not only the things that made a difference in the Contract With America, but it is Dick Armey who made sure that they passed on the floor of this House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, Dick Armey has served with honor and distinction, not only the people of the 26th district of Texas, but also the people of this country. He was also our elected representative, the majority leader of the Republican Party. He will be sorely missed. Dick has been a good friend of mine, a mentor, and provided me not only with wise counsel, but also talked about how this institution must survive because it is in the best interests of this country. So on this happy day, there is sadness in my heart, yet I know that Dick Armey feels like that he goes out in a way that he chose best, a way where he had a chance to leave this body, where he had a chance to give his very best, and yet he knows that his greatest days will be those times that he will have back in his own backyard with his grandchildren enjoying himself with his beautiful wife, Susan, and praying for this country. For we, too, will continue without him, but we too recognize that the opportunity to take those ideas that Dick matured for every one of us, in fact, will make our country better. Mr. Speaker, I will miss Dick Armey. We will have one more year to work with him. But I want the people of this country to know that the time that is spent in Washington, D.C. can be done by honorable and great people and Dick Armey is simply one of those gentleman.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize the Bunny Love Foundation. An event will be held on December 5th in Dallas, to raise the level of awareness of efforts to eliminate domestic violence against children. Awareness will be accomplished through fundraising efforts, affiliations with prevention programs, and events designed to educate the public about the extent of the crisis. The Bunny Love Foundation is a Dallas-based non-profit organization founded in 1997 by Anne Davidson with a mission of helping children in need. The Foundation's model for giving is extremely effective and can be used as a model for other charities because it addresses the needs of those affected not only on a local level, but nationally and globally as well. Ninety percent of the funds raised will go to children in Dallas through the Dallas Children's Advocacy Center, and 10% will be given to UNICEF specifically for the humanitarian effort for children in Afghanistan. I hope that my colleagues will join me in recognizing the dedication and efforts of the Bunny Love Foundation and their partnership with the Dallas Children's Advocacy Center. The mission of this organization serves as a model for others to follow in the fight to eliminate domestic abuse.