Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

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

Mr. FROST. That is my assumption. I appreciate the gentleman for clarifying that. I just want to repeat before I yield time to other speakers what I said at the outset. The adoption of the Solomon amendment to the rule later in this hour is critical. I intend to support that. If the Solomon amendment fails, this rule is in jeopardy and the rule may not pass. So I will support the Solomon amendment and, assuming the Solomon amendment is in order, I will support the rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. I just want to be clear that it was in part A and not part B.

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, as I stated at the outset, it is my intention to support the amendment about to be offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] to the rule. It is a balanced amendment which provides balance to this rule. I hope it is successful. If it is successful, I will support the rule. If it is not successful, a number of Members on my side of the aisle will vote no on the rule. I urge adoption of the Solomon amendment, and if the Solomon amendment is adopted, I urge adoption of the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler]. (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, if I may continue my remarks at this point, it is my intention to support H.R. 1119, the Department of Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1998. This legislation is one of the most important bills this House will consider this year. It authorizes a total of $268 billion in spending for our national defense, an amount which will ensure the military superiority of the United States in the next year and in the years to come. This funding level will ensure that production of important weapon systems continues, will ensure that the Congress' efforts to improve quality of life for our men and women in uniform and their families continues, and will ensure that our commitments around the world are met. H.R. 1119, the National Security Committee has provided $2.1 billion for research and development for the F-22, the next-generation air superiority fighter which is designed to replace the F-16. The Committee has also provided for a total of $1.3 billion for production and continued research and development for the V-22 Osprey. The addition of this aircraft to the Marine Corps and Special Forces arsenal will ensure that our soldiers and marines can be quickly and safely delivered into combat. The Committee has provided funding to restart those parts of the B-2 Stealth production line which have been shut down. The B-2 is a vital component in our national security system and will continue to serve the Air Force well into the next century. H.R. 1119 not only restarts production lines, it provides adequate funding for advance procurement to ensure that production of this effective weapons system continues in future years. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on National Security has provided the President's request for a 2.8-percent pay increase for military personnel, has provided a new special duty pay for service at hardship posts, and has increased the family separation allowance. The men and women who make up our armed forces today are being asked to make enormous sacrifices while increasing their workload because of increased operations worldwide and personnel drawdown. I think the Committee has rightly focused much of its attention on quality-of-life issues for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines and their families, for they are the foundation that ensures that our national security is indeed secure. Mr. Speaker, I would ask if I may direct one question to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon]. It was not clear to me during his explanation, on the question of the Everett amendment, as to where that would appear, assuming his amendment is adopted and the Everett amendment is made in order. I would ask the gentleman from New York, do I understand that would appear in part A of the attachment to the rule? And if so, where in part A will it appear? Would it be at the end of part A?

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me at the outset kind of review where we are. I think it is very important. This may be a little confusing for Members. It may be a little confusing for the public watching this proceeding. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is going to renew his unanimous-consent request at the end of this hour. If there is objection, then he will move this matter, move to amend the rule. And, of course, the components that will be in both his unanimous-consent request and his motion are the Dellums-Kasich-Foley amendment, the Everett amendment, the Frank Amendment No. 85, Traficant No. 3, and Weldon No. 110. I will support the effort of the gentleman from New York to amend this rule. And assuming that is successful, I will support the rule. And I think I speak for a number of Members on my side of the aisle. If his effort is not successful to amend this rule, there are a very large number of Members on this side of the aisle who will vote against the rule. Let me be clear. Some of my colleagues, on the merits, when we get to it will not support the Dellums amendment when it is offered tomorrow or tonight, but we support right of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] to offer his amendment, and that is a very, very important distinction and a very, very important point. So I would urge this House, on both sides of the aisle, to support the amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] so that we will then be able to pass this rule. Should the amendment not pass, there is a real chance this rule will not pass and we will not be able to proceed to the consideration of this bill today and the remainder of this week. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], and then I want to continue my statement.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for the last 4 months a bipartisan task force on ethics reform has been meeting. Yesterday the 12 Members of that task force voted out its final recommendations with only one dissent, the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas]. All the Democrats voted for it and all but Mr. Thomas on the Republican side. We set a public hearing for Friday and we were directing to have the matter voted on on the floor next week, perhaps as early as Tuesday. Late last night we were informed that the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives had fired the task force, canceled the public hearing, and would not have the bipartisan work of the task force considered on the floor next week. This is the most arrogant political act since the Saturday Night Massacre, when Richard Nixon fired Archibald Cox 24 years ago. We, as a bipartisan group, had agreed upon ways to reform the ethics task force with all the Republicans except one supporting that, and then we were fired by the Republican leadership last night and told we may not proceed to amend the ethics procedures of this House. This is unacceptable.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 54, a constitutional amendment to protect the flag from physical desecration. The American flag holds a sacred place in our Nation's identity, representing the millions who have made sacrifices in its defense and for the preservation of freedom. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important legislation. Amending the Constitution is done only when absolutely necessary, and when it is clear it is the will of the public, not just a whim. I am confident that this legislation meets that high standard. This amendment has been introduced in several Congresses, and support has grown in every session. In fact, during the last session, this legislation passed the House overwhelmingly with strong bipartisan support, falling short in the Senate by a mere three votes. A constitutional amendment is the last hope for protecting our flag. In 1989, the Supreme Court narrowly decided to strike down existing flag protection laws as an infringement on the rights of free speech. The action of the Court sent a clear message that stronger actions must be taken. Most Americans share the important belief that our flag can be protected without infringing on free speech. Throughout our history, punishing flag desecration has been viewed as compatible with the letter and spirit of our first amendment. Some of the strongest supporters of individual rights ever to serve on the Supreme Court-- former Chief Justice Earl Warren, and former Justices Hugo Black and Abe Fortas--each have written that the Nation could prosecute for physically desecrating the flag without violating the right to free speech. The views of these great constitutional scholars reflect the same commonsense belief of millions of hardworking Americans who understand that burning the flag is conduct, not speech. If this amendment is approved, and Congress passes a flag protection statute, people will still have the right to say anything about the flag, or anything else. However, the specific action of physical desecration of the flag would be against the law. All across racial, socio-economic, and political lines, there is a strong belief that the preservation of our flag is vital. In fact, 49 State legislatures have petitioned this body for strong action. I urge Congress to take this historic step to preserve this paramount symbol of our national heritage.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, on May 20 when the House considered the rule providing for the consideration of the budget resolution, I said that the vote on the resolution was but the beginning of what promises to be a difficult process. I also said that even if individual Members supported the framework of the agreement to balance the Federal budget, such a vote would not obligate any Member to support the separate pieces implementing that agreement that he or she might consider unfair or ill-conceived. Mr. Speaker, even before this conference report has been adopted, we are seeing pieces of the implementing package which might indeed be considered unfair. Many Members supported the budget agreement because it promised to right a wrong that had been part of the welfare reform legislation enacted in the last Congress. I am referring, of course, to the removal of thousands of elderly disabled legal immigrants from the SSI program. This House agreed during the consideration of the supplemental appropriation to provide funding to keep disabled elderly legal immigrants on the rolls until the Congress had an opportunity to revisit the issue and correct what is an unjustifiable inequity. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority is now offering the House what can only be called a bait-and-switch deal. This budget agreement came about as a result of long and difficult negotiations between the administration and the Republican leadership. Democrats in the House were subsequently assured that the agreement ensured that disabled elderly legal immigrants would be protected as part of those negotiations. Mr. Speaker, how is it, then, that the Republican majority is now proposing to fulfill perhaps only a part of that agreement? The Committee on Ways and Means now has pending before it a proposal which will fulfill at least that part of the agreement that might save the Republican majority a major public and political embarrassment. To avoid what would surely create a public furor the Republicans have agreed that they will not kick those elderly disabled illegal immigrants who currently receive SSI off the roles. Thus the Republicans will ensure that they will not be blamed for kicking sick old people out of their nursing home beds and onto the streets. But, Mr. Speaker, this is only half of the deal. What about the future? Mr. Speaker, I ask this question in the context that this is the same Republican majority who left Washington for a 10-day break without addressing the urgent necessity of providing money to the flood ravaged regions of the Dakotas and the Midwest. This is the same Republican majority that is now going to send a supplemental appropriation to the President knowing full well that he will veto it because of the extraneous political issues which are designed to save them future political embarrassment are attached to a bill that was supposed to help families begin to put their lives back to order. What next Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker, I will not oppose this rule providing for the consideration of this conference report, but I caution my colleagues to examine closely every bill that comes to the floor which will implement this budget agreement. Some parts may indeed be fair and equitable and deserve the support of all Members, but others, Mr. Speaker, deserve to be exposed for what they are, Republican proposals which will fill only part of an agreement and are not part of the agreement at all. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the newly formed Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus of which I am a founding member. This caucus was formed in response to the rise of kidnaping and murder of young children in this country. Each year hundreds of thousands of American families are confronted with this unique tragedy--a missing child. In the last 30 days in Texas alone, four children have been abducted and brutally murdered. This caucus has been organized to increase the awareness of these tragic occurrences and to introduce legislation to combat these heinous crimes. I became painfully aware of the problem of repeat sex offenders who target children when a tragic situation occurred in Arlington, TX, which is part of my congressional district. On January 13, 1996, little Amber Hagerman, an innocent 9-year-old girl, was abducted and murdered. Amber was bright and pretty and was riding her bike on January 13 when someone came along and took her away. We don't know who took her, but we do know that a little girl, just a child, was brutally murdered and her body left to be found. This case occurred in my congressional district, but I am sure that events like this have happened--sadly--in every corner of our country, in our cities, and in the heartlands. Whoever took Amber didn't know and didn't care that she was an honor student who made all A's and B's. They didn't care that she was a Brownie who had lots of friends and who loved her little brother dearly. They didn't care that her whole life was ahead of her and that her parents wanted to watch her grow into the lovely young woman she promised to be. This tragedy has focused public attention on the need to toughen laws for sex offenders, particularly offenders who victimize young children. In response to this tragedy, I introduced the Amber Hagerman Protection Act and portions of this bill were attached to the Omnibus Appropriations Act, which was signed into law on September 30, 1996. The Amber Hagerman Child Protection Act expands Federal court jurisdiction over repeat child sex molesters who cross State lines and creates a two-strikes law which mandates life in prison after a second offense. The act also expands the death penalty. Prior to the enactment of the Amber Hagerman Act, Federal law provided for the death penalty on the first offense when a child is killed on Federal property or is kidnaped and taken across State lines. The Amber bill adds the death penalty when the person who murders the child has cross State lines with the intent of committing a sex offense. I was very pleased that portions of this bill were signed into law last year; however, this is just the beginning. Clearly, the safety of our neighborhoods requires that additional laws be passed by Congress to keep sex offenders off the streets and it is my hope that this new caucus will learn what we can do on a legislative level. As a caucus, we need to look at where the Justice Department is in terms of implementing a national registry system for sex offenders. Local enforcement agencies tell me that the best help they could get from the Federal Government is a national registry system for sex offenders, and we ought to make sure that this system is up and running in the near future. Last year, the Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act of 1996 was signed into law. This bill establishes, by law, a national registry system and will improve the minimum system the FBI is now establishing under the President's order. Prior or the passage of the Pam Lychner Act, the President directed the Justice Department to develop within 60 days a plan for a national sex offender registry. It's imperative that an interim system be operational in the near future in order to assist the local law enforcement agencies. This coming Sunday, May 25, is National Missing Children's Day. Back in 1983, President Ronald Reagan proclaimed May 25 National Missing Children's Day. And today, all across the country, groups will be holding candlelight vigils, memorials, and other events to increase public understanding and awareness of this national tragedy. We all need to get involved--parents, relatives, politicians, police, and other enforcement agencies--to direct attention to the problem of missing children. It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that someday we will not need a National Missing Children's Day or caucus in Congress to combat he growing epidemic of missing and exploited children. It is my hope that someday every child in America will feel safe. It is my hope that someday every child will feel secure while riding his or her bicycle in the neighborhood. It is my hope that someday no parent will ever have to face the tragedy that Amber Hagerman's parents had to face last year. But until that day comes, we need to work together to protect this country's greatest asset--our children.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, so it is possible that the gentleman will seek to amend the rule, either by unanimous consent or by motion, at some point during this hour?

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, before I begin my formal remarks, I have a question for the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon]. The question is, is this rule a moving target? There evidently is some controversy on your side, continuing controversy on your side, as to whether the Minge amendment should be made in order. It is not currently made in order under the rule, and I would ask the gentleman whether he contemplates asking the House to amend the rule to make the Minge amendment in order.

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to defeat the previous question. I will include for the Record the amendment I would offer to the rule if the previous question is defeated. The amendment would make in order two additional amendments to the budget agreement, by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett]. Both these amendments are attempts to ensure that a balanced budget plan actually achieves balance. The Minge substitute includes enforcement provisions to force the Congress to stay on course over the next 5 years. The Doggett amendment precludes enactment of tax cuts before the budget is actually in balance. The House should be given the opportunity to vote on these amendments. If we defeat the previous question, the House will ensure that we will have full and fair debate on the balanced budget. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to defeat the previous question. I include for the Record the amendment I would offer to the rule if the previous question is defeated. The amendment would make in order two additional amendments to the budget agreement by Representatives Minge and Doggett. Both these amendments are attempts to ensure that a balanced budget plan actually achieves balance. The Minge substitute includes enforcement provisions to force the Congress to stay on course over the next 5 years. The Doggett amendment precludes enactment of tax cuts before the budget is actually in balance. The House should be given the opportunity to vote on these amendments. If we defeat the previous question, the House will ensure that we will have full and fair debate on the balanced budget.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I gather that the various factions on the other side of the aisle have now come to a resolution and have decided that the Minge amendment will not be made in order under this rule. So we are now proceeding to the consideration of the rule as originally presented to this body. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].

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 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.