Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, a Dear Colleague letter will be sent to all Members informing them that the Committee on Rules may meet next week to grant a rule for the consideration of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for the fiscal year 2001. The Committee on Rules may grant a rule which would require that amendments be preprinted in the Congressional Record. In this case, amendments must be preprinted prior to their consideration on the floor. The Committee on Appropriations ordered the bill reported this afternoon and the Committee on Appropriations expects to file the report on the bill on Tuesday of next week. Copies of the bill as ordered reported can be obtained at the Office of Legislative Counsel and at the Committee on Appropriations office in Room H-218 of the Capitol. 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 their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There are a few things that obviously I need to respond to that have been discussed here in the discussion of the rule. First of all, I do recognize that there are people in Congress who want to spend more and more and more and more and more money. My years in Congress have taught me that virtually every single vote is about more spending or less spending, more rules and regulations or less rules and regulations, and about whether we are going to have a balanced budget or not. I learned a long time ago that you cannot please everybody in this House of Representatives. But to hear my colleagues say that COPS was underfunded to the point of extinction is an exaggeration that cannot go without an explanation. In fact, the COPS, which is the Community Oriented Policing Services, is funded to the tune of $595 million. I do not consider that to the point of extinction. I consider that to the point of there was a realistic discussion that we have to live within a balance of how much money we are going to be spending. We had a vote earlier in the year to determine what the budget would look like. As I recall, not one member of the minority party would even offer the President's budget for consideration or vote on the floor of the House of Representatives. Yet what they want to talk about over and over is the President's budget, what the President's budget does; and yet not one Democrat would even sponsor the President's bill on this floor. We do have a Republican bill that passed, and that is the budget that we are working within; and proudly we are going to say that we would not spend a penny of Social Security, and we would make sure that we balance the budget. Secondly, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) had an opportunity to state that the Federal Trade Commission must have sufficient resources to attack problems like the growing market capitalization of Oracle. Mr. Speaker, we have just been through another vigorous debate in this country about how another large company like Oracle was treated; they are Microsoft.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules I call up House Resolution 529 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. I will accept the gentleman's explanation that perhaps he did not mean Oracle, what the gentleman was talking about was a large company like Oracle when he said that, and I will accept the gentleman's explanation. I do accept the gentleman's explanation. What I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, is that the Republican Congress is proud of these large companies that employ millions of Americans, and I do understand that. I think these companies get it that this Justice Department would sooner have people like Bill Gates and others to be Germans or Chinese or from another country; they do not want them here in this country. Mr. Speaker, I will say that I believe that they add not only to the confidence of this country but also the might and the strength that we have of the capitalization, of jobs, of the technology, of e-commerce and are solving problems in our country. I am proud of what this rule does. I am proud of the balance that we have had in this bill, and I would remind my colleagues that this is an open rule allowing any Member of Congress to offer any germane amendment; and this being the case, I urge 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. I will quote: ``To attack the problems like the growing market capitalization.''

Mr. SESSIONS. I will not yield.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), my colleague and my friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us is an open rule that will allow us to have a full and open and fair debate of the issues contained within H.R. 4690, the Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill for Fiscal Year 2001. This open rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides one hour of general debate to be equally divided between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule provides that the bill shall be considered for amendment by paragraph. The rule waives clause 2 of the rule XXI against provisions in the bill, except as clarified by the rule. Clause 2 of rule XXI prohibits unauthorized or legislative provisions or transfers of funds in an appropriations bill. The rule authorizes the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. The rule permits the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15- minute vote. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation is very important. H.R. 4690 provides funding for the Departments of Justice, Commerce, and State, as well as funding for the Federal Judiciary. Very briefly, the Department of Justice is tasked with providing American citizens protection through effective law enforcement. The Department of Commerce has four basic missions: promoting the development of American business, increasing foreign trade, improving the Nation's technological competitiveness, and encouraging economic development. The State Department has a mission to advance and protect the worldwide interests and assets of the United States. Finally, appropriations for the Judiciary cover the Supreme Court as well as lower Federal district courts. Mr. Speaker, passage of this rule and the underlying legislation will ensure our Government has adequate funding to fight the war on drugs and crime. This Republican Congress has a record of success on drug and crime prevention programs contained within this legislation. Under the funding priorities set by these yearly appropriations, our Nation's violent crime rate has decreased for 5 straight years. In fact, the bill provides an increase of $1.75 billion over last year's level for the Department of Justice. That is $128 million more than the President requested. The total funding for the Department of Justice under this legislation is more than $20 billion. That number is far too large for us to comprehend. However, each one of us is affected by these programs that are funded by and within this Department. The program within the Department of Justice that immediately comes to my mind is the ``weed and seed'' program. Through this program, law enforcement officers receive community-policing training with a special emphasis on mediation skills. Officers are taught to literally pull the weeds, the troublemakers, out of communities and replace them with seeds, law-abiding citizens, which will help a community grow and prosper. Vicki Martin, a friend of mine, who heads the Ferguson Road Initiative in Dallas, Texas, is our team leader using the weed and seed dollars provided by the Department of Justice. By using this Federal money, Vicki Martin and the Ferguson Road Initiative have successfully increased the quality of life for persons within my congressional district. Not only does this legislation fund the agencies that make Americans safer at home, it also provides security for Americans serving abroad. All of us were troubled by the bombings of United States embassies in Africa just a few years ago. A report after those bombings revealed severe security lapses at other U.S. Government facilities abroad also. This legislation will demonstrate Congress's commitment to protect our overseas posts and employees by providing $1.06 billion for worldwide security improvements. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take 1 minute to comment on one issue within this bill that is also very important to me. In light of recent attacks to private sector Web sites, I have become increasingly aware and concerned about the vulnerability of the Federal Government's computer systems to terrorist attack. Tragically, the current administration has failed to address this as a significant threat. Recently the United States General Accounting Office reported that almost every Government agency is plagued by poor computer security. Specifically, the GAO reports that weaknesses in computer security at the Defense Department provide computer hackers the opportunity to modify, steal, and destroy sensitive data. The Department of State mainframe computers for domestic operations are also very susceptible to cyber terrorists according to the GAO. In my view, the lack of attention paid to cyber security by the Clinton-Gore administration is one of the biggest and most glaring examples of mismanagement and is a threat to our national security. I had wished to offer an amendment to this appropriations measure to address this issue of cyber security. I had hoped that at least $10 million of the money allocated to the State Department for security improvements would be directed to tighten information security at the Department. I understand this amendment would constitute legislating on appropriations and would first need to be considered by the appropriate authorizing committee. This being the case, I chose not to offer this amendment to the appropriations bill. However, I am pleased that the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) has agreed to work with me to see that that important issue is addressed in the coming year. By avoiding controversial legislative provisions on appropriations bills, the House leadership has moved appropriations bills in a manner consistent with finishing properly by the end of this fiscal year. Accordingly, I encourage other Members who intend to offer amendments to this appropriations that are legislative in nature to join me in supporting this rule and working to address other issues in their proper context and through the regular order of the House. Mr. Speaker, with this Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary appropriations bill, the Committee on Appropriations has once again managed to balance a wide array of interests and make tough choices with limited resources. This legislation funds important programs to reflect our national priorities while keeping within the confines of a balanced Federal budget. I commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) for their work on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to continue the careful manner in which this legislation was crafted and to support the rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to clarify a provision contained within S. 761, the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act. Mr. Speaker, the final conference agreements strikes title III of the House bill (H.R. 1714) with respect to electronic records, signatures or agreements covered under the federal securities laws because the title I provisions of the conference agreement are intended to encompass the title III provisions. The reference in section 101(a) of the conference agreement to ``any transaction in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce'' is intended to include electronic records, signatures, and agreements governed by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and all electronic records, signatures, and agreements used in financial planning, income tax preparation, and investments. Therefore, the conference agreement does not need to single out or treat differently electronic records, signatures and agreements regulated by federal securities laws in a separate title.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, a lot of the work that has been done on this, not only the bill but also the conference report, is directly as a result of those Members who serve on the Committee on Commerce. Today I am pleased to be with the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), who is a part of not only this negotiation, but also the ongoing effort to make this bill and further bills that may be in our future better for consumers of America. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin). (Mr. TAUZIN 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, it would be wonderful if we all agreed on all points of legislation like we are agreeing today on this conference report. What we have heard today described is an agreement that we have made between the parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, about a new way of doing business. In fact, the agreement that we believe that this conference report represents is not exactly leading edge but it is a beginning. It is a start of an opportunity for consumers, for retailers, for people who are engaged in financial transaction and financial services to encourage a new world that is there. We have heard the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) describe his view and vision, along with the chairman of the Committee on Rules, that they felt like that there were too many roadblocks that are put in the way of consumers and too many things that were required, answers back and forth and limitations being placed upon consumers. This is a good start and it does not take a complete agreement to have a deal. What we have today is a deal. What we have today is a rule that has been agreed to, where both sides have come to the table, have openly agreed; and so we are going to support this conference report. I would submit an article of some writing that has been in the paper today about how we are going to have to continue in our endeavor to make sure that in the future that we come back and readdress this issue so that consumers and people engaged in financial services have fewer roadblocks in order to get their job done. I support this rule. [From the Financial Times, June 12, 2000] Caveat Surfer Should Be the E-Commerce Motto (By Amity Shlaes) Perhaps the most exciting thing about the new internet world is that it undermines the assumptions of the old one. In the internet world, we get along without many things we were long assured had to be: centralised authority, standardised addresses and so on. Technologies that would have been dismissed as chaotic a few years ago turn out to function very well without extra regulation, thank you. The new world has already found its own muse--the writer Virginia Postrel. She calls for the combating of what she dubs an ideology of stasis--``the notion that the good society is one of stability, predictability and control, and government's responsibility is to curb, direct or end unpredictable market evolution''. But chaos, even functioning chaos, is not to everyone's liking. Governments these days are desperate to claim the new e-territory, even to dominate it. On the level of instinct, this strikes most people as laughable. Nothing, not even fund-raising controversy, has subjected Al Gore to more ridicule than his statement that he fathered the internet. This naturally does not stop governments from trying. Fear is their main weapon. Without new protections, they suggest, the internet will give rise to Hollywood-type nightmares-- abuses of consumers, online perverts who prey on eight-year- olds, global financial crashes and so on. Some concerns are legitimate--the most serious being Napster--style raids on intellectual property. But governments also raise these issues as a political device. In this context, the humdrum push-and-pull about bits of technology legislation making their way through the various Western legislatures takes on new meaning. Consider a skirmish in Washington this week about legislation on internet contracts. Like a new British law, it would allow firms and customers to conclude paper-free transactions. The fact that Congress has made the digital signatures bill the centrepiece of new internet legislation should come as good news to freedom-loving types. For contract law is by its nature private: contracts require only two parties, and diminish, even obviate, the need for nosy government. But the e-signature bill also caught the interest of the centralisers. Lawmakers led by Tom Bliley, a Republican Congressman from Virginia, insisted that the old culture of contracts cannot protect consumers from the fresh dangers of the internet. So they inserted requirements so onerous as to deter online consumers, not a crowd noted for its patience in the first place. Under the bill as it stood late last week, internet users would have been required to send any number of repeated e- mails reconfirming their consent to the contract at every stage of a transaction, as well as demonstrating that they had absorbed every bit of legal boilerplate. Predictably, this provoked the concern of the Charles Schwabs, Dreyfuses and banks of this world. The financial community has the most to lose if the new law deters customers. But the extra consumer measures also gave pause to Phil Gramm, chairman of the Senate banking committee. Mr. Gramm is less worried by brokerages than by principle--the principle that the online frontier not be colonised by the old regulatory culture. He points out that the new bill goes beyond anything that already applies in contract law. ``What happened to `Let the buyer beware?' '' he asks. ``Common law and a thousand years of paper contracts established duties and responsibilities for people participating in commerce. You don't want to change that relationship so that e-commerce undermines contracts and commerce.'' On Friday, enough of the obstacles were stripped out to win Mr. Gramm's grudging support, but others remained. ``We have gone from having two different versions of a bill that would have been an A or an A minus, to a low B at best,'' says James Lucier of Prudential Securities. Henry Judy, a lawyer with the Washington office of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, has compared US and UK legislation. He says the latter ``is broader, but some of the precise consumer issues dealt with by the US legislation are left in the UK bill to later administrative decisions''. The British e-consumer is not safe from government fiat--as another bill allowing e- mail surveillance shows. Nor are e-signatures the only area where the control question is a matter of legislative controversy. During the spring the US media have made internet privacy for shoppers a huge issue. The finance editor of Consumer Reports has demanded that websites create ``in your face'' privacy warnings. The Federal Trade Commission is now pushing Congress to regulate websites. On the tax front, the freedom types have been victorious-- but only for now. Lawmakers led by Congressman Chris Cox of California recently succeeded in extending a moratorium on new taxes on the internet. But this expires in five years and many states are lobbying hard for a nationally co-ordinated sales tax regime. Across the Atlantic, the European Commission has been lobbying so strongly for new taxing authority that it has stirred the ire of the US Treasury. Of course, it is easier to bash someone else's tax arrangements than to stand firm on taxes at home. Globally, the tax issue remains in play; the internet may end up bringing more taxation, rather than less. Particularly troubling here is the assumption that the internet is inherently more treacherous than the telegraph, the telephone or any other new medium that went before. That is questionable. A few years into the internet era, we have yet to see the electronic world wreak huge damage. Five months and a few days later, concerns about the Year 2000 bug already seem an irrelevance. Why not proceed with optimism? After all, we were wise enough to let the internet happen. Now the challenge is to be wise enough to let it grow. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), who has been an active participant in ensuring that not only e-commerce but the financial services of this country are not only market-based and leading edge, but also consumer-friendly. (Mr. DREIER 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 523 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), 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. SESSIONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today on this beautiful Flag Day provides for the consideration of S. 761, the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. The rule provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. Mr. Speaker, today the House takes a step forward towards promoting the new economy and facilitating the growth of electronic commerce. Important legislation to update the laws that govern how business is transacted will be considered by Congress with the passage of this law. Furthermore, the underlying legislation will allow all Americans to benefit from the efficiencies resulting from advances in technology. Under current law, contracts and agreements among businesses and individuals are considered binding when the second party indicates agreement to terms with that signature. This system has worked fine for many years. However, the widespread use of computers and electronic means of communication have made this system antiquated and inefficient. The Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act will ensure that the United States will remain the leader in the 21st Century marketplace by giving legal and uniform status to electronic signatures. Electronic signatures would become binding, just like a handwritten signature. Under the legislation, Americans would still be covered by the existing consumer protection laws should they choose to use this type of signature. Additionally, the legislation requires consent of the consumer to use electronic signature. No consumer would be forced into using electronic signature if they would feel more comfortable using a handwritten or normal signature. Electronic signatures will change the way businesses interact with other businesses, how business works with their customers, and even how government serves its citizenry. Electronic signatures will make it easier for people to pay their bills, apply for a loan, trade securities, purchase goods, and contract services. Electronic signatures will also give greater protections to consumers through advanced encryption technologies. Not only is it far more difficult to fraudulently use an electronic signature than traditional signature, but electronic signatures leave a trail that would lead to the door of those who seek to defraud us. Much has been done by this Congress to encourage the development of so-called new economy industries. Last summer, this Congress passed legislation that helped all but eliminate the computer glitch known as the Y2K bug. A few months later, the Republican majority brought legislation to the House floor to protect patents for Americans inventors and innovators. Recently, the House passed a moratorium on taxation of the Internet. The legislation we are considering today is yet another effort by the Republican-led Congress to ensure that our Nation remains at the forefront of the emerging electronic global marketplace. I would urge my colleagues to support this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, today has been a glorious day for the United States House of Representatives. This body, actually yesterday, debated one of the most outstanding trade packages that will take place perhaps in my tenure in the House of Representatives, and I am pleased to report to those listeners that might be hearing us tonight that the House of Representatives earlier today passed what is known as the permanent normal trade relations with China. It was a stunning victory for people who choose to have free and fair trade around this globe.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for giving me 1 minute to express my sincere appreciation, not only to him for the hard work he has done in this endeavor, but also for the good work that this is going to mean. Twenty years we have been working with China, American businesses in China. Now is the time to make it permanent. Now is the time to say to American companies, please do, go invest in China. I believe that we are going to find that American and Chinese workers working together, that we are going to find products that flow between America and China will be to the advantage of free people. That is what this is all about. This is about the ability of people in China to, not only have what they want, which is freedom, but also American products to enjoy. This will be a great day, not only in Beijing, but a great day in Washington. I support the rule. I intend to vote for PNTR. I encourage my colleagues to do so also.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) for his support of this rule. The rule is fair. The rule allows debate. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) came before the Committee on Rules and asked that we consider what he was doing, and he today is supporting us. Mr. Speaker, we also have people who not only represent veterans across this country, as many of us do, but we also have those who are veterans who serve in Congress. I serve next to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), from the Third Congressional District, a man who served as a prisoner of war for 7 years in North Vietnam. I am pleased also to have a young man who serves with us, a colleague who has been instrumental with the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Spence), in making sure that the veterans of this country and active duty men and women are not only protected but receive the very best of assurances that we will never put our Armed Forces in harm's way without the best ability that they have, and I am speaking about the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer). The gentleman served as a captain in the United States Army, in the Gulf War and now serves as a lieutenant colonel in the Reserves. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

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, yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted a rule to provide for further consideration of H.R. 4205, the fiscal year 2001 Department of Defense Authorization Act. The rule provides that no further amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute be in order, except those printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution and pro forma amendments offered by the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services for the purpose of debate. The rule provides that, except as specified in section 4 of the resolution, each amendment printed in the report shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or Committee of the Whole. The rule provides that each amendment printed in the report shall be debatable for the time specified and equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment, except as specified in the report and except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services may each offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate on any pending amendment. The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report. The rule allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes on amendments during consideration of the bill and to reduce voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-minute vote. The rule allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to recognize for the consideration of any amendment printed in the report out of the order printed, but not sooner than 1 hour after the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services or a designee announces from the floor a request to that effect. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, this is rule number 2 for H.R. 4205. Yesterday and this morning, under rule number 1, we debated 35 amendments to the bill. Today we will consider another seven. In the end, out of 102 amendments submitted to the Committee on Rules, the House will consider 42. Today's rule provides for a full and fair debate on several controversial issues. I will vote against many of these amendments, but it is important that the House is able to work its will on issues such as abortion on military bases, the School of the Americas, and health care for our military retirees. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4205 is a good bill, it is a bipartisan bill. At long last, we are taking care of our men and women in uniform, we are getting them off of food stamps and out of substandard housing, and we are giving them tools to win on the battlefield, and I believe this is the right thing for America. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the underlying bill. Now, more than ever, we must provide for our national security. 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 New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.