Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that every Member of this House, whether or not they are supporting this bill, should be concerned that we are about to cast a vote on a major piece of legislation that only a small handful of House Members have read. This conference report is over 1,000 pages long. I cannot understand why the Republican majority is insisting that this conference report be voted on today when its provisions could have such a direct impact on energy securities of the United States and Members have not been given an adequate opportunity to read and digest its contents. Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House give Members 3 days to read a conference report after it is filed. Clause 8(a)(1)(a) of rule XXII states that ``it shall not be in order to consider a conference report until the third calendar day on which the conference report and the accompanying joint explanatory statement have been made available to Members in the Congressional Record.'' Those who are insisting that the House proceed with all due haste will argue that the text has been on the Web site of the Committee on Ways and Means since this weekend, late Saturday night to be exact. Mr. Speaker, what was posted Saturday night was not the final version of the agreement and the statement of managers was not included. A fine point, perhaps, but an important one. The wholesale denial of the rights of Members to know what they are voting on is something Republicans complained of bitterly when they were in the minority. Well, I would argue that the Republicans might have been crying wolf because now that they have controlled this Chamber for nearly 9 years, they seem to have completely forgotten what they once said. So in an attempt to remedy the wrong they have complained of in the past and that they are now so eager to perpetrate, I am asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so this rule can be amended to give each Member the opportunity to find out what is in a bill that is written in closed meetings and secret places. That is only fair, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment at this point in the Record.

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 demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for all of my 25 years in this Congress, I have worked to strengthen America's military and to increase our national security. Like other defense proponents on both sides of the aisle, I have bent over backwards to put politics aside and work together to support America's men and women in uniform. For instance, nearly 18 months ago, I introduced the Citizenship for America's Troops Act, a bill to help U.S. troops who are legal immigrants by easing the costly and burdensome obstacles that they face in the current citizenship process. Working with Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate, a good compromise was finally reached, one that is in this defense authorization conference report. It is not perfect, but it does provide much-needed relief to the more than 37,000 patriotic legal immigrants on active duty in the U.S. military, brave men and women who have been fighting and dying for a country in which they could not even vote. This kind of cooperation and bipartisanship approach, Mr. Speaker, is fundamental to our efforts to keep America's military strong, especially at a time when so many Americans are losing faith in President Bush's ability to win the peace in Iraq. While this conference report offers much to be proud of, Mr. Speaker, like the military pay raise and health care benefits for the National Guard and Reserves that Democrats have fought for, it also demonstrates how bipartisanship is becoming increasingly rare under this all- Republican government. During the conference committee negotiations on this bill, Republican leaders shut out Democrats, including the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), on some key areas of the conference. And the gentleman from Missouri will speak about those in more length. This is part of a clear and dangerous pattern by Republican leaders. We have seen it on the energy bill, the Medicare bill, and the FAA bill; but it is extraordinarily disappointing to see America's national defense policy treated in such a partisan manner. Moreover, the conference report itself contains several provisions where Republican idealogy clearly trumped solid national defense policy. In the interest of time, I am going to just mention three examples. First, why will President Bush and the Republicans not listen to the veterans and Democrats who are fighting to repeal the disabled veterans tax? Right now it penalizes nearly 560,000 disabled veterans, denying them $3 billion in military retirement benefits each year. As the American Legion has said, Mr. Speaker, the right thing to do is repeal the tax for all service-disabled military retirees. Democrats have proposed a plan to do that; but Republicans, led by President Bush, continue to block it. In fact, in this bill, Republicans refuse to help almost 70 percent of those disabled veterans, Mr. Speaker. So when Republican Members are at home for Veterans' Day celebrations next week, I hope they will be honest with the people about the provisions in this bill which provide only partial relief to only a fraction of America's disabled veterans. I hope they will explain that they did not think they could afford to restore military retirement benefits to 390,000 disabled veterans because they spent so much of the U.S. Treasury on tax breaks for the wealthiest few. Second, does anyone really believe that national security requires that we gut landmark environmental protections? Of course not. But rolling back America's environmental protections is a Republican priority. So Republicans stuck into this bill provisions that attack the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. And, third, is it really necessary to weaken the workplace protections of 746,000 patriotic Americans employed at the Pentagon, the same people who responded so courageously to the September 11 attack on that building? And is it really necessary to eliminate the rules prohibiting patronage at the Pentagon? Of course not. But gutting important worker rights is another key Republican priority, and they are shamefully using this national defense bill to do it. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, there are some areas of this conference report where bipartisanship and sound defense policy have prevailed. These include the substantial quality-of-life improvements that Democrats have fought for. Those include a 4.1 percent increase in basic pay for all members of the Armed Forces, plus targeted increases for mid-grade and senior noncommissioned officers and select warrant officers to enhance retention. And they also include an increase in imminent-danger pay and the family separation allowance for U.S. troops serving in harm's way. The conference report also builds on our efforts to support the National Guard and Reserves, who bear more and more of the burden of defending America at home and abroad. For instance, it ensures that when the Ready Reserves serve in areas where those on active duty get hazardous duty pay, they will too. And if members of the Ready Reserve cannot get health insurance through their employer, it gives them access to the same TRICARE system that serves the military. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the conference report includes my own legislation to make life easier for the Guard and Reserves, both active duty and retirees, and their families, by allowing them unlimited access to commissaries. They and their families are making great sacrifices for this Nation and they deserve our support. Finally, the bill continues to make important investments in the wide range of weapons that ensure America's military superiority throughout the world. It includes full funding of $4.4 billion for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the next generation multirole fighter of the future for the Air Force and the Navy and the Marines. It fully funds the F/A-22 Raptor aircraft, the high-technology air dominance fighter for the Air Force, by providing $3.5 billion for 22 planes, and it includes the full $1.2 billion needed for the V-22 Osprey aircraft. Mr. Speaker, all these important prodefense provisions have strong bipartisan support. They reflect the long-standing commitment of Democrats and Republicans to work together to ensure the U.S. military has the resources it needs. That is the type of bipartisanship and cooperation that our national security policy requires. It builds strong public support for a U.S. foreign policy here at home and ensures our troops have the resources they need to do the dangerous job we ask of them. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, Republican leaders seem to have forgotten these lessons. And the President too often ignored them in the run-up to the war in Iraq, which is a big reason it will be so hard to restore President Bush's credibility and the public's confidence in his ability to win the peace in Iraq. The American people deserve better than that, and so do our troops in the field. I urge my Republican friends to remember that, especially as U.S. troops and U.S. taxpayers continue to shoulder almost the entire burden for rebuilding Iraq. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member on the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would only point out to the previous speaker and to speakers on the other side that if the Republicans in the House were willing to forego a little bit of the tax cuts for the wealthy, we could fully fund concurrent receipts, rather than just partially funding concurrent receipts. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this rule and adoption of this conference report. 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. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I voted for the U.S. military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power. I support the American troops and civilians who are now in Iraq doing the dangerous job of rebuilding that nation. And I expect to vote for President Bush's $87 billion supplemental for the supplemental foreign aid package for Iraq even though it still does too little for the U.S. troops and asks too much of U.S. taxpayers. But this martial law rule is the perfect example of what is wrong with the approach the Bush administration and the Republican leadership of this Congress have taken to rebuilding Iraq. Instead of being honest with the American people about the dangers and difficulties of nation- building in Iraq, they keep trying to sweep it all under the rug. Earlier this week we had the literally unbelievable scene of President Bush trying to spin the public into believing that sophisticated and deadly terrorist attacks in Iraq actually demonstrate ``progress'' in Iraq. A similar thing is happening on the House floor today, Mr. Speaker. Instead of being open with the public, the President and the Members of this House, Republican leaders, want to waive the House rules so that no one has time to actually read the text of this $87 billion foreign aid package. Make no mistake, this is exactly what this ``martial law'' rule does. It is simply a procedural way to get around the House rule that would otherwise guarantee everyone one legislative day to examine this massive expenditure of American taxpayers' money. Of course, Republican leaders long ago made secrecy a key component of this strategy for running the House of Representatives. This martial law is the 8th time this year that Republicans have waived the House rules to rush legislation through the House. In the last Congress they did it 27 times. But their secretive approach to this $87 billion foreign aid package poses an even greater danger. That is because President Bush and his administration have already developed a dangerous credibility problem on Iraq, a credibility gap that threatens to undermine our ability to win the peace. For too long they have treated nation-building in Iraq as some sort of political campaign, relying on spin, sophistry, and stagecraft to hide from the public the true magnitude of the dangerous and difficult job before us. Mr. Speaker, the American people are smarter than that. They cannot be spun by President Bush and they cannot be kept in the dark by this Republican Congress. They know that more than 120 Americans have died in Iraq since President Bush's carefully choreographed PR event to declare victory on an aircraft carrier. They know that they have already spent billions of dollars on Iraq, and the United States already has a massive debt of its own, one that will raise the debt tax on every American. They remember being told before the war that Iraq is an oil-rich Nation that could pay for its own reconstruction. That is why the process surrounding this supplemental spending bill has been so controversial and why so many Members who support President Bush's nation-building project may refuse to vote for it until he finally presents to the American people a credible plan to win the peace in Iraq. It is also a big part of the reason that we have been losing the relatively meager international assistance we have had so far, with the Red Cross and the United Nations scaling back their presence in Iraq. And it is where so many Americans have such sincere doubts about this effort with nearly a majority of Republicans wanting to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq, according to a Gallup Poll this week. Mr. Speaker, more secrecy from the Republican Congress will only make the Bush administration's credibility gap worse. It will only make it more difficult to maintain public support for the important job of winning the peace in Iraq. Take, for example, the issue of accountability. American taxpayers have already given the Bush administration $79 billion to spend on Iraq. So when the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) came before the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) asked him whether he knew what had become of the previous $79 billion. He answered, ``I would like to tell you that I do, but if I did I would not be telling the truth.'' If the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations does not know, then presumedly no other Member of Congress has any idea where that $79 billion has gone. So during the conference an amendment was adopted to create an office of the inspector general to find out where the money is going in Iraq. Now, however, we find out that the conference report has been changed to give President Bush the power to muzzle the inspector general whenever he might have some bad news to report, which very likely means that the public will never see a report from the new inspector general that contradicts the Bush administration's PR campaign. So this $87 billion package may disappear into the same black hole that swallowed up the first $79 billion. Mr. Speaker, we should be giving the public more time to examine this massive $87 billion package, not rushing it through before anyone can read it. That is why I urge Members to oppose this martial law rule. That way the Congress can try to begin repairing President Bush's credibility problem on Iraq. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman if he has any additional speakers.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. At this point I am prepared to yield back the balance of my time. Before I do so, I urge my colleagues to vote no on martial law, no matter how they may vote on the supplemental, and I personally intend to vote in favor of the supplemental, but I am objecting to this procedure under which it is brought to the floor tonight. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.