Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Republican majority on the Committee on Rules refused to make in order an amendment to this rule which would have allowed the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) to offer a sensible amendment to H.R. 4112, the Legislative Branch appropriations bill. For that reason, it is my intention to oppose the previous question on this rule. Should the House defeat the previous question, it will be my intention to offer an amendment to this rule which will allow for consideration of the Hoyer amendment. Mr. Speaker, as Members know, at the beginning of the 105th Congress, the rules package of the Republican majority included an amendment to rule XI which created a new slush fund for committees to draw from for the expenses associated with the numerous investigations planned by the Republican leadership for this Congress. Subsequently, the Republican majority adopted a committee funding resolution which included, along with prior year unexpended funds, $7.9 million for the slush fund, and my Republican colleagues have been happily spending that money ever since. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a report prepared by the Democratic leadership about the partisan investigations that have been conducted by the Republican majority during the 105th Congress.

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. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I urge a no vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule which would prohibit use of funds from the reserve fund after October 1, 1998. The amendment would allow, however, the payment of obligations legitimately incurred before the October 1 deadline. The effect of the amendment would be a return to paying for unexpected costs through an expense resolution approved by a vote of the House, as we have in past Congresses. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the text of the amendment.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, people watching this debate must be scratching their heads and saying, now, these people on the other side of the aisle, they say there is a big problem here, there is a real big problem but they do not want to vote any money to correct it. What is going on here? I sympathize with folks who are viewing this debate. There is something very missing. What is missing is money to solve this problem now that we all recognize. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on National Security and one of the true experts and champions of defense in this House.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, this reminds me of the white rabbit in Alice in Wonderland. ``I'm late. I'm late. I'm late for a very important date. Hello. Good-bye. Hello. Good-bye. I'm late.'' The Republicans are saying they are late, but they do not want to put any money in the bill to take care of the problem. This is extraordinary. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have a case here of Alice in Wonderland. The Republican Majority has decided that two wrongs do make a right. They do not like the fact that the administration has not asked for enough money for the year 2000, so they are not going to give the administration any money to fix the year 2000. This is an extraordinary result. Mr. Speaker, let me state from the outset that it is my intention to oppose this rule. As my colleagues know, I am a consistent supporter of a strong national defense and it is not my practice to oppose rules dealing with defense matters. But in this case I must oppose this rule because I believe the Committee on Rules has made a very serious error, perhaps one of the most irresponsible actions they will ever take, by stripping all the funds for the year 2000 computer problem and for information systems security at the Department of Defense. This is one of the most reckless actions my Republican colleagues have taken in the 3\1/2\ years that they have had control of this body. And for those of us who do concern ourselves with national security, the ramifications of this action are quite frankly very disturbing. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Appropriations said in the report to accompany this important bill that there are only 18 months remaining before we are faced with the possibility that our military may not be mission capable because of the year 2000 date change. The report states, and I quote from the committee report: The committee believes it would be irresponsible not to make available as soon as possible additional funding which could be used during fiscal year 1999 to implement and test essential fixes to national security-related information systems, as well as to develop contingency plans to assure continuity of essential operations in the event needed fixes are not in place. The Republican majority on the Committee on Appropriations did exactly the right thing by making available $1.6 billion for the year 2000 fix for the Department of Defense and intelligence agencies and by designating those funds as emergency spending. But after the committee had reported this bill, the Republican leadership instructed the Republican majority on the Committee on Rules to strip this critical funding from the bill and, in doing so, ignore the importance of making these monies available as soon as possible. Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues are going to say, and we just heard them say that they have removed these funds because the President did not request enough money, because they are budget-busting funds, and because we can come back later this year and consider a supplemental appropriation that will include money for the year 2000 fix. My answer to the Republican majority is as follows: It does not matter if the President did not request enough money. We need these funds to fix the well over 2 million computers and over 25,000 distinct computer systems within the Department of Defense that are embedded in weapons systems, are integral parts of command and control systems, satellite systems, the Global Positioning System, and on and on. So I would ask, how can this money be considered budget-busting? I think this money is needed to fund a true emergency that will address the critical issue of ensuring that the 2,800 mission-critical computer networks within the Department of Defense and the intelligence community that contain an estimated 30 billion program instructions are, in fact, fixed. During the hearing on this rule yesterday, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) announced that the funds for the Defense Department year 2000 fix, as well as year 2000 funds for every other department and agency of the Federal Government, would be included in a supplemental appropriation to be considered later in the year. He stated that those supplemental funds would be offset with domestic spending cuts. Mr. Speaker, the plan announced by the gentleman from New York for addressing the year 2000 problem is a recipe for disaster. First of all, Mr. Speaker, we may not be able to consider a supplemental appropriation at a later date, because the date is June 24 and we are adjourning tomorrow for 2 weeks, and we have for all intents and purposes only 30 days or so in which to complete all the business required of us before we go home to face the voters. I, for one, do not want to face the voters in my Congressional District having failed to address this issue. Mr. Speaker, I want every Member to be perfectly clear what is going to happen because the Republican leadership has stripped year 2000 money from this bill and from the Treasury-Postal appropriations legislation. If such a supplemental as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) envisions ever sees the light of day, it should be understood that the money in the supplemental will not necessarily be designated as emergency spending. This is an important point because as nonemergency spending, year 2000 funds totaling $3.85 billion will have to be offset, and they will be offset from domestic spending. What the gentleman from New York has offered is a no-win proposition, because $3.85 billion in additional domestic cuts cannot easily happen. The gentleman's plan, which I assume is the Republican leadership's plan, is a plan for failure. The Republican leadership is playing a dangerous game by stripping these funds from the Defense and Treasury- Postal appropriations bills, and for that reason, I intend to oppose this rule. We have an opportunity in this rule to make the funds available now to the Department of Defense and to the intelligence community which will allow them to find the programmers that can be trusted to work on these systems so that we will know that we have done our part in protecting our national security as the clock ticks towards January 1, 2000. But we can only do so, Mr. Speaker, by restoring the funds to the bill under an emergency designation. Mr. Speaker, I urge every Member of this body to act responsibly and to vote ``no'' on this rule. The Republicans are telling this body, ``Trust us. Trust us.'' Now, what we know as the Defense appropriations bill has to pass. We are not going to leave here without a Defense appropriations bill. We are not going to leave here without a Treasury appropriations bill. But we can leave here without a supplemental bill. There is no reason a supplemental bill has to pass prior to October 1, 1998. And there is no reason to believe that a supplemental bill constructed with additional domestic offsets is going to pass this Congress. Mr. Speaker, excusing the expression, our colleagues on the other side are playing Russian roulette, Russian roulette with our national security, because they are not willing to fund in this bill the money to repair and to make sure that our computer systems are adequate and are ready for the year 2000. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, otherwise. And it is one that deserves the support of every Member. We have a commitment to our military forces to ensure that they have the best equipment available today and that work proceeds to ensure that they will have the best available in the years to come. Equipment, pay raises, operation and management, planning and logistics are all part of this bill that is designed to ensure that our Nation is strong and that our Nation is secure. Mr. Speaker, this bill does not do all of the job. By deleting the emergency funding for the year 2000 fix, my Republican colleagues have stuck their head in the sand. They may say the President has stuck his head in the sand, but he has got a Republican ostrich standing right next to him, deep, deep in the sand. This bill will leave us exposed, and it is for that reason that I oppose this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I, of course, was quoting the chairman of the Committee on Rules when I said this was going to come out of mandatory spending. My friends over there, I guess, have adopted the ostrich as the official bird of the Republican Party because they want to stick their head in the sand. They do not want to appropriate any money for this problem. It is a very, very interesting position. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow).

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. We have heard the very articulate statement of the ranking member of the Subcommittee on National Security, one of the truly bipartisan members when it comes to defense. It is a travesty, it is ridiculous that this bill does not include money to address the year 2000 problem. Republicans should join with Democrats in rejecting this rule. Vote ``no'' on the rule and fund the year 2000 problem now.

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. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong concern with the current situation of home health care agencies across the country, and particularly of those in the State of Texas. Last summer Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and in doing so reduced Medicare payments to home health agencies. While the intent was to curb waste and abuse within the home health industry, it has now become quite clear that the BBA is negatively affecting thousands of home health agencies and those who use their services. I have serious concerns that these provisions affecting payment to home health agencies will force hundreds of agencies in the State of Texas out of business and thereby forcing patients into nursing homes and hospitals. It was reported in the Forth Worth Star Telegram on June 23, 1998 that half of Texas' home health care agencies will soon being filing bankruptcy. It is imperative that Congress fix the problem with the home health care payment system, before this story in a newspaper becomes a reality. H.R. 3205, a bill introduced by my colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. McGovern, will fix part of the problem by delaying the implementation of the interim payment system for home health agencies. I support this bill, and urge my colleagues to work for its passage. The Texas Association for Home Care informed my office that in one day alone, twenty agencies reported to them that they were going out of business. This needs to stop. Congress needs to find solutions to the problems it created for this industry and for the thousands of people it serves.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleague, the gentleman from California, in support of H.R. 2709, the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act, and to urge the President to sign this most important legislative initiative. This is an important proposal that seeks to protect United States national security interests in the Middle East by stemming the flow of missile technology and expertise to Iran. While the administration may have objections to several of the sanctions imposed by the bill, I would submit that the President's authority to make foreign policy is protected in the bill by granting him the authority to waive those sanctions under specific circumstances. Mr. Speaker, this proposal is especially important since intelligence reports show if Iran succeeds in its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them, within a year it could have the indigenous capability to begin assembly and testing of ballistic missiles capable of hitting Israel, other targets in the Middle East, as well as parts of Europe and Asia. Mr. Speaker, Iran already possesses chemical weapons and is intensely working toward acquiring biological and nuclear weapons capability. These are dangerous trends, Mr. Speaker, and the United States must take action to stop these developments. What is troubling is that technology and expertise has come to Iran from foreign companies, primarily, but not exclusively, Russian companies. In previous years, China and North Korea provided this assistance; today, Russian companies are providing highly advanced technology. In fact, Mr. Speaker, U.S. military intelligence reports, reports that have been publicly cited, have indicated that Russian entities signed contracts this year to help produce liquid-fueled ballistics missiles, such as the SS-4. In addition, there have been sales of Russian high technology laser equipment and negotiations between the Russians and Iran for other supplies for the manufacture of missiles as well as the construction of the wind tunnels necessary to test the missiles. Mr. Speaker, some 9,000 scientists, engineers and technicians from the former Soviet Union are currently in Iran as advisors. Some of these experts are teaching subjects ranging from missile guidance systems to firing circuitry and pyrotechnics of explosive systems. Others are aiding in the rebuilding of the Bushehr nuclear reactor, and the technical advice being given in this project could very well enhance Iran's capability to develop nuclear weapons. Mr. Speaker, this flow of technology and expertise continues, in spite of the fact that in January of this year, then Russian Prime Minister Chernomyrdin issued a decree to restrict the export of dual- use technology. In addition, Russia is a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime, a volunteer arrangement among countries which share a common interest in arresting missile proliferation. Russia along with the 27 other signatory countries, which includes the United States, has agreed to participate in a regime which consists of common export guidelines applied to a common list of controlled items. But, Mr. Speaker, in spite of Russia's international commitments, Russian entities continue to provide this deadly technology to Iran. So what is to be done, Mr. Speaker? There are currently sanction requirements in place for those companies which engage in this type of technology transfer. The Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act of 1992 requires the President to sanction the governments of those countries who knowingly supply Iran or Iraq with advanced conventional weaponry or technology that contributes to their acquisition of weapons of mass destruction. These sanctions would suspend U.S. assistance to these governments, would suspend codevelopment and coproduction agreements, and would suspend military and dual-use technology agreements that might lead to the transfer of technology or weapons to either Iran or Iraq. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Arms Export Control Act and the Export Administration Act both require the imposition of sanctions on governments and entities that violate the Missile Technology Control Regime. Unfortunately, the administration has chosen not to apply the sanctions available in existing law, choosing rather to pursue diplomatic solutions. But, Mr. Speaker, it appears these diplomatic solutions have not cut off the flow of these dangerous technologies to a nation with whom we do not have diplomatic relations. H.R. 2709 was introduced last fall to press for an end to Russian missile cooperation with Iran. The legislation would sanction any company involved in providing missile technology to Iran. These sanctions should provide the United States with a means to attack the spread of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, and, while we might find ourselves standing alone in this fight, it is a worthy stand for us to take. The Congress is on record as supporting this legislation. The bill has 271 cosponsors in the House and 82 cosponsors in the Senate, and passed both houses by an overwhelming bipartisan majority. Mr. Speaker, if we stand alone in our willingness to stop the spread of death and destruction in the Middle East, then so be it. Our stand is morally correct and the administration should join with the Congress in supporting the imposition of sanctions on those who put financial gain ahead of peace.

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. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining on each side?

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from New York.