Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding. I would like to follow up on what the gentleman from California has talked about, when he talked about one penny savings out of every dollar that is being spent, which I think is very reasonable. What I would like to do is to take just a few minutes to give some real live examples of how the government has not figured out what the right hand is doing and the left hand is doing. The Results Caucus has spent a great deal of time working with the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight on a lot of legislation which is critical to the success of this government. I would like to go back and point out some of the areas and the statutes, the laws that we operate under and the reason why we have these. One is called results orientation. It is the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, known as the Results Act. It was implemented so that we would have agencies' missions and strategic priorities that would be established, where we would require government agencies to be able to implement within their core mission statement. We would have results-oriented goals, we would talk with them about goals that they were expected to achieve; and they would produce performance data, once again so that the right hand would know what the left hand is doing. We have been engaged in financial management, the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, the Government Management Reform Act of 1994, the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996. These were done so that we would have annual financial statements. They were done so we would have timely and reliable information and data that would help the managers of the government to manage those assets that they have. And it would help us to look at the cost achievement results. Lastly, we have information technology as a priority area. There was the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996. This was done to help provide more information for the relationship of investments to the achievement of performance. What has happened since we have had these laws in place? A lot. The government has improved upon its performance. But even today, we as Members of Congress believe that there is so much more to be done. The GAO in a report that was released on March 31, 1998, cited some examples of those things where the government cannot find from its right hand to its left hand those assets and resources and cited as ``missing and unaccounted for'' include the following: I will show you a great picture because we have got a reward that we will offer when you can find these. It is the return of two tugboats valued at $850,000 each to the Federal Government. These cannot be found. The Federal Government cannot tell us where this is. The next one, once again, we will offer a reward. Have you seen me? This is one missile launcher. This missile launcher comes at a cost of over $1 million. Once again, we do not know where it is. The next item. Lost jet engines, two $4 million aircraft engines. If you happen to find these, the government cannot find it. We need it back. You paid for it. The taxpayer paid for it and we want it back. We also have a floating crane worth $500,000. Nobody knows where it is. Ladies and gentlemen, what I am suggesting to you is that this government as broad and big as it is, it should be better at accounting for those assets and resources that it has been given. We are as Members of Congress trying to provide the correct legislation, the right oversight and enough information to where the government can work properly. But I believe that when we insist upon a 1 percent across- the-board savings that must be given to the taxpayers so that we do not get into Social Security, now what we have done is we have required government to do the same things that is done not only in our own homes, around our own tables but in small businesses and boardrooms all across this country. It is called prioritize. I am hoping that we will have a government that in the future will look at their assets and resources in a better way that will help us all.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, as my colleagues know, what is interesting is that I have heard speakers, four or five of us tonight who have gotten up to talk about why this is important that we do not spend Social Security, why this is important that we find the savings from a trillion $700 billion plus budget and we are not yelling and screaming. We are here speaking to the American public in a regular voice, a regular tone because I believe we are optimistic. We are optimistic about the positive things that are occurring in Washington, D.C. that we, as a Republican-led Congress, are finding ways to get our work done. We need to give credit to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle because they, too, have done some responsible things. The White House, the President signing these bills as he should. What we are trying to do is to make sure that the American public understands that we will not and must not spend Social Security. This year for the first time in 39 years Social Security was not used to fund the government operations. What we want to make sure is that we make that streak continue so that we do not do it next year, and that is why this 1 percent across-the-board savings to protect Social Security that will save $3.5 billion must come internally as a result of a challenge, a challenge to the entire government, a challenge that the House of Representatives and the Senate are engaged in, and that is why I welcome the news that we have from the Majority Leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) and our Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), to say that the Congress should be included in that 1 percent budget. What it will do is I believe it will mean to a manager of the government that they will now focus more clearly and carefully on their own mission statement, their core and basic functions that they must provide. It will require them with the impetus, the knowledge, the direction, the authority and the responsibility to make sure that they look across their areas and cut 1 percent of their budget. Why do we need to do this? We need to do it because there is lots of money that can be cut. Another example that I had not heard one of my colleagues state earlier, but that I found very interesting, it is that the government spends $1 billion on the Job Corps program, but a survey of the initial employers of former Job Corps students show that 76 percent of students had been laid off, quit or been fired from their first employers after 100 days of starting their new jobs. Well, you see, if I were in the Department of Labor I would have known about this because it came from my own inspector general. I would be willing to look at my $1 billion program and ascertain what is indigenous to our program that is not working? And, if the program does not work properly, if the return to the taxpayer is not there, if the benefit to the beneficiaries, the people who were expected to gain something from this $1 billion, if it is not working, then they need to do something different. They need to look at the money and the resources and the way they are spent. So I think that this is going to be yet another opportunity for government bureaucrats, for agency heads, to look inward within themselves, to have the optimism that they can be in control of their own future, to provide services, which is what this government is all about, to people who do need those outreaches of government, and to do the right thing. So I am very excited about the opportunity to challenge government. Instead of just throwing more money at them every year and more and more and more, we are now going to challenge them in a way and say we know you can find the 1 percent. We have talked about these savings all across government tonight. They exist in every single agency, and I think it is going to be a wonderful day for every single government administrator and the heads of these agencies to know that with the challenge, that they can accept it and excel, because of the mission that we have of not spending the future retirement of each and every American today, but rather to keep it into a fund that is ready for them in the future, is what will help and benefit all Americans. I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to be with you tonight. I know the people of Pennsylvania are well served. You have enthusiasm and integrity, coupled with the background and experience, and I want to thank you for allowing me to be here.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, today we are listening to political debates and discussions on the floor of the House. I well understand what is occurring here today. But the truth should not be held hostage. The fact of the matter is Republicans for years now have been insisting on us not spending Social Security. As a member of the Committee on Rules, we are under instructions by Dick Armey, the majority leader, that there can be no spending bill that comes on the floor of the House of Representatives that would spend Social Security for next year. In fact, as we now see in yesterday's paper, the chief of staff for the White House says, ``The Republicans' key goal is not to spend the Social Security surplus.'' For the first time in 39 years, this year not one penny of Social Security was used to fund the government operations. I am proud of what Republicans are doing, and the American public can know that the truth of the matter is that we will make sure from this day forward with the new budget that not one penny of Social Security will be spent.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 329 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the 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 purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today is an open rule providing for 1 hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The rule waives all points of order against the bill and against its consideration. The rule provides that the amendment printed in part A of the Committee on Rules accompanying the resolution shall be considered as adopted and that the bill as amended shall be opened to amendment by title. The rule also provides for the consideration, before any other amendment, of the manager's amendment printed in part B of the Committee on Rules report, which shall be considered as read; may amend portions of the bill not yet read for amendment and shall not be subject to a division of the question. Clause 7 of rule XVI prohibiting nongermane amendments is waived against the amendment printed in part B of the Committee on Rules report. The rule allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce voting to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-minute vote. Members who have pre-printed their amendments in the Record prior to their consideration will be given priority in consideration to offer their amendments if otherwise consistent with House rules. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation, the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1999, is very important legislation. Many of my constituents have contacted me with their concerns related to safety on our highways. The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure responded to, not only my request, but also other concerns that Members had in this body by holding a series of hearings on this issue earlier this year. Consensus emerged from those hearings that highway safety was not receiving the level of attention it should as part of the Federal Highway Administration. Today, the House makes a significant step toward safer highways by doubling grants to the States for roadside inspections and imposing tougher fines for repeat violators of Federal truck safety regulations. The bill also establishes minimum fines for all violations and requires drivers who have their licenses revoked to serve their full suspensions. The bill upgrades the Federal Highway Administration's office of Motor Carrier to a separate administration within the Transportation Department. The bill also increases truck inspections at the border to ensure that Mexican trucks entering the United States comply with all U.S. and safety truck regulations. Truck-related highway accidents impose a huge cost on our society. These costs can be reduced without burdening truckers and the people who depend on them, and that is exactly what this legislation does. Mr. Speaker, the Motor Carrier Safety Act passed the 75-member Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure with only 2 nays. Last night, the rule for this legislation passed by unanimous vote in the Committee on Rules. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to continue this bipartisan manner under which this legislation was crafted, and to support the rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule. 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 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), one of the most respected Members of this body, one of the most influential, who is the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill), who comes from a huge agriculture State.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Lubbock, Texas (Mr. Combest), the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. SESSIONS. 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. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As my colleague the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has suggested, I would like to thank the participants from the Committee on Agriculture, including the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and also the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) not only for their leadership but for their care and consideration of the men and women who are involved in agribusiness. Mr. Speaker, I support this rule. I am asking for each one of our Members to support this bipartisan rule and piece of legislation. 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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 308 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost); pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today is a modified open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2559, the Agriculture Risk Protection Act. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member on the Committee on Agriculture. The rule makes in order the Committee on Agriculture's amendment in the nature of a substitute as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, modified by the amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying the resolution. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be open for amendment by title. The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the Congressional Record and pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate only. The rule provides that the amendment may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee, which shall be considered as read and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. 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, passage of this rule will allow the House to consider this very important piece of legislation, the Agriculture Risk Protection Act. The Agriculture Risk Protection Act is the right legislative response to the current plight of our Nation's farmers and ranchers. It is no secret that agriculture commodity prices are down. Natural disasters, including hurricanes, floods, and droughts have only added insult to this injury. We must give agriculture producers the tools to manage risk in a responsible way. This bill is a large step in that direction. This legislation provides better insurance coverage at a lower cost for our Nation's farmers. It provides affordable coverage at every level, with strong incentives to purchase higher levels of protection and new flexibility for producers to choose the level of coverage that best meets their needs. Additionally, this legislation, for the first time, creates a pilot program that offers insurance assistance to livestock farmers and ranchers who suffer the same problems of volatile weather and markets that hurt crop farmers. This legislation empowers those who understand the kind of insurance that farmers need, instead of government bureaucrats. Under this plan, new programs are developed by reimbursing universities, farm organizations, co-ops, and even individual farmers who research and develop a policy that is successful. As many of my colleagues know, this is also an important issue to me as a Texan. In Texas, we have experienced historic droughts during 2 of the past 4 years. During these droughts, I have worked actively with not only my farmers and ranchers, but also with State, county, and local officials to find ways to survive these dry conditions. Unfortunately, there is no easy way to manage crops and livestock once these severe drought conditions are experienced. After living through these droughts, I have made a conscious effort this year to get my district ready for the potential of the dry weather that we knew would happen. Through proactive planning sessions held in each county in my district, I made plans to try and make sure that my farmers and ranchers were prepared. However, it is common sense for us to know that being prepared is better off than reacting to the weather. This legislation makes sure every farmer and rancher has the tools necessary for this preparation. Clearly, proactive steps such as these are needed at the Federal level. Under current conditions, too many farmers are unable to afford crop insurance. When natural disasters strike, the Federal Government assists victims with taxpayer dollars. By increasing Federal contributions to tax insurance, such insurance becomes more affordable, and there is less need for taxpayer dollars for reactive solutions. The Agriculture Risk Protection Act is a common sense, fiscally conservative way to properly prepare for natural disasters that impact agriculture production. I urge my colleagues to support this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, freestanding children's hospitals are disadvantaged under the current federal GME (Graduate Medical Education) funding structure. GME is principally funded through the Medicare program. Teaching hospitals receive funding based on the number of patients that they treat. Because children's hospitals treat few Medicare patients, they receive no significant federal support for GME. Children's hospitals receive on average less than one-half of one percent (0.5%) of what other teaching facilities receive in federal GME funding. This grant program would provide GME support for children's hospitals that is commensurate with federal GME support that other teaching facilities receive under Medicare. Training programs are necessary to ensure quality health care for children. The education and training programs of these institutions are critical to the future of pediatric medicine and therefore to the future health of all children. In 1998, Children's Medical Center of Dallas served as the training site for 77 pediatric residents. Although hospitals like ``Children's Med. Center of Dallas'' represents less than 1% of all hospitals in the country, independent children's teaching hospitals are responsible for training nearly 30% of all pediatricians, nearly half of all pediatric subspecialties and train over 5% of all residents nationwide. This amendment would establish interim assistance to children's hospitals to maintain their teaching program while Congress addresses the inequities in the current GME system through Medicare reform. The grant program would provide $280 million in FY2000 and $285 million in FY2001.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for consideration of the Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1999. The underlying legislation will streamline the ability of courts to deal with class action lawsuits. This is very important for Americans, and as my colleague from Texas has argued, it is important for people who live in States and local jurisdictions. However, we believe that it is important for us to make sure that people who do need remedy in class action lawsuits are handled properly. Today we offer this change in the law to ensure that multiple litigants who reside outside of a particular State who wish to become a party to a class action lawsuit must file that action within Federal court. Our Founding Fathers did not intend for one State to judge class action lawsuits involving many other States. The Federal courts are better equipped with not only resources but also the staff to handle class action lawsuits involving citizens of diverse States. This rule makes in order any germane amendments to exempt industries from class action reform. These amendments, however, should be rejected. Such amendments go against the underlying principles of this bill, that Federal courts are the appropriate venues to try large class action lawsuits involving citizens of diverse States, and that applies no less to tobacco, guns, or HMO litigation. Since there are no specific reasons to carve out a specific industry, any amendment to do so can only be intended to derail the bill or apply a political correctness test to what should be neutral rules of civil procedure. Mr. Speaker, these are contentious issues. They are important issues to our entire Nation, and as such, should be treated properly at the Federal level. This is a proper way to handle contentious national problems. It is important to recognize that this rule has been crafted to accommodate amendments that are objectionable to many Members of this body, including myself. But what we are trying to do is to make sure that we craft a rule that allows open debate, to allow other people who disagree with us to be able to bring these amendments, such as they are, to try and carve out these three areas. I simply disagree with them. Therefore, this rule sponsored by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) I believe is fair, it deserves the support of this body, and it is, I believe, important for our colleagues to recognize that we should not carve out three areas that are contentious political debates in this country to put them to specific State district courts within a State and expect a State to not only have the burden of that cost, but also to where we take it outside of where a Federal remedy is necessary.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. What we see is that it is another example of bipartisan support of people who are working together in Washington, D.C., the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), myself, we are trying to work together on these important issues that are important not only to people, but people who anticipate and expect that Republicans and Democrats alike are able to craft our business in a way that we can be successful. 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 Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, the proposed rule before the House today provides for consideration of the Conference Report to accompany H.R. 2490, the Treasury, Postal Service and General Government Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000. The proposed rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. The rule also provides that the conference report will be considered as read. Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation, which makes the appropriations for the Treasury Department, United States Postal Service, the executive office of the President, and certain Independent Agencies, is important legislation. A large portion of the activities funded under this bill are devoted to the salaries and expenses of approximately 163,000 employees who are responsible for administering programs such as drug interdiction, collection of revenues, presidential protection, violent crime reduction, and Federal financial management. Through a judicious bipartisan process of hearings and testimony, the Committee on Appropriations arrived at the funding levels contained within this legislation. The funding levels are consistent with this Congress's policy of fiscal discipline, yet provide sufficient funding for agencies within the bill's jurisdiction to carry out those important statutory responsibilities. Americans who have experienced frustration with the Internal Revenue Service will be pleased to know that this legislation also appropriates funds necessary to carry out the IRS reforms that were passed by the last Congress and stand to benefit taxpayers all across America. This legislation was crafted in a bipartisan manner. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), chairman of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on the Treasury, Postal Service and General Government, along with the ranking member, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) deserve accolades for not only their hard work, but also for working together. This rule and conference report deserve bipartisan support today. It is understandable that some Members may not feel this is the perfect appropriations legislation, but this legislation does represent a consensus, bipartisan agreement. Members should be reminded that the legislation maintains the fiscal restraints mandated in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this 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 291 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to once again thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) not only for his judiciousness in the handling of this important matter, but also for making himself available if we needed him. 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 ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 417, the bill just passed.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to consider the conference report on bill, H.R. 2587, that all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration be waived, and that H. Res. 282 be laid upon the table.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Government Reform be discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 264) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives honoring Lance Armstrong, America's premier cyclist, and his winning performance in the 1999 Tour de France, and ask for its immediate consideration.