Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to once again reinforce what is occurring here today. We are joining with the minority to talk about a very important issue. This is a bipartisan-supported bill. It makes sense for taxpayers. It makes sense for all of America. 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 offer a resolution (H. Res. 73) and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. SESSIONS

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 consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 44 is an open rule providing for consideration of H.R. 437, the Presidential and Executive Office Financial Accountability Act of 1999, a bill that will build on the success of the CFO, Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, by providing a CFO in the Executive Office of the President of the United States. H. Res. 44 is an open rule, providing one hour of general debate, divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Government Reform. The rule provides that the bill will be for consideration 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, this legislation builds on the legislation the House passed just this week, the Mandates Information Act, by making the Federal Government more accountable. Additionally, it is one more example of a common theme in this Republican Congress, making the Federal Government accountable to the American people. As an original cosponsor and advocate of the identical legislation, H.R. 1962, that passed the House 413 to 3 in the 105th Congress, I am pleased that the Presidential and Executive Financial Accountability Act is before us today. The other body was unable to take up this important legislation in the last Congress. This legislation brings the agencies of the Executive Office of the President under the requirements of the Chief Financial Officers, or CFO, Act. The CFO Act was inspired by the realization that billions of dollars was lost through waste, fraud and abuse in the Federal Government each year. As chairman of the Results Caucus, a bipartisan team of Members focused on ridding our Federal Government of its major management problems, I have seen report after report which has focused on insufficient and inefficient financial management systems that fail to produce consistent and reliable data. In fact, the General Accounting Office in a report issued in January of this year gave details about the Department of Defense's accounting system. It reported that ``over $9 billion in known military operating materials and supplies were not reported.'' That same Defense Department did not have reliable information on important items of inventory, including ``the number and location of military equipment items, such as F-4 engines and service craft.'' The CFO Act was designed to improve financial management and to coordinate internal controls and financial accounting. Chief Financial Officers oversee all financial management activities in their agencies and report directly to the head of an agency on financial matters. It certainly is clear that such practices are needed in the White House. This legislation fixes an oversight in the original CFO Act. Unfortunately, the original act never applied to the Executive Office of the President. H.R. 437, the Presidential and Executive Office Accountability Act of 1999, will do so in a way that recognizes that unique circumstances of that office exist. It will establish a chief financial officer in the executive offices of the President, and will review and audit the White House's financial systems and its records. The CFO duties are to comply with those requirements set forth in the CFO Act, but is limited by discretion of the President. When the annual fiscal report on the Federal Government was recently released, the government accounting office told us that ``significant financial system weaknesses, problems with fundamental record keeping, incomplete documentation and weak internal controls, including computer reports, prevent the government from accurately reporting a large portion of its assets, liabilities and costs.'' In other words, this administration cannot tell you how much money it receives, how much money it spends and what it spends its money on, what property it owns, where that property goes, or how much that property is worth. There is no evidence that the executive offices at the White House are any different from those reports that have been issued already. Passage of this bill is another signal to the taxpayers that we will ferret out waste, fraud and abuse wherever it is found. Once again, the White House is not immune to this, and, thus, is no different than any other agency. Mismanagement is found throughout the Executive Branch also. Investigation after investigation has turned over evidence of waste, fraud and abuse. The White House Travel Office, the White House Communications Agency, the FBI files matter, are all evidence that the White House needs its own watchdog. This legislation puts us on the right track. 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, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. SESSIONS. 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 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 44 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, the American public today is once again seeing what I consider to be really a sham and the downside of politics. One year ago, President Clinton said Social Security first, so Republicans matched the President and we said we are going to have a 90/10 plan: Of surplus dollars that would be available, 90 percent to Social Security, 10 percent to tax cuts. We were beaten up on the floor of this House. ``That is not enough. Ten percent to the rich Americans.'' Now the President, a year later, is saying Social Security now, 62 percent. We as Republicans and as conservatives are going to match the President. We are trying to work with him. We believe that if that is the figure he is going to select, that is the figure we are going to stick with. And yet what the American public is being told is that Republicans are trying to give tax cuts to the rich. I hope America is listening.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House is poised to pass S. 314, the Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act. This legislation is a consensus compromise bill. It is an important step in the process of ensuring that the component agencies of the Federal Government deliver performance to the taxpayers they serve. This legislation, combined with the Government Performance and Results Act, the Chief Financial Officer Act and other procurement and financial management reforms, will result in an improved Federal Government. In the 1920s, Congress raised concern over the large numbers of additional Federal functions initiated during the First World War and never discontinued. These concerns resulted in hearings. Later, in the 1950s, the House of Representatives passed legislation to terminate commercial activities of the Federal Government. In response to this legislation the Bureau of the Budget, and later, the Office of Management and Budget, issued guidance for executive branch agencies on the issue of agencies performing commercial activities. This guidance is currently represented by OMB Circular A-76. This policy has been erratically followed since its promulgation. Agencies routinely ignore the stated policy of the President. Among the greatest problems which we face with the ineffective Administrative policy regarding the performance of agency commercial activities are the following: (1) Agencies do not develop accurate inventories of such activities, (2) They do not conduct the reviews outlined in the Circular, (3) When reviews are conducted they drag out over extended periods of time, (4) Agencies initiate commercial activities without reference to the policy, and (5) The criteria for the reviews are not fair and equitable. For example, certain practices are tolerated which bias cost- comparison competitions in favor of the Federal Government. A description of the cost-comparison competition process illustrates this costly unfairness. First, when an action is to be taken, the agency develops a ``most efficient organization,'' designed to represent the best form to accomplish the purpose of the commercial activity. This MEO allows for agency commercial activities to reorganize prior to the competition. Agencies promise to shed staff and reorganize for efficiency. Sometimes, agencies do not make the changes promised under the MEO. And in no case are the post-competition promises of agency commercial activities verified or audited. Once the MEO is established, two competitions are held. In the first competition, a commercial source is selected using performance-based criteria. The offeror representing the best value source is chosen. The winning offeror is often not the low-price offeror, since a higher- quality source can offer better value for the money. Then the best value commercial source is compared to the agency commercial activity on the basis of cost, regardless of performance or quality. The commercial source must then beat cost of the agency commercial activity, and do so by at least 10 percent. In enacting S. 314, the Federal Activities Inventory Reform, it is the intent of Congress that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget take prompt action, through the budget process and regulations promulgated pursuant to this legislation, to ensure that: 1. Agency commercial activities establish and use cost accounting systems, as required under the Federal Accounting Standards Board (FASAB) and applicable law. 2. Agency commercial activities are not given an advantage in terms of avoiding any evaluation on performance. 3. Agency commercial activities are not given any preference merely because they are government agencies or the incumbent provider of goods or services. Agency commercial activities ought to be treated identically in this regard to commercial sources. 4. Agency commercial activities are evaluated after any award, and penalties for default are established. Such penalties should include re-competition or termination of the activity. 5. Agency commercial activities be evaluated upon their performance during the cost- comparison competition process. If the offer of any commercial source is lower than the agency commercial activity, the in-house agency commercial activity should not be selected, even if another commercial source is the best value offeror, unless the agency commercial activity is the best value source. 6. Agency commercial activities are regularly subjected to competition to ensure that the taxpayer is getting the best value. During the course of our hearings on this legislation, it became abundantly clear that there are certain activities that the Federal government has performed in-house which can and should be converted to the private sector. Areas such as architecture, engineering, auctions, surveying and mapping, laboratory testing, information technology, and laundry services have no place in government. These activities should be converted to performance by the private sector. There are other activities in which a public-private competition should be conducted to determine which provider can deliver the best value to the taxpayer. Examples include base and facility operation and campgrounds. Section 2(d) of the legislation requires the head of an agency to review the activities on its list of commercial activities ``within a reasonable time.'' Unfortunately, OMB opposed a legislative timetable for conducting these reviews. As a result of the compromise language on this matter, it will be incumbent on OMB to make certain these reviews are indeed conducted in a reasonable time frame. It is the intent of Congress in enacting this legislation that at the Department of Defense, agency commercial activities will be reviewed and competed within seven years. For the civilian agencies, it is the intent of Congress that such activities be reviewed before five years. I urge OMB to exercise strong oversight to assure timely implementation of this requirement by the agencies. This provision also requires that agencies use a ``competitive process'' to select the course of goods or services. This term has the same meaning as ``competitive procedure'' as defined in Federal law (10 U.S.C. 2302(2) and 41 U.S.C. 259(b)). To the extent that a government agency competes for work under this section of the bill, the government agency will be treated as any other contractor or offeror in order to assure that the competition is conducted on a level playing field. Another key decision which must be made is the determination of what is inherently governmental. The legislation continues current policy, embodied in OFPP Policy Letter 92-1. There will be certain agency commercial activities that may have components which are both inherently governmental and commercial in nature. Such activities should be segmented, so that the commercial activity can be studied for competition. For example, one important agency function deals with the disposal of surplus government property. The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight is intimately familiar with such actions, due to its jurisdiction over the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act. While an agency's decision of whether or not to dispose of excess, surplus and seized property is inherently governmental, the process of actually disposing of excess, surplus and seized property is not an inherently governmental function and, therefore, this activity should be listed on the commercial inventory under this legislation. There will be situations where disposal of property is an inherently governmental function, such as the disposal of certain surplus naval vessels and other weapons and weapon systems. But generally, such functions are commercial in nature, since the property disposal process generally is not so intimately connected with the public interest as to require performance by Federal employees. Therefore, Congress intends that property disposal would normally be conducted by contracting with commercial sources. The utilization of experienced, bonded commercial property disposal firms will assist the government to meet that goal, using the same structures and incentives as the private sector in disposing of excess, surplus and seized property. These practices are designed to maximize the commercial value of this property, while government practices and incentives are primarily designed to dispose of inventory as quickly as possible rather than maximizing the return on the dollar. That is the goal of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, it is high time to pass this legislation. It is long overdue. So do all of your constituents a favor and vote for S. 314. Executive Office of the President--Office of Management and Budget, Oct. 2, 1998 Statement of Administration Policy S. 314--Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act (Thomas (R) WY and 16 cosponsors) The Administration has no objection to S. 314, the ``Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998 (FAIR).'' The Act would reinforce efforts to improve the identification and review of non-inherently governmental activities. The bill permits the agencies to assess which functions should be submitted to competition with the private sector and allows the Government to choose the source--public or private--which is the most cost effective and in the best interests of the taxpayer. This bill is consistent with Administration efforts to reform Federal procurement and ensure that taxpayers receive the best value. The Administration's policy is to promote competition to achieve the best deal for the taxpayer. Competition is an integral part of the Administration's overall reinvention and management improvement effort. The inventories of commercial activities required by the FAIR Act will help senior agency managers and OMB to identify opportunities not only for competition, but also other reinvention opportunities, including: re-engineering, organizational restructuring, termination decisions, and the possibility of applying new technologies, such as electronic commerce.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, in a year of world-breaking home runs, it is easy to lose sight of record setters in our own hometowns. Therefore, I rise in recognition of a Texas hometown hero, Coach Billy Bob Evans, who has been setting records of his own for more than four decades. He is a role model with a unique coaching style and strong leadership for others to follow. Coined the Millennium Man, Coach Evans has just won his 1000th girls volleyball game at Leon High School, defeating North Zulch 15-0, 15-1. Mr. Evans is the first coach in the entire state of Texas to reach that milestone and only the second in the Nation. His career win/loss record is 1001 to 174. As coach of Leon's Lady Cougars, Mr. Evans has spent 43 years coaching three generations of Leon athletes. Following his first coaching job for boys and girls basketball at Fair Oaks High School, Mr. Evans returned home to Jewett. In 1954, Mr. Evans became the coach of boys and girls' athletics at Jewett-Marquez Consolidated, now Leon High School. As Leon's only girls volleyball and basketball coach, Mr. Evans has guided his Lady Cougars through 18 state volleyball tournament appearances, 8 state championships, with his most recent title in 1991. He has won district in volleyball for the past 25 consecutive years. Billy Bob Evans is part of Texas history. Mr. Evans says there is no special formula for his success and believes it takes more than talent to build a good athletic program. In his own words, Coach Evans says it takes determination, focus, and technique to form a winning team. I applaud Billy Bob Evans for his commitment to students and their ability to succeed. I want him to know that this Congressman and the people of the Fifth District of Texas are honored to be part of his legendary career and we wish him much success in his years ahead.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friends from Florida, Mr. McCollum and Mr. Foley, for working together to bring this legislation to the floor today. Their hard work is sure to provide greater safety to millions of Americans. I want to thank Mr. McCollum, especially, who, as Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary, has given me his assurances that the provisions in the bill which allow for criminal background checks do not open volunteer organizations to greater liability. As the bill allows qualified entities--certain volunteer organizations--to obtain national criminal fingerprint background checks, it avails organizations that make use of the services generously donated by millions of Americans of a privilege heretofore unavailable to them. I am grateful for Chairman McCollum's recognition that obtaining criminal fingerprint background checks is a costly process from which, at least at present, results may not be available on a timely basis. Charities must balance the cost, burden, and timeliness of the process against the risk that otherwise qualified individuals may be discouraged from volunteering, and that needed programs may have to be reduced or eliminated to pay for such background checks. The committee included section 222 in the bill to provide an option to voluntary nonprofit organizations, not to require them, either directly or indirectly, to undertake criminal fingerprint background checks for employees and volunteers. Chairman McCollum has assured me, both personally and in his statement, that failure to seek or obtain a criminal fingerprint background check should not be construed as a basis for, or offered as evidence of, liability in civil litigation against a nonprofit voluntary organization where the lawsuit is based on the conduct or actions of an employee or volunteer. Once again, I would like to congratulate the gentlemen from Florida for their herculean efforts to pass this important legislation, and I thank them for the privilege of making a statement on the bill. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the measure.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to give my support for S. 1021, the Veterans Employment Act of 1998. As a member of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, I actively supported and voted for passage of H.R. 240, the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1997. I am pleased to see the successful negotiations between the House and Senate have allowed a vote on this important reform of the federal employment hiring system. This legislation equalizes the treatment of military and civilian employees when seeking employment within the federal government. The bill provides preference to our veterans--the same preference that civilian employees currently receive in the federal employment system. I supported this effort to instill fairness in the employment process and reward those veterans who provided us with our most sacred principle--freedom. I am very pleased that we are going to pass this bill today and encourage all of my colleagues to vote for its passage.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Kansas and also have great respect for the gentleman from Maryland who he and I sit on the subcommittee together, and I will tell my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, that the bottom line is that what this is all about is whether we are going to help two schools in Kansas, the Haskell Indian Nations University and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute, be able to compete in the marketplace to be able to get the kinds of teachers and professors that the marketplace regularly has, but that they will be unable to attract directly related to rules of the Federal Government. This is a marketplace issue. It is an issue about the things, the way to hire employees and the way to keep employees. One of the bottom line employment problems is always the portability of a retirement plan. The wisdom of this plan that my colleague from Kansas presents today is one that would allow these two universities the opportunity to have a portability of a retirement plan. The way the law exists today is that someone would have to stay employed in a job literally for the rest of their working career before they were able to get back that retirement that they had saved all these years. The bottom line is the marketplace in academics does not work that way. Professors come and go. Professors have new callings that perhaps they want to leave and have a sabbatical or write a book or teach at another university. I believe what we have got to do is to recognize that the work that is being done today through this bill would allow these two universities to attract and keep through their recruitment opportunities that they have the chance for a marketplace answer, and that is why I am in full support of this bill that is before us today, and I hope that Members of the Congress are able to recognize that this would be good for these two Indian Nation universities to have.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) who is the sponsor of this bill.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would once again state that what we are attempting to do here is to completely discuss S. 314. I have been engaged in, involved in a lot of discussions with the gentleman from Ohio and would like to state that some of the things which I have just heard from the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) I do not believe are actually included in the actual bill that would be presented today for agreement. Mr. Speaker, at this time I very respectfully reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the gentleman from Ohio and his arguments. I think that they have been brought forth not only in the discussions that we have had in subcommittee, but also in private, about not only the nature of is S. 314, but also the spirit of bipartisanship that we have worked out, and I would like to advise the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) at this time that I do not have any further speakers. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman) also. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I have worked with the minority on this legislation, and I want to state very clearly that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and I have not only worked on this, but have a good working relationship. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity of this vote being scheduled today. I want to also openly thank my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) who most ably has not only represented a perspective of not only a perspective that he has but that many Americans have. I have great respect for that. Now more than ever there are dialogs and discussions that ensue all across our country, ones that Mr. Kucinich and I and others in our subcommittee and all over Congress that we talk about. I believe today that we have a bill that is a strong balance, a balanced one that has not only been negotiated, but one that has been very carefully moved through, and I want to thank my colleague as well as the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for their support in what we are doing today. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support S. 314.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4000) to designate the United States Postal Service building located at 400 Edgmont Avenue, Chester, Pennsylvania, as the ``Thomas P. Foglietta Post Office Building,'' as amended.

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 the bill, H.R. 4000.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for his grace and charm in enunciating the love of Philadelphia and Pennsylvania for both of these people. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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 the bill, H.R. 4001.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3864) to designate the post office located at 203 West Paige Street, in Tompkinsville, Kentucky, and the ``Tim Lee Carter Post Office Building.''