Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues have ridiculed the President's proposal to hire 100,000 new teachers and to reduce class size to 18. I would suggest that they may want to get out of Washington and talk to some real people about this issue. I did just that last weekend. My daughter, Alanna, is a third grade public schoolteacher in the suburbs of Cincinnati, Ohio, and I had a chance to visit with Alanna. I asked her, ``What do you think about the president's proposal?'' She said, ``Well, dad, right now my class size is 25. If it were reduced to 18, I could be a better teacher. I could spend more time with the 5 or 6 kids in my class who really need help.'' Mr. Speaker, I would urge my Republican colleagues, instead of blindly opposing this very important proposal by the President to reduce class size from 25 to 18, get out and talk to some public school teachers and find out what is really going on in the real world.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 377 is an open rule allowing for full and free debate on a bill that seeks to enhance privacy for all commercial users of cellular technology, both analog and digital. H.R. 2369 takes into account the development of new technologies in digital cellular and digital personal communications services, the generations beyond analog wireless communication. The bill also prohibits the manufacture or modification of off-the- shelf radio scanners which would be capable of intercepting digital cellular telephone communications. It is already illegal to manufacture or import such equipment capable of intercepting analog cellular communication; this legislation advances Federal law to deal with advances in technology since the law was enacted. Mr. Speaker, this legislation requires the Federal Communications Commission to step up its enforcement of existing laws, as well as the new prohibitions which will be imposed by this proposal. This legislation makes a significant change in current law by providing that the act of scanning cellular communications is in and of itself illegal. Thus, the manufacture or the possession of the equipment capable of scanning these private conversations, as well as the actual scanning of private cellular communications, will be illegal. Mr. Speaker, with enhanced enforcement on the part of the FCC, perhaps some of the predatory practices which threaten the privacy of the millions of cellular conversations that take place each and every day can be stopped. Mr. Speaker, this bill was unanimously reported from the Committee on Commerce, and is one of importance in today's world of rapidly changing technological development. I urge support of this open rule and support of the bill.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I discovered that without explanation, my vote was not recorded on Roll Call vote number 22, the Federal Agency Compliance/Civil Rights amendment. I was present for this vote and voted Yea.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to Major General Doug Bunger, who currently resides in Duncanville, Texas, upon his retirement this month from the United States Air Force. In his thirty- one years of service to this great nation he has proven himself an extraordinary leader of people, programs, and finances at all organizational levels in the Air Force, and finances at all organizational levels in the Air Force. As a military comptroller, General Bunger directed the financial operation for military airlift command during a period of intense defense military transportation requirements. He subsequently was the Air Force's Director of Budget Operations and then the Deputy Assistant Secretary for the budget. As such he developed, justified, and executed an annual budget of over $72 billion in support of worldwide air force operations. His record of integrity and accountability was flawless. To conclude his distinguished career, General Bunger has commanded the Army and the Air Force Exchange Service, a $7 billion retail and services organization headquartered in Southwest Dallas. Under his charismatic leadership and efficient management AAFES has performed its mission exceptionally well, with earnings during his three-year tenure of over $930 million. What is more important is that these earnings have been vital to military personnel around the world, contributing well over $600 million to supplement the morale, welfare, and recreation programs of the Army and Air Force--thereby ensuring quality of life for service members and their families while reducing the burden of support from America's taxpayers. General Bunger's work force of 55,000 serve every day to provide soldiers and airmen value, service and support in all 50 states and 25 different countries--to include Bosnia, Haiti, Kuwait, Saudi, and Korea--significantly enhancing morale while saving them money. Throughout his career, General Bunger has been an exceptional steward of defense resources, and his legacy of leadership and dedication deserve our admiration and praise. His numerous awards and decorations--which include the Distinguished Service Medal, two Awards of the Legion of Merit, a Bronze Star, four Meritorious Service Medals, and both Air Force Commendation and Achievement Medals--attest to his exemplary professionalism and distinguished service to our nation. I salute Major General Doug Bunger as he retires from the United States Air Force and wish him and his lovely wife, Sarah, much happiness in their new hilltop home near Hot Springs, Arkansas.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, it is once again an honor for me to take part in this Special Order for African-American History Month. I know I join with every American in this continuing effort to educate both ourselves and our children about African-American culture and history. One of the most underappreciated segments of American history are the scientific achievements by African-Americans. For the past one hundred years, African-Americans have made crucial inventions in engineering, performed great scientific feats, and have served as inspirations to all Americans through their perseverance and determination, yet such accomplishments go widely unnoticed. One of those inventors was Granville Woods. Mr. Woods was a great electrician and inventive genius who developed and patented a system for overhead electric conducting lines for railroads, which aided in the development of the overhead railroad system found in contemporary metropolitan cities such as Chicago, St. Louis and New York City. As well, in the late 1800's Woods patented the Synchronous Multiplex Railway Telegraph, which allowed train stations as well as moving trains to know each others whereabouts. Train accidents and collisions were causing great concern at the time because train stations had no way of tracking their moving trains. This invention made train movements quicker and prevented countless accidents and collisions. Garrett Morgan, who was born in 1875, also deserves wide recognition for his outstanding contributions to public safety. Firefighters in many cities in the early 1900's wore the safety helmet and gas mask that he invented. The gas mask Morgan invented in 1912 was used during World War I to protect soldiers from chlorine gas fumes. In 1923, Morgan received a patent for his new concept, a traffic signal to regulate vehicle movement in city areas. It is impossible to overestimate the importance of this event to our country's history. This single invention helped bring order out of the chaos of regulating pedestrian and vehicle traffic on city streets. In more recent times, Dr. Mae Jemison was our nation's fifth African- American astronaut, and the first African-American female astronaut. In August 1992, she participated in a successful joint U.S. and Japanese science mission that made her the first African-American woman in space. Dr. Jemison's perseverance and success as as astronaut should serve as an inspiration to all Americans. Mr. Speaker, when we honor great achievements in science by African- Americans, we inspire the next generation of Americans to achieve great things. I hope that all of our young people take a moment during African-American History month to reflect on what they can do in their communities and in their lives to make a difference. General Leave

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Republican majority seems unable to offer a positive, forward working agenda for the people of this great Nation. Instead my Republican colleagues seem to have chosen the refrain of the 1980s, just say no, to apply to any and all proposals of the current administration. And indeed my Republican colleagues seem to want to ignore the fact that they struck a deal just last fall with the same administration on the issue of national testing of fourth- and eighth- grade schoolchildren. Madam Speaker, my Republican colleagues seek to enact a permanent ban on the expenditure of Department of Education funds for any work on the development of such testing beyond the preliminary work agreed to last fall. Without waiting for the results of studies which are being conducted by the highly respected National Academy of Sciences, the Republicans want to just say no to the entire issue of national testing in reading and mathematics. This bill flies in the face of a carefully crafted compromise and undoes an agreement that was hard fought and hard won. Madam Speaker, I do not want to prejudice the outcome of the studies that are now under way, studies that were agreed to by the full Congress just 3 short months ago. By doing so, Madam Speaker, I believe the Congress would be undermining the role of the independent and bipartisan National Assessment Governing Board whose role it is to oversee and assess the studies conducted by the NAS. In fact, Madam Speaker, the agreement reached last fall specifically calls for these, for those findings to be incorporated into reauthorization legislation for the testing program which will be considered this fall. Therefore, I must oppose both this rule and the bill because they break a deal this Congress agreed to. Madam Speaker, we all want the best for our children and for all the children in this great Nation. I suggest that jumping to conclusions before the results have been tabulated is not doing the best for our kids. Why is it that my Republican colleagues are so opposed to the concept of testing children to determine if a child is keeping up with his grade level? The Republican Governor of my own State, George W. Bush, has publicly advocated the necessity of testing children for reading and math. He rightly says, and I quote, a child who can cannot read cannot learn, and to send our children through the system without teaching them to read is like sending them to Mount Everest without the tools or the training to reach the summit, close quote. Governor Bush has advocated holding back third-graders who cannot pass a reading test and requiring that children pass reading and math tests in the fifth grade and reading and writing and math tests in the eighth grade. If the Republican Governor of Texas can advocate such testing and in fact recognizes the necessity to determine if our kids are meeting educational benchmarks, why are my Republican colleagues here in Congress so opposed to conducting a study and perhaps conducting field tests based on the results of those studies? Madam Speaker, let me quote Governor Bush one more time. As he said to the Texas Education Association last week, ``Some say tests should not matter, but I say our children are not with us long before they have to face the real world. And in the real world tests are a reality.'' Madam Speaker, our children deserve the very best. The Congress has a moral obligation to ensure that the education they receive will prepare them for the very real world to which Governor Bush referred. This bill is a bargain-buster and is short-sighted and could, for all we know, shortchange our children. Madam Speaker, while the resolution before us in fact is an open rule, it does not allow amendments which would permit the House to consider matters that would give our children access to the kind of public education we know they need and deserve. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the full committee ranking member, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez), ranking member of the subcommittee, oppose this bill and yesterday requested that the Committee on Rules make their alternative proposals in order. Those proposals which were rejected by the Republican majority would offer the House the opportunity to support a major school construction and renovation program as well as an initiative to assist in the implementation of locally developed public school renewal plans. Those are the issues we should be addressing today, Madam Speaker. It is the intention of the Democratic side to seek to offer those proposals by amending this rule, and accordingly it is my intention to ask for the defeat of the previous question. Madam Speaker, I would like to suggest that this proposal does not do much for America's children. We would do much better by them by ensuring that their schools are safe inhabitable and that the programs we offer them will prepare them for life in the new century. We cannot do that by just saying no. Instead we must look for new answers. I urge defeat of the previous question. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez).

Mr. FROST. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, I urge Members to vote against the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will make in order the amendments offered in the Committee on Rules by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez), the Public Schools Renewal and Improvement Act and the School Construction Act. These are the kinds of programs we need to improve in order to improve our public education. Vote no on the previous question so we can consider these two worthy legislative initiatives to improve the quality of our public schools. Madam Speaker, I include the following for the Record: Previous Question for Rule on H.R. 2846 To Prohibit Spending Federal Education Funds on National Testing text: At the end of the resolution add the following new section: ``Sec. 2. One amendment offered by Representative Clay of Missouri and one amendment offered by Representative Martinez of California each shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against an amendment offered under this section are waived. The majority argues that our attempt to defeat the previous question is futile because our proposed amendment is not germane. The fact of the matter is that the chair has not made a ruling nor heard our arguments as to the germaneness of our amendment. The only way to make that determination is to allow us to offer the amendment by defeating the previous question. This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating. The vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan. I ask unanimous consent to insert material in the Record at this point. The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating. Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.'' Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own manual: Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of amendment.'' Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.'' The vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to include extraneous material.)

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the ranking member of the committee.

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

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. It is very interesting, my Republican governor often disagrees with the far right Republicans in the House of Representatives. I suppose this will go on from time to time. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).

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

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

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, it was with great regret that I learned of the retirement of my friend, Congressman Ron Dellums. One of our most esteemed Members, and the second longest serving Member in the California Delegation, Ron Dellums has decided to retire after spending 27 years working on behalf of America's families. As a young man, Ron Dellums has worked to end conflicts around the world and find alternatives to military force. He has also campaigned hard for stronger civil rights in this country, for equal rights for women and for greater environmental protections. I'm also proud to say that Congressman Dellums' father was from Corsicana, Texas which is in my district. Corsicana can be truly proud of all the Dellums and their contribution to American society. During his tenure in Congress, Ron Dellums was the first African- American Member ever appointed to the House Armed Services (now National Security) Committee. As Chairman of that Committee in the 103rd Congress, Congressman Dellums provided critical leadership during a difficult time of cuts and reductions in our military capacity. It has been an honor and a privilege to serve in the House with Representative Dellums. Clearly, Ron's hard work and dedication to public service have improved the lives of all Americans, and he will be sorely missed. I wish him well in his retirement.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, we have no additional speakers at this time. I ask, is the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Myrick] going to yield back her time at this point?

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is late in the day and it is late in the session. We are now 43 days into fiscal year 1998 and it is high time that we finish our business for the year. With any luck, we will be able to finish the District of Columbia appropriations this evening, leaving only 1 other appropriations bill outstanding. The Republican majority has finally seen the light and has given up for the time being, at least, its desire to use the District and its residents as a grand experiment in Republican social engineering on school vouchers. As I said, Mr. Speaker, it is late in the day and it is late in the session. It is time for the Republican majority to govern. It is time to stop using appropriations to move a legislative agenda that is not supported by a majority of the American people. Mr. Speaker, the negotiating process on District of Columbia appropriations has resulted in creating a bill which is vastly superior to the product originally passed by 1 vote in the House. I will support this rule only because the bill passed by the Senate and the amendment which is now being recommended as a further amendment address the issues of providing the Federal payment to the District of Columbia, the Nation's Capital, and not the Republican social agenda. It is unfortunate, however, that it has taken this long to reach this point. Mr. Speaker, because it is late, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].

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