Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), who is the principal author of the discharge petition that brought this matter to the House.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. OBEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as we speak, the brave men and women of the U.S. military are halfway around the world waging and winning the war on terrorism. Their courage and professionalism are a fitting tribute to the strength and unity of the United States of America. Meanwhile, here at home, domestic security has become our top priority, and thanks to the funding priorities in this conference report, America will now be better prepared to prevent, defend against, and recover from any future terrorist attacks. I am very pleased that the conference report more closely reflects Democratic priorities on homeland defense than was provided in the House-passed bill. Specifically, it provides more funding for nuclear, border, port, aviation and bioterrorism priorities. On bioterrorism alone, Democrats were able to secure $2.5 billion, $1 billion more than the President requested. While additional funding will be necessary to fully address other domestic security needs, this conference report is a good start. Mr. Speaker, here in Congress, there has always been strong bipartisan support for America's armed forces. The history of this defense appropriations bill reflects that fact. Last month, the House Committee on Appropriations reported its original version of H.R. 3338, and the full House passed it by a vote of 406 to 20. I am confident that another large bipartisan majority will pass this conference report today. That is because Democrats and Republicans are strongly committed to America's national defense and to a first-rate military that carries it out. As the President said yesterday in addressing House Democrats, security of the United States is not a partisan issue. Mr. Speaker, this is a good conference report, and I support it. I would like to commend the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young); the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking Democrat; the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis); and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, for the tremendous job they have done to support America's troops and to protect Americans here at home. This conference report provides $478 million to combat chemical and biological attacks against the military and $404 million for the Nunn- Lugar nuclear nonproliferation program. It provides for a significant military pay raise and for substantial increases in critical readiness accounts; and it strengthens research for tomorrow's weapons and equipment while providing the weapons and equipment the U.S. military needs today. Mr. Speaker, I am especially pleased by the substantial quality-of- life improvements funded by this conference report. It includes funding for a significant pay raise of between 5 and 10 percent for every member of the military. And to boost critical midlevel personnel retention, much of the pay raise will be directed towards junior officers. It also significantly increases funding for health benefits for service members and their families. I am also pleased that this conference report continues to fund the wide range of weapons programs that ensure our military's superiority throughout the world. For instance, it includes more than $2.6 billion for the initial production of 13 of the F-22 Raptor aircraft, the next- generation air dominance fighter for the Air Force. The conference report also provides $882 million for research and development for this aircraft. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the conference report provides $1.5 billion for continued development of the Joint Strike Fighter, the high-technology multirole fighter of the future for the Air Force, the Navy, and the Marines. It also includes $1.04 billion for procurement of 11 MV-22 Osprey aircraft. Mr. Speaker, all of these aircraft are important components in our national arsenal, and moving forward on the research and production sends a clear signal that the United States has no intention of relinquishing our air superiority. The first duty of the Congress, Mr. Speaker, is to provide for the national defense and the men and women who protect it. This conference report does a great deal to improve military readiness and to improve the quality of life for our men and women in uniform as well as their families. It is a good first step at providing the needed funding to ensure that attacks like those that occurred on September 11 will never happen again. Mr. Speaker, I wish we could have done more, but Republican leaders insisted that many homeland security priorities wait until next year. I hope they will allow us to address the remaining priorities as soon as possible. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this rule and of this conference report. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, we have no more speakers. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this rule makes in order a joint resolution which sets the date for convening of the second session of the 107th Congress as January 23, 2002. This is a totally noncontroversial rule and joint resolution, and I urge adoption of both. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I know we all want to finish the business of the House this week. I know we all have plans to be with our families in the days ahead. But, Mr. Speaker, those plans and our desires to finish our business for the year should not serve as an excuse for Republican leaders to ram legislation through this body, legislation that is just plain dangerous to the U.S. economy and the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, and which they know will not be voted on in the United States Senate in the next day or two. Mr. Speaker, the House has been kept in session all night long two nights in a row just to allow the Committee on Rules to meet at 8 o'clock in the morning to report martial law rules for a so-called stimulus package. Negotiations have been on and then they have been off and then on again. But this morning, Republican leaders finally pulled the plug on bipartisanship. For Republican leaders, Mr. Speaker, it seems that ramming through another budget-busting wish list of Republican tax cuts, tax breaks for big corporations, and tax breaks for wealthier and presumably employed, individuals, is more important than the needs of real working Americans; a package, by the way, that will cost $250 billion over a 10-year period, much greater than anything ever proposed by the Democrats. The Republican majority seems to be more interested in scoring partisan and ideological points than in helping unemployed Americans and their families make it through this recession. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules is indeed an arm of the leadership, and the Republican leadership of this House is showing its true colors tonight as we consider this rule, which allows a bill to come up on the floor without anyone, except perhaps a select few, having had the opportunity to look at it. This is nothing more than political theater. This is nothing more than a cheap charade. The American people want and deserve better from their elected representatives, Mr. Speaker. It is a real shame that they will not be getting it here tonight. I urge defeat of this rule and of the rule that will immediately follow, and of the so-called bipartisan and so-called economic stimulus package the Republicans are attempting to ram through this body today. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, Mr. Sherman. (Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this is a very clear choice. We have a responsible bill that we would like to vote on tonight, a substitute put together by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member on the committee. The Republicans have refused to make that in order. I assume they fear that our substitute is sufficiently attractive that it might actually pass. Let me repeat. They have refused to give us a straight up or down vote on the substitute put together by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). If they really wanted to act in a bipartisan way and if they really wanted to bring this matter to a conclusion so we could all help the unemployed people who need health insurance and who need unemployment benefits, why did they not permit a simple vote on our substitute? They know that the bill that they have proposed does not have the support of the United States Senate, so they are engaging in an empty act tonight. If they had permitted us to have a vote on our substitute, and if our substitute were to pass, that is quite possibly a bill that the Senate would take up and pass tomorrow. So the Republican leadership has guaranteed by the way they have structured the debate tonight that we will all go home without having passed a stimulus package. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules tonight denied Democrats, denied the minority party, the opportunity to offer a substitute; and that is why we oppose this bill. We have a substitute that is paid for, that does not add $250 billion to the deficit. We have a substitute that provides health insurance now rather than much later; a substitute that provides real unemployment benefits, rather than what the Republicans offered. They denied us the opportunity to offer a meaningful substitute, and that is why we are against the bill. We would love to vote tonight, and we would love to vote on a real piece of legislation that does not take $250 billion out of the Social Security trust fund, as is being proposed by the majority. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I inquire of the time remaining on both sides.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, it is very clear what the situation is. The Republicans made a conscious decision to break off bipartisan discussions and to bring back to the floor a bill tonight that they know cannot pass and will not even be taken up in the Senate. This was an extraordinary mistake on the part of the Republican majority. They were playing chicken with the United States Senate. This is a childish game. The American Republican will be the losers. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make several basic points to my colleagues in the discussion on this rule. First is the question of bipartisanship. The Democrats in good faith entered into negotiations with Republicans to try and work out a stimulus package. Republicans broke off those negotiations and commenced an attack on the majority leader in the Senate. That was their response to bipartisanship. Instead of permitting Democrats to bring a substitute up tonight, which perhaps might attract some bipartisan votes and be a real bipartisan solution, they crafted a closed rule. That was their response to bipartisanship. Mr. Speaker, one of the previous speakers earlier this evening mentioned the visit by the President of the United States to the Democratic Caucus today. The President came to the Caucus and thanked us for our support in the war on terrorism. The President did not mention the economic stimulus package, and we were advised in advance of his visit that he would not take any questions about the economic stimulus package. Now, we all have a great deal of respect for the office of the Presidency, but this was not an act of bipartisanship this morning. Mr. Speaker, this bill will cost a whopping $250 billion over the next 5 years. This bill has no offsets for these costs, so the entire amount will be added to the deficits the director of OMB has predicted for fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004. That means, plain and simple, we are in the Social Security trust fund, we will not be paying down the debt, and our fiscal picture grows bleak once again. The substitute that we sought to offer and that we were denied by this rule would have paid for the cost of the Democratic package and would not have contributed to further deficits in this country. Mr. Speaker, one of the key differences between the Democratic alternative, which we will not be permitted to vote on, and the package before us deals with health care. Let me be very clear, Mr. Speaker: The core of the Republican health care provision in this bill is a hollow promise and a cruel hoax. On page 100 of the bill, page 100 of the bill, there is a short section, section 757(a), that instructs the administration to establish some sort of program sometime in the future, which is supposed to provide the unemployed with vouchers for health care. Republicans set no deadline for developing this new program, and they provide no specifications for how it might work. It is little more than a vague promise. Democrats would take an existing program, the COBRA program, and use that to immediately provide health care for unemployed workers. I know Members sometimes do not have the opportunity to read legislation that is produced hastily and presented to the floor hastily, as the Republicans are presenting this bill, so I would like to read the section that I just mentioned, this Republican alternative to the existing program of COBRA: ``Advanced payments of displaced worker health insurance credit. General rule. The Secretary shall establish a program for making payments on behalf of eligible individuals to providers of health insurance for such individuals. `Eligible individual.' For purpose of this section, the term `eligible individual' means any individual for whom a qualified health insurance credit eligibility certificate is in effect. Qualified health insurance credit eligibility certificate. For purposes of this section, a qualified health insurance credit eligibility certificate is a statement certified by a State agency or by any other entity designated by the Secretary which certifies that the individual was unemployed within the meaning of section 6429 as of the first day of the month, and provides such other information as the Secretary may require for purposes of this section.'' When asked when this section would be implemented by the Secretary of the Treasury, the chairman of the Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) told the Committee on Rules ``sometime this spring,'' he hopes. Mr. Speaker, until this promise is somehow fulfilled, laid-off workers are practically on their own if they want health insurance. That is because, Mr. Speaker, Republicans offer nothing more than a refundable tax credit for every American who is unemployed today, and for every American who loses his job when this Rube Goldberg scheme that I just read has been designed, developed, and put in place. In other words, if you lose your job, the Republican bill requires you to scrape together several thousand dollars to pay for health insurance bills right now, at the same time you are scrambling to pay for rent and buy groceries, and according to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), to file for a government voucher to offset part of the cost, which may be granted sometime in the future when the program is designed. Mr. Speaker, we offer a very simple program: We take the existing COBRA program that was passed many years ago by this Congress, and it provides health insurance for unemployed workers, and extend that to workers who have been laid off recently, and provide 75 percent of that to be paid for by the government now, not at some future date when this program may be set up by the Secretary. Mr. Speaker, Americans who lose their jobs do not need refundable tax credits, vouchers in the future; they need direct assistance right now to pay their health insurance premiums, and they need guaranteed access to affordable health insurance policies. Mr. Speaker, this bill ignores the fact Democrats in the House and Senate, including the Senate majority leader, have made good-faith efforts and major concessions in an attempt to reach accommodation on an economic stimulus package that is good for the country and good for American workers. Mr. Speaker, this bill, this rule, denies the minority the opportunity to offer its own substitute, and I can tell the Members why the majority denies the minority that opportunity: They are afraid we might pass it, and they are afraid then the Senate might actually take something up which is truly bipartisan and could be passed before we go home. What they have done is to design a scheme to present a bill that they know the Senate will not consider. This is a cynical approach on the part of the majority. First they break off bipartisan talks, and then they try and blame us for the fact that they present a partisan bill without an alternative that they know will not be considered by the other body. The American public deserves better, Mr. Speaker. Defeat this rule, go back to the Committee on Rules, which we could very easily do, we are going to be here all night anyway, and report out a rule that gives the Democrats the option of offering an alternative on the floor which could attract, I believe, Republican votes which could be passed tonight and which the Senate could take up tomorrow, rather than passing a bill that is going nowhere. The majority knows this, and the majority is treating the American public with the back of their hand. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would ask how much time we have remaining.