Martin Frost

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, by passing this conference report today, Congress can finally end the 6 months of political maneuvering that have delayed my legislation to help set up a nationwide network of AMBER Alerts. The AMBER plan was named for a young girl, Amber Hagerman, who was kidnapped and murdered in Arlington, Texas, in my congressional district. Make no mistake, this conference report is not perfect. It contains some needlessly controversial provisions dealing with our criminal laws. For that reason, some Members will oppose it. The AMBER Alert Network Act, which I first introduced in the House of Representatives with the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) last year, should have been law long, long ago. It passed the Senate unanimously twice. The President made clear his support for it, and 230 Democrats and Republicans cosponsored it in the House, a clear majority. But for more than 6 months now, House Republican leaders refused to allow the House to vote on this bipartisan bill to protect America's children. And 2 weeks ago, 218 House Republicans ignored a last minute letter from the family of Elizabeth Smart and voted to support their leadership and block consideration of the stand-alone AMBER bill. Mr. Speaker, it should not have been this hard; but we can now see an end to this matter. We now are about to finally enact this very important legislation. We know the AMBER Alert system works. Since it was created in north Texas in 1997, it has helped recover 53 abducted children, five of them in the month of March alone. But it does not work where it does not exist. That is why the AMBER Alert Network Act, which this conference report includes, is so important because it will help set up a nationwide network of AMBER Alerts. Mr. Speaker, this has been a long road, and a lot of dedicated Americans have worked very hard to pass this bill. In the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson), who represents the family of Elizabeth Smart, have worked very hard. I wanted to thank the Democratic members of the Committee on the Judiciary, especially the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and the Subcommittee on Crime ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), who have been extraordinarily helpful throughout this process. I also thank my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), who joined with me to introduce the AMBER bill in the House, and of course Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison, Diane Feinstein, and Hillary Rodham Clinton have done a marvelous job leading the effort in the Senate. Outside of the Congress, much credit goes to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, to the National Association of Police Organizations, to Marc Klaas and the Polly Klaas Foundation, and to all of the organizations and individuals who worked to expand AMBER Alerts nationwide. Finally, I want to personally thank Ed Smart, who in an extraordinary statement on the eve of the safe recovery of his daughter, Elizabeth Smart, spoke directly to the American public and this Congress and urged the prompt enactment of the AMBER Alert bill. Mr. Speaker, this is long overdue. This will save children throughout the United States. I commend this legislation to this House and to the President. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Oak Cliff Lions Club. This organization has served the Oak Cliff Community faithfully and continually now for seven decades. It is with great pleasure that I congratulate them on their 70th Anniversary. I am proud to be a member of such an organization, one that promotes education, leadership, strong values, and togetherness. Lions commit themselves to improving the lives of everyone. They are always determined to help the less fortunate, whether they are thousands of miles away, or just down the street. Through the Lions Club, young people can earn scholarships to participate in both international exchanges and community outreach programs. Lions Clubs not only promote service to their communities, but to the entire world, with over 1.4 million members in 190 countries. In today's global society, Lions clubs are perhaps more important than ever before. Oak Cliff Lions are looking forward to the challenges of today and tomorrow with optimism and unwavering loyalty. Our message is simple but clear. We serve. Since Lions clubs were established, Lions have been dedicated to giving something back, and I am certain that the Oak Cliff Lions Club will continue its tradition of selfless service and pride in our great community.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members to oppose the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. The amendment will allow Members an opportunity to vote on the Obey homeland security amendment. Yesterday, Republicans on the Committee on Rules blocked this amendment. Mr. Speaker, this amendment provides desperately needed funding for the many overlooked and severely underfunded areas that threaten our national security. The amendment would add $2.5 billion, an increase of about 3 percent to the bill. The money would be used for port security, for Coast Guard activities, for infrastructure security, for water and chemical plant security, and for rail tunnel security. It provides funding for State and local response activities, including civil defense, first responders, firefighters and military Guard and Reserves. It also addresses one of our gravest security risks, nuclear security. My colleagues may remember that the President not only requested no funds for nuclear security but rejected legislation in August of 2002 that would have provided $260 million for that purpose. It is very disturbing that the Republican leadership of this House would deny Members an opportunity to vote on an amendment to protect this Nation from the risk of terrorism. This should not be a partisan issue, but they have made it that way. Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can have an opportunity to vote on the Obey amendment. A ``no'' vote will not prevent us from voting on the wartime supplemental, but it will allow us to vote to protect our Nation and our citizens here and abroad. A ``yes'' vote on the previous question will block critical homeland security resources.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and a description of the amendment immediately prior to the vote.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Every once in a while you have to connect the dots around here or it gets a little confusing. Let us connect the dots right now. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) wants an amendment to add $2.5 billion for homeland security. The other side does not want to let the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) add $2.5 billion for homeland security. Why is that? That is because the deficit goes up by another $2.5 billion, and it becomes harder and harder to justify their tax cut for the rich. This is not very complicated. The dots are connected. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

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 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California 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. Speaker, I just listened to my friend, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), and she said oh, well, this is a great open rule. Let us be very clear about what is happening here. This is not an open rule in the true sense. The Republicans waived all the Rules of the House that they could possibly waive: the Budget Act, every rule that they could waive for their own bill, for the committee bill, and then they refused to waive those same rules for the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), to bring up an amendment to the committee bill. So this is not an open process, and let us be serious about what is going on here today. Right now, Mr. Speaker, the brave men and women of the U.S. military are, once again, proving themselves to be the finest fighting force in history. On the ground, in the seas, and in the skies over Iraq, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are risking their lives to protect America and the world from the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's murderous regime. Mr. Speaker, our troops have the strong bipartisan support of this Congress and of the American people. We are all deeply proud of the courage, skill, and professionalism they are displaying under very difficult conditions, and we are committed, Republicans as well as Democrats, to ensuring that our troops have all the resources they need to complete their mission as quickly and as safely as possible. So I am pleased that this emergency spending bill is on the House floor today. The Committee on Appropriations chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each deserve credit for a bill that is generally quite strong. This bill supports our troops in the field, it protects the foreign policy prerogatives of the President, and it respects the Congress's constitutional duty to maintain responsibility for the tax dollars of the American people. Additionally, this emergency supplemental includes desperately needed assistance for the struggling airline industry. Mr. Speaker, U.S. airlines are critical to the American economy, but they were hurt severely by the September 11 attacks and by subsequent security expenses. I know this firsthand because American Airlines, which employs thousands of hardworking people in my north Texas district, has been struggling mightily, and I want to congratulate the employee unions at American for voluntarily agreeing to benefit reductions to help keep the company out of bankruptcy. But they, like the rest of the airline industry, need additional relief from the government. So I am glad that this bill provides it, and I urge the President to support it. Mr. Speaker, for all of these reasons, I expect to support this bill. But make no mistake: This bill as it is currently written still leaves America unnecessarily vulnerable to another terrorist attack. That is because Republicans continue to block critical homeland security resources for key targets like ports and nuclear facilities. Mr. Speaker, I simply cannot understand why Republicans refuse to address so many vital homeland defense needs. After all, there is no disputing the importance of these unmet homeland security requirements. The Coast Guard reports that it needs $1 billion this year alone to secure America's ports. The U.S. Fire Service found that between one- third and one-half of firefighters lack critical pieces of basic emergency equipment. And each of the armed services has submitted detailed lists of military construction projects required to ensure the security of American troops at bases here in the United States. But while Republicans ignore these vital homeland security needs, they have proven time and again that they are willing to spend money on their priorities. Unfortunately, those priorities too often turn out to be tax breaks for those who need them the least. Just last month, House Republicans voted to spend nearly $800 billion on tax breaks, but they refused to spend less than one-half of 1 percent of that amount, $250 million, for a critical program to protect our ports against terrorists. Mr. Speaker, Democrats have repeatedly tried to force Republicans to address America's homeland defense. In the Committee on Rules last night, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) offered an amendment to provide $2.5 billion for homeland security requirements that Republicans have refused to address. But Republicans on the Committee on Rules blocked the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). The Republican leadership is tempted, as we have already heard, to tell us that they did not block the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). They may be tempted to say again that this is an open rule, and the problem is that the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin violates the House rules. Mr. Speaker, I hope the Republican leadership does not make that argument again, because that argument is dangerously disingenuous. After all, Republican leaders routinely waive the House rules for their priorities. Just last month, they were willing to waive the Budget Act to provide hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks to special interests. In this very rule, the same one that refuses to provide the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) with waivers, Republicans have waived the rules for the underlying bill. All in all, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leaders have waived the House rules on 14 of 15 rules this year. In other words, Republicans are happy to waive the House rules for special interest tax breaks and other Republican priorities, but Republican priorities do not seem to include additional money for homeland defense. Mr. Speaker, this is not just unfair and undemocratic, it is an arrogant abuse of power. Most importantly, it is an abuse of power that leaves Americans more vulnerable to terrorist attacks here at home. For that reason, Members of the House have only one way to pass the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) today: by defeating the previous question on this rule. Let me be clear: by voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members will simply be voting to allow the House to provide critical homeland security resources. They will not delay or defeat the underlying bill. We will support the troops, and I am sure that this wartime spending bill will pass with an overwhelming bipartisan majority. But by voting ``yes'' on the previous question, Members will be voting to block critical homeland security resources. There is no way around that fact, so I urge Members not to do it. Mr. Speaker, protecting America's homeland should not be a bipartisan issue. I hope my Republican friends will join Democrats in opposing the previous question so we can strengthen our defenses here at home while we provide for our troops in the field. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire about the time remaining on each side.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, does the gentlewoman have any speakers at this time?

Mr. FROST

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

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, the underlying bill, the Social Security Protection Act, is largely noncontroversial. Its main provisions would deny supplemental security income, SSI, to fugitive felons, make it easier for seniors to get a lawyer for the complicated disability application process, and reform the representative payee program so that seniors are not defrauded. I support all of these reforms, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, this bill also has one very harmful provision. A change in the government pension offset that would hurt teachers, firefighters, police officers and other public servants around the country including in my home State of Texas. Specifically, section 418 of this bill would prevent these hard-working public servants from protecting their retirement benefits from the harsh impact of the government pension offset. Mr. Speaker, this issue is somewhat complicated, but it affects thousands and thousands of dedicated teachers and other public servants. So I am going to take a minute to explain how it works. Say one was a teacher and their job has a pension plan that is not covered under Social Security. If their spouse's job pays into Social Security, then they are eligible for spousal or survivor's benefit if their spouse dies. But under current law, the government pension offset reduces or eliminates the spousal or survivor's benefits they deserve. Fortunately, there is a provision in law right now that helps some people in this situation. It allows one to protect their retirement by switching jobs at the end of their career. This ``last day exemption,'' as it is called, has helped many teachers in Texas and other States protect the Social Security benefits they deserve and that they need to retire. However, section 418 of the underlying bill would eliminate this exemption. Instead it would force teachers, police officers, firefighters, and other public servants to work 5 additional years before receiving full spousal benefits. Mr. Speaker, that is no way to treat hard-working people who have dedicated their entire lives to serving their communities and this Nation. It hurts real people, especially women and lower-income individuals. That is why it is opposed by teachers organizations like the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers. Mr. Speaker, helping teachers and other public servants is not difficult. In the Committee on Rules yesterday, Democrats offered several amendments to fix the GPO problem. One option was offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett). His amendment would protect teachers' retirement by reducing the government pension offset from two thirds to one third, and it would protect the Social Security trust fund. Unfortunately, Republicans on the Committee on Rules refused to allow the House to vote on the Doggett amendment. For that reason, I urge Members to join me in opposing the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to consider the gentleman from Texas's (Mr. Doggett) amendment. Another option, Mr. Speaker, was offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). His amendment, which will be considered on the floor today as a Democratic substitute, would simply eliminate section 418 so that teachers and other public servants can continue to protect their retirement benefits. The substitute does not affect the rest of the Social Security Protection Act. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Green amendment. That way we can support Social Security fairness for teachers, firefighters, and police officers. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, 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 consider the Doggett pension offset amendment that was voted down in the Committee on Rules yesterday. The Doggett amendment would reduce the government pension offset of Social Security spousal and survivors benefits from two-thirds to one-third of the government pension. It would hold the trust fund harmless for the cost of the benefit improvement by making annual transfers from the general funds to the Social Security Trust Fund. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the previous question immediately prior to the vote.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can help all those who are unfairly penalized in their pension benefits simply because one spouse is a government employee and one works for the private sector. Let us support those who go into public service, not punish them.

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

Mr. FROST

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.