Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, at this point, we have one speaker remaining.

Mr. FROST. 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 rise in support of H.R. 2676, the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1997, and this rule which provides for its consideration. The rule is closed, but because this is vitally important legislation and is supported by both Democrats and Republicans, liberals, moderates and conservatives, I believe the House should proceed with the consideration of this legislation in order to speed it on its way to the President's desk. Mr. Speaker, in my nearly 19 years in Congress, I have received many, many complaints from my constituents regarding their difficulties in resolving disputes with the Internal Revenue Service. The report of the Portman-Kerrey Commission, which detailed abuses and mismanagement within the agency coupled with recent congressional hearings which revealed very publicly a number of disturbing abuses perpetuated-- perpetrated by the IRS against taxpayers have provided ample evidence that the many complaints we have all heard are based on real problems for real people. Mr. Speaker, while the IRS must fulfill its mission of administering our tax laws and enforcing collection, the IRS cannot be permitted to abuse the rights of American taxpayers. H.R. 2676 will go a long way toward correcting abuses and ensuring that the agency is restructured in such a way that honest taxpayers need not fear undue harassment and reprisals from the IRS. This legislation contains several provisions which will substantially strengthen taxpayers' rights in dealing with the IRS. This bill makes it more difficult for the IRS to hold a spouse responsible for mistakes made on taxpayer returns by the other spouse. It allows taxpayers to sue the Federal Government for up to $100,000 in civil damages caused by IRS employees who negligently disregard tax laws, and in those cases which come before the U.S. Tax Court, places the burden of proof on the IRS rather than on the taxpayer. These are but a small part of this bill but important reforms that will help all honest and law-abiding taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, the bill also establishes an oversight board for the IRS which will bring private sector expertise to the management and administration of the agency. The board will not have any responsibility for or authority over the development and formulation of Federal tax policy but would, instead, work to ensure that the agency works for the benefit of taxpayers and the country as a whole. I am disappointed, however, that the Committee on Rules did not provide for the consideration of an amendment that I, along with my colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Gekas, sought to have made part of H.R. 2676. Our amendment seeks to correct a provision in current law which requires that local governments file W-2 forms for poll workers in spite of the fact that these workers are, for the most part, retired persons who earn only a hundred dollars or so for their work on election day. This requirement places a heavy financial and administrative burden on localities. I would hope that in the not too distant future the Congress will fix what is an onerous burden for local government. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 2676, I am delighted that the Congress is taking action on this matter prior to our adjournment for the year. I encourage my colleagues to support the rule in order to move quickly to the consideration of this landmark legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Green].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman has no other speakers, then we urge adoption of the rule and adoption of the bill, and yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant]. (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin].

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that time yielded to the following Members: The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez], the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra], the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters], the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Hooley], the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton], the gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley] and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Roybal-Allard] for the purpose of noticing a question of privilege not count against the one-half hour yielded to me by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the conference report on the Department of Defense authorization for fiscal year 1998. This conference report provides funds essential to sustain force readiness, for the critical weapons systems and equipment that will ensure the continued superiority of the U.S. military, and for increases in pay and allowances and for other necessary quality of life improvements our men and women in uniform and for their families. In short, Mr. Speaker, this conference report authorizes the programs that make up our military strength today and which will ensure that our forces remain second to none in the 21st Century. Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement does take a forward look on the needs of our military in the new century. First and foremost, the conference agreement contains a 2.8 percent pay increase for the military and provides for funding for construction and improvement of troop and family housing. The agreement also contains a consolidation of housing allowances, stabilizes service members' pay for those times when service members participate in training exercises or are on deployment, and provides increases in the family separation allowance and hazardous duty incentive pay. These are all important matters that increase moral and will hopefully help retain the valuable services of men and women who serve this country in uniform. The agreement provides funding for the acquisition of seven V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft. The V-22 is designed to replace the Marine Corps' aging fleets of CH-46 helicopters and will transport Marines and their equipment into combat. The conference report provides $2.1 billion for continued research and development and $74.9 million for advanced procurement for the F-22 Raptor. The F-22 is the next generation air superiority fighter which is yet another system in the overall arsenal of the U.S. military which will take us into the new century in a position of power. Mr. Speaker, the conferees have authorized $331 million for long lead time related to the procurement of additional B-2's, or for modification and repair of the existing B-2 fleet, should the President certify Congress that additional aircraft are not needed by the Air Force. An important part of the conference agreement relating to the B- 2 fleet is the requirement that the Secretary of Defense ensure that all necessary actions are taken to preserve the option to build more B- 2 bombers until the panel on long-range air power, established by the fiscal year 1998 Defense Appropriations Act submits its report to Congress. I am gratified that this language will ensure that all of our options remain open while the issue of our long-range air power needs is studied. In sum, Mr. Speaker, this is a good conference report that deserves the support of every Member of the House. I commend this rule providing for its consideration and urge its adoption in order that the House may proceed to the consideration of the conference report. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House, I defer to the Members named in the unanimous consent agreement to give notice to the House.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This piece of legislation is a sham piece of legislation. This does not help lower income people in the inner cities. This does not help middle-class people no matter where they live, whether they live in the cities, the suburbs or in rural areas. This only helps one class of individuals, upper income constituents who live in the suburbs and who send their kids to private schools. This helps people who earn between $93,000 and $160,000 a year. We can debate whether there ought to be any type of help for people who send their children to private schools. That is a separate issue. This is a narrowly targeted piece of legislation that does not help any hard-working individual in the middle class send their children to private school if they choose to send their children to private school. It should be accurately advertised and accurately presented. We should not be telling the public that we are doing something for them that we are not doing for them. We are helping one very narrow category of person who chooses to send their children to private school. This is a bad piece of legislation. I support the rule because it does make in order a substitute to be offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] which will permit us to get on with repairing the infrastructure of the public schools in this country. I urge adoption of the rule, I urge adoption of the Rangel substitute, and if the Rangel substitute is not adopted, I urge defeat of this bill on final passage. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen].

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. The gentleman who just spoke of course is all over the ballpark in terms of his comments. I will try and pick and choose a few of those to respond to. It would be impossible to respond to everything that he has said. But he talked about illegal campaign contributions. I would remind the House once again as I have before, the only Member of this House who has been convicted during this Congress of violating the campaign laws is a Republican Member from the State of California. The only Member of this Congress to have been convicted of violating our campaign laws is a Republican Member from California who pled guilty to taking more than $200,000 of illegal corporate contributions. The gentleman has raised some other points. He was all over the ballpark, but I would like to respond to as many of these things as I can. Second, the gentleman talks about wanting to help parents. This particular piece of legislation, as I pointed out earlier, is a sham. The person who works on the assembly line at the General Motors plant in my district in Arlington, TX, who may make $40,000 working the assembly line, that person would get a $7 tax savings from this. The person who lives in the inner city in my district in Dallas, a Hispanic family who may want to send their children to the local parochial school, may earn, say, $30,000 a year, they would get a $2 tax break under this bill. The family who lives in one of my rural communities and who may want to send their child to a private school and who, say, earns $35,000 a year, might get a $7 tax break under this. This is a sham piece of legislation. This legislation is designed to benefit upper middle class constituents who live in the suburbs and who want to send their kids to private school. This does not help the person who works on the assembly line. This does not help the person who lives in the inner city. This is designed for a very narrow targeted group of people who are going to get all, virtually all the benefits under this plan. I am trying to respond to as many of the varied things that the gentleman said. The gentleman from California was concerned about infrastructure. We have a substitute offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] that would provide money for infrastructure. It is exactly what we ought to be doing. We ought to be providing money to rebuild our schools, to put new roofs on our public schools, to rebuild them. The Rangel legislation, which would be a substitute to this ill- conceived bill, would do exactly that. The other side has quite a bit of time left. I would at this time reserve the balance of my time. In a moment, I will yield to the gentleman from Texas when it is back to us, but I am sure the other side could yield time to the Republican Members from California who seek time because they have about the same amount of time left that we do.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority is intent upon ignoring the needs of our public school system in the United States. Over the years, hundreds of millions of Americans have been educated in the public schools of this country, thus assuring parents that every child is entitled to and will receive an education from kindergarten through the 12th grade. Yet, instead of seeking to improve and strengthen public educational opportunities, my Republican colleagues want to drain precious resources from the Treasury and give them, through the back door, to upper middle-class parents who send their children to private schools. Mr. Speaker, a mere 3 months after the enactment of the balanced budget agreement and the tax bill, the Republican majority wants to create another new tax break for upper-income middle-class families. These are the families, Mr. Speaker, who are already financially able to send their children to private schools, and they do not really need the Federal Government to help them. The Republican majority has billed these new tax breaks as a means to give parents choice in where they send their children to school, but let us face the facts. This bill will not help families who cannot already afford private or parochial schools. This bill will not help those families who are struggling to make ends meet. Most young families and families with children have relatively little money left over at the end of the month to contribute to an account which would help them with payments for a private school. What this bill will do, Mr. Speaker, is provide benefits to higher income families, while providing little or nothing to families with incomes of less than $55,000 a year. The average tax break for a family making between $33,000 and $55,000 a year under this bill is $7. Seventy percent of the benefits of this bill will go to families making between $93,000 and $160,000 a year, upper middle-class families who send their kids to private school. A family making up to $33,000 a year will only see a tax benefit of $2, and that is if they make the maximum contribution of $2,500 to an IRA. Mr. Speaker, this new savings program will not really do much to help families make a choice about where they send their kids to school, and it most certainly will not do anything to address the pressing needs of the public schools in this country. While I submit that H.R. 2646 is not really about nor does it afford school choice, this rule gives Members the opportunity to make a choice. The Committee on Rules has given the House an opportunity to choose between making a positive choice for the improvement of our public schools, or the Republican bill, which promises but does not give tax breaks to middle-income and lower-income families. The committee bill benefits families who can afford to pay for tuition to a private or parochial school, and at the same time make an annual $2,500 contribution to an educational account. That is something many families are not able to afford. The Democratic alternative, which will be offered by the Committee on Ways and Means' ranking member, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel], seeks to improve curriculum, to rehabilitate or repair school buildings, to buy equipment, or to train teachers by providing interest-free capital for public schools that enter into partnerships with the private sector. The Rangel substitute seeks to expand the educational zone provisions passed in the Tax Relief Act, and is, unlike the committee bill, targeted to the public schools and their students, who have the greatest need. Mr. Speaker, no matter how often or how loudly the Republican majority cries that what they want to do is to help parents make choices for their children, the real truth is that for most Americans, public school is their first and only choice. Mr. Speaker, 90 percent of the kids in this country go to public schools, and we, the elected Representatives of the mothers and fathers of those children, are duty-bound to make sure that whatever we do, we do not destroy the public education system in this country. We are duty-bound, Mr. Speaker, to help those local school districts ensure that every school is a first-class institution providing our kids with a safe and drug-free environment in which they can learn what they need to in order to be productive citizens of the 21st century. We are duty- bound, Mr. President, to make sure that every kid gets a good education. Mr. Speaker, I support this rule, but only because the Rangel substitute has been made in order. I urge Members to reject the Republican bill, and to give kids a real choice and a real chance at quality education by adopting the Rangel substitute.

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

Mr. FROST. No, I did not use that figure.

Mr. FROST. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would thank the gentleman for making that point. I did not address the dollar cost to the Treasury. The point is a very good one. The point that I was trying to make is that this is a subsidy for upper-income suburbanites. This does not help anybody in the inner city send their kids anyplace. This is a sham piece of legislation, but I thank the gentleman for making the point that this, in addition to being a sham piece of legislation, that this does cost the Treasury potentially a good bit of money as we try and help those upper-income suburbanites send their kids to private school. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. To respond to the gentleman, he invoked the House campaign committee. He mentioned the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. He invoked Members of the House. That is why I made the point that the only Member of the House of Representatives who has been convicted of violating the campaign laws during this session is a Republican Member who took more than $200,000 in illegal corporate contributions. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen].

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. The gentleman makes a fine statement, the problem is he ignores the facts. The facts are that poor and middle-class families get almost nothing under this plan. It only goes to upper middle-class families. A family earning up to $17,000 a year gets $1 in tax savings under this bill; a family earning between $17,000 and $33,000 a year gets $2 in tax savings; a family earning between $33,000 and $55,000 a year gets $7 a year in tax savings under this. This does not help poor and middle-class families send their kids anyplace. This benefits upper middle-class suburban constituents. We ought to be honest about this. We ought to be clear about who benefits under this bill and who does not benefit, that is the only point I am making.

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am opposed to using tax money to send kids to private schools in Washington, DC; that is correct. I am only asking that when Members on the other side argue in favor of this bill they should not pretend that this bill helps lower income and middle-class families because it does not. I am only asking they be honest in their statements.