Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I urge support of the previous question, a vote of ``yes''. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), who sits on the Subcommittee on the Census of the Committee on Government Reform. (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the assistant majority whip.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Census.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 138 is a fair structured rule providing 1 hour of debate in the House divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Government Reform. Mr. Speaker, upon adoption of the resolution, the amendment printed in the Committee on Rules report is considered adopted. The rule also provides for the consideration of amendment numbered 1 printed in the Congressional Record if offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), or her designee, which shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled between the proponent and the opponent. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 472, the, Local Census Quality Check Act, builds on Republican efforts and fulfills our constitutional duties by carrying out a quality census that counts every single person. Post census local review was used effectively in 1990 to add 124,000 households to the nationwide count. By using the knowledge, list management and mapping skills of local authorities, post census local review improved the accuracy of the 1990 census. This improvement will increase exponentially with the 2000 census as advancements in information technology will allow local authorities to provide better information which includes adding people to the census at the exact location where they live. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for a post census local review which will allow local governments to review household counts, boundary maps and other data that the Secretary of Commerce considers appropriate in order to identify discrepancies in housing unit counts before they release the final count of the census. Additionally, the Secretary of Commerce would submit the appropriate block level maps and list of housing units to local governments for their review. The local authorities would then be given 45 days to review the census data and submit any challenges to that data. The Secretary would then investigate, correct any miscounts and notify local governments of any action or correction that was taken. This is a commonsense piece of legislation that works. The results are not debatable. In 1990, post census review made for more accurate census counts. Local groups across the political spectrum, including the National League of Cities, the National Association of Towns and Townships and the National Association of Developmental Organizations have endorsed this legislation because it works. It is a part of a process to count every single person in our country. 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, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In response to my colleague, I would like for it also to be noted on the record that the Republican Black Caucus is 100 percent for this bill that we are supporting on the Floor. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), one of my colleagues on the Committee on Rules.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) to respond.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire about the time remaining.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, what we are engaged in here today is the debate that always takes place in Washington, and that is over how much money can we spend, how much bigger can we make government, and then how we are going to fight to try and save this country. The bottom line is there is no doubt that the choices today are clear. The President prefers the status quo. He prefers bigger government. And he prefers that the government be the answer or the solution to America's problems. Republicans place our faith in families, communities and the marketplace to solve our Nation's ills. This is just yet another chapter in the string of successes of what will be for this country and for the Republican Congress. Welfare reform, a balanced budget, and tax relief are all successes that this President and his party at one time or another fought vehemently and now campaign and act like they were their ideas. The bottom line is that the Republican Party offers a simple message. There is only one way to speak honestly to the American people, and it is called discipline. It is called dedicating 100 percent of Social Security dollars for Social Security and Medicare. The Republican plan dedicates 100 percent. The difference between 100 percent and 62 percent will be clear to the American public. There is one thing that Democrats do do and that is that they fully fund big government. Their budgets increase government spending across the board. In fact, the President's budget busts the bipartisan spending agreement that we had just 2 years ago. He increases spending by more than $200 billion in new domestic spending, creating over 120 new government programs. Mr. Speaker, our message is plain and simple. We will keep producing ideas worth being stolen by the Democrats, but we are going to take credit for this one. It is called discipline and doing what we said we would do.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we have now finished the debate, a hot debate that has taken place on the floor of the House of Representatives about the budget for the year 2000. And for the American people that are watching, I want them to know that what has occurred is that the Republican plan has been victorious. But it is more than just a Republican plan. It is a plan that is based upon principles of the marketplace. And those principles of the marketplace are, among other things, living within the budget that we have, doing what we said we would do, and doing things for the middle class of this country. The budget that was passed tonight, the resolution, is for the middle class of this country and for us to live within the means that we have. We, I think, can be proud of the work that was done today; and it was done for each and every one of us, Republican principles following market- based ideas.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, this week we are going to debate two clearly different visions of America. As Members know, we are going to debate the budget that will be presented for the year 2000. The President's budget would raise taxes on the middle class of America, it busts the budget caps, and it uses the social security surplus to fund over 120 new government programs. Worst of all, after leaving the Nation's retirement in shaky financial shape, this president is proposing taxes on the middle class' number one guarantee for retirement security, life insurance. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that taxpayers that have been faithful and honest about preparing for their retirement should not see this being taxed. Conversely, this Republican Congress has a taxpayer-friendly budget that protects 100 percent of social security and Medicare surpluses. It practices budgetary constraints, and provides over $800 billion for tax relief for all middle class taxpayers. I intend to vote for that which is for Republicans and for the taxpayers of this country.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this fair rule for H.R. 800, the Ed-Flex Partnership Act of 1999. Current law authorizes 12 States under pilot programs to participate in the Education Flexibility Partner Demonstration Program called Ed-Flex. Ed-Flex States enjoy greater State and local flexibility in determining how to use Federal education funds. H.R. 800 is a bill which will expand the program to give all 50 States the option to apply for Ed-Flex. In short, Ed-Flex increases local control, reduces government red tape, and promotes flexibility with accountability. My State, Texas, was one of the first States to win Ed-Flex status. Since January of 1996, Texans have incorporated the flexibility granted under Ed-Flex for statewide, comprehensive reform programs centered around local control and accountability for results. Governor George W. Bush eagerly sought Ed-Flex status and has worked with local educators for the authority to design programs which meet and address local need. Texas also has implemented a system which ensures that there is accountability with concrete results in return for this increased flexibility. As Governor Bush said, ``Texans can run Texas.'' I believe that each of my colleagues would feel the same way about their respective States and their districts. Although there is still room for improvement, tremendous gains in performance can be documented for students in Texas. In a State with students of diverse ethnicities and socio-economic statuses, the across-the-board improvement in student performance is, indeed, something that we should be proud of. Yesterday, during testimony before the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), former Governor and now current U.S. Congressman, indicated that all 50 Governors are in favor of receiving this Ed-Flex status. This simply is a bill that allows all 50 States to do what they believe is necessary to run their own programs in their own States. I believe it is an admission that the one-size-fits-all rulemaking bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. is broken. Republicans trust local school boards, not Washington bureaucrats. What works in my home district in Dallas, Texas is not necessarily the most effective program for a school district here in the Washington, D.C. area, in Northern Virginia, or in Maryland. The combination of Ed-Flex and an effective accountability program allows all States to focus on a foundation, a curriculum that features English language, mathematics, science, social studies, geography, and government. I am proud of the improvements which have come about as a result of Ed-Flex; flexibility with accountability. This program is good for everyone who has an opportunity to participate. Today, we are talking about this rule that would allow the opportunity to debate how States are going to utilize their own education programs. I will tell my colleagues that there are others on the other side who want to debate about putting more rules and regulations and dollars to this equation. But the bottom line is that what we have got to do is to give local school districts, local States those controls, not tell them how to do things, and not put dollars out there which would drive them to the decision making that Washington would like to make instead of what they would like to make locally. I stand in support of this rule.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise, as is tradition by members of the Texas delegation. Today is Texas Independence Day, and today I would like to follow in the tradition that has been done for years, to read a letter that was written from Colonel Travis, who was the commandant, who was the head of the Texans who were in the Alamo that was written on February 24, 1836, from Bexar in Texas. To all people of Texas and all Americans in the world: Fellow citizens and compatriots, I am besieged by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna. I have sustained a continual bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours and have not lost a man. The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken. I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, and our flag still proudly from the walls. I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of liberty and patriotism and everything dear to the American character to come to our aid with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily and will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in 4 or 5 days. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor and to that of his country--victory or death. Signed, William Barret Travis, Lieutenant Colonel Commander of the Texans in the Alamo. P.S. The Lord is on our side. When the enemy appeared in sight, we had not three bushels of corn. We have since found in deserted houses 80 or 90 bushels and got into the walls 20 or 30 head of cattle.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 43 is an open rule providing for consideration of H.R. 436, the Government Waste, Fraud and Error Reduction Act of 1999, a bill to reduce waste, fraud and error in government programs by making improvements to the Federal management and debt collection practices, Federal payment systems, and Federal benefit programs. H. Res. 43 is an open rule, providing 1 hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Government Reform. The rule waives section 303 of the Congressional Budget Act, prohibiting consideration of legislation providing new budget authority or contract authority for a fiscal year until the budget resolution for that fiscal year has been agreed to against the consideration of the bill. Section 303 of the Budget Act prohibits consideration of legislation providing new budget authority or contract authority for a fiscal year until the budget resolution for that fiscal year has been agreed to. This is simply a technical waiver. The rule also provides that the bill will be considered as read. Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Record prior to their consideration will be given priority in recognition to offer their amendments if otherwise consistent with House rules. The rule allows for the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce votes to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-minute vote. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government's failure to collect delinquent debt is costing American taxpayers billions of dollars each year. According to the Department of the Treasury, the Federal Government is owed approximately $50 billion in delinquent debt, and that is not including taxes. Of that amount, more than $47 billion has been delinquent over 180 days. The Federal Government also writes off an additional $10 billion each year. H.R. 436, the Government Waste, Fraud and Error Reduction Act of 1999, is identical to H.R. 457 that passed the U.S. House of Representatives last year with overwhelming bipartisan support. Unfortunately, the Senate did not take up this legislation. We are bringing the bill back before the American people because we believe it is the right thing to do. This legislation builds on prior Federal debt collection initiatives such as the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 by providing Federal agencies with additional tools to collect their debt collection. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in the 105th Congress that this legislation would actually save the Federal Government $14 million over a 4-year period. By forcing agencies to make debt collection a priority and giving them the tools to be successful, this legislation stops the lax attitudes of Federal agencies over the handling of our tax dollars. It is unfortunate that these common sense ideas have to be mandated by Congress in order for Federal agencies to pay attention. The savings generated by this bill is just one part of the billions of dollars that are wasted each and every year by this government. I am proud of the strides this Congress, the Republican majority, has made to reduce waste, fraud and abuse. We must continue to be vigilant in search of a smaller, smarter government. In this era of surpluses there have been calls for my colleagues on the left to increase government spending. This legislation conveys the absurdity of those suggestions. I believe it is wrong for the Federal Government to spend more on government programs until it has properly accounted for and been efficient in that which the money has been spent up to now. Taxpayers work hard for the tax dollars they send to Washington, and it is time that we stop throwing their money at problems without demanding proper accountability of those dollars and, more importantly, results which are measurable. This legislation puts us on the right track. It is not a silver bullet. It does not eliminate waste, fraud and error in the government. Rather, it is a tool to help government deal more carefully with that problem. I urge my colleagues to pass this fair, open 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 43 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House for a minute today, and today I would like to speak not just as a Congressman from the Fifth District of Texas but really as a parent. My wife and I have a five-year-old Down syndrome little boy who is about to enter the school system in Dallas, Texas; and the discussion that my wife and I had was that we believe, as parents, that the Federal Government and our local school system should do a better job of funding the special education needs in not only our children but other special education children. And I hope that the American public is listening when they hear the Republican majority talking about the need for the Federal Government and the Congress to fully fund special needs and special education in school districts across this country. That is what the Federal money should be spent for, because we are the people that put the rules and regulations on these school districts, and we need to fund that which we have asked them to do. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the American public is listening, that the Republican majority does care about education, and we care about each and every one of our children.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

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 consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 75 is an open rule providing for consideration of H.R. 409, a bill to improve the effectiveness and performance of Federal financial assistance programs, simplify Federal financial assistance application and reporting requirements, and improve the delivery of services to the public. H. Res. 75 is an open rule providing 1 hour of general debate, divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority of the Committee on Government Reform. The rule provides that each section of the bill shall be considered as read. The rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. This 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, I recently joined with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader, to highlight the waste from overlapping and duplication in our Federal Government. We used one simple example to illustrate the billions of dollars that are wasted each year, what we call the pizza example. Currently, if a company produces pizza with meat toppings, the USDA is responsible for inspecting the plant. If, however, a company produces cheese pizza, it is the FDA's responsibility. As amazing as it seems to have two different bureaucracies for each topping on pizza in your refrigerator, consider the fact that there are 12 different Federal agencies that oversee food safety in this country. Does that sound like an efficient system to you? We think not. It sounds like to me, on the one hand, the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing and, consequently, taxpayers are left holding the bag for this inefficiency. Unfortunately, it does not end just with pizzas. There are currently over 600 different Federal financial assistance programs to implement domestic policy. Report after report has shown that the Federal administrative requirements are duplicative, burdensome or conflicting, which impedes the cost-effective delivery of services at the local level. Every dollar wasted complying with this bureaucratic red tape removes precious funds and resources from those programs' noble goals of feeding the poor or providing health care or other services to American citizens. H.R. 409, the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999, aims to improve the delivery of much-needed services by streamlining and simplifying the Federal financial assistance administrative procedures and reporting requirements. Identical legislation, S. 1642, passed the Senate in the 105th Congress. The bill is simple and straightforward. It requires Federal agencies to develop plans within 18 months that do the following: streamline application, administrative and reporting requirements; develop a uniform grant application for related programs; develop and expand the use of electronic grant applications and reporting via the Internet; demonstrate interagency coordination in simplifying requirements for cross- cutting programs; and set annual goals to further the purposes of this act. Agencies would consult with outside parties in the development of such plans. Plans and follow-up annual reports would be submitted to Congress and could be included as part of other managed reports as required by law. In addition to overseeing and coordinating agency activities, the Office of Management and Budget, known as OMB, would be responsible for developing common rules that cut across program and agency lines by creating a release form that allows grant information to be shared by programs. The bill sunsets in 5 years, and the National Academy for Public Administrators would submit an evaluation just prior to its sunsetting. The bill has been endorsed by the major State and local governing organizations, such as the National Governors Association, the National Council of State Legislatures, the National Association of Counties, the Council of State Governments, the National League of Cities, the International City and County Management Association and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. This legislation, we believe, is on the right track. I urge my colleagues to pass this fair, open rule and the underlying things that it will accomplish in this 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 75 and ask for its immediate consideration.