Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4001) to designate the United States Postal Service building located at 2601 North 16th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as the ``Roxanne H. Jones Post Office Building.''

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, once again, I think we have heard kind remarks about one of our former colleagues. We not only wish him the best for his continued success but also that of our country in regard to his service to our country. I am just going to add, and it will probably be in what the gentleman from Pennsylvania submits, but I believe that the First District of Pennsylvania was well represented. It is the city about brotherly love. They will be honored with a post office in his honor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 314) to provide a process for identifying the functions of the Federal Government that are not inherently governmental functions, and for other purposes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SESSIONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will require agencies to identify their commercial activities and to review those activities. Current policy in these areas state, number one, that agencies ought to rely on private sources for commercial activities and on government sources for inherently governmental activities; number two, that agencies should not initiate new commercial activities if they can get a contractor to perform that activity; and number three, that agencies will subject their in-house commercial activities to competition. The government should not be in the business of competition with private business. In the private sector, specialization in competition has reduced costs and improved performance and consumer choice. The most competitive sectors of the economy are also the most innovative. We need to bring home value to taxpayers. This legislation is a tool to do a favor for every U.S. taxpayer. Mr. Speaker, I yield whatever time he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman), for a colloquy.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to state to the honorable gentleman from Virginia, the subcommittee chairman, that he is correct, this is exactly as the language is and as stated. The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight is well aware of the extensive work by the Committee on National Security over the years in addressing the contracting out process within the Department of Defense. I agree with the assertion of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman) that this bill specifically excludes the Department of Defense's depot maintenance function from the new procedures established by the bill and does nothing to alter or supersede existing statutory requirements with regard to the contracting out of the Department of Defense commercial or industrial activities.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on this matter.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3864 was introduced on May 13, 1998, by the distinguished Member from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and cosponsored by the entire House delegation from the State of Kentucky pursuant to the policy of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. The bill designates the post office located at 203 West Paige Street in Tompkinsville, Kentucky, as the Tim Lee Carter post office building. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Tim Lee Carter was a true Kentuckian. He was born in Tompkinsville, Monroe County, in 1910 and attended public school there and graduated from Western Kentucky State College. He later earned his medical degree from the University of Tennessee but returned to Monroe County to practice medicine from 1940 to 1964. Dr. Carter volunteered for military service and was a combat medic for 3\1/2\ years during World War II, serving as a captain in the 38th infantry division. Dr. Carter was elected to serve his community as a Republican Member in the 89th Congress and to the seven succeeding terms from 1965 to 1981. He was not a candidate for the 98th Congress, and after his retirement from public service he went back home in Kentucky and resumed the practice of medicine. Representative Carter was the first Republican Member of Congress to seek withdrawal of our troops from Vietnam, but he never wavered in his support for American troops. He was well known in Kentucky for his efforts to improve one of our Nation's poorest districts, working tirelessly for better schools, water systems, libraries, airports, roads and recreation. He was the only practicing physician in Congress during much of his time here in Washington. Much of his work during this time was on legislation affecting health care and hospitals. He considered his major legislative achievement the law that provided for preventative medical care for poor children. He was one of the earliest advocates of national insurance for catastrophic illnesses. Representative Tim Lee Carter died in Kentucky in 1987 and is interred in Tompkinsville. Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that the post office building in Tompkinsville be named for our former colleague, the Honorable Tim Lee Carter. I urge all of our colleagues to support this legislation that honors a gentleman who clearly had the vision to follow his conscience and serve all people without regard for their station in life. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of fast track. I find it very amazing that my colleagues and friends, including those from Texas, blame this on politics. I will tell my colleagues who I blame it on. I blame it on people like the Texas Farm Bureau and the Texas and Southwest Cattle Raisers who have asked me and told me point blank, it is the most important vote that could take place in the remainder of this session. They are for opening markets and creating jobs. They are for American export businesses. They recognize that 96 percent of the consumers in the world live outside the United States. Lastly, they realize that 30 percent of the growth of the markets that they have come directly from overseas markets. Mr. Speaker, I will tell my colleagues, I do not blame this on Newt Gingrich. I blame this on the Texas Farm Bureau, the Texas and Southwest Cattle Raisers and 75 other people who are in the agribusiness. I will vote yes with them.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to recognize a distinguished part of Texas history. This Sunday, September 27, 1998, Dallas' NBC Channel 5 will be celebrating its 50th Anniversary. Channel 5 was founded in 1948 by Texas visionary Amon G. Carter, a noted communications pioneer in both publishing and broadcasting, whose ingenuity lead to the delivery of television to the State of Texas and the Southwest. In fact, NBC Channel 5 was the first television station to go on the air in the State of Texas and the entire Southwest of the United States on September 27, 1948, airing the local visit of President Harry S Truman in his Presidential whistlestop campaign. While Channel 5 has made its home in a Texas State Historic Landmark Building for the past fifty years, it has served as much more than a simple addition to Texas' architectural heritage. NBC Channel 5 can boast numerous historical accolades, including the first live local news report in Texas in 1948, the first live intercontinental satellite report in 1977, and the first station in the Southwest to offer viewers news via e-mail in 1997. NBC Channel 5 remains a broadcasting leader in delivering to its viewers the very best in programming and local, national, and international news coverage, highlighted by an unwavering commitment to community service. Therefore, it is with great pride that I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing fifty years of excellence from a news organization that has raised the standard of journalistic integrity and service to both the great State of Texas and the United States of America; Dallas' NBC Channel 5.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering H.R. 3898, the Speed Trafficking Life in Prison Act of 1998. Mr. Speaker, clearly we are in the middle of a crisis in our country. Methamphetamine trafficking in this country is at an all-time high and it seems like that we have got to do something about it. That is why I drafted H.R. 3898 which will cut in half the amounts of methamphetamine in the Controlled Substances Act necessary to invoke the most severe penalties. Many of our colleagues know from their work in the war against drugs, also are aware of this, and sometimes they call methamphetamines other things. It is often known as ``speed,'' ``ice,'' or ``crank,'' and it causes severe side effects and can result in death. After prolonged use, methamphetamine leads to binging, often causing users to consume the drug continuously for up to 3 days without sleeping. Following the binge is severe depression, followed by worsening paranoia, belligerence, and aggression which is known as ``tweaking.'' Then the user collapses from exhaustion, waking up days later simply to begin the cycle again. The new ephendrine-based methamphetamine is worse, however. It leads to sleepless binges that can last up to 15 days and end in crashes that are far worse than those with regular methamphetamine. These crashes not only cause the loss of life and the spirit in our children, but they bring about violence and disruptive behaviors that endanger families and everyone in America's communities. I am unwilling to accept this behavior and have begun my fight so that we will not accept this that is happening to our country. I hope that my colleagues are listening and that Americans are with us as we join in this continued fight against drugs in our country. On July 21, 1997, I held a congressional hearing in my district, the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, at Mesquite High School, to discuss the problem of illegal drug trafficking and what our national, State and local leaders were doing about it. Testimony from the Drug Enforcement Administration, known as the DEA, clearly demonstrated that the new wave of methamphetamine use was attacking our country and also was coming across our borders. According to the 1996 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, an estimated 4.9 million people, which is 2.3 percent of the population, have tried methamphetamines at some time in their lives. Data from the 1996 Drug Warning Abuse Network, which collects information on drug-related episodes from hospital emergency departments in 21 metropolitan areas, reported that methamphetamine- related episodes increased 71 percent between the first half of 1996 and the second half of 1996, or, put in numbers, from 4,000 to 6,800. Too often, I believe we point to foreign countries as the sources of dangerous drugs to our children and Americans. But with methamphetamine, the drug can be manufactured easily within our own borders. It is what I call a ``made in America'' product. It has catastrophic consequences to our environment and puts first responders, our men and women in law enforcement and firefighters, in grave danger from fires and explosion. That is why I drafted H.R. 3898, the Speed Trafficking Life in Prison Act of 1998, to put those who manufacture or distribute methamphetamine in prison for as long as possible. Those who abuse drugs should take responsibility for their actions, but there are also victims. They are victims of drug thugs, the killers who put this stuff on our streets and in our communities. It is those people that we are aiming our legislation at. I hope and urge all of my colleagues to support this reasonable approach to dealing with drugs that are killing our children.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I join in the accolades for the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), members of the committee who care very deeply about the American public getting to the bottom of the truth of this matter. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Indiana knows, over one month ago the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, of which I am also a member, voted to hold the Attorney General of the United States, Janet Reno, in contempt for failing to produce two documents to Congress. We are now faced with the decision of whether the entire House of Representatives should vote to hold her in contempt. This would be the first time Congress would use its contempt powers against an Attorney General, and we are well aware of the gravity of this matter. Our decision to subpoena the Attorney General was not made lightly. It was the result of a great deal of serious reflection. But members of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and many others both inside and outside the halls of Congress, have serious concerns about the way the campaign finance probe has been conducted at the U.S. Department of Justice. What I would like to do is to discuss some of these problems that we have seen. Statements by senior Department of Justice officials that the independent counsel statute has not been applied consistently. Statements by senior Department of Justice officials that the White House staff have been treated more leniently than other citizens, and press accounts that some may have not been investigated because of who they are. Public accounts that senior political officials have weighed in against pursuing prosecution of campaign finance figures, even though the law supports prosecution. Indications that the Department of Justice has not pursued evidence vigorously. Needless delays by the Attorney General that will push the start of investigations into 1999, a full 3 years after allegations of wrongdoing were made and known. Lee Radek, a senior adviser to the Attorney General, gave an unfair advantage to the defense attorney of an important Democratic contributor. When prosecutors, who had evidence of wrongdoing, called Mr. Radek, he refused to take the call. Complete failure by the Department to follow any evidence, speak to any witnesses, or subpoena any documents in some matters that may indicate improper impropriety by the Democrat National Committee and leading Democrat contributors. The failure to maintain continuity in the supervision of the Department of Justice investigations. There have been three task force supervisors in 1 year, and given that, they have all had their own advisers. A consistent siding with the White House in its failing and sometimes frivolous claims of privilege on a variety of matters. A failure to recognize that the Attorney General has conflicting legal duties: To keep the President informed of information relevant to national security, and keep information relevant to campaign finance investigation from people under investigation, a category that includes the President of the United States. Tolerance of top advisers belittling the laws that they are constitutionally bound to uphold. For example, Lee Radek, who was discussed earlier, told The New York Times: ``Institutionally, the Independent Counsel Statute is an insult.'' Further, providing misleading information about who is covered by the Independent Counsel Statute and who is not covered. One letter provided to the committee seems to indicate that two of the principals of the Clinton-Gore 1996 campaign are not covered by the statute, and the clear language of the statute indicates that there is no doubt that these officials are covered. Further, providing false information to the public to make congressional demands seem unreasonable. The Attorney General has maintained that Congress has never before asked for information on an ongoing criminal investigation, and this is clearly not the case. Further, repeated leaks of information that are protected by Grand Jury secrecy and, I might add, leaks that were made for their own political benefit. Further, repeated attempts to answer requests made by Congress. I repeat: Repeated failure to answer requests made by Congress. For example, 1 month ago our committee asked the Attorney General for permission to speak with the assistant United States attorney most familiar with a case known as the Intriago case, and she has failed to respond to our request. Further, coordination between the Department of Justice and the minority on this committee are being done for political benefit. Some of these examples, taken by themselves, would be matters of grave concern. Put together, they indicate that there is something very wrong over at the Department of Justice. The Attorney General is not applying the law correctly. Her own advisers have been telling her this, yet she continues to oversee an investigation of the President of the United States, who appointed her. In November of 1977, FBI director Louis Freeh prepared a lengthy memorandum on the Department of Justice campaign finance investigation. Director Freeh, former Federal Judge Freeh, who had been advising the Attorney General to appoint an independent counsel since late 1996, concluded that according to the Independent Counsel Statute, 28 USC section 591, the Attorney General was required by both the mandatory and the discretionary provisions of that law to appoint an independent counsel. My colleagues will also see that I have on this side information that contains other testimony that Director Freeh has given. This view was shared by the most senior FBI investigator on the investigation, Mr. James DeSarno. On July 23, 1998, The New York Times reported that the departing lead prosecutor on the campaign finance task force, Charles La Bella, had prepared a 100-page memorandum reviewing the facts gathered during the campaign finance investigation. According to press reports, Mr. La Bella also found that the mandatory and discretionary portions of the independent counsel law required the appointment of an independent counsel. Thus, both Director Freeh and task force head La Bella have repeatedly found specific evidence from a credible source that required the appointment of an independent counsel. We subpoenaed Director Freeh and Mr. La Bella's memoranda because we believe it is clear that something is seriously wrong. The Attorney General was asked last Thursday, and I quote, ``Do you still have confidence in the leadership of President Clinton for both the administration and our country?'' This is what she said, and I quote the Attorney General, ``I certainly do.'' And then she said, ``He has a sense of what needs to be done. He is doing it.'' Well, I, for one, have a problem with what the Attorney General has said for several reasons. The independent counsel, whose staff includes the Department of Justice lawyers and FBI investigators who are charged with enforcing the laws of this country, have recently provided Congress with a referral that says the President of the United States committed perjury in a Federal lawsuit; that he lied to a Federal Grand Jury; that he obstructed justice; and that his actions have been inconsistent with the President's constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws of this country. The President has responded by having his private lawyers and government lawyers on the government payroll go out and trash the independent counsel. He has had them go out and make the most absurd legal arguments I believe that I have ever heard. It is so bad that yesterday two top Democrats in the House and the Senate made a public plea for the President to stop the legal obfuscation. And yet the Attorney General, who is in charge of upholding and protecting the law, blithely goes before the American people and tells us that the President has a sense of what needs to be done and he is doing it. Remember, the Attorney General has signed off on all the things that the independent counsel has done; all of these investigations now for 3 years. It seems, however, that either she does not care about the independent counsel's evidence or she has already rejected the findings of the independent counsel that the President is acting against the principle that everyone is entitled to a fair trial; that he has sent his lawyers out to say that it really does not matter if one lies in these courts. These appear to be of no importance to the Attorney General. It seems to me that the President has been attacking the rule of law; that he has used and continues to use the most powerful office in the world and to say that one does not need to tell the truth, especially sitting in front of a Federal judge in the oval office. It just does not seem right to me. It seems to me that the Attorney General should care about this matter. She should care deeply. And that is what her job is all about: Protecting the rule of law. And she is certainly not doing so in the campaign finance investigation, where she keeps giving the President a break. The Attorney General's words speak volumes, I believe, about her own beliefs, but also they tell us one very important thing: She has a fatal conflict when it comes to investigating the President. This has not been a mystery. If she is willing to side with him before she has even seen the evidence in the Lewinsky matter, how can we possibly expect her to do the right thing when it comes to campaign finance investigation? For 2 years she has been ignoring what should have been clear to even the most junior lawyers on her staff. The appearance of conflict in the campaign finance investigation is devastating, and it does great harm to the Department of Justice and to the rule of law. But making a mistake does not rise to the level of misconduct. If that is all that we were here to talk about today, and I do not think it would be the only discussion that we would have, I think that we would have voted for contempt when she failed to turn over the Freeh and La Bella memoranda. Let us focus on some of the issues that have led to my conclusion that something is wrong at the Department of Justice. First. The Intriago case. This committee held hearings and was provided documentary evidence that major Democratic National Committee figure Charles Intriago had advised one of his clients how to break U.S. law and give money illegally. There was testimony that someone, and the inference was that this someone was highly placed in Democratic fundraising circles, was giving Intriago advice about where to direct illegal money. What happened in this case? It was pulled from one of the U.S. Attorney's offices by Lee Radek, one of the Attorney General's advisers, and the statute of limitations was about to expire. The appearance of impropriety is stunning. We asked the Attorney General if we could talk to the lawyer who was preparing the case before it was killed in Washington. We asked over 1 month ago, and the Attorney General has not even gotten around to fulfilling our request. She is behaving like a defense attorney trying to run out the clock. Another thing about this case. The adviser who killed this case for the Attorney General would not even take the phone calls of the New York State prosecutors who uncovered the evidence. In our hearing, however, we learned that he did take at least one call from a defense attorney. How can we believe that the Attorney General's protestations that she has left no stone unturned when the evidence shows that there are boulders right under her nose and her advisers are making sure they are not disturbed. Another investigation this committee has been conducting involves an elaborate scheme by the Democratic National Committee to break a State law in Kansas. Individuals were given money by a Democratic National Committee organization and told to act as conduits to get the money to another organization. Let me read from a document obtained by this committee, and I quote. ``The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, in an effort to support State Senate candidates, the Democrat party, and their own candidates will contribute $1,000 to each State Senate campaign our office designates. You may keep $200, but then must turn around and contribute $800 to the Senate Victory Fund.'' Instructions on how to make conduit contributions does not get much clearer than this. If it had not been illegal, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee would have given the $200 to the candidate and sent the $800 to the place where they wanted the money to go. But they could not do that, so they used decent men and women from their own party to act as straw donors. This is direct evidence of a plan to use conduits to get money to a third party to help the Democratic National Committee candidates in the 1996 Kansas election. Overall, a third of a million dollars was contributed to Kansas, where the State law limits the contribution from a national party to $25,000. One would think that this would attract the Attorney General's attention, but public accounts from Kansas indicate that the Department of Justice has made no effort to investigate this scheme. Again, as the Attorney General talks of leaving no stone unturned, certainly we are not being kidded. Far from being a zealous investigator, it appears that she is providing cover for those who broke the United States laws. The Intriago investigation and the Kansas conduit contributions are two major examples that go right to the Democratic National Committee. Both involve decisions by people who had to know that they were breaking the law. And in both cases the Attorney General of the United States has failed to conduct the necessary investigation. I think we would not be doing our jobs if we did not make an attempt to find out what is going on over at the Department of Justice. If the Attorney General is going to condone the President's conduct in the Monica Lewinsky matter before she has ever seen the evidence, how can we possibly have her confidence today? Today I call on the Attorney General to release this non-6(e) material from the Freeh and LaBella memorandum. Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I apologize if I have done anything in that regard, and I apologize for using the President's name. Mr. Speaker, today I call on the Attorney General to release the non- 6(e) material from the Freeh and LaBella memoranda so that the American people can see for themselves what has been going on and so that they can judge for themselves whether she is fairly executing the laws which she is sworn to uphold. I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) for allowing me the opportunity to present this information and I appreciate his forthrightness in this matter.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3167) to designate the United States Post Office located at 297 Larkfield Road in East Northport, New York, as the ``Jerome Anthony Ambro, Jr. Post Office Building''.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3167 was introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman). The legislation was introduced on February 5, 1998 and is cosponsored by the entire House delegation from the State of New York pursuant to the policy of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. H.R. 3167 designates the building of the United States Postal Service located at 297 Larkfield Road in East Northport, New York, as the ``Jerome Anthony Ambro, Jr. Post Office Building''. Jerome Anthony Ambro, Jr., a lifelong New Yorker, was born in Brooklyn. He graduated from New York University and served in the United States Army military police. Mr. Ambro served four terms as Huntington Town Supervisor and as a member of the Suffolk County Board of Supervisors. He was elected to Congress in 1974 and served three terms representing the 3rd District of New York. Mr. Ambro was elected leader of the 1982 freshman Members who were elected after Watergate. He served as Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Natural Resources and Environment and was known for his tireless work for senior citizens, strengthening Social Security, and his role in passing the clean air and clean water legislation. Mr. Ambro died at age 64 in 1993. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. 2623, the bill just passed.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3939) to designate the United States Postal Service building located at 658 63rd Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as the ``Edgar C. Campbell, Sr., Post Office Building''.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3939 was introduced by our distinguished colleague and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Postal Service, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah). The legislation was introduced on May 21, 1998, and enjoys the cosponsorship of the entire House delegation from Pennsylvania pursuant to the policy of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. H.R. 3939 designates the building of the United States Postal Service located at 658 63rd Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, be known as the ``Edgar C. Campbell, Sr., Post Office Building''. Mr. Campbell senior was elected to five terms of city-wide office, including Councilman-at-Large and Clerk of the Quarter Sessions Court. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to support this legislation, which is to honor Mr. Edgar C. Campbell, Sr. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. May the spirit of what we have done here today and us working together live and enrich these communities of these post offices of which we have dedicated not only to the people of these communities but also for the spirit in which these gentlemen lived their lives. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3999 was introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), who is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Postal Service. The legislation was introduced on June 5, 1998, and enjoys the cosponsorship of the entire House delegation from the State of Pennsylvania pursuant to the policy of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. H.R. 3999 designates the building of the United States Postal Service located at 5209 Greene Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as the ``David P. Richardson, Jr., Post Office Building''. Mr. Richardson served 11 terms in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. He was involved in many community and professional organizations, including the Urban League of Philadelphia, the National Association of State Legislators, and the Greater Germantown Youth Corporation. He was the recipient of numerous honors and awards for his civic involvement. Mr. Richardson died in 1995. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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. 3939, the bill just passed.