Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, that it adjourn to meet at noon tomorrow.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on November 29, 1996, Texas lost a distinguished businessman and philanthropist, C. Eldridge Salmon, at the age of 73. He was born in the community of Salmon on September 26, 1923, to G.C. and Arbell Garrison Salmon, and though he moved to Houston as a child, he maintained an abiding commitment to the east Texas community throughout his lifetime. A University of Houston graduate, Mr. Salmon was employed for more than 20 years as an auditor with Texaco Oil Co., during which time he earned the respect and admiration of his colleagues for his expertise, hard work, and dedication. This esteemed gentleman amassed an extensive collection of artwork during his lifetime, and he generously donated many of his holdings to institutions in east Texas to enable others to enjoy fine art. He gave 176 pieces to the library at Palestine High School, and his altruism further benefited Sam Houston State University, Grapeland High School, and public libraries in a number of communities in the area as well. Eldridge Salmon left an indelible mark on the east Texas community during his lifetime, and though he is gone from us now, his memory will long endure in the many contributions he has left behind. On behalf of all Texans, I pay tribute to the life of C. Eldridge Salmon and extend sincere sympathy to the members of his family, Dorothy Ernestine Salmon Baker of Houston, Cleon Salmon of Grapeland, and H.L. Garrison of Palestine, and to the many other friends and relatives of his distinguished gentleman.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today with deep regret, to talk about the death of one of America's finest public servants. James M. Fox, the former Deputy Director of the FBI with the responsibility for the New York office, died on the morning of Friday, May 15. James Fox was a dedicated agent of the FBI, serving a distinguished career of 31 years. He served in Bureau offices in New Haven, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and in FBI headquarters in Washington, DC. He concluded his successful career heading up the FBI office in New York City. As a renowned expert in terrorism, espionage, and organized crime, Mr. Fox played major roles in the investigation of the bombing of the World Trade Center and the conviction of Mafia boss, John Gotti. Mr. Fox received a Man of the Year/Distinguished Public Service award from the Police Department's Finest Foundation, St. John's University, John Jay College, the Professional Investigators' Association, Detective Endowment's Association, National Father's Day Committee, and the Ellis Island Medal of Honor Society. In November 1992, New York Governor Mario Cuomo awarded Mr. Fox the State's Law Enforcement Executive of the Year award. Clearly, Mr. Fox contributed significantly to law enforcement throughout this Nation. Mr. Fox was a consultant on terrorism matters for CBS news, and was frequently seen on network TV regarding espionage and organized crime, his other areas of expertise during his 31 years at the FBI. In further service to his community, Mr. Fox served on the board of directors for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the New York City Police Foundation, and the New York Citizens Crime Commission. I want to send my condolences to the Fox family, including his widow, Elaine, and his two daughters. Mr. Fox exemplified the very best in public service, and did so much to ensure the safety and security of the citizens of this great Nation. He was dedicated to law enforcement, the Bureau, and the American people. We owe him and his family a debt of gratitude, and I urge my colleagues to join me in sending his family our best wishes.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a member of the conservative action team to point out what we are for, what we have talked about, and that is that we believe that there should be more tax cuts that are available from this bill. What we are standing up tonight to say is that we believe that we should fully fund a capital gains tax cut to zero, we believe that we should do away with death taxes, and we believe we should fully support a $500 per child tax credit. Mr. Chairman, this is the direction that America needs to go, and this is what we intended to do.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when the House voted on House Resolution 93, expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the Consumer Price Index. I was unavoidably detained, and could not record my vote on this important resolution. The Consumer Price Index is appropriately monitored by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I would like the record to reflect that I would have voted in the affirmative on this resolution.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, this is Teacher Appreciation Week, and these hard-working individuals deserve to be recognized for their outstanding effort. America's teachers provide an essential ingredient to the success and future of this country. Despite the commitment and dedication of these people, there is a pressing issue looming over our classrooms, and that is juvenile violence. Juvenile violence and crime is a constant threat to the safety of both students and teachers alike. In 1996, Texas authorities reported that of the 123,218 violent offenses committed statewide, 6 percent of these were committed by juveniles, and they resulted in the juvenile arrests of these people. This problem must be remedied, not only in the 5th District of Texas, but across America. I am supporting the juvenile crime bill, one that will ensure that teachers will have a safe environment to teach and the students will be in a safe and secure classroom, one that is free of fear. I think that we all agree that there is enough obstacles waiting for our children in their adult lives. I think we must make our childhood safe for those children and open to learning.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and, in the bipartisanship from the State of Texas, I appreciate her words. It is our concept and idea that this is a good idea. That is why we are not yielding on this amendment. We think that volunteerism is important. We would like to encourage, where appropriate, each of the people who are in section 8 housing units to get together, those mothers, to band together, to know each other, to get to know who their children are, who those children are and to work together, and then to allow, as a result of this community work, this volunteerism, to allow a mother to go out and to expand her horizons.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. SESSIONS. So the question is, is that we should take these women who have babies, children that are under 6, and to exempt them simply because they might have children that they have to take care of?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me ask the gentleman this. The gentleman's amendment evidently talks about children up to the age of 6; is that correct?

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, it should be noted that they have invested that money for the purpose which is for the good of all people. They get up and go to work every day. I would like to say that even though I have what might be considered a full-time job I still take time to volunteer.

Mr. SESSIONS. That is not the discussion of this bill. That is not the discussion about who is making money and who is not because that is an investment issue.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I will yield to the gentleman in just one moment, because we were there that same day and I would like the gentleman to recount the same things that I heard. I would like for the Record to once again be noted that Secretary Cuomo agreed with this section, and it is specifically my point in rising today that I believe we are asking for participation from those people who live in public units to become a part of that public unit and to make it work. Lastly my point, and then I will yield, I believe that what we should do is listen to the people who are in the business of public housing about how they see the public policy working, and Secretary Cuomo said he agreed with it. It was a forthright, honest question that I gave to him, and he gave me a forthright honest answer. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the words that have been spoken today on both sides do address the heart of the issue. The heart of the issue is whether we are going to ask those people who are American citizens, those people who live in public housing, whether they are going to participate in an America that is moving forward. On March 6 of this year, I am the person that engaged Secretary Cuomo on the discussion as it related to H.R. 2, section 105, and that is the discussion that I attempted to engage with the leading housing authority in this country on this specific issue, the issue of how are we going to have people who live in public housing who are not employed but who receive something of substance from the Government, how are we going to enable these people to become a part of the process not only within their own housing unit but within the general community? And I must tell my colleagues that as I talked to Secretary Cuomo the sense that I received was that in the spirit in which we meant it is that we need people to participate in America.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, it is with great encouragement that I stand up today to rise to commend the chairman of the House Committee on Science for working very diligently on the bill H.R. 1273. I stand today as a proud member and a supporter of the committee as an advocate for research and development on the types of things that will make a real impact and make a difference in our country. This bill corrects years of neglect and promotes the most fiscally responsible part of our Federal budget. Research and development provides exponential returns to the taxpayer and enables our country to continue its long history of pressing the envelope of math, science, and technology. As a freshman Member I was very encouraged by the hearings on this bill and others that were reported out by our Committee on Science last week. Throughout the hearings, there was a bipartisan support, not only that we have heard today from other Democrat Members of Congress, but also those on the committee who feel that if we have a competitive grant process and united feelings against specific earmarks of funds, we can make better progress. I believe both of these efforts have led to a bill that is proeconomic growth and for fiscal responsibility. I also believe that this bill actively attacks one of the most serious problems with America in education today. According to the third international mathematics and science study, eighth grade math and science students in the United States are considerably average when compared to students in developing countries. Average students are not going to keep the United States of America ahead of our foreign competitors and other competitors around the globe. As a nation, it is imperative that we encourage students, teachers, and administrators to focus their efforts on basic math and science skills. By providing competitive incentives, we have signaled our commitment to encourage these important skills and opportunities. Finally, our focus on competitive grants highlights a unique American way that we can solve our problems. Incentives and encouragement lead to productive answers and innovative solutions. This method is in direct conflict with many of the reforms circulating around Washington today. It seems that some of my colleagues think a Federal mandate can solve everything, but I think that really we have the answer when we talk about regulations and mandates that are put on people. I believe that a Federal mandate has never educated a student, inspired a scientist or invented the next generation in technology. However, the human desire to succeed has brought America more innovative ideas and scholastic achievements than a room of bureaucrats can think of in a lifetime. I think what we need to do is to support H.R. 1273, and I rise in support of that and wish to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], the chairman, for not only his leadership but help in this process.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend Chairman Leach and the Banking Committee for working on this legislation as well as Congressman Jim Hansen for his hard work in bringing this issue before the House for the American taxpayer. I cosponsored the original bill, House Resolution 607, because I support full and increased consumer disclosure regarding private mortgage insurance. Private mortgage insurance provides a valuable role in expanding the American dream of homeownership. With PMI, families can buy homes with as little as 3 to 5 percent down rather than the usual 20 percent downpayment required. I want to work with the committee as this bill moves forward to the Senate to ensure that some of the concerns expressed in the markup are addressed. The role of mortgage insurance should be preserved because consumers benefit by being allowed to put a lower downpayment down on their home. But I understand that it's difficult to craft perfect legislation, and I want to ensure that any technical problems or unintended consequences like frivolous litigation with this bill get worked out as we move to conference. I also want to ensure that the automatic cancellation standards are set at a reasonable level to protect both the consumer and the mortgage industry from problems such as downturns in the economy such as we had in Texas in the eighties. We all benefit from a fair mortgage insurance system that remains safe and sound and also allows consumers to be fully aware of their rights.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support not only the gentleman from Texas, Joe Barton, but also the previous speaker, the gentleman from the Fourth District of Texas, the Honorable Ralph Hall. As the Congressman from the Fifth District of Texas, I can tell my colleagues that these gentlemen understand and know not only what freedom is but also how to go about it. Mr. Speaker, Republicans and Democrats across the country ran on the promise to lower taxes for all Americans. The tax limitation amendment is important because it protects the American people from excessive taxes. It restores accountability to elected officials and forces Congress to prioritize how they spend the American people's money. Future generations deserve lower taxes. Responsible leaders in the Federal Government that only spends money on those things that are within its constitutional mandate are critical to the success of not only today but our future. If we believe that all Americans deserve to keep more of their hard- earned dollars while paying less in taxes, then the tax limitation amendment is a positive change. If we want to promote prudent financial responsibility and a stronger, healthier economy by cutting off the supply of taxpayer dollars to Washington's spending machine, then the tax limitation amendment is the right thing to do. If we also believe that the Federal Government should have more power and control over people's lives and resources, then the tax limitation amendment makes our life more difficult. If we believe that the American people deserve more government interference while they continue to pay close to 40 percent of their earnings to the Federal Government, then the tax limitation amendment is not a welcome change. Tax increases are not the answer to any problem. A balanced budget, a trimmed-back Federal Government, a healthy economy, and meaningful tax reform are important. Seventy percent of taxpayers support a supermajority requirement for Congress to raise taxes. I think it is time that we as Republicans and Democrats listen to America, listen to the taxpayer, and listen to those who put us in office. Let us do the right thing. I am in support of the tax limitation amendment.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my freshman friend from the State of Missouri, Mr. Hulshof. It is great to be here. I would like to continue this discussion that we are having, and my colleague talked about that we spend too much money. It is not just the tax system but that our Government in this Congress does not have the discipline in order to rein itself in. Our message is plain and simple today, April 15. Our tax system is too complex, and taxes are too high, and, as we speak tonight, there are those in our country that are struggling tonight to try and finish out that IRS tax form to comply with the law. And before I begin some formal remarks that I have, I would like to talk about this complex Tax Code, and I think that Americans that are out there tonight struggling with filling out their taxes to comply should know that we in Washington, at least freshman Republicans, are trying to do our best to hear them and do something about it. Those people who fill out their tax forms tonight are not by themselves. In 1993 the IRS gave out 8.5 million wrong answers to taxpayers who were seeking help with their taxes. In other words, someone who was struggling like tonight in those final few hours in order to comply, picking up the phone and calling the IRS, or perhaps earlier today, the IRS gave out 8.5 million wrong answers to people who are trying to comply. There are 17,000 pages of IRS laws and regulations, there are 480 separate IRS tax forms, it requires 136,000 employees at the IRS and elsewhere in the Government to administer our tax laws, and it costs $13.7 billion by the IRS and other governmental agencies simply to enforce and oversee our tax laws. That should tell us that there is a problem. As a member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, we have had testimony from the IRS where they talked about spending $4 billion, upwards to 6, but $4 billion is what they have told us of spending to try and put together a computer system, the big IRS computer system in the sky. The bottom line is that they could not do it. The reason why, the Tax Code is too complex. If you cannot put something and flow chart it and put it in a computer, then you cannot make it work. Mr. Speaker, what we are dealing with is a tax code that is too complex and taxes are too high. I would now like to, if I could, enter into some formal remarks that I have that I believe will once again bring back the point about what we are talking about when we talk about taxes or tax system, balancing the budget and certainly our appetite to spend money in this country. I believe that the budget, balancing the budget, is all about discipline, the discipline to do the right thing, the discipline to tell the American people the truth. With annual revenues of the United States of over $1.45 trillion, the Government spends more than $1.6 trillion each year. That means that our Government spent $4.3 billion every day, $178 million every hour, and $3 million each minute. But more importantly, it means that the President and Congress cannot do what American families do every single day, and that is only spend what they have. This year the President, as is required by law, sent his budget to us here in Congress. When he delivered his budget, he told the American people and us here in Congress that his budget would be balanced by the year 2002. But that is not the truth. We have now learned that the President wants to send us and will send us a budget that will not be in balance until well after the year 2002. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office recently announced that the President's budget will leave a $69 billion deficit in the year 2002. Mr. Speaker, the President's budget also utilizes gimmicks, accounting gimmicks, that I believe he should be ashamed of. The bottom line is it is going to require serious and tough decisions on spending priorities to balance the budget. The responsible thing would be to parcel out spending cuts over a period of time that it will take to balance the budget. Instead, the President's budget makes all the serious cuts in services to the American people long after he is gone. That is right. The President is not going to suffer with us, but he is going to leave the pain for that person that is in the White House while he is back in Arkansas. I do not think that this is leadership. This country has a great history of standing up to whatever challenges God has sent our way. When we were oppressed, we fought for independence against overwhelming odds. When tyranny threatened our neighbors, we stood up against it and conquered it twice. When poverty sapped our Nation's energy, we rose from it to retain our place as the greatest Nation in the world. Today we face similar challenges. I would like to, if I could, take us back to just a few weeks ago when his excellency President Eduardo Frei of Chile spoke to this august body, and he spoke to this joint session of Congress, and he gave us a good bit of advice about how Chile is handling their problems and their future. He began by saying: I want to share with you why we Chileans are ever more satisfied with the dividends of freedom, why we do not look back, why we wish we had been a part in the new history, the history of mine kind of is now beginning to be written. In other words, what he said is we look ahead, we do not have to look behind, and I am going to tell you why. Chile was in a period of stagnation and suffered many of the budgetary perils that exist in the United States today. But Chile got the discipline and rose above that. Chile has sustained 14 years of growth, averaging 7 percent annually. Real annual wages have risen over 4 percent each year. Per capita income has doubled in Chile in the last decade. Chile's savings rate is now close to 25 percent. All of this has been achieved not in spite of, but as a direct result of, and continuing with, 5 consecutive years of balanced budgets and fiscal surpluses. I listened to President Frei and I was impressed by how he described the character of the Chilean people and its leaders. He said, we have learned to be patient. Chile does not begin anew with each election, but rather, we build on creativity and our work. We are well aware that we have a unique historic opportunity to achieve full development in a free market of political freedom. We value our achievement, but we give equal attention to the challenges that are ahead of us. Our President, President Clinton, I do not believe has that same belief in the American people. I do not believe that he believes we have the same fortitude as the people of Chile. He does not believe that the American people have the patience to put our fiscal house in order, but I do. I think the American people will rise to this occasion as they always have, and I can tell my colleagues that as we stand on tax day 1997, talking about freedom, talking about opportunity, talking about our families and talking about freedom that can be enjoyed for generations, I believe that we can look to a model, another model that is in this world, and that is the Chilean government. Free people make great decisions. Mr. Speaker, I want to fight for freedom, because I think it is the thing to do.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has hit upon the key to the entire debate and that is, our Tax Code is too complex. We cannot expect the IRS to make something pretty of it when it is simply ugly. We must have the determination, people who got elected to Congress and who gave our word to the American people that we were going to go to Washington and do something that would be good for the taxpayer. The Tax Code of the United States is the problem. Let us tell the truth about it, let us tell the American people. They know they are dealing with it here. Let us not be afraid to tell the truth. It is a problem and we can do better. A flat tax or a consumption tax is far better, and that is the direction that we are headed. I hope the American people hear us tonight.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. It is a privilege to come before the American people in support of this bill, and it is never inappropriate, I believe, to stand up for the rights of veterans, men and women of this country who have fought for us not only in peacetime but also in war. It is easy to take for granted the freedom that we experience every day, but we must not and cannot ever forget the contributions that the men and women of this country of our Armed Forces have made for America. The Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1997 gives to those who have served our country needed appeals and avenues in cases where they may have been denied the opportunity to work in a position for which they were qualified. When veterans are not given the chance to prove their ability, I believe justice must prevail. H.R. 240 strengthens the veterans' preference in place today and increases economic and employment opportunity for veterans. This bill would create for the first time an effective, user-friendly redress system for veterans who believe that their rights may have been violated. It would make any violation of veterans' preferences a prohibited personnel practice and provide severe disciplinary actions for those who violate those preferences. Perhaps the most important element of this legislation is the fact that it will remove artificial barriers that often bar service men and women from competing for Federal jobs. These individuals should be able to compete for jobs for which they are qualified just like other Federal employees. Government downsizing has not been good for veterans of this country. In 1984, veterans accounted for 38 percent of the Federal work force. Today, sadly, that number hovers at just 28 percent. James King, Director of the Office of Personnel Management, testified before the chairman's subcommittee that as recently as 1992 the percentage of veterans among Federal civilian full-time permanent new hires averaged just 18.5 percent. This is a crisis. The talent and drive that our veterans possess could be just the thing that could turn our bloated bureaucracy around. One element of this legislation that was particularly important to me was the fact that it ensures that only the most qualified candidates could receive employment under a veteran's preference. Some say that this legislation will place unqualified people in positions of importance, but as my good friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] assures me, this artful bill makes certain that those veterans with the most experience and the greater qualifications get a fair treatment when they are applying for a Federal job. Mr. Speaker, I urge enactment of this bill and, thus, I stand for the good people, men and women, who have represented America in peacetime and in war.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding. Mr. Speaker, tonight what we are talking about in plain and simple terms is not only stronger families for a better America, but what we are talking about is how American families are going to survive in the 1990's and in the future. Tonight we have heard discussion after discussion, person after person offer an argument for the best thing that we can do for America's families. Of course, Mr. Speaker, I would say that that is that we need to balance the budget. The last time the budget was balanced was in 1969, when President Lyndon B. Johnson was President. I know that we can improve the lives and the conditions for families through lower interest rates, on homes, cars, college loans and through more job opportunities, now and in our future. But it is time that we do that now, and it is now time that we say we must have a balanced budget. The result of a balanced budget according to a DRI/McGraw Hill study is that there would be a drop in the 30-year Treasury bond rate to 4.5 percent. It is now over 7.5 percent, so you can see that that is an astonishing drop of 3 percent. This would cause fixed rate mortgages to drop by the rate of 2.7 percent which would cause housing starts to rise to 65,000 units. What would this mean? For the people who I represent in Texas in the 5th Congressional District, this would mean that there would be a savings of over $1,230 a year on the average home mortgage, $216 for a student loan, and $180 on average for a car loan. That is why we must balance the budget. It will provide real savings for working families, and instead of taking a second job to meet the financial needs of the family, parents might find that they have more time to spend with their families. What we do here in Washington does have a real impact on the lives of families throughout this country. We must show the courage and the discipline it takes to balance the budget. Our spending entitlements continue to grow each year. That means that money available for discretionary spending on programs such as education, welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, will continue to decrease. We simply cannot allow that to happen. Reducing the cost of government means lower taxes for working families. It means preserving, protecting and strengthening Medicare and Social Security. It means returning enough money to my home in the State of Texas to cover the cost of a good education for all of our children and taking care of all of our citizens. It is important that we constantly ask ourselves what we pass in the way of legislation, will that cause a burden or a reduction on America's families? I am glad today that we voted for the Working Families Flexibility Act. This is exactly what we need to be doing. It will allow all workers to have the option of either overtime pay or extra time off. This would allow working mothers and fathers the choice of taking time off to do the following things: Perhaps to take their children to school for the first day of school, watching a school pageant, attending a parent-teacher conference, or staying at home with a sick child. I believe we are on the right track. This bill would give greater freedom to families in Texas and also those all around the country to raise and educate their children. Texans and Americans are counting on us to get the job done. If we can educate ourselves about the benefits of balancing the budget and the dire consequences of continuing these deficits, we will have the discipline to do the right thing. I say, let us balance the budget now. Having laid out these facts for you tonight, for the American people, I would just like to leave them with a few questions. First, how could your family survive year after year spending more money than it earned? Second, what could your family do with extra money if at the time we balance the budget, we deducted $500 off the top 6 those families's taxes for each child that they are trying to raise? And, third, what would you think of your Member of Congress if that person misled you and did not balance the budget?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the date February 28, 1947 is etched into the hearts and minds of the Taiwanese people. It was a day in which thousands of Taiwanese gave their lives fighting for freedom and democracy. February 28, 1997, the 50th anniversary of this day, is one that should be honored here in the United States, because we share with Taiwan a common quest for freedom and democracy. Fifty years ago to the day on February 28, 1947, thousands of Taiwanese began the long, historic struggle for a democratic Taiwan. Since that time, Taiwan has made tremendous political, economic and social progress toward a democratic and representative government. Taiwan successfully and peacefully elected their first president by a direct popular vote in March 1996, despite China's missile exercise threat. Taiwan's progress toward democratic rule is matched only by its extraordinary economic success. Today, Taiwan ranks sixth in trade with the great State of Texas. We can attribute this economic accomplishment to Taiwan's dedication to the principle of democracy and capitalism. Mr. Speaker, a democratic Taiwan contributes to the stability and prosperity of the Asia-Pacific region. This day, Taiwan Peace Day, is recognized as an important date in Taiwan's historic evolution to full democracy. It should be spent as a day of healing, reconciliation, and unity among Taiwanese people all over the world. I hope we take the time to recognize the Taiwanese people and congratulate them on both their struggle and their success.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I also rise today to offer words of not only encouragement for what is going on with this H.R. 499, but also to offer my insight. As a person who attended the funeral of Congressman Frank Tejeda, I was able to see firsthand those people who live within the 28th Congressional District of Texas in San Antonio. They knew Frank Tejeda as a man who was not only honest and hardworking, but a man who represented the people. I stand today in support of H.R. 499 because Frank Tejeda deserves this tribute that we will be giving to him. Like those men who have fallen before him who died as Texans, Sam Houston, Davy Crockett, and Colonel James B. Travis, Frank Tejeda also is a man who represented Texas with arms. He represented our country, he was a proud marine and a man who knew that this country by its standards can stand strong. This U.S. Postal Service center that will be named after Frank Tejeda is important because it will be a memory to those who were in his community who recognized that positive leadership, good citizenship and honesty is a way of life that they can look at and want to model themselves after. I stand today in support of this bill and thank the gentleman for yielding the time to me.