Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman so very much. This evening we are also joined by one of the stalwarts of freedom, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), who is not only a very good friend of the taxpayer, but a person who understands whose money this really is we are talking about. At this time I would yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. SESSIONS. We do, and I thank the gentleman for mentioning that. The President of the United States, just a few short years ago, said Social Security first, Social Security first. It took the Republican Party and a plan to get that done. We ended the raid of Social Security because it was the right thing to do. 1998 was the last year that the Congress of the United States will allow the surplus in Social Security, the hard-earned money that people have put into it, to then be spent for general budgetary items. There, as always, are at least two different views. Let us role back the tape. Let us remember just a year ago, when we talked about the year 2000, the Republican plan said 100 percent of Social Security, meaning that if people gave that money for Social Security, it should only be used for Social Security. It should not be used for something else. That is what savings plans are about. That is what the government took it for. The government took the money, it is required by law, and we believe that 100 percent of it, that is the way it should go. There was another side. There is another story. The other story in Washington, D.C. is, the President has his own plan. We understand that. We are willing to debate it, even on the floor. Of all of the surplus, the President said 62 percent of the surplus goes to Social Security, but 38 percent of Social Security goes to new government spending. How much money are we talking about? We are talking about, in fact, a lot of money. The surplus in the year 2000, $137 billion. That is $137 billion that instead of going to general revenue will be put directly into Social Security. Now, one would say that is exactly what the gentleman from Arizona said, and I say, yes, that is close, except that the Democrats are still holding back our lockbox. They will not allow us to designate it. So the best we can say is, no money should be spent. The President still has $85 billion of the $137 billion. In fact, the gentleman from Arizona and I are getting very good at this. If I can find my penny, every single penny that is given by an American for Social Security should only be used for Social Security, and that is what this is all about.

Mr. SESSIONS. The gentleman has led directly to the point that I believe is the essence of the tax limitation amendment, and that is in the era of surpluses, when the government has effectively, as a result of the Republican Congress, made sure that Social Security and Medicare will not be spent, it was given for a reason. It will be used for that reason. Then lo and behold, we have extra money called a surplus, that came about, the very essence of it came about because we cut taxes. We encouraged America not only to go work harder but to work smarter. We encouraged America to invest in America. Just a few short years ago, we were worried about all the jobs in America going offshore. Ten years ago we were told America's greatest days are behind her. The best education is somewhere else; the best of technology is somewhere else; the best of future is somewhere else. We today and every Member of this body tries to take credit for it and that is okay, of the things that have happened in the last 5 years. It is the right thing to do for us to understand that we had to balance the budget; we had to take Social Security off budget; we had to make sure that we created a surplus. Now tonight we are talking about making it more difficult to raise taxes, a simple thing. We want to make it more difficult for Washington to take your money. H.J. Res. 94, the tax limitation amendment, will be voted on on Wednesday, will be voted on because it is the right thing for America today. What is going to happen with more of the money, the money that is today a surplus? Here is what we are going to do: We are going to make sure that it goes back to the people who gave it to Washington. I am not sure they gave it because they wanted to necessarily, but they gave it and they expect us to do wise things with it. Responsibility, here is what we are doing: We want to end the marriage penalty. Just a few short months ago in January, President Clinton stood right behind me and he stated he would be more doing away with the marriage penalty. We are now talking about repealing the senior earnings limit. The President of the United States signed that last Friday in the White House garden. It was beautiful. We are now going to have senior citizens who are no longer penalized with an unfair tax. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) worked on that for 30 years. We want to reduce, eliminate the death taxes. We want to expand education savings accounts. Lo and behold, in my home I have a 6-year- old Down's Syndrome little boy who could use the money. We could also, by spending it efficiently on all sorts of not only educational tools for our baby, our son, our child, but also to help nurture him to where he will be able to be self sufficient. We have a 10-year-old at home, a 10-year-old who every single day reads every book and takes everything that we can get our hands on, gobbles it in, understands that his future is the same as our country's future. We are going to spend more money on education. My son understands and so does my wife. We are going to increase health care deductibility. We want every single working American, and especially those today who are not allowed to, by law, to be able to deduct their health care. We want every single person to have health care. Every single person deserves a right to have their own doctor, not just show up at some clinic, not just to have a doctor available but their doctor who they know and understand. We want to provide tax breaks for communities that do not have as much money as others, and we want to strengthen private pension plans to where people have an opportunity to save for their future. What we are talking about is the tax limitation amendment that will be the crowning jewel on responsibility, it is the crown jewel of responsibility, to make it more difficult for the Members of Congress to vote for tax increases. We have enough money. We should do the right thing and yet we recognize, I recognize, that in this town we have not flipped everybody. The real spenders are still out there, people who will take money. This is why we have to have a tax limitation amendment, a two-thirds majority. Oh, the debate will happen here on the floor, trust me, the debate where people will stand up and talk about we have got to spend more and more and more and more and raise taxes more and more. I would say that discipline and responsibility is what will make the difference, and the responsibility comes down to what my party stands for. My party deeply believes that, if we want to have America's greatest days ahead of her, then we will empower people back home, men and women, children, small businesses, large businesses, people to invest in America because they know they can do so because the risk is not there to say, when one becomes successful, the government in Washington, D.C. wants their share, too. I think that they would understand fair share is okay. But in Washington, if one is successful, that means Washington wants more and more and more and more. That is why we offer the tax limitation amendment. That is why this is bipartisan. It is bipartisan. It makes sense, because we want to create wealth and opportunity for generations to come. We want to get away from where Washington, D.C. all of a sudden sees where, oh, there is now an Internet out there, we ought to tax that. There is something else out there, we have got to raise taxes on that. We still have been paying, for 70 years, a telephone tax that was done, ah, to raise money for the war. By the way, that was World War II. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona, from the 6th District. Tonight we have had my colleagues hear a wonderful debate about the tax limitation amendment from the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), a Democrat from the 4th District of Texas, and the gentleman from the 6th District of Arizona (Mr. Hayworth). They had the opportunity to talk about, not only their districts, but their vision of what America is all about, and it should be more difficult to raise taxes. We heard the story about the senior earnings limit, the earnings limit put on seniors years ago. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, this was the very first bill that he presented upon being a Member of Congress 30 years ago. After years of working on this effort, he finally succeeded in giving the President of the United States, the House, and the Senate, the other body, the opportunity to agree to this bill, what turned out to be unanimous. What 5 years before was impossible, because the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) sat in the chair as the majority party representative to the Committee on Ways and Means, it got signed into law. The tax limitation amendment, H.J. Res. 94, will be debated on Wednesday. I hope my colleagues will join us to support this.

Mr. SESSIONS. It sounds like that part of this debate is now into the two plans, essentially the two plans that are floating in Washington; one which would tax all seniors, and as I described in the Fifth District of Texas where all the seniors in the room would please take $20 out of their pocket, place them on the table, and then those people who placed the money, everybody placed the money, then if they did not need it, based upon their poverty level, if they did not qualify for prescription drug coverage, just please get up and walk outside the room. It is about 75 to 80 percent of senior citizens who would be paying $20 more out of their own pocket. I would say to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), here is a $20; $20 out of their own pocket every month for about 15 percent of the seniors who could not afford it. Why did we not come up with a plan, oh but there is one, the Republican plan, that will say, senior citizens, all senior citizens, put that money back in their pocket, put it back in their pocket; we have a budget surplus in Washington, D.C. We will take care of those people who need it most. We are not going to tax every senior citizen to help 15 percent of them. Sounds like a better idea to me.

Mr. SESSIONS. Absolutely. I believe the answer from people, if you talk to people who live in the districts that get up and go to work every day, they would say, We are very pleased. We love America. We support government and the essence of what it does. But today there is more than enough money in Washington, D.C. Make do with what you have. Do not come back to us. We are out producing, meaning the people back home, producing not only in efficiencies, but to the economy, to the local communities and to government, to make it work. This needs to be a bar that gets raised because it is that important of an issue. You know that there are several parts of the Constitution that put a two-thirds vote that is a requirement to be able to pass something. I believe, and I think the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) agrees, that raising taxes should be one of those things that we make more difficult, that should require a consensus and a two-thirds vote. I thank the gentleman. I know that the gentleman has got a dinner that he has got to go to, but I thank the gentleman for not only working on behalf of the people of the 4th District of Texas, but also doing it in a national leadership capacity here tonight. I thank him so very much for being a part of what we are doing.

Mr. SESSIONS. Let me say this: the gentleman from Texas, whose district is literally overlaid on my district, the 4th District overlaid on the 5th District, very, very similar, the kind of people, the kind of people's thoughts and ideas, I believe that if you went in the 4th or 5th Districts of Texas, that people would say, I think Washington, D.C. has enough money. First of all, they have got enough money. They don't need to tax us more. They ought to be more efficient. The second thing I think they would say, as the gentleman has pointed out, is let us make it more difficult. There is no need to go back to the American public to ask for a tax increase, especially when we are in a surplus condition. Right now, today, in America we are working off of a surplus, and yet we know that there are people in Washington, D.C., that want more and more and more money. I would say to the gentleman from the 4th District of Texas that if we made it more difficult, it would immediately cause this Congress and the administration, whoever is President, to have to go and look within the administration, to go look in these agencies to find where there is waste, fraud and abuse, to find where there was opportunity to save money, rather than going back to the taxpayer.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity tonight to discuss a very important issue that is going to be on the floor of the House of Representatives this week. It is called the tax limitation amendment. The tax limitation amendment, known as H.J. Res. 37, is a very, very simple amendment that was first brought to life some 10 years ago by the gentleman from the 6th District of Texas (Mr. Barton). Last week we had a press conference where we talked about, in essence, the passing of the mantle from the gentleman from Texas to myself, being the lead for the tax limitation amendment where we will bring to the floor of the House of Representatives on Wednesday an opportunity for all Members not only to fully debate but also to vote on something which I believe is very, very important. The essence of H.J. Res. 37 is that we are going to make it more difficult for Washington to raise taxes on America. That is what this debate is all about. It will be about doing those things that Washington talks about, making it more difficult by requiring a supermajority, a two-thirds vote on the floor of the House of Representatives and in the Senate to raise taxes. Part of what we are talking about today, we would assume, is just a conservative idea, and I think that that would be correct. But it is a bipartisan idea. It is an idea not only that has grassroots all across America, people who are pro-business but it also has people who consider themselves Democrats, Democrats even, who understand that raising taxes should not be easy, because taxes come from people who get up and go to work every day, work diligently, honest people, taxpayers, and then are giving too much money to Washington, D.C. One of the persons who is the cochairman of this effort, a coleader in this effort, is the gentleman from the 4th District of Texas (Mr. Hall). This evening I am very honored to have the gentleman from Texas with me to help not only the discussion about the tax limitation amendment but also for an opportunity for us to discuss this. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the 4th District of Texas, a lifelong Democrat, a conservative, and a man who understands it is important to make it more difficult to raise taxes on taxpayers.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman from Arizona. Wonderful points. We believe, I believe, that the thing that Congress should focus on is to make sure that we are not putting more debt not only on people who work today, but also for our children and our grandchildren. This chart so accurately describes this, really, and it goes back to 1941. But as we see, the numbers are small until we head to about 1976. The numbers are astronomical. They go up to $350 billion in debts. This is what happened when Republicans and Independents and people who are from other parties, including Ross Perot, began talking about how America's greatest days are not behind her, America's greatest days are ahead; but that it would require responsibility, it would require, as the gentleman from Arizona said, sanity, the ability to balance and to comprehend what was happening to America. So what happened is that a different vision was given. That was, we should not spend more than what we make. We should take the power that comes with the money to Washington, D.C. and put it back home. That is exactly what happened. We now see where there has been a debt reduction directly as a result of what we have now accomplished. This did not happen overnight. It was based on a set of principles which we believe, as Republicans, are critical to the country. They include that we are going to protect 100 percent of social security. We have now done that. Lo and behold, 30 years after spending not just some of social security but all of the surplus from social security, Republicans said that not only will we not do that, but we are going to make sure that we lock it away into a lockbox. Strengthen Medicare with prescription drug coverage, that is what this marvelous House will be debating in a few short weeks. Forty billion dollars has been set aside, that is the Republican plan, $40 billion to make sure that citizens, not just like the people in the Fifth District of Texas, but like people that the gentleman has in Arizona, who live better lives today because of technology, because of investment that has been made by the private sector. Yes, we have great doctors, but we have great drugs. Here is one thing we know. We understand and know that for every $1 that is spent on drugs, prescription drugs, we save $4 in hospital stay. It makes sense. It is the right thing to do. We made sure that we are going to retire the debt by 2013; not add to it, not just let it stay out there, but we are going to pay it off a little at a time. It did not happen overnight, it took 40 years of Democrat-controlled Congresses to do that. We will get it done by 2013. We are going to support and strengthen education, technology, research. We are going to make sure that education and science work together. That is why we are trying to double, and sticking to it, a commitment that was made by former Speaker Newt Gingrich that we would send double funding to NIH, the National Institutes of Health. Because we understood, and we still get it today, that if we invest in research and development, if we do the things by letting scientists and others who can make breakthroughs in not only prescription drugs and techniques, that what we can do is we can save lives and make life better. We will promote fairness for families, farmers, and seniors. Half of the Fifth District of Texas is rural. Half of the Fifth District of Texas went through, in an agricultural setting, a terrible drought the last few years. We need to pay attention to rural America. Restoring America's defenses. We have been able to accomplish so much because we were able to put on a sheet of paper the things that are important to America and Americans. People in the Fifth District of Texas, like the people in the Sixth District of Arizona, represent the topsoil of America. It is not the dirt, it is the people. They are the topsoil of our country. We are paying attention to people. We are going to get it right, and we are going to balance out the things that are important in America. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman from Arizona has now clearly laid out is not only the essence of the reason why this is important to people back home, but I now want to add to those reasons and talk about why Washington needs to pay attention to the tax limitation amendment, H.J. Res. 94. I said H.J. Res. 39. That is wrong. That was last year. I have caught up now. H.J. Res. 94. We must make it harder for Congress to raise taxes on the American people. Now, many people would say, Well, Washington has it down. We have already created a surplus. We are going to have a surplus now for as far as the eye can see. I would say that, yes, that probably is true, provided we stay in power. But there is so much more that must be understood, and that is that just because the majority party believes that that is the right thing to do, it does not mean that that is what everybody agrees. Back in 1995, when we were in the midst of the battle, the battle to determine that we would have a balanced budget, that we would be able to work within the confines to balance the budget based upon what the American people have given us before the Committee on Ways and Means, Alice Rivlin, the OMB, Office of Management and Budget, personnel director, said, ``I do not think that adhering to a firm path,'' which means a balanced budget, that you are going to stick to it, ``for a balance by 2002 is very sensible.'' She did not believe it was sensible. It is not always a good policy to have a balanced budget. Let me say that that was 1995. Here we are, the year 2000, and lo and behold, not only does Alice Rivlin represent her boss, and they said in 1995 the way things would be, but here we see it in print now, this President's budget that he presented, that he took 2 hours to describe to the American public in the State of the Union Address. We find out that President Clinton and Vice President Gore have more tax increases. Even when we are in the middle of trying to not only take care of and shore up not only social security and Medicare and a lot of other things, but we have a surplus, and what do they want to do? They want to raise taxes, a $96 billion tax increase, President Clinton and Vice President Gore, tax increases. Yet we know that there was another person, another group of people, who were right there saying, we will not raise taxes. We are in a surplus circumstance. Now what we have to do, because we recognize that we have people who even when we have a surplus they want more and more and more not only spending but tax increases, we have to go tell the story. We need to make it more difficult.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to work with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) today. I rise in support of H.R. 910, the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Initiative. I commend not only the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) but also the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for bringing this legislation to the floor in such a quick and expedited manner. H.R. 910 is sponsored by my colleague the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). I believe it provides a national model for protection of our Nation's water supply from perchlorate. Perchlorate is an inorganic chemical used to manufacture solid rocket fuel and other explosives. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) for his assistance in addressing this important conservation issue in a part of my district which also impacts the entire Brazos River Corridor in Central Texas by adding funding to the study of perchlorate contamination originating from the former Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant in McGregor, Texas. With this funding, the Brazos River Authority and the Corps of Engineers will be able to carefully assess the extent of perchlorate contamination in this very critical watershed. By doing so, they will not only protect the drinking water of Central Texas but will also protect the Brazos Basin from Waco to the Gulf of Mexico. I am grateful to my colleagues in the Brazos Basin including the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest); the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry); and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), all of whom have united in requesting this provision. Texans are proud to join with our colleagues from not only California but also other areas of the country in creating a national model for addressing this threat of perchlorate.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on tomorrow, Wednesday, March 22, 2000. THE SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Hearing my colleagues talk about this rule would make me think that they simply do not understand what the Committee on Rules did. First of all, the Committee on Rules, under Republicans, has always insisted or guaranteed that there will be a motion to recommit to the minority party. As my recollection tells me, that rarely happened when the Democrats were in control. Secondly, the fairness of this rule is very obvious to everyone. We will have a separate vote that will be on the provisions for minimum wage from the vote for the tax package, which means if the gentleman from New York or any of my colleagues wish to vote yes or no on minimum wage, they will be allowed to do that. If they want to vote yes or no on the tax package, they will be allowed to do that. If we were being unfair, we would have put them together. Then we would have heard that would be a poison pill, and I think that that could be said and it would be true. The fact of the matter is that the wisdom of this Committee on Rules is that we are trying to present an opportunity of fairness to fully debate the issue, to allow open votes that will take place; and I am very, very proud of what we have done. I believe that any criticism like this is from someone that simply has not read the rule, taken the time to read the rule, or who is trying to dissuade someone else by not using the facts that are at hand. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SESSIONS. A motion to recommit with instructions.

Mr. SESSIONS. With instructions.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 434 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I really enjoy being in debates with my colleagues on the other side. They want to argue about how we have to give and give and give, but when it comes time for the taxpayer or the small businessperson or the person that has made the investment to get something that is fair treatment back, they get nothing in return from my friends. I would like to also add that there were 48 of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that voted for this outrageous marriage penalty; 48 Democrats joined the majority party because it is the right thing to do for the American families to get 1,400 more dollars rather than giving it to Uncle Sam. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman for helping me with that history, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, when I hear the debate on the other side, the debate is as though these Republicans have not allowed a fair and open rule, a great vote for people who think we ought to raise the minimum wage and a great vote and an opportunity for small businesses, men and women who create opportunity for America. You would think by listening to the other side that they do not want to create opportunity and jobs and growth and happiness and the opportunity for the next generation to be employed. I want to stand up and say that my Republican Party has the provisions that accelerate the increase and the self-employed health insurance deduction to 100 percent because we want people to be able to have, not only health insurance, we want people to have their own doctors; that we want to do the things that will extend work opportunities and tracks credits to extend welfare to work. We want to put America to work, want to have opportunity and jobs that are available for everyone. That is what this fair and open rule is about. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Perry Township, Ohio (Ms. Pryce) who sits on the Committee on Rules with me.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I have one additional speaker who I am going to give 7 minutes to, rundown the time to where we have a minute or so left, and then I will reserve 1 minute for myself when that speaker is through.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In response to both gentlemen who have just spoken, the fact of the matter is that the Republican House of Representatives is not going to send a tax increase, which is what President Clinton wants to sign. The American people understand this. The bills that the President wants to sign are tax increases that take money away from people. Forty-eight of my colleagues on the Democrat side came across just within weeks to sign the marriage penalty. The President of the United States cannot join us. What we are doing today is talking about a minimum wage that is good for America and great for the people who employ those people, small businesses. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, we have had an opportunity to have a vigorous debate about the rule, the rule which will decide how we are going to follow forth on talking about the bill that is before us. We have a tax bill, a tax bill that gives an opportunity to the workers of America to have more small businesses, and more people who want to take that risk and opportunity to go and invest their savings and to open up their own stores and to do things that might be a lifetime dream. On the other hand, we are going to allow a vote that would be very directly for people who wish to support raising the minimum wage. What we have done is we have crafted a fair rule. We have talked about the essence of what Republicans and Democrats are all about today; and I am very, very proud of what we have done and appreciate those who have spoken today. There is an amendment at the desk, Mr. Speaker. The amendment will strike out the language allowing States to opt out of the minimum-wage increase. Amendment Offered by Mr. Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be considered as adopted.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution, as amended.