Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).

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 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member of the Committee on House Administration.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), a member of the committee.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones). (Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I would ask the gentleman, is this discussion about changes in the rule only occurring on his side of the aisle or are there any Members on our side of the aisle who are being consulted about potential changes in the rule?

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I believe that I had the floor. I do not believe the other gentleman is recognized.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership has brought us a rule that is the height of cynical political maneuvering, and the rule itself is, quite frankly, one of the most stupid proposals I have seen in my 23 years in this institution. I want to look at the cynical maneuvering, first. We all know that the Republican leadership wants to defeat Shays-Meehan. There are, of course, Democrats who have some reservations about Shays-Meehan also, but these Democrats also believe in fundamental fairness, and that Shays-Meehan should have a clean, legitimate shot on the floor. The Republican leadership has written a rule that everyone knows may well lose. If we assume that this rule is about cynicism, then what the Republican leadership has done is to present a rule to the House that they know will fail, and then they will refuse to reconvene the Committee on Rules to draft another rule. They will refuse to schedule campaign finance reform for debate and simply explain it away by saying campaign finance reform is dead because the House refused to pass a rule to bring it up. This is, of course, the equivalent of killing your parents and then throwing yourself on the mercy of the court because you are an orphan. Why do I say that this rule is likely to lose? Experience. It is a repeat of a rule that the then Democratic leadership fashioned in 1981 during the debate on the first Reagan budget. In 1981, the Democratic leadership refused to give the Republican alternative, the now infamous Gramm-Latta substitute, a straight up-or-down vote. Rather, the Democratic leadership broke Gramm-Latta into pieces, requiring a series of votes on its provisions, thinking that that was the way to kill it. Well, surprise, that rule was rejected by the House. Let me repeat, the House rejected that rule as fundamentally unfair to the minority. Now, 20 years later, the Republican leadership has constructed a rule that divides Shays-Meehan into 13 separate amendments. Sound familiar? Maybe not, because no one in the current Republican leadership was in Congress in 1981. But I find it hard to believe they and their staff can be totally ignorant of history, and that they all have to know that there is a very good chance this rule will be defeated. Mr. Speaker, one might have to conclude that this is a cynical way to go about achieving their real objective, which is, of course, to kill Shays-Meehan. Let us look at how incredibly dumb this rule is. It seems to have been written in such a way as to help the strategic objective of killing Shays-Meehan. I would suggest the way this rule is written that it might have the exact opposite effect. There are a number of Members on both sides of the aisle who have legitimate and sincere concerns about Shays-Meehan. In the event this rule actually passes, the heavy-handed and cynical maneuvering on the part of the Republican leadership may well drive some of the opponents of Shays-Meehan right into the Shays-Meehan camp. If that is the case, then the Republican leadership will have orchestrated their own defeat, the proverbial snatching of defeat from the jaws of victory. There are legitimate issues involved in a discussion of the merits of the two main alternatives, Shays-Meehan and Ney-Wynn. I, for one, am concerned that the absolute prohibition in Shays-Meehan on the right of Members of Congress to raise non-Federal funds for State and local political parties to conduct voter registration and get-out-the-vote activities will weaken the political process and neuter Members of Congress. Members will not be able to play a meaningful role in voter turnout efforts in their home districts, and will become largely irrelevant to their own political parties. The Ney-Wynn bill does not contain this provision, and it is important for Members to think very carefully about this issue if we get to the point where we might actually vote on the legislation. However, because of this incredibly dumb rule and the cynical maneuvering on the part of the Republican leadership, we may never get to that point. On the other hand, if this rule is, by some chance, passed, the debate on this issue will be in such a highly charged atmosphere that it may well be impossible to have a rational discussion on the fundamental issues involved. This will be a sad day for the democratic process in this institution and in this country. Mr. Speaker, this rule should be defeated. The Republican leadership needs to be shamed into bringing back a new rule that is fair to the House, fair to the proponents of both bills, and fair to the American people. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST

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. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I would first like to commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) for all of their hard work in bringing this bill to the floor. The members of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation have brought us a good bill that funds a number of vital transportation projects, including one important to my congressional district in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. I am pleased that the bill will provide $70 million to the North Central Light Rail Transit Extension. A bipartisan group of North Texas members worked very hard to get this funding that will more than double DART's light rail coverage and help stimulate development in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex. However, Madam Speaker, while this is a good bill overall, I cannot support the rule supported by the Republican majority because they have denied a request made by the Democratic ranking member of the Subcommittee on Transportation, who sought to offer an important amendment relating to the safety issues raised by allowing Mexican trucks to enter the United States. I must also oppose this rule because of the issue of the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority and the renaming of the National Airport Metro stop. Time and again over the last 6\1/2\ years, the Republican majority has selectively ignored their own mantra of local control when it suits an idealogical purpose. The renaming of this Metro stop ignores the wishes of the local authorities, as well as the Member representing this area. And for that reason, as well as the fact that the Sabo amendment was shut out by the Committee on Rules, I oppose the rule. One of the greatest defects of this rule is the fact that the Republican leadership, working in concert with the President, has prevented the House from addressing a serious highway safety issue: the safety standards of Mexican trucks entering this country under NAFTA. The Bush administration has lifted all restrictions on the movement of Mexican trucks on our highways effective January 1, 2002. Next year, Mexican trucks will be free to drive across the country, despite clear evidence that many are unsafe for our highways. In May, the Department of Transportation's Inspector General found that the Federal Government needs to add dozens of additional border inspectors before lifting restrictions on Mexican trucks. The few inspectors now policing the borders found that 40 percent of Mexican trucks that are currently allowed into the U.S. were pulled out of service for significant violations of our safety standards, much higher than the percentage of violations among U.S. trucks. So many of these trucks are deemed unsafe for our roads because they are allowed to operate in Mexico with virtually no oversight. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Democrats, who address these issues on a routine basis, also expressed their deep concerns to the Committee on Rules about these trucks coming into the United States; yet their concerns were also ignored by the Republican leadership. For example, Mexican trucks are 10 years older than U.S. trucks, on average, and do not comply with weight standards. Mexico has no hours- of-service regulations, while U.S. drivers can only drive 10 hours per shift. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) offered a sensible amendment that would require the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to conduct a safety compliance review of each Mexican motor carrier that seeks to operate throughout the United States and to require that they be found to be satisfactory under the same standards applicable to U.S. carriers before being granted conditional or permanent operating authority. However, the Republican leadership has refused to allow the House to vote on the Sabo amendment. I simply cannot understand why the administration and the House leadership oppose what the gentleman has proposed. The Republican leadership's refusal to recognize safety concerns related to the use of these trucks throughout the United States is nothing short of negligent, Madam Speaker. This highway safety issue is particularly critical in Texas, as well as in my own congressional district where I35 runs through the middle of the district, since two-thirds of Mexican trucks enter the U.S. through Texas; and many of those trucks will travel on I35 to reach interior destinations. But make no mistake: this is a serious safety issue coming to highways all across America, now that the President has lifted any and all restrictions on Mexican trucks operating on American roads and highways. This rule also prevents discussion of how to pay for relabeling Metro signs for National Airport. In 1998, over strong local opposition, the Republican leadership decided to rename Washington's National Airport in honor of President Ronald Reagan. Now, in this bill, they are requiring the already-strapped Washington Metro Authority to change all of their station signs, maps, directories, and documents to reflect the new name, but Republican leaders are not providing one single penny of the $400,000 it will cost to do this. Madam Speaker, I served in the Congress when Ronald Reagan was President. I understand that many Republicans and Democrats want to honor him. Indeed, this Congress and this Nation have already done much to ensure President Reagan's accomplishments get the respect they deserve. But a $400,000 unfunded mandate hardly seems like a fitting tribute to President Reagan. After all, he made a career of campaigning on behalf of local control. In my own district, we would not take kindly to the Federal Government forcing us to spend $400,000 in local funds that might otherwise have been already budgeted for health care or schools or other local priorities. I understand why this local community would resist spending $400,000 on a symbolic name change while far too many children in the District of Columbia go without food at the end of the month. Madam Speaker, if the Republican leadership and Grover Norquist believe new Metro signs and maps are such an important priority, then they should provide the money to pay for them. It is just plain wrong to force local governments to spend this money on maps for tourists instead of meals for children. Mr. Norquist and other Republican leaders do President Reagan no favor by imposing this unfunded mandate in his name. Madam Speaker, I believe the House should be allowed to consider and vote on the issue of the safety of our Nation's highways. These are the same roads school buses travel and people use to get to and from work. Their safety should be paramount. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule so we may go back to the Committee on Rules and find a better way to address this important issue. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to urge that the rule be defeated. The rule does not make in order the very important amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), and the rule also did not take into consideration the objections raised by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, we had several other requests for time. The Members are not present on the floor. I would ask the gentleman whether he has any additional speakers.

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski).