Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question and on the rule. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will make in order the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), which the Committee on Rules defeated on a straight party-line vote early this morning and for which unanimous consent was just denied. Mr. Speaker, this is the second year in a row the Republican leadership has chosen to throw away the long-standing tradition of bipartisan cooperation in shaping our national defense policies. Nearly 100 amendments, most of them by Democratic Members, were shut out of the rule, including the Spratt amendment. It is a very sad day for the American people and particularly for those serving in the military. Partisan politics have absolutely no place when it comes to protecting the brave American men and women who are serving in our military in harm's way. The Spratt amendment would provide $300 million additional dollars to give well-deserved pay raises to the sergeants and warrant officers who train and lead enlisted personnel. His amendment also guarantees military personnel serving in combat zones will have life insurance. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and extraneous materials be inserted in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and a ``no'' vote on the rule.

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

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

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott) for a brief personal privilege matter. (By unanimous consent, Mr. Scott of Georgia was allowed to speak out of order.) Mourning the Passing of Gloria Aaron

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 am pleased to join the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) today in support of H.R. 4275, legislation to make the expanded 10 percent tax bracket permanent. In my district in north Texas and across America, scores of families work hard every day to make ends meet. By passing this bill, we will provide some much-needed tax relief to these hardworking Americans. But I must admit, Mr. Speaker, I find it very odd that some Members of this House would champion the tax relief bill before us today when they have also at nearly every opportunity voted against other measures that would have provided significant economic benefits to a great many middle-class taxpayers. I am talking about measures like providing additional tax relief by reinstating the State sales tax deduction and ensuring overtime pay for America's police and firefighters. I think it is important to consider these sorts of measures now, Mr. Speaker, because many of our constituents are suffering from the recent recession and the outsourcing of good American jobs overseas. Do not get me wrong, Mr. Speaker, we all want to provide tax relief to our constituents. I voted last week in favor of the bill to provide relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax. I voted the week before to permanently eliminate the marriage tax penalty, and I will vote today to make the expanded tax bracket permanent. The bill on the floor today is a good bill and it is the very least we can do to help families in the country, but I think the American people deserve better than our least effort. Others may be happy to limit our efforts to help American families to this bill, but I am not, Mr. Speaker. We can improve this bill by amending the rule to allow for the consideration of H.R. 720, a bill introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady). His bill will reinstate the sales tax deduction so that citizens of States without income taxes may deduct their sales taxes from their Federal tax bill. This is a very important issue for many Americans, including my constituents in North Texas who do not pay a State income tax but have been plagued by high sales taxes which may rise even higher if some in the Texas legislature have their way. Our State comptroller has estimated that the average Texas family would save about $300 a year on their Federal taxes under the bill offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady). Last week, I attempted to bring a similar measure up for consideration, but that effort was defeated on a straight party-line vote. This is a bipartisan issue, Mr. Speaker, and I want to give the entire House an opportunity to vote on a bipartisan bill. H.R. 720 has 78 cosponsors, 47 Republicans and 31 Democrats. I have cosponsored the bill, the gentleman from Texas who is managing today's rule on the other side of the aisle has cosponsored the bill, and dozens of other well-respected Members from both parties have cosponsored the bill. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership indicated last week that they too support this bill. So why do we not vote on it? Is this about politics, or is it about tax relief? Last week, Republicans defeated my amendment and said it was about politics. Well, here is a Republican bill that has strong bipartisan support and will provide millions of families with $300 a year in tax relief. The American people deserve to find out today whether the majority party will put partisan politics aside for just a minute to pass this badly needed tax relief. I bet our constituents just cannot wait to see how their elected Representatives will vote on this issue. In the coming weeks, I hope we will have more opportunities to help more families. But in the meantime, if Members are serious about helping their constituents, they will not only vote to extend the 10 percent tax bracket permanently, they will also vote today to defeat the previous question and allow us to consider H.R. 720, to reinstate the sales tax deduction. It is a Republican bill with Democratic support. As my colleagues realize, a no vote will be a vote against tax cuts. Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to insert several things in the Record. I am inserting a special report from Carole Keeton Rylander, the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. In this report she says, ``Restoration of the IRS sales tax deduction should be one of Texas' main priorities in Congress. The current discriminatory treatment of Texas taxpayers is taking $701 million out of Texas pockets and costing our State more than 16,000 jobs.'' I would also at this point, Mr. Speaker, insert in the record a statement by my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), that he presented when he introduced this legislation. ``Washington should treat all States equally,'' Mr. Brady says. ``A broad bipartisan group pushes Congress to end bias against sales tax States.'' [Special Report, March 2002] Restoration of the IRS Sales Tax Deduction Should Be One of Texas' Main Priorities in Congress (By Carole Keeton Rylander) Currently, the citizens of Texas and eight other states are discriminated against because they cannot take any tax deduction comparable to the state and local income tax deductions enjoyed by the citizens of 41 other states and the District of Columbia. In an attempt to alleviate this disparity, Comptroller Rylander proposes to restore much of the federal sales and motor vehicle sales tax deductions that citizens of Texas were last able to itemize on their federal income tax returns for the 1986 tax year. The Comptroller's plan would grant taxpayers in all states the option of deducting either their state and local sales and motor vehicle sales taxes or their state and local individual income taxes on their Form 1040. While such an option would not fully restore the original deduction, which allowed deductions for sales as well as income taxes, it would go a long way to restoring fundamental equity for taxpayers in those states that no not impose income taxes on their residents, and at minimal cost to the federal budget. There is already legislation before Congress that closely tracks the Comptroller's plan. Last year, Representative Brian Baird (D-Washington) introduced H.R. 322, and Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tennessee) introduced a similar bill, S. 291, in the Senate. Both bills would grant taxpayers in all states the option of itemizing a deduction for either their sales (including motor vehicle sales) taxes or income taxes paid, but not for both. Both bills would limit the deduction to a specific amount prescribed in a table (individualized for each state) providing deductible amounts by family size and income group. Taxpayers, however, would not have the option of deducting actual taxes paid, as they had in 1986 and before. The main difference between the bills is that H.R. 322 refers to state sales taxes, while S. 291 refers to state and local sales taxes. The Senate version also would allow the deduction against the Alternative Minimum Tax. H.R. 322 boasts among its 58 co-sponsors 18 Texans; S. 291 is co- sponsored by both Texas senators. Texans lost their sales tax deductions in the last-minute deal-making behind the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Before passage of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA86), all individuals were allowed to take separate income tax deductions for their payments of state and local sales taxes and motor vehicle sales taxes. For the sales tax, they were allowed to deduct either the actual amount paid, or they could use an optional sales tax table that provided deductible amounts for each state (based on its rate and base) by income group and family size. For example, a family of four with an income of $33,000 was allowed to deduct $306 in state sales taxes in Texas, but $508 in Tennessee; and in both instances, taxpayers were allowed to include an additional amount for local taxes paid. TRA86 was designed to simplify the federal income tax by eliminating many deductions, exemptions and credits while increasing personal exemptions and standard deductions and lowering and compressing tax rates. The deduction of state and local sales taxes was one of the last (and most contentious) items considered by the Senate, but the final efforts to restore at least some vestige of the deduction, led in part by Sen. Phil Gramm, ultimately failed. The argument put forth by members from the states that retained their state and local income tax deduction was that the losses attributable to the repeal of the sales tax deduction would be more than made up for by the increased personal exemption, and that the sales tax deduction only benefited the rich, because lower-income groups are less likely to itemize. The Comptroller's plan could be put in place for less than 1 percent of the costs of existing state and local tax deductions. The March 26, 2001 cost estimate provided by the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that H.R. 322 would decrease federal receipts by $23.1 billion over the 10-year period 2002-2011. The annual costs were expected to average $2.0 billion for the first three years, rising incrementally thereafter. Putting the federal cost in perspective, the 1999 cost for the current deduction for state and local income and property taxes was $268.9 billion. As such, reinstatement would produce an increased cost to the federal government of 0.8 percent. The Comptroller's plan could be put in place with virtually no increase in complexity. Although the sales tax deductions were eliminated in part for reasons of tax simplification, the proposed legislation before Congress would add only one more line to Schedule A, for those taxpayers electing to itemize on their Form 1040. Even if actual taxes paid were allowed to be deducted there would be an addition of only two lines: one for general sales taxes paid, and one for motor vehicle sales taxes paid. Equity and fairness demand that tax discrimination against Texans be eliminated. Reinstatement of the deduction for sales taxes would eliminate the fundamental disparity created by TRA86, when citizens in states with a personal income tax were permitted to deduct such taxes, but citizens in states without an income tax had no corresponding deduction. The net effect of this disparity is that Texans, as well as the citizens of the eight other states without a general individual income tax pay a greater percentage of taxes to the federal government than do citizens living in their neighboring states with income taxes. In other words, the federal tax law currently treats the same individual differently solely on the basis of residence. Providing individuals in all states the choice to deduct one or the other of their sales or income taxes would restore equity and fairness for all U.S. citizens at minimal cost. The Comptroller's plan would put more money in Texans' pockets. As with everything else in the IRS Code, the devil is in the details, and even subtle differences in proposed legislation can have major revenue implications, making any revenue estimates of the ultimate legislation difficult. Assuming that the federal legislation fairly and accurately portrayed Texans' sales tax and motor vehicle sales tax payments, restoration of the sales tax deduction could be expected to save Texans--in the aggregate--on the order of $568.7 million (if only state sales taxes were exempted) to $701.3 million (if state and local sales taxes were exempted) in the 2002 Tax Year. The corresponding average savings per itemizing Texas household would be $231 and $284. While the deduction only would go to taxpayers who itemized their deductions, more Texans at lower income levels would find it to their benefit to itemize. Right now, only one in five tax returns filed by Texans itemizes deductions, compared to almost one in three nationwide. The chief reason for this is that citizens of 41 states and the District of Columbia enjoy a deduction that is not available to Texans. Restoration of the deduction for sales taxes paid would go a long way towards bringing Texas closer to the national average. In other words, the availability of the deduction would benefit not only those who currently itemize, but an additional number of slightly lower-income households that would find it to their benefit to itemize. The Comptroller's plan would create more jobs, economic growth, and state tax receipts with absolutely no state tax or spending increase. Keeping as much as $701.3 million in the hands of Texas taxpayers would provide a significant boost to the state economy. Assuming that the legislation passed this year and that the deduction could be taken on income taxes filed in 2003 for the 2002 Tax Year, the tax savings could be expected to generate 16,180 new Texas jobs, $590 million in new Texas investment, and $874 million in increased Texas Gross State Product in 2003. The increased economic activity in turn could be expected to boost general revenue by $66.5 million in the three-year period 2003-05. Most of this revenue would come from increased sales and motor vehicle sales tax collections. The Comptroller's plan promises a win-win situation for all Texans, even those who do not itemize. To the extent that keeping more Texas income in Texas, where it belongs, instead of sending it off to Washington, all Texans would benefit from the increased employment opportunities and investment. In fact, it is difficult to find a downside for Texas to the reinstatement of the sales tax deduction. The Comptroller's plan would be a straight-up win for the state, a victory for tax equity among the states, and it would provide a desirable, welcome boost to restoring statewide economic and revenue growth. salient features Legislation tracking the Comptroller's plan would cost the federal government somewhere between $2.0 to $2.5 billion per year--less than 1 percent of the $268.9 billion 1999 deduction for state and local income and property taxes. Texans would save as much as $701 million, or $284 per itemizing household on their 2002 taxes. The estimated tax savings would be expected to generate 16,180 new Texas jobs, $590 million in new Texas investment, and $874 million in increased Gross State Product in 2003. The increased economic activity could be expected to boost 2003-04 general revenue-related state tax receipts for the three-year period 2003-05 by $66.5 million. Assuming that the federal legislation fairly and accurately portrayed Texans' sales tax and motor vehicle sales tax payments, a family of four with an income of $60,000 would be able to deduct an additional $1,015 to calculate taxable income, and a single mother of one with a total income of $35,000 could deduct an additional $641. The current system discriminates against Texans and the citizens of other states that have opted to finance their budgets without personal income taxes. The Comptroller's plan is necessary to restore fairness and equity in the treatment of those state taxpayers who currently do not benefit from the tax deductions enjoyed by the citizens of the other 41 states and the District of Columbia.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, my colleague from Texas talks about the legislation and, well, we will do that in all due time and all due course, in terms of the righting of the wrong that was committed 18 years ago. The sales tax deduction for my State and for six other States, it is not 17, it is 7, was eliminated by this Congress in 1986, 18 years ago. Only a few bills come out of the Committee on Ways and Means, only a few favored bills, so we have to take the opportunity to present this very important piece of legislation on the floor today and to give the House an opportunity to vote to right this wrong on the question of the deductibility of State sales tax. There are no other opportunities to present this to the House. That is why we are presenting it today. I hope that the House will give us the opportunity to right that wrong. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have a good piece of legislation before us today that I intend to support. I think most Members of the House will support it. My only request is that, at the same time, we provide equity and justice to the residents of seven States who were denied that equity and justice in 1986. Now, I know my colleague is a relatively junior Member and was not here in 1986 when that legislation was voted on, but I was here, and I voted against the legislation that denied the residents of my State the opportunity to deduct their sales tax, when residents of New York and California and other States could deduct their State income tax. I feel very strongly about this issue, Mr. Speaker. As Members of this House, we can do so much to lend a helping hand to our constituents. Today we have a chance to do something good for millions of American families. We can pass the bill to make the extended 10 percent tax bracket permanent, and then we can also immediately consider the Brady legislation, H.R. 720, to restore the sales tax deduction for citizens of Texas, Florida and other States lacking a State income tax. Now, as I mentioned earlier, last week I attempted to bring to the floor a similar bill to reinstate the sales tax deduction, but the Republican leadership indicated a preference for the Brady bill. So now we have a chance to consider the legislation that Republicans preferred. It does not matter to me which bill we consider. This is a bipartisan issue, with wide support on both sides of the aisle. I just want to get it done. So today, Mr. Speaker, to get it done, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to vote on H.R. 720. Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. Voting ``no'' on the previous question will not prevent this House from voting on the underlying bill. It will simply allow for the consideration of H.R. 720. A ``yes'' vote, however, will deny the House the chance to even consider the issue of reinstating the sales tax deduction. The American people deserve to know where their elected representatives stand on the issue of restoring the sales tax deduction. This is not a partisan issue, and this is not a political issue. This is about whether the citizens of Texas and other States should have to pay for the privilege of living there. I hope Members realize it today, and I hope their votes reflect this as well. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Congressional Record immediately before the vote.

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. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time. The alternative minimum tax was originally intended to provide fairness for all taxpayers by requiring wealthy individuals to pay their fair share of taxes. Unfortunately, the alternative minimum tax is affecting more and more middle-class families. Middle-class families clearly should not be subject to the AMT, and I am glad we are looking at solutions to end this unfairness today. But there is another tax issue that affects millions of Americans and that I think deserves the chance to be debated today, the issue of State sales tax deductibility. Since the sales tax deduction was eliminated in 1986, citizens from States that do not have State income taxes, such as my home State of Texas, have been unfairly punished. While taxpayers living in States that impose an income tax are entitled to deduct their State income taxes from their Federal tax bill, those living in States without income taxes do not receive an equivalent deduction for the sales tax. The result is that citizens of States like Texas, Florida, Washington State, and Tennessee are paying more to the IRS than are citizens of other States. I do not think this is fair, Mr. Speaker. All taxpayers should be treated equally regardless of their State's tax system. A number of Members from both sides of the aisle have introduced measures to reinstate the sales tax deduction, and I think it is high time that this House consider their proposals. Last night in the Committee on Rules, I offered an amendment to the rule brought forth by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird). His amendment would restore fairness to the Federal tax system by allowing taxpayers who have no State income taxes to instead deduct their State and local sales taxes. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee majority defeated my amendment. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is right. This House has debated dozens of other tax bills, but the Republican leadership will not allow this House to debate an issue that penalizes millions of American taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, this is not a partisan issue. It is a matter of fairness. If this House is to be presented the tax bill of the week for the foreseeable future, I cannot understand why the Republican leadership will not allow the House to even consider an issue that will provide equity for the people of my State and six others. I think the American people deserve a full and honest debate on this matter. Consequently, so that the House might be allowed to consider the sales tax deduction, we will attempt to defeat the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, we will offer an amendment to the rule allowing for the consideration of the gentleman from Washington's proposal to reinstate the State sales tax deduction for those States that do not have a State income tax. This may well be the only chance Members have to take a stand on this issue. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that this House may consider reinstating the sales tax deduction and so our constituents know where we stand on the issue of reinstating this deduction.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate Israel Independence Day on the 56th Anniversary of its birth as a state. As Americans, we all take great pride in the founding of our country. The birth of Israel also serves as a sense of pride--not only to the people of Israel, but also to Jewish people throughout the world. Almost every day, we receive news of Israelis falling victim to terrorism and tragedy, yet every day, Israel stands as a symbol not just of the Jewish faith, but of freedom loving people who have the courage, even today, to live in danger, fight for freedom and work for peace. While Israel and America were founded in different centuries, a world away from each other, both countries share similar values which provide a foundation for a strong society. These values are rooted in educating our children, keeping our families healthy, and protecting our citizens from harm. I applaud Israel for all it has accomplished throughout the past 56 years. It has weathered war and terrorism, and yet it still remains a democratic state committed to improving the quality of life for all its citizens. The commitment to serve its people is the mark of a great country, because only when a state wants its citizens to succeed, will it too succeed. In its short but rich history, Israel has proven its success by this unwavering dedication. Mr. Speaker, it is with honor and respect of Israel's great history, that I congratulate the country for its successes, and look forward to a long-lasting relationship between our two countries, based on our shared values.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Lions Club International founder, Melvin Jones, for his legacy of volunteerism and community service. Melvin Jones was born on January 13, 1879 at Fort Thomas, Arizona, and passed away on June 1, 1961 at the age of 82. He founded the Association of Lions Clubs in 1917, the same year they held their national convention in Dallas, TX. Melvin Jones abandoned his job at an insurance agency to devote himself full time to the Lions. He was a dedicated individual who gave back to his community and worked hard to improve the lives of others. Melvin Jones had a vision for the Lions to expand their focus to help meet the ever-increasing needs of our global community. Today, Lions International has over 1.4 million members in over 170 countries worldwide. As a proud member of the Oak Cliff Lions Club in Dallas, TX, I am pleased to celebrate their 75th anniversary and salute each member who graciously gives their time, skills and resources for our communities and internationally. As global members, Lions provide immediate and sustained relief in time of disaster and offer long-term assistance to those in need. Lions International has raised millions of dollars for various charitable causes, including sight conservation, diabetes awareness and cancer research. For over 85 years, Lions International has benefited countless persons by fulfilling the mission set out by Melvin Jones in the association's motto: ``We Serve.'' Mr. Speaker, and I am pleased to honor the service and commitment Melvin Jones made to build a brighter future for our country, and I know my colleagues will join me today in recognizing his valuable contributions.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Dallas Senior CPL Verna L. Durden for her years of service and commitment to the Dallas community as a Dallas Police officer. CPL Verna L. Durden, who retired last month after 36 years of dedicated service, began her career with the Dallas Police Department during an evolving era. She became the second African American woman on the Dallas Police force in 1972, a time period when women on the force were still required to wear dresses and high heels. In 1979, she swore in Police Chief Glen D. King, becoming the first woman in the nation to perform this important duty. During her 36-year tenure, CPL Verna Durden swore in over 4,000 Dallas police officers, earned 68 commendations, and received four certificates of merit. Corporal Durden, who has fought her own personal battle with cancer, plans to continue serving her community through volunteer work with the American Cancer Society. CPL Verna Durden's personal qualities and pioneering career has set an example for young women throughout the Dallas community to follow. Mr. Speaker, I honor CPL Verna L. Durden for her years of commitment and continuing contributions to the Dallas community.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Ron Anderson, president and chief executive officer of Parkland Health & Hospital System in Dallas, Texas, for receiving the American Hospital Association's 2004 Award of Honor. During his tenure with Parkland Hospital in Dallas, Dr. Anderson has displayed outstanding leadership capabilities through his exemplary efforts to serve the health care needs of a densely populated city. As a result of Dr. Anderson's dedication and strong commitment to improving health policies and social initiatives, Parkland Hospital has gained the respect and praise as a national model for all public hospitals around the country. As a devoted doctor, Dr. Anderson strives to improve the quality of care every patient receives when they go to Parkland Hospital. Through his tireless efforts to revolutionize Parkland Hospital in Dallas, and his passion for medicine, Dr. Anderson is well deserving of the American Hospital Association's 2004 Award of Honor. He deserves special recognition and praise for his direction and hard work. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate Dr. Anderson on his prestigious award and his significant accomplishment. Parkland Health & Hospital System in Dallas has greatly benefited from the dedication and leadership skills Dr. Anderson has shown as president and CEO. I know my colleagues will join me today in honoring Dr. Anderson, as we wish him continued success in his future endeavors.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mrs. Lyndon ``Lady Bird'' Johnson, Texas' first First Lady, who has impacted the lives of many with her selfless contributions. Mrs. Lady Bird Johnson has created a living legacy through her tireless efforts throughout her lifetime. During her years in the White House, Mrs. Johnson was an important advisor to her husband, and a passionate advocate for numerous causes. She served as honorary chairman of the National Head Start Program. She also devoted her time as First Lady advancing the cause of women in government, holding special luncheons for women of achievement, and suggesting women for top official posts. While in Washington, she promoted the growth and protection of the country's national parks, and the planting of wildflowers on the nation's highways. Upon returning to Texas, she established the National Wildflower Research Center in Austin. In 1998, its name was changed to ``The Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Research Center,'' as a tribute to her ardent devotion to the preservation of the nation's wildlife. In honor of her many contributions to society Mrs. Johnson has received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award from the United States. Mrs. Lady Bird Johnson is soon to be honored by the Bluebonnet Trails Community Mental Health and Mental Retardation Center for her assistance in the public health sector. Her passionate support for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the legislation creating Medicare and Medicaid, and the Community Health Centers Act of 1965 created a solid foundation for our nation's public health system. Mr. Speaker, I honor Mrs. Lady Bird Johnson for her years of commitment and continuing contributions to people, places and beliefs of this nation.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the late Viola Pitts, an African American leader who made a tremendous impact in the lives of many throughout the North Texas community. Mrs. Viola Pitts, a native born Texan, spent the vast majority of her life in the heart of Como, a historically black neighborhood in west Fort Worth. Her vigorous efforts to strengthen the voter turn out amongst African Americans, earned her the title of ``unofficial mayor of Como.'' Mrs. Pitts' determination, tenacity and honesty earned her the respect of many top elected public officials in North Texas. Mrs. Pitts, who was never afraid to confront an issue, worked tirelessly to ensure that the Como community received proper funding for their community center, elementary school, and neighborhood streets. Her selfless contribution to the Como area were recognized and honored in 2000, when Tarrant County officials renamed the new medical clinic to JPS Health Center--Viola M. Pitts/Como. Mrs. Viola Pitts was truly a civic minded individual who helped make the Fort Worth community a better place to live by simply being active and involved. Hopefully, through her memory we can all continue to draw on these same personal qualities that so many of us have come to respect and admire. Mr. Speaker, I honor Mrs. Viola Pitts for her lifelong contributions and commitment to the residents of the Fort Worth community.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

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. (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, it has been over 2\1/2\ years since terrorists commandeered four airplanes and killed 3,000 people in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. The events of September 11, 2001, made it abundantly clear that the United States is not immune from attack. But I am deeply concerned that for most Members of the House that day did not make a deep enough impression about what might happen if this institution or its Members were successfully targeted by terrorists or other enemies of our democracy. United Flight 93 was headed here. Had it not been for the brave souls on that plane who fought the terrorists who took over their flight, this very building could have been destroyed. Had Flight 93 not been taken down in the field in Pennsylvania, a large number of Members might have been killed. On September 11, 2001, we did not have a procedure in place to reconstitute this body. And on April 22, 2004, we still lack such a plan. I am sad to say, Mr. Speaker, that the bill before us today does not give us a viable plan. And the manner in which this bill is being brought to the floor does a disservice to the very serious issue of continuity of government. The very fact that the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary has chosen to push this remedy to the exclusion of any other idea shows that the leadership of this House has chosen to make this a partisan issue. And the stability of our government and its institutions should not now, or ever, become a partisan issue. In the spring of 2001, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and I co-chaired a bipartisan working group that sought to examine the issues in play. No Member in the history of this body has ever taken the oath of office without first having been elected by the people.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) will have time. I need to finish my statement, but then I will be glad to yield.