Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, those of us who support business and the contributions that companies make to our districts often speak of the value of ``good corporate citizenship.'' This is a term that can be defined in many ways. To some, it can mean creating jobs and making substantial economic investment. To others, it can mean taking a leadership position on issues of local concern. To still others it can mean a willingness to do whatever it takes to improve the lives and lifestyles of the people in the community. In Leon County, Texas, we are indeed fortunate to have a company that satisfies all of those criteria. By virtually any measure, Nucor Steel's facility in Jewett is one of our state's top corporate citizens, and the relationship it has built with local leaders, schools and civic groups is a model for companies everywhere. The Jewett facility is a part of Nucor Steel Corporation, the nation's largest recycler of steel--with 12 million tons annually--and a worldwide leader in technical innovation, safety, and employee commitment. During the Jewett site's 26 years of operation, it has built a record of accomplishment and civic involvement that has been vital to shaping a better quality of life for the people of Leon County. Those achievements begin with the facility's commitment to the environment. The Jewett Division recycles 800,000 tons of scrap metal every year. This is material that would otherwise be clogging our landfills, or haphazardly discarded on the sides of the road or in empty fields. Beyond that, every byproduct of the manufacturing process is recycled, further reducing the need for treatment and disposal. Underscoring this commitment to environmental stewardship is a technology that reduces energy and the need for virgin resources. By using the electric arc furnace, or EAF, Nucor saves 2,500 pounds of iron ore, 1,400 pounds of coal and 120 pounds of limestone for every ton of steel recycled. What's more, the process requires less energy. Annually, the EAF process saves enough energy to electrically power the entire city of Los Angeles for eight years. Even with these successes, the Jewett facility is not resting on its laurels. The company is now planning a $150 million investment over the next five years at the site that will allow older equipment to be phased out and replaced with new, state-of-the-art systems. These systems will employ the best developed available technology, and ensure that Nucor can meet the most stringent environmental regulations--now and in the future. The Jewett facility continues to be a major contributor to the local economy as well. It has created more than 500 jobs, and Nucor has invested $150 million at the site over the past ten years--an investment that translates to tax revenues that further support the critical services that Leon County delivers its citizens. Additionally, Nucor spent about $75 million with local and surrounding vendors last year alone, extending its economic impact far beyond the plant's physical location. Finally, the Jewett Division has repeatedly demonstrated its commitment to serving important, essential community needs. Consider its education programs, for example. Every child of every Nucor employee is eligible for a $2,500-per-year scholarship for college or vocational training. To date, the facility has awarded more than $1.6 million in assistance to 270 students. By helping these young people realize their full potential--as professionals, business people, teachers and members of the community--Nucor is doing more than contributing to the betterment of the students and their families. It is contributing to the betterment of society. But the civic commitment does not stop there. This is a company that has supported alcohol-free student programs like Project Graduation. It is a longstanding contributor to 4-H, and the Future Farmers of America. For Earth Day, the Jewett facility teamed with Nucor's Vulcraft Group in Grapeland, Texas, for a scrap metal recycling drive that collected 30 tons of obsolete materials, and also donated live oak trees to the Leon County Independent School District. And when Jewett needed a public park, Nucor bought the land and donated all the steel needed for construction. That effort earned it the local Chamber of Commerce's ``Business of the Year'' award. Mr. Speaker, the first requirement of corporate citizenship is also the most basic: To pull your own weight on behalf of your community. Nucor's Jewett facility has done exactly that--and more. With a record of environmental stewardship, economic contributions and civil leadership, Nucor Steel's Jewett Division has earned the thanks and respect of people throughout my district. I appreciate this opportunity to share its achievements with you, and to join in the recognition of a truly great ``corporate citizen.''

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, a ``Dear Colleague'' letter has been sent to Members informing them that the Committee on Rules plans to meet at 2:30 p.m. on Wednesday, October 3, 2001, to grant a rule for the consideration of H.R. 2883, the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2002. The Committee on Rules may grant a rule which would require that amendments be printed in the Congressional Record prior to their consideration on the floor. The Committee on Intelligence filed its report on the bill on Wednesday, September 26. Members should draft their amendments to the bill as reported by the Committee on Intelligence. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are properly drafted and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments comply with the Rules of the House.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, Tuesday morning the American people were viciously and deliberately attacked by terrorists in what I consider to be an act of war. We have entered into a new era in world history. Terrorists have now begun to flout international law and standards of common decency. They target the American people because we are strong and because they are weak. Some say that we cannot and should not be the world's policeman. But we will serve justice and we will punish those who are responsible. This battle is a new kind of war, and we must be prudent in how we prosecute it. All nations who harbor, who train, who support, who fund these terrorist groups, bear equal responsibility for the actions of these terrorists. We must dedicate the proper resources to deal with them in the appropriate way. Terrorists may be able to run, but they cannot hide from America's determination and justice. Many of those who died were dedicated public servants. They were members of our armed forces, firefighters, and police officers. They were people dedicated to serving and protecting America. Others were citizens dedicating to living the American dream, who had wives or husbands or children or parents who loved them and who will miss them. These people were innocent victims in a war conducted against America by terrorists who attacked unsuspecting civilian targets. It is now time we begin to fight back. On behalf of myself and the Fifth District of Texas, I would like to express my deepest condolences the families of the victims. May God protect them in this time of trouble.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the article entitled, ``Cloning's Big Test'' for the Record. [From the New Republic, Aug. 6, 2001] Cloning's Big Test (By Leon R. Kass and Daniel Callahan) Everyone has been arguing for weeks about whether President Bush should authorize funding for research on human embryonic stem cells. But few have noticed the much more momentous decision now before us: whether to permit the cloning of human beings. At issue in the first debate is the morality of using and destroying human embryos. At issue in the second is the morality of designing human children. The day of human cloning is near. Reputable physicians have announced plans to produce a cloned child within the year. One biotech company (Advanced Cell Technology) just announced its intention to start producing embryonic human clones for research purposes. Recognizing the urgent need for action, Congress is considering legislation that would ban human cloning. Last Tuesday the House Judiciary Committee approved a tough anti-cloning bill, H.R. 2505, the Human Cloning prohibition Act of 2001. Introduced by Republican Dave Weldon of Florida and Democrat Bart Stupak of Michigan, and co- sponsored by more than 120 members from both parties, the bill is scheduled for a vote on the House floor as early as this week. But the House is also considering a much weaker ``compromise`` bill that would ban reproductive cloning but permit cloning for research. It is terribly important that the former, and not the latter, passes. First, because cloning is unethical, both in itself and in what it surely leads to. Second, because the Weldon- Stupak bill offers our best-indeed, our only--hope of preventing it from happening. The vast majority of Americans object to human cloning. And they object on multiple grounds: It constitutes unethical experimentation on the child-to-be, subjecting him or her to enormous risks of bodily and developmental abnormalities. It threatens individuality, deliberately saddling the clone with a genotype that has already lived and to whose previous life its life will always be compared. It confuses identity by denying the clone two biological parents and by making it both twin and offspring of its older copy. Cloning also represents a giant step toward turning procreation into manufacture; it is the harbinger of much grizzlier eugenic manipulations to come. Permitting human cloning means condoning a despotic principle: that we are entitled to design the genetic makeup of our children (see ``Preventing a Brave New World,'' by Leon R. Kass, TNR, May 21). So how do we stop it? The biotech industry proposes banning only so-called reproductive cloning by prohibiting the transfer of a cloned embryo to a woman to initiate a pregnancy. But this approach will fail. The only way to effectively ban reproductive cloning is to stop the process from the beginning, at the stage where the human somatic cell nucleus is introduced into the egg to produce the embryo clone. That is, to effectively ban any cloning, we need to ban all human cloning. Here is why: Once cloned embryos exist, it will be virtually impossible to control what is done with them. Created in commercial laboratories, hidden from public view, stockpiles of cloned Worst of all, a ban only on reproductive cloning will be unenforceable. Should the illegal practice be detected, governmental attempts to enforce the ban would run into a swarm of practical and legal challenges. Should an ``illicit clonal pregnancy'' be discovered, no government agency is going to compel a woman to abort the clone, and there would be understandable outrage were she fined or jailed before or after she gave birth. For all these reasons, the only practically effective and legally sound approach is to block human cloning at the start--at producing the embryonic clone. The Weldon-Stupak bill does exactly that. It precisely and narrowly describes the specific deed that it outlaws (human somatic cell nuclear transfer to an egg). It requires no difficult determinations of the perpetrator's intent or knowledge. It introduces substantial criminal and monetary penalties, which will deter renegade doctors or scientists as well as clients who would bear cloned children. Carefully drafted and limited in scope, the bill makes very clear that there is to be no interference with the scientifically and medically useful practices of animal cloning or the equally valuable cloning of human DNA fragments, the duplication of somatic cells, or stem cells in tissue culture. And the bill steers clear of the current stem-cell debate, limiting neither research with embryonic stem cells derived from non- cloned embryos nor even the creation of research embryos by ordinary in vitro fertilization. If enacted, the law would bring the United States into line with many other nations. Unfortunately, the House is also considering the biotech industry's favored alternative: H.R. 2608, introduced by Republican Jim Greenwood of Pennsylvania and Democrat Peter Deutsch of Florida. It explicitly permits the creation of cloned embryos for research while attempting to ban only reproductive cloning. But that's not something it is likely to achieve. It licenses companies to manufacture embryo clones, as long as they say they won't use them to initiate a pregnancy or ship them knowing that they will be so used. It therefore guarantees that there will be clonal embryo-farming and trafficking in clones, with many opportunities for reproductive efforts unintended by their original makers. And the bill's proposed ban on initiating pregnancy is, as already argued, virtually impossible to enforce. There are further difficulties. The acts the Greenwood- Deutsch bill bans turn largely on intent and knowledge--hard matters to discern and verify. The confidentiality of the called-for Food and Drug Administration registration of embryos-cloning means that the public will remain in the dark about who is producing the embryo clones, where they are bought and sold, and who is doing what with them. A provision preempting state law would make it impossible for any state to enact any other--and more restrictive--legislation. A sunset clause dissolving the prohibition after ten years would leave us with no ban at all, not even on reproductive cloning. Most radically, the bill would create two highly disturbing innovations in federal law: It would license for the first time the creation of living human embryos solely for research purposes, and it would make it a felony not to ultimately exploit and destroy them. The Greenwood-Deutsch legislation reads less like the Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001 and more like the ``Human Embryo Cloning Registration and Industry Protection Act of 2001.'' It is possible that embryo-cloning will someday yield tissues derivable for each person from his own embryonic twin clone, tissues useful for the treatment of degenerative disease. But the misleading term ``therapeutic cloning'' obscures the fact that the research clone will be ``treated'' only to exploitation and destruction and that any future ``therapies'' are, at this point, purely hypothetical. Besides, we have promising alternatives--not only in adult stem cells but also in non-cloned embryonic stem-cell lines-- that do not open the door to human clonal reproduction. Happily, these alternatives will not require commodifying women's ovaries in order to provide the vast number of eggs that would be needed to give each of us our own twin embryo when we need regenerative tissue. Should these alternatives fail, or should animal-cloning experiments someday demonstrate the unique therapeutic potential of stem cells derived from embryo clones, Congress could later revisit and lift the ban. The Weldon-Stupak bill has drawn wide support across the political spectrum; feminist health writer Judy Norsigian and liberal embryologist Stuart Newman joined Catholic spokesman Richard Doerflinger and political theorist Francis Fukuyama in testifying in its favor. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, a proponent of research with embryonic stem cells, has endorsed it. Thoughtful people understand that human cloning is not about pro-life versus pro-choice. Neither is it a matter of right versus left. It is only and emphatically about baby design and manufacture, the opening skirmish of a long battle against eugenics and the post-human future. Once embryonic clones are produced in laboratories, the eugenic revolution will have begun. Our best chance to stop it may be on the House floor next week.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and also rise in opposition to this Wynn amendment. Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) has been honest about his objections. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) does not like outsourcing. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) wants to try and stop outsourcing as it is occurring across the Federal Government today, and several weeks ago we were in a hearing where we attempted to talk about not only the impact, but also how things are occurring in the marketplace today as a result of the FAIR Act. I oppose this amendment because I believe that we are waiting to find out what the results really are. The hearing that we held offered an opportunity for both sides to provide input. I believe what this will do today is to shortcut a process that had begun several years ago, where we are waiting to find out the real-life examples about how well outsourcing can take place, to where not only the effect of saving money, but also utilizing the most cost-effective services, to where we can allow agencies to go and do those things that are their core competency and to engage themselves in the effectiveness for government, is what we are after. I support the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis). I think what the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Davis) is talking about is defeating the Wynn amendment because it is shortcutting, short- circuiting, our ability to hear back a report that is due to us, where we can make a decision based on the facts of the case and what we are presently doing.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I have not been in Congress for 22 years, like the gentleman from Texas, but I do know the difference between right and wrong. I think the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) knows the difference between right and wrong. What we recognize about this rule is that this is an honest up-or- down vote. Yesterday in the Committee on Rules the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) asked for his bill, and got what he asked for. He received it. That was his bill. We did not gut the bill. We are not putting any amendments against the bill. He gets his bill exactly the way that he said in the Committee on Rules he wanted it. He gets all 12 or 13 amendments. Where I come from in Texas, you vote for what you are for and you vote against what you do not like. The fact of the matter is that this is an honest attempt to give our colleague, who is a Republican, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), exactly what he asked for in the Committee on Rules. We are not hiding anything. We are not making it more difficult. We are simply giving him exactly what he wanted. I have lots of legislation on which I would love to have the same opportunity that we are extending to our colleague. The fact of the matter is that in the Committee on Rules, it was the Democrats who sit on the Committee on Rules that did the beating up of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), that did the beating up of Shays-Meehan. They said that it had virtually no reason to be on the floor of the House of Representatives. It has no reason to take the time that we are spending on it. The Republican leadership, not only the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) and the gentlemen from Texas, Mr. Armey and Mr. DeLay, but also our committee chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), have taken the time to schedule this vote to give the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) exactly what he asked for yesterday, and to make sure we have a full debate. I think it is not only fair and honest, but it is the right thing to do for our colleagues.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington, my colleague on the Committee on Rules, for yielding me time. Madam Speaker, my colleagues understand what we are talking about today is the rule. That is what we are debating right now, about whether we are going to move forward on the rule, an opportunity to put this on the floor, an opportunity to vote on this and get the appropriations bill done before we go home. I think it is important to understand that what this rule provides for is an incredible amount of money for some very important projects, to some things that sustain America, to some things that we have, how we deal with people in our country. We should not go too far from understanding that this bill provides $22 billion for food stamps. This bill provides $1.2 billion for the Food and Drug Administration. They know how to administer their business. They know what they are doing, and $1.2 billion will cover that. Child nutrition programs, $10.1 billion. The Supplemental Nutritional Program for Women, Infants and Children, known as WIC, $4.1 billion. What we are doing with this bill and with this rule is to make sure that the agriculture of this country is not only safe and the food they produce is reliable, but we are also trying to make sure that we look at the resources and assets that we have in this country and say that we believe that conservation programs are important; we think people who are engaged in agriculture are important. We are making sure that our Federal Crop Insurance Corporation is funded, $3 billion. We are trying to prepare ourselves to make sure that people who live in rural areas and who are in agriculture know that Washington will deal fairly with them. But we also recognize that part of the argument we are going to hear today is we are not spending enough money. Well, I might remind my colleagues that we can never spend enough money to make sure that some people in this body will always be happy, but that we do go back to the budget that we set in place earlier in the year, and that this program that we are doing for the 2002 agriculture appropriations act falls in line with what this body said it would do. Then, through the leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), we have had an opportunity to craft through many discussions and through many votes a policy of this country that is good on a moving-forward basis. So I support what we are doing here today. This rule is important for us to continue the process, not only on this appropriations bill, but to make sure that we finish in time and move forward on the commitment that we have to the country, to make sure that the public policy of this Republican Congress and, yes, one that the President will sign, to make sure that people who are involved in agribusiness and consumers and, yes, women and children and people who are on food stamps, will make sure that the system is there and reliable and works properly. So I applaud the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) for his hard work, and our chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and also the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), a member of the Committee on Rules who has worked carefully to make sure that this rule is fair and open. Lastly, I would like to give accolades to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), who is our chairman, who has worked very diligently to make sure that the rule that was crafted not only exemplified what this body would be in favor of, but would also be something that people in his home State of California would be proud of.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just as it is the first rule for the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) to manage in the Committee on Rules, we also like to thank staff who it is their last rule to be with us. I would like to thank Gena Bernhardt for her 6 years on the Committee on Rules, and 9 years serving on the Hill, who will be leaving the Hill for opportunities down at the Department of Justice. She served as professional staff and legal counsel, and is a good friend of all of ours. It is a time to say hello; and a time to say good-bye. Mr. Speaker, this is a fair and open rule supported by my colleagues, and I would ask my colleagues to support this 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, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), our newest member of the Committee on Rules, and I would welcome him to the floor for what I think is his first rule that he will be managing, and I appreciate his being here and working with us on this; 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 180 is an open rule and waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. It provides for 1 hour of general debate divided equally and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. It also provides that the amendment printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the rule shall be considered as adopted. The rule waives points of orders against provisions in the bill as amended for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, which prohibits unauthorized or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill, except as specified in the rule. The bill shall be considered for amendment by paragraph, and the Chair is authorized to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us is an open rule providing for the consideration of H. Res. 2311, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill for 2002. This legislation provides for funding for a wide array of Federal Government programs which address matters such as national security, environmental cleanup, flood control, alternative energy sources, and advanced scientific research. The bill provides for a total of $23.7 billion in new discretionary spending authority for civil works projects of the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of Energy, and several other independent agencies. The bill is $147.7 million above the fiscal year 2001 funding levels and an increase of $1.18 billion above the President's request. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to highlight some provisions in this bill. Included in this legislation is approximately $4.47 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers, which has been involved in such vital missions as flood control, shoreline prevention, and navigation. In addition, the Bureau of Reclamation, under the Department of the Interior, is funded at $842.9 million, an increase of $26.3 million over last year. Most of the large dams and water diversions in the West were built or with the assistance of the Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau is the largest supplier of water in the 17 western States and the second largest hydroelectric power producer in the Nation. Also, this bill provides $18.7 billion for the Department of Energy, an increase of $444.2 million above the fiscal year 2001 level. Funding for the Department of Energy was increased over the President's request primarily in the areas of renewable energy technologies, environmental cleanup, and nuclear nonproliferation. In March of 2001 this year, the Bush administration issued an outline for this budget. In this it states that solar and renewable energy cannot replace fossil fuels in the near term but will be an important part of this Nation's long-term energy supply. I am pleased that this bill includes $376.8 million for renewable energy programs, an increase of $1 million from last year. Additionally, biological and environmental research is funded at $445.9 million. I am particularly pleased that the funding in this bill continues the strong record of conservation and preservation by the Republican Congress. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to commend the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from the First District of Alabama (Mr. Callahan), and the Democrat ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for their hard work in bringing this bill to the floor. Their staffs have done a great job in the crafting of this bill. Mr. Speaker, this bill is considered noncontroversial. This rule, like the underlying legislation, deserves strong bipartisan support. 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 Washington (Mr. Hastings), a member of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 180 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time on the legislative day of Wednesday, June 27, 2001, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules relating to the following measures: H. Res. 172, H.R. 2133 and H.R. 691.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, seven years ago some enterprising Texans came to the FCC seeking approval to deploy their innovative wireless technology. Alas, all these years later, they still await a ruling from the FCC. Once licensed, Northpoint Technology could offer consumers a low-cost service that would provide multi-channel video programming-- including all local television stations--and high-speed access to the Internet. As many of my colleagues know, incumbent DBS operators carry some local channels, but only in the largest television markets, and in no market do they carry all local stations on a must carry basis. My Congressional District, for instance, falls within two local television markets. My constituents in the seventh-ranked Dallas market can get four stations from DBS carriers, but that's less than one-third of the stations in the market. My constituents in the 94th ranked Waco market are unable to get any local stations from DBS carriers. If the FCC would grant licenses to Northpoint, all the stations in the Dallas and Waco markets would become available to consumers. I would like to submit for the Record an editorial that appeared recently in the Wall Street Journal that examines Northpoint's struggle to obtain regulatory approval but raises broader issues. Namely, are our telecom regulators and regulations serving the New Economy or burdening it? At least in the case of Northpoint, I think we can all agree that regulators should not take seven years to approve the entry of a new competitor into the marketplace. Review & Outlook: Space Invaders [From the Wall Stree Journal June 5, 2001] Space, as every Star Trek fan knows, is the final frontier, but Federal regulators behave as though it's already been conquered. All of it. This behavior takes the form of spectrum allocation, a process by which the Federal Communications Commission decides who gets to use--and even how they must use--the invisible electromagnetic wavelengths that transmit radio, television, satellite and wireless phone signals. The allocation system may have worked well enough when it was designed 80 years ago to broadcast first radio and later TV. But a proliferation of wireless innovations has led to increased demand for spectrum space, and the current method of doling it out, like all attempts at central planning, has resulted in an artificial shortage. Wireless technologies, we'll add here, are but another way to shake America's thirst for broadband Internet access, and we suspect that the slothful deployment of broadband has played a significant role in Nasdaq's struggles of late and the dot-com skid in general. In effect, government control of the airwaves has helped to create virtual queues. One way that industry has responded to the FCC's frequency- hoarding is by developing ways to increase the capacity and efficiency of available spectrum. The idea is to share and reuse bandwidth with existing spectrum occupants, and without drowning out what's already being transmitted over the same frequency. Northpoint Technology, for example, wants to offer a low- cost alternative to DirecTV and EchoStar, the direct broadcast satellite giants. Northpoint's plan is to use part of its capacity to offer channels like MTV and HBO, while using the other part to offer high-speed Internet and other data services. But before any of this can happen. Northpoint needs access to the spectrum. DirecTV and EchoStar, which already occupy the spectrum and would have to compete with Northpoint, are defending their turf. That's understandable, even if their claim that Northpoint's signal would interfere with theirs is largely bogus. Repeated independent studies and field tests have provided no evidence of anything extraordinary. What we don't understand is the behavior of the FCC, which says it's still thinking about it. Northpoint first applied for the license in 1994, so the FCC has been thinking about it for seven years. A provision of the 1996 Telecommunications Act requires the FCC to act on new technology within 12 months, but never mind that. If fundamental reform of the allocation process isn't in the cards right now, the very least that regulators can do is allow the Northpoints out there to make innovative use of the available spectrum. The larger issue is whether our telecom regulators and our telecom regulations are serving the New Economy or burdening it. How many would-be innovators have looked at Northpoint's ordeal and concluded, why bother? And how much longer must we wait for mass deployment of broadband? something is in the way of all this happening sooner rather than later, and it's certainly not the technology. FCC Commissioner Michael Powell has at least signaled an awareness of these problems. Last month, he told House appropriators that spectrum allocation ``is on the top of my agenda'' and that broadband deployment is a priority. Industry and consumers alike have reason to hope he means it.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the House has concluded its activities for the day, and I thank the gentleman from Colorado for taking time to update us on the important issues that he finds not only in his tutelage as a Member of Congress from Colorado, but also as an important Member of this body. Mr. Speaker, tonight I would like to talk about something that is very important. It is called the Patients' Bill of Rights. It is an important issue that the House of Representatives and the other body will be taking up. The issue of the Patients' Bill of Rights is one that is of importance not only to consumers, but it is also important to physicians. It is important to health care providers; it is important to insurance providers. It is important to Members of Congress because we recognize that today in health care across this country that there are some unresolved issues and some changes that have not taken place in the Nation. The Nation, unfortunately, is looking to Washington, D.C. to attempt to solve some of these problems. Tonight I would like to float a new concept or idea which I believe will become part of the health care debate. We are all aware that by and large Republicans and Democrats, Members of this body, have come to an agreement on many things that will be necessary to solve the health care problem. Things like access to emergency rooms and making sure that sick people are taken care of and having doctors make decisions and making general reform under the Patients' Bill of Rights, but the impediment or the stopping point, why we have not been able to resolve this matter rests on the issue of liability. The issue of liability or accountability is one that has not been fully seen through with an answer. Mr. Speaker, part of the problem goes back to something that is called ERISA, which is an act from 1974, an act that provides companies that have or do business across State lines the ability to give them a chance to have an insurance policy, a savings plan and other types of arrangements for their employees on a nationwide basis rather than looking directly at how they might comply with 50 State insurance commissioner plans or 50 State plans related to savings plans. Because of ERISA, what is called ERISA preemption, it means that health care providers do not have to comply exactly because of this exemption that they have in the marketplace to liability issues. It gives them an exemption from being sued essentially in the marketplace. So there are some HMOs that may or may not provide service that would be consistent with State plans, and so there is a call for us to level that playing field and decide how that is going to work. Mr. Speaker, the answer that is generally accepted is that you just allow HMOs to be sued so that the consumer or a doctor's decision is taken into account and corrected. We, as Members of this body, deliberated on this effort. Last year I voted for something called the Norwood-Dingell bill, which would allow this to take place, where a body, that is an HMO, could be sued for a decision that they would be making in health care. The inability that we have for this body to decide today how that lawsuit would take place, whether it would be caps or an unlimited amount of money, whether it would be suing in Federal court or State court, who would be making medical decisions, whether medical decisions would be a part of this or whether it would be for harm, are things that have been widely debated. The idea that I would like to discuss tonight is how we can go about resolving this. Essentially my plan that will be put forward is one that says that I believe that we should not skew the marketplace. We in fact want to have employers be protected when they do not make medical decisions. We do not want employers to be sued. We do not want lawsuits that would take money from health care and cause an incredible amount of draining off of resources out of health care to take place. So we want to protect employers. We want doctors to make decisions. We want doctors to make the decisions that they have been trained to do that are medically necessary. We want to make sure as a public policy perspective that we are able to move on and give every single patient those things that they need and not hold up the delivery of those changes so that customers can, consumers can have what they need. Mr. Speaker, my plan is simple. It separates process from harm. It says that we will not allow lawsuits as part of a difference that might take place between an HMO and a consumer, an HMO and a doctor. We will not allow those to go to a lawsuit where there is a nonharm that has been placed as a difference between these circumstances. Why is this important? It is important because I do not believe that we should solve our differences in a court of law, but rather we should be dynamic in understanding that a doctor should be the one who is making the decisions about nondamage differences in the marketplace. So my bill will separate what I call process from harm. The process would be, as has been accomplished in many States around the country, where there is a difference between a consumer, a patient, a doctor, and a health care provider, we would allow an internal and an external review, the internal review meaning that we would allow the HMO the opportunity to understand what their difference is and that they would have to respond back with a physician's answer, but that the final decision in this would be made by an external review, a panel that was made up of three expert physicians in this field. I believe it is important that we allow doctors to make medical decisions and not look to courts to do that. On the other side of the coin where we deal with harm, I believe it is important that we go to a court of law, that we allow a harmed party an opportunity not only to go to a court to address these issues, but to be in front of a jury. That is where the other part of my bill will allow a party, a harmed party, to go to State court to resolve their differences. It is my hope that this process that we are beginning will allow us an opportunity to move forward in a bipartisan way to address the issues and give patients those things that they need, address them under the Patients' Bill of Rights and also address them under liability.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) for yielding me the time. This Vitter-Sessions amendment is very important for the Armed Forces of this country. We have heard today how school boards all across this country and up to 2,000 schools nationally have banned military recruiters from coming on their campus. It is of the utmost importance that the American military have the opportunity to not only come and tell their story about the military, but also to attract some of the brightest and best of our young people. Mr. Chairman, see, many times there are people who have no other opportunities, whether it be college or other directions, and the military stands as a fabulous, not only career, but an opportunity for public service that young men and young women all across our country, and they might not have that opportunity simply because a school board or a school superintendent or principal might have a bias against the military. I was on the U.S.S. John C. Stennis, which is one of our largest aircraft carriers, just a few weeks ago and spoke with person after person, young persons from all across this country, and many of them expressed to me that the vision and idea that they had not only about serving our Nation came from a member of the military who visited their campus, but also from a loved one who perhaps served in the military. Mr. Chairman, I will tell my colleagues this amendment to H.R. 1 of allowing the military the opportunity to recruit on school campuses all across America is not only in the best interests of America, but it is in the best interests of every one of our students. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) for his leadership.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize today an outstanding educator from my district, Dr. John Horn. At the end of this school year, Dr. Horn will retire as Superintendent of the Mesquite Independent School District, bringing his long and distinguished career to a close. During his 38-year career, Dr. Horn has been a visionary in public education, receiving numerous awards for his service. In 1995, he was honored as the Texas Superintendent of the Year by the Texas Association of School Administrators. The Mesquite ISD, with over 32,000 students, has thrived under his leadership, most recently earning the ``Recognized'' rating from the Texas Education Agency in 2000. Dr. Horn involves the entire community in the improvement of education and involves himself in the community through various civic organizations. Often referred to as the ``superintendent's superintendent,'' Dr. Horn has thoroughly dedicated himself to the education and enrichment of his students. Although he be will greatly missed, Dr. Horn's legacy will serve as a constant reminder of his extraordinary career. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Dr. John Horn on all of his accomplishments and wishing him the best for his well-deserved retirement.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize an outstanding example of parental and community involvement in education in my district. The Friends of Lakewood program is a community effort dedicated to enhancing the learning experience of students at Lakewood Elementary School in Dallas. One of their most successful initiatives has been the ``Math Maniacs'' program. With more than one-third of students participating, the fruits of this program are evident in the school's continued success at the Dallas ISD Math Olympiad. As we all know, the participation of parents and the community is crucial to educational success. When children see that parents care about education, it motivates them to aim higher and become better students. The Friends of Lakewood program is a model for community leadership and involvement in education--I comment the parents, students, and community of Lakewood for their success.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, part of the opportunity that we had to have this bill on the floor today was that we had to go through the Committee on Rules. The Committee on Rules is the body which deliberates on what is on the floor. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Cincinnati, Ohio (Mr. Chabot), who is chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is great to be back in Washington after a 2-week break and find out that a lot of my colleagues view the inability to raise taxes easily as kind of like what a vampire would feel about light. They just do not like it. They do not like that threat of taking away the ability to go to the American people and take and take and take and take. We are trying to make it more difficult for that to happen. I am glad to see that we are back in Washington and able to show our differences. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who is the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend and distinguished member of the Committee on Rules, 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. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 118 is a structured rule providing for the consideration of H.J. Res. 41, 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 printed in the Congressional Record if offered by the minority leader or his designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be separately debated for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Madam Speaker, another April 15 tax day has come and gone, leaving most Americans frustrated by the size and complexity of our tax system. I, too, am one of those who is confused and dazed and frustrated by this complexity of the system. The humor columnist Dave Barry described this season in these words: ``It is income tax time again, Americans; time to gather up those receipts, get those tax forms, sharpen up that pencil, and stab yourself in the aorta.'' Today, the average American pays more in taxes than he or she does in 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. Opponents may cynically dismiss this important legislation by saying that we have debated the tax limitation amendment before. Madam Speaker, we have indeed been here before; and we will hopefully continue to debate this issue on the House floor until we see its passage. I have observed with great interest the spirited debate surrounding the tax cut that now is taking place in the Halls of Congress. Over the last few months, debate about tax cuts have evolved from whether we should have a tax cut, to how much of a tax cut the American people should be given. No longer should we argue about whether or not reducing the tax burden is good for individuals as well as America's economy, because it is good. Instead, discussion is focused on the extent of a tax cut. We have seen the people across this Nation overwhelmingly support tax reduction. I am pleased that the consensus is finally being attained within this Congress to reflect the sentiment of the American people. In the same way a balanced budget took place years before the consensus was achieved, so we are fighting that battle today. I recall when I was running for Congress in 1994, people said we would never have a balanced budget; and indeed in 1993, I recall a Senator in the other body once stated that if we ever had a balanced budget by the year 2002, he would take a high dive off the top of the Capitol. Thank goodness 2002 is a year away, but, Madam Speaker, we have now balanced the budget for 6 years. The annual floor consideration of the tax limitation amendment gives us the opportunity to take a stand on the side of the 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 the American taxpayer. Passage of this rule today will allow the House to begin debate on one of the most serious matters to be considered by the Congress, an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. When our Founding Fathers met more than 200 years ago to draft what became the Constitution of the United States, there was an agreement on potential problems our Nation faced. Our Constitution was drafted to address those problems. In many instances they wrote specific language protecting the people from what at times could be oppressive, intrusive, or an overbearing Federal Government. They protected bedrock foundations to our liberty and freedom, such as life, the pursuit of happiness, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. Our founding fathers were so insightful and ingenious in their preparation of our Constitution that they provided within our system of checks and balances a Constitution which would clearly enumerate occasions where a supermajority would be appropriate as the guardian of the people. A vote of two-thirds of both Houses, for example, is required to override a Presidential veto; a two-thirds vote of the Senate is required to approve treaties and to convict and impeach a Federal official; but a two-thirds vote of Congress is not yet required for raising taxes. In my view, our Founding Fathers would recognize that under the current system there is an inherent bias towards raising taxes and might support this constitutional provision. There has long been a bias towards raising taxes under our current system. The Federal budget is currently in balance in part due to the spending constraints by Congress, as well as hard work and global leading productivity of American workers. But short economic downturns can be expected. Future Congresses may not be as fiscally responsible and return to the ways of deficit spending and take the easy way out by raising taxes. Making it more difficult to raise taxes balances the options available to Congress as it makes decisions on the size of government. It is critical that this balance be achieved. By requiring a supermajority to raise taxes, an incentive for government agencies could be created to eliminate waste and create efficiency, rather than simply turning to more deficit spending or increased taxes. It is important to remember that there was no Federal income tax when our Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution. Not until 1913 was the 16th amendment of the Constitution passed to allow Congress to tax the American people. The first tax ranged from 1 to 7 percent and only applied to the wealthiest Americans. Medieval serfs gave 30 percent of their output to the lord of the manor. Egyptian peasants gave 20 percent of their toils in the fields to the Pharaoh. God required 10 percent from the people of Israel. Yet in America, Federal, State and local taxes eat up 40 percent of the average family income. Increasing further the burden on the taxpayer, sometimes the taxes are passed retroactively, sometimes they are passed from generation to generation, and sometimes they are forced upon us even after death, all from the Federal Government. So, today I stand before you with a bipartisan coalition to put forth a question of liberty. Will we make it harder for Congress to raise taxes on its own citizens? Will we require a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress to pass a tax increase on to the American families and our children? Will we pass this amendment to the Constitution and require a supermajority, not just a simple majority, to raise taxes? That is the question that we face today. This amendment will apply to all tax increases from the Federal Government, not just income tax hikes. The legislation recognizes that there may be times of extenuating circumstances, such as during a time of war or a national emergency, when taxes 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 unlimited government expansion over the last few decades. Madam Speaker, it is time the Federal Government joined the States and listened to the voice of the American people. It should be harder to raise taxes. Had this amendment been adopted sooner, the four largest tax increases since 1980, which have occurred in 1982, 1987, 1990, and 1993, all would have failed. These tax increases totaled $666 billion. The bottom line of this debate is that we must make it more difficult to raise taxes. Those that support this amendment will do so because they believe that the American people deserve a right to also have it more difficult to take money from them. Those that oppose it will do so because they want to make it easier to raise taxes on the American people. Madam Speaker, this is a defining issue. Make no mistake about it. The Members who support this amendment are here to support hard-working taxpayers of America. Those Members who oppose it are here to defend the tax collectors of America. It is really that simple. We will hear rhetoric from opponents of this legislation criticizing jurisdiction procedures and a slew of other glossary terms, but nothing can hide the reality that America supports a two-thirds tax limitation constitutional amendment. Madam Speaker, like many Members of this body, I not only oppose raising taxes, I support making our Tax Code fairer, simpler, and flatter. Albert Einstein was once quoted as saying that the hardest thing to understand in the world is the income tax. The tax limitation amendment allows for tax reform, provided that any tax reform is revenue-neutral or provides a net tax cut. Also, any fundamental tax reform which would have the overall effect of lowering taxes could still pass with a simple majority. The tax limitation amendment allows for a simple majority to eliminate tax loopholes. The de minimis exemptions would allow nearly all loopholes to be closed without the supermajority requirement. Madam Speaker, we may hear from opponents that the government will be unable to function if a supermajority vote is required. However, I would encourage all Members to look at our States. Eleven States require a supermajority to raise taxes. The millions of Americans living in these States have shown that greater economic growth and better job creation by the tax limitation can be brought to all Americans, just the same as they have in those States. The amendment protects the American people. It makes it harder for the Federal Government to raise taxes on its own citizens, and that is why I am here today. Today, we can take one step closer to regaining liberty and ensuring future generations the freedom our Founding Fathers intended for America to enjoy. The debate is about liberty. This debate is about requiring a two-thirds vote to raise taxes on America. Madam Speaker, at this time I would remind my colleagues that this is a fair rule that was adopted by the Committee on Rules yesterday. It is a standard rule under which the proposal has been considered in years past, and I urge my colleagues to support this rule. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 118 ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As a result of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) yielding back his time, it is intuitively obvious to me that I am out of time. Madam Speaker, I ask for all Members to support this fair and open rule. This is a rule that is good for America and good for American taxpayers. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, I inquire as to the time remaining.