Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, what we have talked about tonight is we believe this decision to raise the rate of pay for the President of the United States, doubling it from $200,000 to $400,000, should be challenged by Members of Congress.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I think this debate has been worthy. I think we have gone through the process. Hearings have been held on this matter. I believe that it is an honest request that we would ask Members of Congress to take seriously that which they have before them, to make a determination about whether we are going to double the President's salary. I believe in a time when we are trying to do the responsible thing, it does not pass the smell test to think that we would double someone's salary. With that said, I hope that this debate has ended.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. 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 Surfside, Texas (Mr. Paul). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for 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 consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, this legislation before us is a structured rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 10, the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. Passage of this rule today is another step in the long and carefully considered repeal of the Depression-era rules that govern our Nation's modern financial services industry. The rule provides for 90 minutes of general debate, 45 minutes equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services and 45 minutes divided equally between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Commerce. The rule also waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the Committee on Rules print dated June 24, 1999, as original text for the purposes of amendment. The rule also waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The rule further provides that no amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the Committee on Rules report, which may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question. The rule also waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report. The rule allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to reduce voting time to 5 minutes on any postponed question, provided voting time on the first in any series of questions is not less than 15 minutes. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, this rule allows for consideration of a total of 11 amendments, five which are offered by the Democrats on a bipartisan basis. The rule, like the underlying legislation, deserves strong bipartisan support. Ten of the amendments made in order with this rule are debatable for 10 minutes each. They address important issues such as limitation of fees associated with acquiring financial products and taking steps to prevent institutions from requiring customers to purchase insurance products as a condition of receiving a loan and other important items. This rule also allows 30 minutes of debate on an important amendment, crafted in a bipartisan manner to strengthen the bill's provisions related to maintaining the privacy of a consumer's personal financial information. This privacy amendment is truly historic. It represents the strongest pro-consumer privacy language ever considered by the House. This work product that we present today comes as a result of extensive work out of two major committees, including the Committee on Banking and Financial Services and the Committee on Commerce who have primary jurisdiction over this bill. In an intensely bipartisan effort to bring together or to merge the best parts of both of these bills, colleagues of mine on the Committee on Rules on both sides of the aisle have crafted what I think is the best legislation for America. In fact, a senior member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento), yesterday stated in testimony before the Committee on Rules, and I quote, ``Obviously the issues with privacy that have been worked out here are stronger than either bill from the other committees.'' This compromise is well crafted and bipartisan. Mr. Speaker, this rule meets the twin goals the Committee on Rules grappled with yesterday, allowing fair and vigorous debate on various alternatives, yet moving this delicate compromise forward to House passage. Mr. Speaker, 65 years ago, on the heels of the great Depression, the Glass-Steagall Act was passed, prohibiting affiliation between commercial banking, insurance and securities. However, merely 2 years after passage, the first attempt at repealing Glass-Steagall was instituted by Senator Carter Glass, one of the sponsors of the legislation. He recognized that changes in the world and in the marketplace called for more effective legislation. Two generations later, the need to modernize our financial laws is more appropriate than ever. There is no doubt about it, reexamination of regulation of the financial services industry in America is a complicated matter. Congress recognizes that busy American families where many times both parents work to make ends meet have little time to consider complicated banking law. But Congress now is working again to repeal Glass-Steagall with exactly these hard-working Americans in mind. This legislation is designed to give all Americans the benefit of one-stop shopping for all their financial services needs. New companies will offer a broad array of financial products under one roof, bringing convenience and competition. More products will be offered to more people at a lower price. As a result of this legislation, Americans will have more time to spend with their families, more money to spend on their children, and the opportunity to save for their future. Americans deserve the most efficient borrowing and investment choices. Americans deserve the freedom to pursue financial options without being charged three different times by three different companies for a product. This legislation is designed to increase market forces in an already competitive marketplace to drive down costs and broaden the number of potential customers for securities and other products that are before us today. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this well-balanced rule that is an extremely complicated and delicate piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we are now at the very end of this debate on the rule. We have heard and had a vigorous debate today about. We have had a vigorous debate about the various aspects of this rule and of the bill that is before us. I am pleased to say that, until last night, we had been working for weeks to craft a compromise, not only on privacy, but other issues. I can tell my colleagues that the compromise that was crafted up until last night is the one that is in the rule. It was bipartisan until then, and I am very proud of it. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) for the purposes of rebuttal.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the gentleman who is the chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services and a gentleman who has been engaged in the methodical, bipartisan effort to get this bill where it is.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Atlanta, Georgia (Mr. Linder).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minute to the gentleman from Findley, Ohio (Mr. Oxley). (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and honored to have the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) to stand up and to talk about this process that we have been going through. As he is well aware, for many weeks we have worked together in a bipartisan basis. It is absolutely true that last night we came at the time a vote was necessary for us to decide what would be made in order, and I would like to reiterate that there were 11 amendments, 5 which were offered by Democrats or on a bipartisan basis that were accepted, and one of those amendments that was accepted was crafted very carefully, with a lot of hard work by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce). Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) to join in this debate.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 235 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Des Moines, Iowa (Mr. Ganske). (Mr. GANSKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire as to the time remaining on both sides.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I will not.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen). (Mr. SKEEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, what is occurring today is what typically occurs in Washington. My opponents are talking about studies, facts and figures which they claim they have. I wrote the Director of the ATF December 21, 1998, and February 2, 1999, asking for the results of the study. I was denied this. This is obviously an unfair argument, because the administration simply wants to have gun control and more guns to be available for people on the streets, rather than doing the right thing.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.