Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) expect that to be next week before the break?

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would further ask the majority leader, in the wake of our victory against Milosevic and his atrocities in Kosovo, we need a resolution to commend our troops and the President for that accomplishment. We did that for President Bush after the Gulf War, and the Senate has already passed such a resolution unanimously. When can we expect a resolution congratulating our troops in the House?

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, if I could inquire of the majority leader further, when can we expect conferees to be appointed on juvenile justice and gun safety, critically important legislation that should not be left to languish?

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 1999 Dunbar High School Boys 4x100-meter relay team for bringing the gold home to Fort Worth. With a championship time of 40.30 seconds at the University Interscholastic League in Austin, the Flying Wildcats electrified the crowd with blazing speed and power. But the path to glory didn't end in Austin for the Wildcats. Instead of hanging up their spikes for the summer they took their show on the road to the Foot Locker National Championship at North Carolina State University in Raleigh. The Wildcats were eager to show the nation what everyone in North Texas already knew: the Wildcats from Stop Six, Ft. Worth couldn't be stopped in Austin and weren't about to be slowed down in Raleigh. At the National Championship last week, the Wildcats took their stellar performance to North Carolina State University and won the 4x100 and 4x200-meter relays. The winning effort showed the whole country what Texas and Ft. Worth already knew: Fort Worth is ``Speed City.'' Once again congratulations to Coach Tom Allen and the Dunbar Boy sprinters: Jerome Braziel, Jerrod Braziel, James Hall, and James Shaw.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Dallas Stars, the 1999 NHL champions. The Stars electrified all of North Texas en route to winning the oldest trophy in sports, the Stanley Cup. Along the way, the champs gave us some unforgettable performances. Whether it was the clutch play of Center Mike Modano, the sparkling saves of veteran goalie Eddie ``the Eagle'' Belfour, the crushing defense of Captain Derian Hatcher, or the bravery of Brett Hull, who scored the Cup-winning goal, it seemed like every game a different Star player stepped up and inspired the team to victory. To all of the Dallas Stars, I say thank you on behalf of all Texans. You have shown the whole country that Big-D is more than just America's greatest football town. Mr. Speaker, the Stanley Cup was the first leg of what will be the 1999 Texas hat trick. I am putting my colleagues on notice. Texas teams will end the century by winning, not only the Stanley Cup, but the NBA championship and the World Series as well. Congratulations again to the mighty Dallas Stars, 1999 Stanley Cup champions.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to this rule. With this rule, the Republican majority has demonstrated it is more interested in keeping order in the Republican Conference than in keeping American schools safe for our children. Incredibly, this rule sets up a process that ignores prevention in the schools themselves. This rule sets up a process that does little or nothing to help make schools safer or head off trouble before it starts. This is Alice in Wonderland at its worst. With my colleagues, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), I submitted four substantive amendments to the Committee on Rules. These amendments deal squarely and directly with what we in the Congress can do to prevent school violence. But, Mr. Speaker, they were rejected by the Republican majority on the Committee on Rules, although parts of them were lumped into a larger Democratic substitute that the Republicans intend to defeat. For example, the Republican majority has rejected an amendment which would provide grants to local school districts to help put 50,000 new counselors in our schools to help students who are troubled or who have been threatened by violence. These grants would also help pay for training for these counselors in conflict resolution and could also be used to enhance school safety programs. Mr. Speaker, school administrators in my district have told me providing more counselors is the single most important thing we can do for school safety. Yet the Republican majority refused to make this common sense amendment in order. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority also refused to make in order an amendment which would have provided up to 10,000 new uniformed school safety officers as well as 10,000 additional police officers to be hired by local communities through the COPS program. In my district, uniformed public safety officers have proven to be an effective way of heading off trouble before it starts. Yet the Republican majority refused to allow the House the opportunity to debate that proposal. My colleagues and I also proposed an amendment which would fund local after-school programs which would provide a safe haven for children in the hours when most juvenile crime takes place, between 3 and 6 p.m. The committee refused to make this amendment in order, an amendment which might prevent crime and which might keep kids out of trouble. There is a huge demand for these kind of programs, programs which are cost effective and which can keep juveniles out of a jail cell and in a classroom. But the Republican majority refused to allow this amendment to be heard. Finally, we offered an amendment that would direct the Department of Education and the Department of Justice to develop a model violence pro-prevention program for the use of school districts around the country and to create an information clearinghouse within the Education Department. Mr. Speaker, our amendments are just plain common sense. We have a national crisis in our schools, and when they reopen in the fall, all of us would feel better knowing that we have done something to make those schools centers of learning, not havens of fear. The programs that would be created by these four amendments would go a long way toward making that a reality. There are many things wrong with this rule, Mr. Speaker, not the least of which is the failure to include these amendments.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, just last week, on June 10, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the City of Chicago vs. Morales, struck down a city ordinance that was intended to stop gang members from loitering. In so doing, the court held the ordinance was overbroad and vague. It failed to give proper notice of what was forbidden and what was permitted. The language of this bill commits the same fatal error. It fails to explain what is covered in its terms and, in so doing, sweeps up educational and entertaining material that is irrelevant to the sponsor's concerns. This Hyde amendment stems from a laudable purpose and high hopes. We must stop the prevalence of juvenile violence just as we must stop destruction by gang members. Yet the Constitution tells us we cannot do this by curtailing expression under the First Amendment. Courts have consistently found definitions for violence to be vague. For instance, in this bill we address ``sadistic or masochistic flagellation.'' Would a film about slavery have to cut scenes of slaves being whipped, creating the appearance that there were no violent acts done towards slaves? Producers most certainly delete these scenes simply to play it safe. Are children to be led to believe that slavery was not cruel? We cannot teach our children about societal issues if we are not allowed to give them a depiction of it. Ignorance is not the answer. The bill also defines violent material as torture by or upon a person. Again, this vague and overbroad definition steps into a black hole. Every kid likes watching the super hero catch his villain. Look at Spiderman, Wonder Woman and Batman and Robin. Are these the characters the sponsors are really afraid of? Much of our comedy also includes actions of ``torture'' that few would find any connection with violence. Look at Jim Carey, one of the most popular actors of today. Many of his films contain experiences that most humans would rarely survive. How about other movies, such as Home Alone, in which the child left a home, tarred the robbers, put nails out for them to fall on, and did a variety of other torture activities. Parents and children alike, however, flocked to this film. This amendment must be rejected. It is unconstitutional on its face, no matter how laudable an objective it seeks to achieve.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney).

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

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

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, my Republican colleagues bring us another rule for the Department of Defense authorization. This rule I feel safe in saying will pass, and thus this morning the Republican leadership will not be faced with the embarrassing prospect of having to pull yet another rule from the floor. I will support the rule, Madam Speaker, but I do so only because of my support for the DOD authorization and the importance of getting on with the business of the House. That being said, I must point out that this new rule presents us with yet another prospect of embarrassment. This time the embarrassment will fall on the entire House of Representatives, if not on our country. In Cologne, the nations of Western Europe, the United States, and Russia have finally managed to negotiate a peace settlement with the regime which has systematically carried out horrifically bloody and brutal acts in Kosovo. The terms of the actual troop withdrawal are still a matter of negotiation between the military forces of NATO and Yugoslavia. But Madam Speaker, however fragile the prospect, the nations of the world who subscribe to the rule of law are on the verge of accomplishing the goal of removing the brutish oppressors from Kosovo. So in the midst of the peace negotiations, the House now has under consideration a rule which holds out the prospect of cutting off support for the operations in Kosovo on September 30, and the Fowler amendment, which would prohibit ground troops in Yugoslavia unless authorized by Congress. Now, Madam Speaker, I am among those who pray fervently that this conflict has come to an end. But I am also among those who believe that dictating the terms of a peace can only be conducted from a position of strength and resolve. What kind of message are we about to send to Milosevic and his band of thugs and murderers? Now is not the time to have this particular debate. This rule and the debate it permits, as reported by the Republican majority, is inappropriate and ill-advised. Today's rule, authored by the Republican majority, is a travesty. By authorizing votes to cut off spending in Kosovo while we are on the verge of a dramatic victory, the majority makes the House of Representatives a laughing stock and demonstrates to the entire world that we are irrelevant. Let me repeat, the majority has chosen irrelevance. This is a sad day for this institution. There are those among the Republican majority who contend that the last rule for this bill failed because of lack of Democratic support. I would answer with two points. First, it is the obligation of the majority to lead, not to lay blame. Second, the Republican majority gave many Democratic Members no choice but to oppose the meager offerings handed to them 2 weeks ago. For example, this rule, unlike its predecessor, makes in order an amendment which has the support of the ranking member of the China Select Committee. Two weeks ago, the Republican majority summarily cut the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) out of the process. This rule will allow the House to consider recommendations of the Cox-Dicks committee matters that are of the utmost importance to our national security. Accordingly, many Democrats who opposed the last rule will see this one in a different light. Every year, this body debates our role in NATO, the cost associated with our continued military presence in Europe, and the expectations we as a NATO partner should have for the other nations in the alliance. Yet, surprisingly, the last rule precluded such a debate, thus generating a great deal of opposition in certain quarters in the Democratic Caucus. The rule before us today will allow debate on this issue, again perhaps reducing opposition to the rule. But, Madam Speaker, this rule does not provide the opportunity for the ranking member of the Committee on Commerce to offer an amendment he presented to the Committee on Rules along with his chairman and the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Science. The Dingell amendment speaks directly to a matter of jurisdiction of both the Committee on Commerce and Committee on Science that has been included in the Committee on Armed Services' bill. Yet, the House has once again been precluded from considering this matter. Madam Speaker, amendments offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Committee on Small Business, as well as similar amendments offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), relating to business opportunities for minority and other disadvantaged small businesses, have been shut out of the process. These are issues of importance to the Democratic Members of this body, Madam Speaker, and it would not be much of a surprise if Members supporting those positions were to vote against the rule. Madam Speaker, it is time for the House to move on this vitally important proposal. In spite of the substantial shortcomings of this rule, I will support it and urge my colleagues to do so as well. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes 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 myself such time as I may consume. It is extraordinary that the majority cannot stand for the fact that President Clinton has done something right and that we are about to win a great victory in Yugoslavia. It is absolutely extraordinary. Foreign policy historically in this country has been conducted on a bipartisan basis. We are about to succeed, and yet they stand in the well of the House and want to say what a terrible policy it was and how we should cut off funding. That is an extraordinary result. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have a great paradox before us today. As the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking Democrat, outlined, this is a good piece of legislation. It is a terrible rule for a good piece of legislation, and it is a terrible rule because the majority leadership has chosen to make in order an amendment which would deny funds and also to preserve in the bill a provision that they had originally stricken 2 weeks ago but now they have put back in the bill which would deny funds for peacekeeping in Kosovo. The rest of the bill is fundamentally a good bill. But this is truly extraordinary that as we are on the brink of a great victory and success that members on the majority cannot acknowledge success, cannot acknowledge that we have scored a victory but must persist till the very end in trying to score political points against a President and a policy that they do not like.

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. Reclaiming my time, as I tried to say throughout this debate, this is really a sad day for us here in the House of Representatives, that the majority feels obligated to grab hold of the President like a dog with a bone and not let go, will not let go in the face of success. I do not understand it, and I do not think people watching this and I do not think people reading about this, whether they are in the United States or whether they are in Europe, will understand what is being done here today. This is a fundamentally good bill. There are a lot of very good things in this bill. Yet the majority spoils this entire consideration today by refusing to accept a successful military operation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. It is particularly extraordinary because the gentleman and I 10 years ago supported President Bush when he was attempting to succeed against Saddam Hussein and in fact was successful against Saddam Hussein. We went across party lines and joined with the Republican President and rejoiced in the success of a Republican President.

Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 204) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1401, the Fiscal Year 2000 National Defense Authorization Act, and I will reluctantly support this rule. The Republican majority on the Committee on Rules has recommended a rule to the House which denies Democratic Members the right to offer important policy amendments, and it is for that reason that some Members of the Democratic Caucus will not support this rule. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules reported this rule at 11 o'clock last night on a straight party line vote. I opposed this rule in committee because the Republican majority specifically excluded four major amendments that Democrats had considered top priority amendments. Two of those amendments were truly bipartisan amendments relating to matters of great importance to our national security. It only seems logical that for matters of such a serious nature that the House be afforded the opportunity to consider a bipartisan response. This rule closes off that opportunity, and the debate in the House will suffer as a result. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, this rule does not allow an amendment proposed by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), which relates to counterintelligence activities at the Department of Energy. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) was the Ranking Democrat on the Cox committee, and his amendment reflects the important recommendations made by that committee. This amendment was cosponsored not only by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), but by the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham). This was truly a bipartisan amendment sponsored by Members with expertise in national security. In addition, the Ranking Democrat on the Committee on Armed Services specifically asked that the Dicks amendment be included in the rule. In spite of this substantive support for the Dicks amendment, the Republican majority has chosen to not allow the House the opportunity to consider it. Mr. Speaker, I believe that decision reflects a serious lapse in comity and certainly a serious lapse in the ability of this House to address matters of such serious national security importance. Secondly, the Committee on Rules failed to make in order an amendment proposed by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). The Dingell amendment would have stricken language in the Committee on Armed Services bill which transfers the authority for security operations within the Department of Energy to the Department of Defense. The gentleman from Michigan is of course the Ranking Democrat on the Committee on Commerce, which has, under the rules of the House, jurisdiction over the Department of Energy. His amendment was cosponsored by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the chairman of the Committee on Commerce. In addition, the chairman and Ranking Democrat of the Committee on Science, which also has jurisdiction over the Department of Energy, were sponsors of the Dingell amendment. The chairman of the Committee on Rules last night said it was not necessary to make the Dingell amendment in order since the matters in his amendment were included in an amendment which will be offered by the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services. Mr. Speaker, there is a difference of opinion about how closely the Spence amendment tracks the intent of the Dingell amendment. In the interests of comity, I think it would have been preferable for the Committee on Rules to allow the Dicks amendment to be considered by the full House. Finally, the Republican majority of the Committee on Rules excluded amendments proposed by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters). These amendments seek to extend a program which has established contract goals for minority and other disadvantaged businesses for the Department of Defense, yet the Republican majority on the Committee on Rules failed to make this important matter part of our discussion during the consideration of the bill. Mr. Speaker, there will be a number of speakers who will follow me in this debate who oppose the rule, and I would certainly hope that the Republican leadership will listen very carefully to what they have to say. These are Members who have substantive expertise in the issues before us, and it is, quite frankly, demeaning to this body that they should have been excluded from the debate. I would like to say, however, that the bill made in order by the rule is a good bill. Mr. Speaker, when we ask our men and women in uniform to do the heavy lifting for us, when we ask them to shoulder such an important burden, it is vital that we make sure that they have the best training and the best equipment and that they be fully compensated for the work they do. It is our responsibility to make sure that all of those things happen. Mr. Speaker, I believe this bill goes a long way toward meeting that responsibility. The bill provides a 4.8 percent pay raise effective next January and, more importantly, ensures that future pay raises for the military will keep pace with private sector pay increases. I cannot stress too much how important this provision is to the retention problem we currently face with our active duty military. The bill also reforms retirement pay which will help with retention. The housing allowance budget is significantly increased in the bill, which will result in lower out-of-pocket costs for housing for military personnel. The bill extends several special pay and bonus provisions, reforms the reenlistment program and creates several new special pay programs specifically designed to enhance retention. The Committee on Armed Services is to be commended for its excellent work in this area. I would also like to commend the committee for its inclusion of $250.1 million to procure 10 F-16C aircraft, as the President had requested, as well as the requested funds for the F-22 Raptor, the next-generation air dominance fighter. The bill contains $1.2 billion for research and development, $1.6 billion for six low-rate initial production aircraft, and $277.1 million for advance procurement of 10 LRIP aircraft in fiscal year 2001. The bill also provides $987.4 million for 11, V-22s, one aircraft more than the President's request. The Committee on Armed Services has acted wisely by adding this additional aircraft so that the Marine Corps will be able to more quickly replace its aging fleet of CH-46 helicopters. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1401 is a good bill, a bill we can be proud of. But, Mr. Speaker, this rule does not reflect the bipartisan support of the bill it makes in order. I will oppose the previous question and ask for an open rule at the appropriate time. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).