Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman and my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 3081 in the House under a closed rule without intervention of any point of order. The rule provides that the bill be considered as read and that, in lieu of the amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill, the text H.R. 3832 shall be considered as adopted. The rule provides two hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule provides one motion to recommit H.R. 3081 with or without instructions. The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 3846 in the House under a modified closed rule. It provides that the bill be considered as read and provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The rule provides for consideration of the amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, except those arising under section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, prohibiting consideration of legislation containing certain unfunded mandates. The rule provides that the amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution may only be offered by the Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. The rule provides one motion to recommit H.R. 3846 with or without instructions. Finally, the rule provides that in the engrossment of H.R. 3081, The Clerk shall add the text of H.R. 3846 as passed by the House as a new matter at the end of H.R. 3081, after which H.R. 3846 shall be laid upon the table. Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today is a carefully crafted rule that makes in order two separate bills. The first is a bill out of the Committee on Ways and Means, H.R. 3081, the Wage and Employment Growth Act of 1999, which provides a series of tax benefits to small businesses. The second piece of legislation, H.R. 3846, is a bill to increase the minimum wage by $1.00 through incremental steps over the course of 3 years. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Ways and Means bill, like almost every tax bill for many, many years, will not be open to further amendments on the House Floor. This long-standing policy is designed to keep the Internal Revenue Code from becoming more cluttered than it is already with special interest provisions. Also, amendments offered on short notice on the House floor might have unintended consequences which may not be fully appreciated without the adequate time to research those issues. The Committee on Ways and Means bill will be subject to 2 hours of debate and allows the minority a motion to recommit with instructions. The minimum wage bill will receive 1 hour of general debate and makes in order two amendments, one to increase the minimum wage over the course of 2 years rather than 3 and another allows States flexibility to determine their own minimum wage. By making these amendments in order, the rule facilitates a thorough debate and vote on the major issues associated with the two bills under consideration, and by allowing a motion to recommit the legislation with or without instructions, the minority is assured their perspective on this issue will be aired and will be voted upon. Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased that Congress is undertaking an important effort to give tax relief to hard working people who run small businesses and create jobs. Through small business provisions, they include an acceleration of the increase in the self-employed health insurance deduction to 100 percent. This is crucial to making health care more available to innovative people who take risks by starting and running their own businesses. It is often too difficult and costly for a small business to set up pensions or retirement plans for their employees, especially in their new and start-up years. The legislation before the House today provides pension reform and improves retirement security. It increases contribution and benefit levels and limits in tax-favored retirement plans. It shortens investing requirements of employer matching contributions which is very important in today's marketplace, where a worker often spends only a few years on the job and then moves on. Mr. Speaker, I represent a district in Texas that has many, many small businesses. In my district and all across America, small businesses are an important part of our economy. Small business is the engine that drives the economy and creates new jobs in America. In fact, small businesses create more jobs than any other types of businesses, including large corporations. Too many businesses fail because our unfair Tax Code and because of heavy regulatory burdens that consume critical operating capital in their early years. These small business tax provisions do not just help small businesses but they help everyone by encouraging job growth. I remind my colleague that this rule allows for vigorous debate on every major issue related to the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, like many other conservative Members of this body, I question if raising the minimum wage might actually hurt those it is intended to help. I am afraid that employers may look at their rising payroll ledgers and decide to cut back on the number of employees that they hire to offset the added expense of the minimum wage hike. Having said that, it is apparent to me that a majority of Members feel now that it is the appropriate time to pass a minimum wage increase. I strongly support this rule because by allowing for an increase in the minimum wage, it ensures measures to offset the impact of doing so as part of a major deal that has been encouraged by my party. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all Members to support the rule so that the House may debate the important issues contained in the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, previously I served on the Committee on Government Reform, and I found that the leadership that was provided by the chairman of that committee really has had a lot to do with the provisions of the laws that have changed. I believe that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), perhaps one of the greatest things he has brought to us is the old axiom that the light of day is the best disinfectant. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 426 is an open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 1827, the Government Waste Corrections Act. This rule provides 1 hour of general debate, evenly divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform. The rule provides that, in lieu of the amendment recommended by the Committee on Government Reform and printed in the bill, that the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying the resolution shall be considered as the original text for the purpose of amendment. The rule waives clause 4 of rule XXI against provisions included in the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be open for amendment at any point. The rule accords Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Record prior to their consideration priority in recognition to offer their amendment, if otherwise consistent with House rules. The rule allows 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, when the Republican party became the majority party in 1995, Congress began enacting a series of commonsense reforms. These reforms have changed the way the Federal government operates and have saved billions of taxpayer dollars. One of the first things Congress did was apply all laws that it passes to itself. Previously, Congress would pass burdensome regulations on the private sector, but exclude itself from compliance to these laws. In 1995, Congress passed the Paperwork Reduction Act to identify and reduce burdensome Federal paperwork requirements on the private sector, especially small businesses. Continuing toward a goal of creating a 21st century government, in 1996 Congress passed the Federal Acquisition Reform Act to reduce bureaucratic requirements within the Federal procurement system. We have all heard examples of inflated prices, like the 187 screw sets purchased by the government for $75.60 each. More often than not, such fleecing of taxpayer dollars is due to the cumbersome Federal procurement system, not fraud. The Federal Acquisition Reform Act has streamlined the process of doing business with the Federal government by significantly reducing such waste. In 1997, Congress passed the Travel and Transportation Reform Act, legislation to remedy poor management of the Federal government's massive travel expenditures. This bill is now law, and has led to a concerted effort by Federal managers to improve the Federal travel efficiency and cost effectiveness. The Congressional Budget Office estimates savings of $80 million per year. With the passage last year of the Presidential and Executive Office Financial Accountability Act, Congress created a chief financial officer for the White House. This nonpartisan CFO position in the Executive Office of the President will facilitate prevention and early detection of waste, fraud and abuse. Accordingly, the bill promotes efficiency and cost reductions within the White House. Today Congress takes another step toward increasing efficiency and saving taxpayer dollars with consideration of the Government Waste Corrections Act. In private industry, companies routinely audit themselves to determine if they have overpaid vendors and suppliers. Overpayments are a fact of life for businesses, government entities, and even our own households. Overpayments become more likely with larger volumes of payments. Overpayments occur for a variety of reasons, including duplicate payments, pricing errors, and missed discounts or rebates. On average, private industry recovers $1 million for each $1 billion that is audited. Overpayments at the Federal level are an especially serious problem when considering the size and complexity of Federal operations, as well as the widespread financial management weaknesses of the Federal government. Recovery auditing and activity already occurs in limited areas of the Federal government. Recovery audits of the Department of Defense alone have identified errors averaging .4 percent of Federal payments audited, or $4 million out of every $1 billion. Recovery efforts throughout the entire Federal Government could save billions of dollars more. With this in mind, the Government Waste Corrections Act requires Federal agencies to perform audits if their direct purchases for goods and services total $500 million or more per fiscal year. Agencies that must undertake recovery auditing would also be required to institute a management improvement program to address underlying problems of their payment systems. The Government Waste Corrections Act is a commonsense government reform that incorporates proven, money-saving private sector practices to the Federal government. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all Members to support the rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 426 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon a ``Dear Colleague'' letter will be sent to all Members informing them that the Committee on Rules is planning to meet the week of February 14 to grant a rule for the consideration of H.R. 1987, the Fair Access to Indemnity and Reimbursement Act. 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. 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, today I introduce legislation to provide a technical clarification to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). This clarification is necessary to protect workers and small businesses from unsafe work conditions and to root out illegal activity in the workplace. Provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) as amended in 1996 undermine investigations of sexual harassment, embezzlement, workplace violence, drug sales and other illegal activities in the workplace. Because of an interpretation by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) of the 1996 FCRA amendments, employers who retain investigators, attorneys, or others to conduct inquiries into unlawful activities subject themselves to the provisions of the Act and must: Provide notice before initiating an investigation; obtain written authorization from the suspect and other employees; upon request, disclose the ``nature and scope of the investigation''; and prior to taking any adverse action against an employee, provide the employee a complete and unedited copy of the investigative report. When the FCRA amendments were passed in 1996, Congress did not intend for such burdensome restrictions to be placed on employers who seek to provide safe, crime free workplaces for their employees. The Occupational Safety and Health Act requires employers to provide a safe and secure workplace. And Civil rights laws require employers to investigate allegations of sexual harassment and discrimination. Yet, the FCRA makes such inquiries impossible. Even if the employer is able to persuade a suspect employee to consent to an investigation, the investigation could still be thwarted by the accused who may be able to ``cover his tracks.'' Even more important is the chilling effect of providing investigative reports to suspected miscreants. What witness will be forthcoming when they find out the accused will know who spoke to the investigator? What is the logic of asking a deranged employee if you can investigate him? Americans are all concerned with the rise in incidences of workplace violence, including killings this month in Seattle, Washington and Honolulu, Hawaii. At a time when we are all concerned about workplace violence, the FCRA is tying the hands of employers who attempt to protect their employees. The application of the FCRA is far broader than Congress intended when the law was amended in 1996. It now undercuts virtually all workplace investigations and may impact on legitimate inquiries outside of the workplace as well. Congress needs to make clear that these investigations are not covered by the Act. The legislation I introduce today, the Fair Credit Reporting Amendments of 1999, has been drafted through a careful bipartisan process. Concerns from consumer groups and the FTC were incorporated into the final draft of this legislation. The legislation removes the requirement of employee consent for an employer to investigate a limited number of illegal or unsafe activities in the workplace. These limited activities include drug use or sales, violence, sexual harassment, employment discrimination, job safety or health violations, criminal activity including theft, embezzlement, sabotage, arson, patient or elder abuse, and child abuse. Additionally, should an employer seek to use such a report to take any action against an employee, the employer must inform the employee that a report was prepared as well as the nature and scope of the report. This is important legislation that should be considered early in the next session of Congress. I urge my colleagues to join as cosponsors and push for speedy passage of this bill to reduce crime and provide safer workplaces.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman for yielding and appreciate the gentleman from Arizona. What we are doing here tonight is we are, I believe, being responsible. We are doing, I think, what I came to Washington, D.C. to do. That is, to work very carefully, very methodically and in the open, to give people not only an understanding about what we are doing but to make sure that we stay here until the ball gets kicked in the net. Today, the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) stated something that was very interesting to me. Today he said, ``We have got more time than money, and that is why we are going to stay here.'' We are in a tough league here. I tell people back home, in the league I play in up in Washington, D.C., you really do not ever get a no-hitter, but you can have a complete game. I believe us being here talking about the things we are, to have a complete game on behalf of the taxpayers of this country, the people who get up and go to work every day, the people who get things taken out of their paychecks even when they do not want it but they cannot fight the government. We are here for the taxpayer, not the tax collector. And the taxpayer says overwhelmingly, you can find a penny from the government. I am ready to stay. I am ready to stay here as long as we need to. Mr. President, we believe in what we are doing, and we are going to keep fighting on behalf of what is right. One hundred percent of Social Security is more important than us giving in and going home. I intend to stay. Like the gentleman from South Dakota, I have more time than money, and we are here for the taxpayer. I believe by us telling the truth to the American public, they will recognize that we will find our penny and we can win this battle.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from California yielding. I heard the debate going on, and I came out of my office. Not only are the colleagues who are here, like the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) are here, trying to talk about what is going on, because just a few feet from this House floor, our negotiators are busy trying to hammer out a deal that, once again, is good not just for the American worker and not just for the American family, but for the taxpayer. It is the taxpayer that we, as Republicans, must remember the most. That is what brought me to Washington, D.C., in 1994 when I ran for Congress. I signed that wonderful document called the Contract With America. And the Contract with America was a document for all Americans and mostly the taxpayers to see that one party was going to stand up and talk about the things that were important for generation after generation. The things that we talked about in the Contract with America essentially boil themselves down to these few points: number one, we were going to balance the budget. We were going to do something that had not been done in Washington since we first placed a man on the Moon in 1969. We were not only going to balance the budget, but we were going to make sure that we took power away from Washington, D.C., and placed it back at home, placed it back at home where people, like myself, as a non-Member of Congress, a person who got up and went to work every day had a wife, a family, kids lived in a neighborhood, went to church, and worked not only in my neighborhood but all across their communities to make things better; and we decided that we were going to let people at home make decisions. And lastly, we decided that we were going to take the power that resided in Congress and open it up to people. We did away with things like term limits for committee chairmen. We did things like not allowing proxy voting in committees. So we have done so much that has brought not only good government to Washington, D.C., but also did it for the taxpayer. Now, where have we come? Well, where we have come now since that Contract with America is that we have balanced the budget now three times. We did it first in 1997, then 1998, and then in 1999. But as we Republicans recognize, and I think Democrats know it, too, that we recognize that we, with a straight face, could not say we know we completely balanced the budget. And the reason why is because we were spending Social Security, we were taking the excess money that came in that people gave to Washington, D.C., for their future and for their future retirement, for the retirement of not only themselves but their families, and we for the first time in 1999, not by accident but certainly not because we did it on purpose, because it was not the law, we stated that we were not going to spend America's retirement future. And so we did not. And for the first time in 39 years, the Republican Congress did not spend one penny of Social Security. What we are attempting to do tonight is not only to duplicate that but to do it on purpose, because we told the American people we were going to do that. This is what responsibility is all about. Tonight we are dealing with a circumstance where the President of the United States says, oh, I now believe you. I want to be on your side. In January of this year he said 60 percent of Social Security was good enough, if there was a surplus. Sixty percent of Social Security would be set aside, but 40 percent would go to spending, new government programs, new spending. Now he has changed his tune. I say, thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for joining Republicans on doing things that are important to our money; this is our retirement. It does not belong to Washington, D.C. But what is happening in this endeavor? Now the President and Democrats want more and more and more and more spending. Just last week the White House, in the foreign aid bill, demanded $800 million more for foreign aid, $104 million more for Russia. It just goes on and on and on. So we know what we have got to do. We have got to make sure that we keep this line, as it implies on the chart, of going up to where we have a surplus. Because this surplus will not only go to pay down the debt, but it will also go to make sure that we have the opportunity to give money back to people who earned it. I want to show my colleagues one other thing, if I can. This is an example of how much money we owe back to Social Security before we can begin the process of building a surplus there. We have to be able to pay back $638 billion. Now, our President and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will say, look, it really does not matter. You know, $800 million here, $800 million there; it is really not a big deal. The President wants $4.5 billion more. Well, I will say, and I believe that I would gain concurrence from my colleagues who are here tonight, every single dollar counts. The most important part of what we are attempting to get across now is it is not just the dollars, it is the cents, it is the pennies, and it is this cent or common sense that we are talking about. Waste, fraud, and abuse consumes over $200 billion a year, documented by the Government Accounting Office, $200 billion a year. So that is why I think, for the first time ever, the Congress of the United States challenged an administration and said, Mr. President, we are willing to cut our own pay by 1 percent. We are willing to cut our own spending 1 percent. But, Mr. President, we want and expect you, too, to do the responsible thing; and that is to find one penny from discretionary spending. We are not talking about Social Security, we are not talking about Medicare, we are not talking about Medicaid. What we are talking about is one penny out of every dollar that you would have control over to where you would say, we are going to look internally to ourselves, we are going to look internally to the Government that is fraught with waste, fraud, and abuse, we are going to consider it a challenge, a challenge for employees of the Government and a challenge for those people who are administrators, who may be secretaries, who may be Cabinet officials, to look deep within themselves and to challenge each and every one of their employees. The same thing that happened when I was in the private sector just a few years ago. I spent 16 years for a corporation in this country, never missed a day of work, and I was challenged as an employee of that company virtually every single year not only to find what we knew was abuse and waste but what we knew would be a challenge to run our company the way we as employees thought it should be run. That is where this government is missing out. That is what this President is missing out, an opportunity and a challenge to every single government worker for maybe the first time in their career. Can you imagine an employee that may have been with the Government for 40 years, their entire career, never once challenged and then the first time a challenge from the Congress of the United States come forward where Members of Congress were willing to take their own pay cut and the chief executive of that country said, no, we cannot live up to that challenge because there is not enough money? Well, I will submit tonight that the retirement security of every single American, of every single generation is far more important than the $800 million that we added in, and it is far more important than all the shenanigans that go on in Washington, D.C. That is why we are here tonight. We are here to make sure that no means no. Mr. President, you cannot have our retirement. One hundred percent is far greater than 60 percent, and it belongs to people back home. It does not belong to you, Mr. President. It belongs to the people who produced it. I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), and I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) for the time and look forward to hearing their remarks.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I urge support of this fair rule for the hard work that has taken place during this year of the 106th Congress. 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 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. Res. 355.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Henderson, Tennessee (Mr. Bryant).

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Salt Lake City, Utah (Mr. Cook), a member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker).

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining for both sides.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, thank goodness we have an open debate here tonight where we are able to talk about the need for privacy rules and regulation, the most comprehensive ever in the marketplace. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Brightwaters, New York (Mr. Lazio), to help explain this a little bit further, a member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services and the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Des Moines, Iowa (Mr. Ganske).

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Palm Bay, Florida (Mr. Weldon), a member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, as we can tell from the comments that have been made on the floor tonight, this legislation is not only historic but has required a great deal of work, a bipartisan work, and I am very proud of the House of Representatives and the Congress that has done something that is great for consumers. It is hard work. We are hearing about it tonight. Just another example of what great work this Congress has done. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Allentown, Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), a member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Fullerton, California (Mr. Royce), a member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. (Mr. ROYCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rocky Ridge, Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy. (Mr. BACHUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle). (Mr. CASTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)