Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, tonight I would like to give thanks to my colleagues for the continued work that we are having and making on the Family Opportunity Act of 2000, H.R. 4825. This Family Opportunity Act is important for families. It allows families to stay together when they may have a child that is born with a severe medical problem. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4825 also helps parents who have the opportunity to work without fearing the loss of Medicaid services for their disabled child instead of refusing jobs, pay raises and overtime. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4825 is bipartisan; it is bicameral, 139 House cosponsors and 77 Senate sponsors. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4825 is a bill we are still working on. We will not give up on it until we leave, and I want those people who are working on this to know that I support their efforts and appreciate them very much.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of Congress a recent letter from United States military leaders regarding the recent violence in the Middle East. The letter follows: We, the undersigned, believe that during the current upheavals in Israel, the Israel Defense Forces have exercised remarkable restraint in the face of lethal violence orchestrated by the leadership of a Palestinian Authority that deliberately pushes civilians and young people to the front lines. We are appalled by the Palestinian political and military leadership that teaches children the mechanics of war while filling their heads with hate. We are appalled by Palestinian ``military commanders'' who place armed adults amid civilian rioters, including children, and then callously use the inevitable casualties as grist for their propaganda mill. The behavior of those Palestinians, who use civilians as soldiers in a war, is a perversion of military ethics. What makes the US-Israel security relationship one of mutual benefit is the combination of military capabilities and shared political values--freedom, democracy, personal liberty and the rule of law. Yitzhak Rabin said at the beginning of this peace effort with the Palestinians that one can only make peace with one's enemies. But the enemy must have decided to put down his weapons--rocks as well as rifles--and make peace in good faith. The Palestinian-initiated violence in Israel now strongly tells us that the necessary good faith is sorely lacking on the Palestinian side. America's responsibility as a friend to Israel, the only country in the Middle East that shares our democratic and humanitarian values, should never yield to America's role as facilitator in this process. Friends don't leave friends on the battlefield. Lt. Gen. Marcus Anderson, USAF (ret.), Inspector General, US Air Force. Lt. Gen. Robert Baer, USA (ret.), Deputy Commander, Army Materiel Command. Maj. Gen. Max Baratz, USAR (ret.), Commander, US Army Reserve. Lt. Gen. Jared Bates, USA (ret.), Inspector General, US Army. R. Adm. Charles Beers, USN (ret.), Commander, Submarine Group Ten. Lt. Gen. Arthur C. Blades, USMC (ret.), Deputy for Plans, Policies, and Ops. Lt. Gen. Anthony Burshnick, USAF (ret.), Commander, Military Airlift Command. Adm. James Busey, USN (ret.), CINC, US Navy Europe. Lt. Gen. Paul Cerjan, USA (ret.), Deputy Allied Commander, Europe. Adm. Hank Chiles, USN (ret.), Commander in Chief, US Strategic Command. Gen. J.B. Davis, USAF (ret.), CoS, Supreme HQ Allied Powers Europe. Adm. Bruce DeMars, USN (ret.), Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion. Maj. Gen. Lee Downer, USAF (ret.), Director of Operations, Air Combat Command. Adm. Leon Edney, USN (ret.), Commander, US Atlantic Fleet. Gen. John Foss, USA (ret.), Commanding General, Training and Doctrine Command. Maj. Gen. Donald Gardner, USMC (ret.), Commander, III Marine Expeditionary Force. Maj. Gen. William Garrison, USA (ret.), Commander, Joint Special Operations Command. Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, USA (ret.), Assistant Vice Chief of Staff. Maj. Gen. David Grange, USA (ret.), Dir., Army Operations, Readiness & Mobilization. Lt. Gen. Tom Griffin, USA (ret.), Chief of Staff, Allied Forces Southern Europe. Gen. Alfred Hansen, USAF (ret.), Commander, USAF Logistics Command. Adm. Jerome Johnson, USN (ret.), Vice Chief of Naval Operations. V. Adm. Dennis Jones, USN (ret.), Deputy CINC, US Strategic Command. V. Adm. Bernard Kauderer, USN (ret.), Commander, Submarine Forces, Atlantic Fleet. R. Adm. Herbert C. Kaler, USN (ret.), Dir., Joint Theater Air and Missile Defense Org. V. Adm. Anthony Less, USN (ret.), Commander, Naval Air Forces, US Atlantic Fleet. Maj. Gen. Jarvis Lynch, USMC (ret.), Commander, Eastern Marine Recruiting Depot. Lt. Gen. Charles May, USAF (ret.), Assistance Vice Chief of Staff, USAF. Maj. Gen. James McCombs, USAF (ret.), Deputy CINC, US Special Operations Command. R. Adm. William F. Merlin, USCG (ret.), Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District. Maj. Gen. William C. Moore, USA (ret.), Director, Operations, Readiness & Mobilization. Maj. Gen. Robert Patterson, USAF (ret.), Commanding General, 23rd Air Force. V. Adm. James Perkins, USN (ret.), Deputy CINC, US Southern Command. Lt. Gen. Everett Pratt, USAF (ret.), Vice Commander, US Air Forces Europe. Maj. Gen. Milnor Roberts, USA (ret.), Deputy Chief, US Army Reserve. R. Adm. Norman Saunders, USCG (ret.), Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District. Maj. Gen. Sidney Shachnow, USA (ret.), Commander, JFK Special Warfare School. R. Adm. Sumner Shapiro, USN (ret.), Director, Naval Intelligence. Adm. Leighton Smith, USN (ret.), Commander, US Forces, Southern Europe. Maj. Gen. Larry Taylor, USMCR (ret.), Commander, 4th Marine Aircraft Wing. Adm. Carlisle A.H. Trost, USN (ret.), Chief of Naval Operations. V. Adm. Jerry Tuttle, USN (ret.), Director, Space and Electronic Warfare. Brig. Gen. Thomas E. White, USA (ret.), Exec. to the Chairman of the JCS. R. Adm. Guy Zeller, USN (ret.), Dir., Surface Warfare,

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my support for S. 1452. This legislation contains many provisions that will have a positive impact on homeownership and ensure that housing is affordable for more Americans. As a former Member of the Housing Subcommittee, I know how hard my friend Chairman Rick Lazio has worked with Members of the House and Senate to bring this legislation to the floor today. Mr. Speaker, S. 1452 contains many of the provisions of legislation originally passed by the House, H.R. 1776, the ``Housing and Economic Opportunity Act''. I was proud to manage the Rule that enabled the bill to be passed by the House by an overwhelming margin. One important provision of this legislation is the Law Enforcement Officer Homeownership Pilot Program that assists law enforcement officers in purchasing a home in a locally designated high-crime area. Specifically, the program would enable law enforcement officers to include the downpayment, closing costs and origination fee in the loan amount. I strongly support this provision and believe that it will help make our communities safer for our children. I do regret, however, that Section 102 of H.R. 1776 was not included in S. 1452. This section would require that the Federal Government perform a housing impact analysis before it issues new regulations. Such an analysis would make it more difficult to implement regulations that would impose a significant cost to consumers who wish to buy homes. Furthermore, the private sector would have the opportunity to offer alternative regulations if the government-created regulations exceeded a certain cost. Although this section was not included in an attempt to reach consensus on the overall legislation, the Republican-led Congress and myself remain committed to stopping burdensome regulations as they are proposed by government agencies.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), my colleague on the Committee on Rules, indicates he does not have further speakers. I have indicated back that I do have two additional speakers. I am well aware there is an imbalance on time on both sides. I will proceed with that understanding. I will proceed with two additional speakers, then I will offer the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) the opportunity to close, and then I will do the same. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Del Mar, California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 624 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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 provides for the consideration of H.R. 2415, legislation that will reform our Nation's bankruptcy laws. This rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. The rule provides that the conference report may be considered as read. The underlying legislation is important legislation that fundamentally reforms the existing bankruptcy system into a needs-based system. I am very proud of the tireless efforts of the Members of both the House and the Senate who have worked to reach this bipartisan agreement to ensure that our bankruptcy laws operate fairly, efficiently and free of abuse. There is a strong support for bankruptcy reform. The House version of this bill passed with more than 300 votes earlier this year. The Senate passed their version with 88 votes. There is a great need for this legislation. A record 1.42 million personal bankruptcy filings were recorded in 1998. This is a stunning increase of 500 percent since 1980. Despite an unprecedented time of economic prosperity, low unemployment and rising disposable income, personal bankruptcies are rising, costing over $40 billion in the past year. Without serious reform of our bankruptcy law, these trends promise to grow each year costing business and consumers even more in the form of losses and higher costs of credit. Mr. Speaker, the bankruptcy reform that we will consider is based upon two important tenets: number one, the bankruptcy system should provide the amount of debt relief that an individual needs, no more and no less; and, point two, bankruptcies should be the last resort and financial crisis, not the first resort using it as a financial planning tool. A record 1.4 million personal bankruptcies were filed in 1998. That is one out of every 75 households in America. The debts that remained unpaid as a result of those bankruptcies cost each American family that did pay their bills over $500 a year in the form of higher costs for credit, goods, and services. Unfortunately, the debt was eventually passed on to consumers last year and the cost to consumers is what bankruptcy filers have added on to the system. That is why it is so important that we pass real bankruptcy reform. Opponents of this bill have tried to divert the discussion away from the merits of the bill, and to claim that it would make it more difficult for divorced women to obtain child support and alimony payments. However, nothing could be further from the truth. This bankruptcy reform bill protects the financial security of women and children by giving them a higher priority than under the current law. The legislation closes loopholes that allowed some debtors to use the current system to delay or evade child support and alimony payments. The bill recognizes that no obligation is more important than that of a parent to his or her children. Currently, child support payments are the seventh priority, behind such things as attorney's fees. Make no mistake, this bankruptcy bill puts women and children first, well ahead and at the top of that list. We should provide greater protection to families who are owed child support, and this bill will do just that. One important part of this legislation is known as the homestead provision. Protection of one's home is something that is very important to myself and my constituents in Texas. The homestead provision in this legislation maintains the long-held standard that allows the States to decide if homesteads should be protected, yet stops these purchases or purchase of a home before filing bankruptcy as a means to evade creditors. The bill also addresses other problems, including needs-based bankruptcy. The heart of this legislation is a needs-based formula that separates filers in Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 based upon their ability to pay. While many families may face job losses, divorce, or medical bills and therefore legitimately need the protection provided by the bankruptcy code, research has shown that some Chapter 7 filers actually have the capacity to repay some of what they owe. The formula directs into Chapter 13 those filers who earn more than the national median income, which is roughly $51,000 for a family of four, if they can pay all secured debt and at least 20 percent of the unsecured non-priority debt. This bill recognizes the need for customer education and protection. It includes education provisions that will ensure that debtors are made aware of their options before they file for bankruptcy, including alternatives to bankruptcy such as credit counseling, and the bill cracks down on bankruptcy mills, which are law firms and other entities that push debtors into bankruptcy without fully explaining the consequences. The bill also imposes new restrictions and responsibilities upon creditors with the goal of preventing borrowers from getting in over their heads. For example, the bill requires creditors to disclose more about the effect of paying only the minimum payment, and establishes new creditor penalties designed to encourage good-faith pre-bankruptcy settlement with debtors. I believe Congress has a special responsibility to address this issue and to ensure that our bankruptcy laws operate fairly, efficiently, and free of abuse. Mr. Speaker, this conference report meets those two tenets I mentioned earlier. It allows those who truly need a fresh start, and compels those who can pay back part of their debt to do so. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from California taking time to discuss this with us. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Addison, Michigan (Mr. Smith). (Mr. SMITH of Michigan 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, too, would like to have this House not only consider important pieces of legislation, as we are doing today, but also, as the gentleman from Texas has outlined, that there are a good number of things that we have yet to do that have not been done, just as we have not seen the ability to take social security to a lockbox that is being held up in the Congress of the United States because of the Democrat party. There are frustrating things that are occurring every day. The fact of the matter is, and I would remind my colleague, we are working together. We are going to continue until we have resolved the differences that we have. This is part of the bipartisan approach, but the fact of the matter is that rather than us sitting here and bickering, we need to get our job done on this important piece of legislation that has been passed numerous times. Mr. Speaker, I will once again remind my colleagues, this bankruptcy reform passed with more than 300 votes from this body. I am proud of the work that we are doing. We have not gone home, we are working together feverishly, not only among our House colleagues but also with the other body and our colleagues there, as well as the White House, on things that are of great importance not only to America but to families and to Members of Congress. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to forthrightly address the issues that have been talked about, the outrage from my colleagues on the left. The process that we are going through was done in the light of day. It was a bipartisan agreement. It was initiated on behalf of the Senate. I have the signature of one of the most distinguished Members of the United States Senate who happens to be a Democrat, who fully supported, not only this process, but agreed that this should be a way that we should get this done. Bankruptcy reform is important for us to do, and I am proud that Members from the other body forthrightly approached the issue.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I have great respect for what the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) talks about. It would be untruthful to suggest this was not a bipartisan agreement. It is a bipartisan agreement on a very important piece of legislation, and I believe that the truth should not be held hostage on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining on both sides, please.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the dialogue from the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). I would like to, once again, ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) to respond. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to tell my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), that I appreciate his support. I too would ask Members to vote for this rule. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), for his thoughtfulness in allowing me an opportunity to stand up to respond to my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). Mr. Speaker, I have been a student of this process. Perhaps I could be accused of changing what was the Democrat option on this bankruptcy. I appeared before the Committee on the Judiciary. The prior amount was $100,000. It is very clear that the Democrat Party wanted to take people's homes from them for as little as $100,000 of a home. The Democrat Party, as exemplified by the chairman, wants to make it easier for the middle class of this country to lose their homes if they are engaged in a bankruptcy. I stood up before the Committee on the Judiciary, and I said millionaires and billionaires are talked about taking advantage of this circumstance and it is blamed on people that have a home worth $100,000. I understand the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) disagrees with me. I understand the Democrat Party disagrees with me. The fact of the matter is, is that that figure has been moved to $250,000. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) agreed with me that day as a result of testimony back in the Committee on the Judiciary. That is why we are at $250,000. $100,000 is a wrong amount, and I believe that we should be forthright in understanding that a figure of $100,000 would mean that the middle class of this country, if faced with a bankruptcy, could then be thrown out of their own home. That is the reason why we have made the changes. That is the reason why it is what is in the best interest of people not only in Texas but all across this country. It preserves the States' rights, but the most important thing is that we aim at the problem. The problem is not the middle class of this country attempting to get out of paying their bills. It is about a problem of someone hiding their money in an asset or a resource like a home and trying to hide from their creditors. The problem, I believe, has been amply addressed. I disagree with the gentleman's assessment and would ask that we support this because it is the right thing for America.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I have indicated this would be the remaining speakers that we have in line with the agreement that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and I had, and I would like to let him know we have now finished our speakers. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 427) directing the Secretary of the Senate to correct the enrollment of the bill S. 3186.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law and the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, the subcommittee chairman of the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, for all their hard work over the past few years in getting this legislation to the point where it is today. Both men have demonstrated tremendous leadership and fairness in practice in creating this agreement that just passed this body, and I want to thank them for their efforts in the motion to rename this bankruptcy bill.

Mr. SESSIONS. In fact, the gentleman from Texas is seeking to rename the bill the Gekas-Grassley Act.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman for his question. It is simply to rename the bankruptcy bill in honor of both the gentlemen who have worked diligently on its passage.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for not only his consideration, but his collegiality in this effort.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Committee on Rules, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), for not only working on this issue but also my other colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), for her work on this important issue. Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about the conference report on the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. In particular, we are trying to draw attention to the importance of what the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 is all about. Mr. Speaker, for quite some time I have been engaged in trying to work with women's centers in Dallas, Texas, who every day are a part of the lives of thousands of women who are taken advantage of in marriage, taken advantage of not only because of the frailties that they have as the caregivers for children, women who are responsible for making sure that a family works together and stays together and many times are in a marriage that is very difficult. The Violence Against Women Act of 2000 is important because it once again enunciates by the House of Representatives that this is a crime that is taking place all across America, violence against women, that we will not tolerate. Most importantly, the gentlewoman from Ohio is speaking up about the importance of the issue so that it is not hidden in the work that Congress does. It is important that we support not only this conference report but that we recognize that America and the importance that we put on solving this national epidemic are brought to the forefront, the importance of Congress and the importance of a public policy that we have. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Ohio is not only a leader in our Congress but she is a leader for women in this area. I salute her and applaud her for the hard work that she has put in on this act.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. It is interesting that the facts of what George Bush's own tax plan is all about was in the ``Wall Street Journal,'' a review of it, on September 5 of this year. Here is what it does. I quote from this article. ``The Bush tax cut does not favor the rich.'' The ``Wall Street Journal'' says, ``The Bush tax cut does not favor the rich. This is not a flat tax, or even a proportional cut, though such cuts would be more efficient in economic terms. Rather, higher income families get lower percentage reductions.'' This is household income. Those earning $50,000 to $75,000 a year would see an average cut of 30 percent. My colleagues, I will tell you that this is exactly in line with what our economics have been, to take the burden away from people who earn between $50,000 and $75,000. Families earning $75,000 to $100,000 would see an average cut of 18 percent, and those earning more than $100,000 would have an average reduction of 10 percent. Mr. Speaker, what this does very clearly is say that where you have two people, perhaps they are both teachers making $35,000 and $35,000, they would receive a cut of 30 percent. All the time in my district, wherever I go, I try and talk about how teachers are great for not only our schools and our children, but for America; and they talk about they want a pay raise, they need more money, they need more money. The George Bush tax plan would give the average teacher and a spouse a 30 percent tax cut. I cannot imagine any school board giving their teachers a 30 percent tax increase. We need to have a tax cut. This government is too big and costs too much money. We need to give the power back, yes, even to our own teachers. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).