Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and this conference report, which authorizes the programs which provide for our Nation's defense which is our common defense. In these uncertain times, which, as we all know, grow more dangerous every day, it is of vital importance that this component of our country's protection continues to be strong. Our foreign enemies--those who seek to disrupt and ultimately destroy our democratic way of life--must know of our commitment to a strong and capable military able to protect this great Nation. This conference report is a positive step in insuring that our military capability remains strong and vigilant and I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, the conferees have wisely dropped contentious social issues from this agreement, and in doing so, have taken the proper course of action in ensuring that this authorization can be signed into law by the President. While the funding levels are still significantly higher than those requested, I feel confident that this is a bill that can be signed. The increases in funding levels are not for frivolous projects, rather they provide for faster acquisition of important weapons systems which had been planned for purchase in later years. The agreement does not contain provisions from last year's vetoed bill which had required the deployment of a national missile defense system by the year 2003, nor does it contain language which might have been a violation of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. As Members know, these issues, among others, provoked a veto in 1993, and their exclusion this year certainly enhances the chance that this agreement will become law. This agreement contains provisions which will require that the U.S. Government live up to its obligations. The bill contains a 3-percent pay raise for military personnel and increases housing allowances. The agreement addresses a long and shamefully overlooked matter by authorizing the award of the Medal of Honor to African-Americans who served in World War II and who distinguished themselves by performing with gallantry above and beyond the call of duty. The agreement also contains language which will finally recognize the sacrifice and heroism of those Vietnamese nationals who participated in special operations in North Vietnam or Laos on behalf of the United States Government and who were subsequently captured and imprisoned by the Communist Vietnamese. I am particularly pleased that the conference agreement contains $1.5 billion for continued development and acquisition of six V-22 Osprey tiltroter aircraft, as well as funds for the acquisition of six additional F-16 fighters. The conference agreement includes $2 billion in funding for research and development for the next-generation tactical fighter, the F-22. Also provided is $2.4 billion for the acquisition of nine C-17 transport aircraft. All these aircraft are important components in our national defense system and the conference is to be commended for funding them in this agreement. Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule and a good bill and I urge their adoption. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell]. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson], our ambassador at large, for the purposes of engaging in a colloquy.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I cannot assure the gentleman that it will only be 2 or 3 minutes. It will not be the full time. We do have a request by the gentleman from New Mexico for a colloquy. We also have a request by the ranking member on the Committee on Commerce for the opportunity to speak. But we will move along as quickly as we can.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back 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, at the beginning of this Congress the Republican majority claimed that the House was going to consider bills under an open process. I would like to point out that 60 percent of the legislation this session has been considered under a restrictive process.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 10 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is such a bad rule for such a bad bill that even my Republican colleagues had difficulty last week when the time came to vote to report it. For the first time in my memory, and I am assured for the first time in history, the Committee on Rules has reported a rule without recommendation. This rule is so bad that the Republican leadership was forced to postpone its consideration for a week. I was under the impression that campaign finance reform had been envisioned as the centerpiece for Reform Week. But because this rule has engendered significant opposition as evidenced by the manner in which it was reported from the Rules Committee, perhaps it was postponed until a fix for the bad rule and the bad Republican bill could be pieced together. Otherwise it seems that this rule might have been in danger of losing had it been brought to the floor last week. So in an attempt to reform this so-called reform proposal, my Republican colleagues are now proposing an amendment to H.R. 3820 which will not be considered by the Committee on House Oversight nor will it be considered by the House Rules Committee and in fact it really will not be considered by the full House. The chairman of the Committee on Rules has been forced to come to the floor and offer an amendment to the rule which will self-enact significant changes in the bill authored by the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] in the hopes of passing a rule for a bill which he admits is going nowhere. But in the interest of full and open debate, I will oppose the previous question at the conclusion of the debate on this rule. I will oppose the previous question in the hopes that the rule can be changed to not just insert the changes proposed by the gentleman from California, Chairman Thomas, to his bill, but to allow any Member to offer any germane amendment to the base bill. The Thomas-Solomon amendment still does not address the significant philosophical differences expressed by the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith], by the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], and by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan]. I hope the House will vote against the previous question in order to allow debate on this important proposal offered by these three Members as well as many other Members of the House. Chairman Solomon is asking the House to adopt an amendment to the Thomas bill when the reported rule itself only allows for consideration of one other amendment, a Demoractic substitute to be offered by the gentleman from California, Mr. Farr. The House should have the opportunity to consider the Smith-Shays proposal, as well as a number of other important amendments that were presented to the Rules Committee. Chairman Solomon has offered an amendment which significantly changes the Thomas proposal. I must ask, Mr. Speaker, why is this amendment being brought to the floor with little or no consideration or debate when other amendments have been shut out? Could this amendment be a bone tossed to those Republican Members who objected to the original Thomas proposal as one that gave wealthy individuals inordinate influence in the political process? The Solomon-Thomas amendment to the Thomas bill reduces the amount of permissible individual contributions from $2,500 to $1,000, the allowable contribution under current law. PAC contributions are unchanged from the Republican bill, $2,500 per election and $5,000 per cycle. The amendment does establish an aggregate annual limit for individuals at $50,000 per year, the same as the Democratic substitute. But even if hard money contributions have been reduced from the original Thomas proposal, soft money contributions remain unlimited. Mr. Speaker, this amendment does reduce some of the difference between the Republican bill and the Democratic substitute, but there are still significant differences that are at play. The Republican bill still does not limit campaign expenditures. The Democratic substitute does, by limiting spending to $600,000 per election. In spite of these new amendments offered today, by not limiting campaign spending, the Republican bill still says there is not enough money in campaigns. The Thomas bill will still adhere to the philosophy espoused by Speaker Gingrich last fall when he told the Committee on House Oversight, ``One of the greatest myths of modern politics is that campaigns are too expensive. The political process, in fact, is underfunded.'' The Thomas amendment appears to limit the influence of wealthy contributors, but in fact, that is an illusion. The illusion becomes especially apparent when examining those provisions of the Thomas bill which require that 50.1 percent of a candidate's total fund-raising must come from in-district contributions. I am particularly troubled by this provision, since those candidates with wealthy friends who happen to live within the boundaries of the congressional district can raise virtually unlimited amounts of money, which will then be matched by PAC contributions and contributions from individuals who live outside the district. While the in-district fundraising requirement raises serious constitutional freedom of speech questions, it is also inherently unfair to those candidates who either represent areas with low-income residents or who cannot depend on wealthy individuals to up the fundraising ante for them. I fear the candidates who will be most adversely affected will be African-Americans, Hispanics, and women. I must hold suspect and I will oppose any system which systematically denies those groups access to the political process, and that is what the Thomas proposal does. I would like to elaborate on a specific example that I raised in the Rules Committee on this point. If an individual candidate happens to have two wealthy precincts in his district, and he has 100 people from those two wealthy precincts out to the local country club and they give him $2,000 each, he can raise $200,000 from 100 people in those two wealthy precincts in his district. Then he can match that with $200,000 from PAC's and from wealthy individuals who do not live in his district, thereby raising $400,000. If the challenger has a lot of small events and raises a lot of small contributions totaling $50,000 inside his district, he can then match that with $50,000 from outside his district. He will only be able to spend $100,000. The other candidate, who can raise a lot of large dollar contributions inside his district, would be able to spend $400,000, four times as much as the second candidate. What kind of reform is this? I contend that the end result of the Thomas proposal will be to distort the original purpose of campaign finance reform as well as the current calls for reform of the system. I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question to allow for free and open debate on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington State [Mrs. Smith].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just say that it is very interesting, and I appreciate the chairman of the Committee on Rules speaking in favor of an open rule on this bill, and that is exactly what I am trying to achieve. The chairman of the Committee on Rules just said, ``Well, let's let this be debated, let's vote on these issues.'' Well, that is what I am proposing, and, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I shall offer an open rule which will allow Members to offer any germane amendment to the bill. I include the text of the amendment and accompanying documents for the Record at this point in the debate: Previous Question Amendment Text--House Resolution -- for Consideration of H.R. 3820, Campaign Finance Reform Act In lieu of the amendment offered by Representative Solomon of New York insert the following: Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu thereof the following: ``That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) or rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3820) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act to reform the financing of Federal election campaigns, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Oversight. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion, except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.''

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, welfare reform is a very serious issue. There is probably not a person in this country who thinks we should leave our welfare system as it is. But there are also about a million suggestions out there as to how to fix it. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues have taken the wrong suggestions. This Gingrich welfare bill, Mr. Speaker, is tough on children, weak on work, and soft on deadbeat parents. Luckily, this rule will allow the House to vote on another, much better, bipartisan welfare bill. Mr. Speaker, the American people have said time and time again that they want us to work together. They have said that they want us to put politics aside and work for the benefits to the entire country. They have also said that they want to see fewer people on welfare and more people out there working for a living. And today, Mr. Speaker, we have a chance to give the American people what they asked for. We have a bill crafted by Republicans and Democrats alike. We have a bill President Clinton believes he can sign. And we have a bill that takes some serious steps toward helping parents find and keep work without punishing their children for their parents' poverty. And today we will have a chance to vote for either that bill or the Gingrich bill. It's question of priorities. And, on the subject of priorities, Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to remind my colleagues of something I think is very very important--when we talk about welfare, when we talk about food stamps-- we are talking about children, about 15 million American children who live in poverty in this country today. And Mr. Chairman, as far as I'm concerned this Congress has no greater responsibility than to those children. About two out of every three people on welfare is a child, Mr. Speaker. A fact that I think is too often overlooked. So when we talk about welfare, let's remember that its full name is Aid to Families With Dependent Children--and those children are depending on us to take care of them, regardless of who their parents are or whether they have a job. For that reason, this Republican welfare proposal is woefully inadequate. The Republican welfare bill will cut food stamps for families of three earning $6,250 a year. Most families with children will lose $470 a year in food stamp benefits. The Republican welfare bill will push over 1 million children into poverty. It will decrease the likelihood that poor children get the medical attention they need by failing to guarantee Medicaid eligibility. The Republican welfare bill actually weakens current law and increases Federal costs in updating child support orders. And the Republican bill has an extremely weak work program which will not help parents get jobs to support their families but will more likely leave poor children, and their parents, out in the street. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, when you think about welfare reform, remember: The majority of people on welfare are poor children who need every single bit of help this Congress and this country can give them. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of my colleagues a very special day for Sarah Brachman of Fort Worth, TX. On August 24, 1996, 13-year-old Sarah will have her Bat Mitzvah A Bat Mitzvah is a milestone event for every Jewish child at the age of 13. It marks the passage from childhood to adulthood according to the Jewish religion. During a Bat Mitzvah, the child will lead her congregation in services and will read from the Torah. While the occasion of a Bar or Bat Mitzvah is always significant, this one carries extra weight and meaning. Sarah is a child with Down syndrome who, with the support of her family and community, has studied for years in order to be able to lead her congregation's services on this momentous day. This Bat Mitzvah is a tribute to the will and perseverance of a loving child who has overcome significant handicaps to accomplish wonderful things.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority has given us a good rule for a bad bill. But Mr. Speaker, giving the House an open rule for this appropriation is essentially a meaningless gesture because, for the second year in a row, there is simply no way to fix this bill by amendment. Piecemeal amendments will not turn this sow's ear into anything but a sow's ear. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority has, in this appropriation, made a very bold statement about their priorities. For the second year in a row, the Republican majority want to cut, slash and eliminate programs that aid families, provide educational opportunity, ensure workplace safety, and protect our children's health. For the second year in a row, the Republican majority has recommended appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education which ignore the priorities of the American people: jobs, education and training, and health and safety. The Republican majority wants to cut these critical programs to balance the budget. The Republicans want to reduce the number of Head Start slots available for disadvantaged children, to cut summer youth employment, to reduce the availability of student loans and grants, and to cut the funds that make computers and links to the information superhighway available to schools throughout the Nation. Mr. Speaker, I want to balance the budget, but I do not want to do it on the backs of working families and school kids. But the Republican majority is asking us to do just that. The majority wants to make cuts that in the short term look good on paper, but in the long term will do great harm. These cuts are not just shortsighted, Mr. Speaker, they are foolish. We cannot expect our economy to grow if our work force is undereducated. We cannot expect our businesses and industry to compete in the worldwide marketplace if our workers do not have adequate training. But, the cuts in job training in the bill will take away opportunities for displaced workers to retrain and for new workers to train for the jobs of the 21st century. Mr. Speaker, there is simply no way to fix this bill. The Appropriations Committee ranking member, Mr. Obey, stated this yesterday when the Rules Committee met to consider a rule for this appropriation. At his request, the Rules Committee has provided 2 hours of general debate so that the House can fully air the differences in priorities between the majority and the minority. This debate promises to be only a beginning of yet another long-term debate between the Republican majority in the House of Representatives and those of us who want to ensure that American priorities in jobs, education and training, and health and safety are protected. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 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.)