Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, when the Committee on Rules met in June to consider a rule for the reconciliation bill, our colleagues, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge], appealed to the committee to make in order as an amendment to the reconciliation package the text of their bill, H.R. 2003. At that time the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] opposed including H.R. 2003 as an amendment in the rule, but he did assure supporters of H.R. 2003 that the rule would have an opportunity to consider budget process reform legislation during the 105th Congress. The next day, during the debate on the rule on reconciliation, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton], announced that he had reached an understanding with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] that H.R. 2003 or an amended version of the bill would be brought to the floor for an up or down vote no later than July 24. It is because of that agreement, Mr. Speaker, that we are here today considering the rule. I should point out that the gentleman from New York, in acknowledging that agreement, said that the consideration of H.R. 2003 in no way prejudices the ability of those committees with jurisdiction over the budget process to consider other budget reform proposals at a later date. As the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process of the Committee on Rules, I would like to appeal to the Republican majority to take advantage of the committee process if the House is to consider significant changes in the congressional budget process. I would hope that in the future that significant proposals such as H.R. 2003 would be considered under regular order. That being said, Mr. Speaker, the sponsors of H.R. 2003 were guaranteed a vote on their proposal, and I am happy to see that the commitment is being fulfilled. I do have a reservation about the rule reported from the Committee on Rules, since it is a closed rule providing only for an up or down vote on H.R. 2003 as introduced and not in the improved form that its supporters proposed to bring to the floor. The gentleman from Texas and the other Members of the group pushing this legislation have had an opportunity to review and make changes to their bill since June, and I think, at the very least, if the House is to consider significant changes to the way our budget process works, the House might at least have the opportunity to consider the best work product possible. It seems that the Committee on Rules is now embarking on making in order bills and amendments which are not what the authors of their proposals bring to the committee, and I would caution my Republican colleagues that to continue to operate in this manner might prove disruptive to the regular order of the House. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule divides the general debate time between the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] and an opponent of H.R. 2003. I want to make clear the understanding that the Democratic members of the Committee on Rules have about the division of the time, and if this is not what is intended, I would greatly appreciate my colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], clarifying that understanding. I am given to understand that the gentleman from Texas intends to yield one-half of his time to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Boyd].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Andrews].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers at this time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Tauscher]. (Mrs. TAUSCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner].

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

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 187, which is an open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 1853, the Carl D. Perkins Vocational-Technical Education Act Amendments of 1997. This act is named for the long-time chairman of the Education and Labor Committee who was a champion of educational opportunity for all Americans but especially for those who would not attend college but needed skills in order to find a meaningful place in America's work force. The continued availability of secondary and postsecondary vocational educational opportunities in concert with high economic goals is critical to ensuring that this Nation is equipped with a work force that can be competitive and productive in today's global economy. I am concerned, however, that the bill reported by the Committee on Education and the Workforce does not direct the funding toward those secondary school districts most in need of funding for their vocation and technical education programs. I am also concerned the reported bill eliminates the act's original emphasis on ensuring that women, minorities, the economically disadvantaged, and the disabled have access to quality vocational and technical programs. It is especially unfortunate that the committee bill eliminates the set-asides currently in the act which were created to ensure that there would be programs to serve displaced homemakers, single parents, and pregnant women to help them enter into employment that has traditionally not been open to women. In today's working environment it is critical all students be offered the opportunity created by these programs. However, since the Committee on Rules has recommended an open rule, I am hopeful that the House will adopt amendments which can address these concerns. These programs represent long-term investments in the health of the economy of the United States, and it would be penny-wise and pound-foolish to shortchange opportunities for those who would benefit the most. 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, the Democratic members of the Committee on Rules support this rule. We do, however, share a concern about the provisions of the rule, and it is the same concern we had last year. The rule allows only for consideration of those amendments to the bill which have been preprinted in the Congressional Record prior to consideration of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, our concern with this requirement to preprint amendment centers around the fact that this is not a particularly controversial bill. Consequently, we are not convinced that the preprinting requirement is necessary. We understand that preprinting may ensure that debate on this legislation does not inadvertently disclose classified materials. The ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has no objection to the inclusion of the requirement in the rule. But the Democratic members of the Committee on Rules are concerned that a precedent has now been established with regard to the construction of the rule for the consideration of this legislation. I want to take this opportunity to voice our concern. The rule also contains a number of waivers against the committee amendment including germaneness, appropriations on an authorization bill, and consideration of tax or tariff matters not reported by the Committee on Ways and Means. While the Democratic members of the Committee on Rules do not oppose these waivers, we would simply like to point out to the House that these waivers are included in the rule. Mr. Speaker, the funding levels for intelligence activities authorized in H.R. 1775 are contained in the classified annex to the report issued by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The committee reported the bill by a vote of 15 to nothing, and there are no areas of major controversy in the bill. Mr. Speaker, as I stated at the outset, I do not oppose this rule. I would urge my colleagues to support the rule so that the House may proceed to the consideration of this vitally important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks].

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I urge adoption of the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an extraordinary woman who, over a span of almost three decades, has touched the lives and helped to shape the futures of untold thousands of Texas children. As such, she is representative of a group of largely unsung heroes and heroines, our public school teachers. Susan E. Graham, of Roquemore Elementary School in Arlington, TX, will retire next month after devoting 28 years of her life to the education of elementary school children. Early in her career she taught various grade levels at several different schools in Texas. Her last eighteen years, however, have been at Roquemore Elementary School, and the last ten of those years were spent teaching and nurturing a lot of very lucky first graders. She was named Teacher of the Year at Roquemore for the 1992-93 school year, and was nominated for the AWARE Foundation Award in 1995. I've had the personal privilege of visiting Susan's class and witnessing the fruits of her labor in the bright, shining, energetic faces of her children; I have no doubt that the foundation which she gives those children puts them on very solid footing for all future educational endeavors. For the last 6 or so years, Susan has had the full-time volunteer assistance of her husband, Jay Graham, and her students have been doubly enriched by the dedication of this remarkable couple. In a few weeks Susan will officially retire. However, it comes as no surprise that she, and Jay, plan to continue doing volunteer work at Roquemore, especially with their HOSTS, mentoring, program. On July 3d it will be my pleasure to visit Susan's class for the last time and talk with her students about our U.S. flag and the meaning of Independence Day. And, I will extend to Susan and Jay my personal gratitude and best wishes for their well-deserved retirement.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I have an opening statement. However, at this time, prior to my opening statement, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] because of a scheduling conflict; and then, with the concurrence of the majority, I would like to proceed to my opening statement as soon as the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] is through.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant]. (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)