Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Let us be clear what is going on here. I may have misunderstood my colleague from Georgia, a member of the Committee on Rules. I think he said that I did not support the larger bill. That is not the case. I support the larger bill, the Sensenbrenner bill; and I intend to vote for it. I just want a separate vote on the stand-alone AMBER provisions so that we can do that today rather than 6 months ago, 6 months later or a year later. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, again, I have been in this House for 25 years, and I simply do not understand what the other side is doing today. It makes no sense. It is indefensible. Let this legislation come to a vote and let it come to a vote today and be sent to the President. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It was once observed many years ago in the pre-television age that there are two things that you do not want to see happen. One is the making of sausage and the other is the making of legislation. But, of course, now we see the making of legislation on television; and I would suggest that what the other side is doing today is giving sausage- making a bad name. It is very clear that this legislation could become law in the next couple of days if they would just let it go, just let us have a separate vote on it. But they are not willing to do so. My colleague from North Carolina cited the votes in the House for various provisions in this bill, other provisions. Of course those are all true, but the point is that they did not pass the Senate. They did not pass the other body. While they may be very popular in the House, that does not mean that the other body is going to take them all in one package with a little bow around them. They would not do it in the last Congress, and there is no real reason to believe they would do it anytime soon in this Congress. So all we are asking is a vote separate, a stand-alone vote just on the national AMBER network provisions which the other side, unfortunately, in this rule does not give us. Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. My amendment will provide that, immediately after the House passes the Child Abduction Prevention Act, it will take up the Senate-passed version of the AMBER Alert legislation. The Senate bill is identical to its House counterpart, H.R. 412, which has over 220 cosponsors. The Senate passed S. 121 by a unanimous vote of 92-0 on January 21 of this year. All that stands in the way of a presidential signature on this legislation is a clean vote by the House. That is what my amendment will allow us to do. I am sure most of us cannot imagine the horror of having a child kidnapped. Research has shown that most kidnapped children are killed within 3 hours of their abduction. In these terrible, terrible instances, it is absolutely crucial that information be disseminated immediately so that these children can be rescued. AMBER programs in 39 States have already been credited with saving 31 lives. It is hard to put into words the collective joy that this Nation felt 2 weeks ago when Elizabeth Smart was found alive and returned to her loving family. Let us help more families celebrate the joy of the safe return of a kidnapped child and not the sorrow of a tragic ending. Let us pass the Senate AMBER bill now and send it to the White House immediately. Let me make very clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of the Child Abduction Prevention Act. A ``no'' vote will allow the House to vote on H.R. 1104 and on S. 121 as well. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House from passing the clean AMBER bill and getting it to the President's desk as soon as possible. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment that I would offer be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for pointing out that, on an administrative basis, there is $12 million that has been set aside. Of course, this or some subsequent administration could withdraw that money, could terminate the program if it does not become permanent statutory law. We know this administration is under great budgetary pressures because of the large deficit that they have run up, and we do not want to risk someone in the administration waking up tomorrow and deciding that they cannot afford to spend this money for the AMBER Alert. So we want to put it in statutory law where they will have to spend it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). (Mr. OBERSTAR 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 am going to make a lengthy statement in just a moment, but I think it should be made clear to people who may be watching this on television, listening to this, Members listening to this in their offices or watching it, what is really going on here today. We have a noncontroversial bill, the AMBER alert bill, that was passed unanimously by the Senate both last year and this year; and we have an omnibus bill with all kinds of provisions, the AMBER alert provision being one of those that has now been reported out of the committee. While this omnibus bill passed the House in the last session, it did not pass the Senate because there are a number of provisions that the Senate finds objectionable. So what we are doing is we are holding hostage the AMBER bill, the stand-alone AMBER bill, because some Members in the other party want an omnibus crime bill with controversial provisions. If the leadership on the other side would simply let us have a separate vote on the AMBER provisions that have already passed the Senate unanimously this year, those would be passed by this House immediately and then could be sent to the President for his signature, but that is not what is being done today. What we are doing is considering an omnibus bill with AMBER as one part of it, an omnibus bill that contains some very controversial provisions that indications are the Senate will not accept. I would paraphrase something that is often said in criminal court: Justice delayed is justice denied. That is basically what is happening here today, is that we are packaging something that we know probably will not be accepted by the Senate, and even if it is accepted, it would be after a long and lengthy discussion and perhaps a conference committee. Mr. Speaker, I have been a Member of this House for 25 years, and over that time I have been disappointed with the majority leadership on more than one occasion, but I cannot recall anything as utterly indefensible as the fact that the House leadership, Republican leadership, continues to block a very simple, very noncontroversial legislation, to set up a nationwide network of AMBER alerts to help save abducted children. If that sort of obstructionism is not out of touch, then I do not know what is. Mr. Speaker, the rule for the Child Abduction Prevention Act is fine enough, fine enough that is if one is okay with politics as usual, fine enough if one is okay with delaying help to abducted children. America's children desperately need a nationwide system of AMBER alerts, and passing the Child Abduction Prevention Act through the House will not provide that anytime soon, if ever, and abducted children do not have time to wait any longer for politics as usual. Mr. Speaker, House Republican leaders have blocked the simple AMBER Alert bill for 6 long months, and I am confident they have carefully constructed talking points to confuse the issue even further today. So I want to be very clear about what the House is doing. We will be debating in a little bit two separate bills. One is the large, complicated and somewhat controversial bill this rule makes in order, the Child Abduction Prevention Act, H.R. 1104, of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner). The other bill this bill does not make in order is the simple, noncontroversial AMBER Alert Network, S. 121, which has already passed the Senate unanimously and which could become law tomorrow if Republican leaders would only allow us to vote on it today. I am not here to oppose the bill of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner). I am not trying to defeat it. That is why Democrats did not offer a substitute yesterday in the Committee on Rules. All I am asking, as I and others like Ed Smart and Marc Klass have asked for the past 6 months, is for a separate vote on a separate bill, the AMBER Alert Network Act. Why? Because the Senate has passed the simple AMBER bill unanimously; because it has 220 cosponsors in the House, a clear majority; because the President supports it; and because if Republican leaders allow the House to pass it, then it will become law and communities across the Nation will get desperately needed resources to set up and/or strengthen the AMBER Alert systems that save children's lives. Mr. Speaker, there is no valid reason that the House could not easily pass both bills, the simple AMBER Alert bill and the larger bill of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) today, but the rule only allows a vote on the bill of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and passing it through the House will not send immediate help to AMBER Alerts any more than passing bankruptcy reform last week did. Mr. Speaker, that is because the bill of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) is a large and complicated piece of legislation. It has not even been introduced in the Senate, much less passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee or the full Senate, or reconciled with the House bill in a conference committee. No one knows whether it will ever become law. That is why I tried to bring up the simple AMBER bill by unanimous consent last week, but the Republican leadership refused to allow it, and that is why I tried to amend the rule last night in the Committee on Rules to bring up both bills today on the floor, but Republicans blocked the AMBER bill as a stand-alone bill in a party- line vote last night. Mr. Speaker, this is about protecting our children. It is not about party politics; so I cannot understand why Republican leaders insist on blocking the simple, stand-alone AMBER bill passed by the Senate. But they have been doing it for 6 months, and they make plenty of arguments. Last night in the Committee on Rules, one Republican member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), called it a feel-good, do- nothing piece of legislation. Like me, he is from North Texas where the AMBER Alert was invented, so I was surprised to hear him say that. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) said that those of us arguing for a simple, stand-alone vote on the simple AMBER bill are misinformed about the impacts such a bill would have. Mr. Speaker, with due respect to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the family of Elizabeth Smart is not misinformed. That is why they wrote an open letter to the House last week stating, ``As you know, I can't express enough how our children can't wait another day for the National AMBER Alert to be signed into law by President Bush. Please, please, please, pass the stand-alone AMBER Alert legislation now. You cannot comprehend the joy and adulation of having your child return. The AMBER Alert will make this a reality for countless families. Please don't underestimate the immediacy and power of this legislation.'' Similarly, Mr. Speaker, Marc Klass, the father of Polly Klass, was not misinformed when he wrote a letter expressing support for a nationwide network of AMBER Alerts. And several Republican Members of the other body, including the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, were not misinformed when they urged the House to pass the simple stand-alone AMBER bill. Finally, the President of the United States was not misinformed when he said passing the AMBER bill is critical. All of these people are advocates for passing the simple AMBER legislation. Why? Because they understand that the AMBER Alert system works. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I did not mention them by name, but I thank the Chair. Mr. Speaker, they understand that the AMBER system works. It has helped to recover 52 abducted children, five of them in the month of March alone; but it does not work where it does not exist, and the AMBER Alert Network Act will help set up a nationwide network of AMBER Alerts. It provides 10 times the resources to communities that the President has requested for next year. But the AMBER Alert bill will never become law as long as House Republican leaders are holding it hostage. Over the past 6 months, they have proven their willingness to do just that. As a result, Mr. Speaker, there is only one way to pass the AMBER Alert Network Act through this House, by defeating the previous question today. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up S. 121, the Senate-passed stand-alone AMBER bill immediately after the House passes H.R. 1104, the Sensenbrenner bill. That way the AMBER bill can become law and we can immediately begin strengthening AMBER Alerts around the country to save abducted children. The larger bill by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) can continue through the legislative process, hopefully through the Senate, through a conference committee, and back to the House and Senate as a conference report, and maybe one day become law. But abducted children cannot wait that long. I urge Members, especially the 220 who have cosponsored the AMBER Alert Network Act, to defeat the previous question so we can vote on this bill today and begin helping abducted children. Mr. Speaker, defeating the previous question will not stop the Child Abduction Prevention Act, but it is the only way to immediately strengthen AMBER Alerts around the country. In closing, let me quote from a letter that the family of Elizabeth Smart sent to all Members of the House this morning. They write: ``Chairman Sensenbrenner's efforts on this issue are greatly appreciated, and his bill contains several worthy measures. But there is no reason the House can't vote on this bill while also passing the AMBER Alert Network Act that has been delayed for over 6 months. ``So we urge Members of the House who want to strengthen the AMBER Alert to vote `no' on the previous question today. That is the only way for the House to pass the National AMBER Alert to help protect America's children immediately. ``Our children can't afford to wait another day for the National AMBER Alert so we urge the House not to waste this opportunity to act on the legislation that has already passed the Senate twice.'' Mr. Speaker, I believe the Smart family has stated the case very clearly, so I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, Members watching this must be scratching their heads and saying what are they talking about. The stand-alone AMBER bill has already passed the Senate 92-0. It would pass this House probably unanimously. They should just have a vote on it. Why do we just not have a vote on it; they will not let us have a vote on it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

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 yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there is something in politics called having a tin ear. That means being totally oblivious to everything around you. Right now we have troops in the field, a war has begun, and we should be doing everything we can to speak with one voice and achieve national unity. Yet the Republican leadership insists at this moment in bringing to the floor one of the most partisan, divisive issues of the entire year. I question their judgment and their timing. I would hope that we would move fairly quickly today to a resolution supporting our troops in the field. Unfortunately, our Republican friends prefer to have on the floor a matter of high partisanship which will divide this Congress. Like all of my colleagues, Republicans as well as Democrats, and like the American people themselves, I fully support our troops. I hope and pray that they will accomplish their mission as quickly and safely as possible. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I have argued that we should not be considering this bill today. Republicans have offered a budget that is as partisan as it is divisive, as dishonest as it is dangerous to the country, and, at a time like this, when the United States Congress should be demonstrating its unity to the world, I fear that bringing it to the floor guarantees a divisive debate. But that is what Republican leaders have done today. And unfortunately, there is no minimizing the differences between the Democratic and Republican budgets. The Democratic budget alternatives offered by the Committee on the Budget ranking member, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), is a responsible plan to strengthen national security and restore economic growth and fiscal responsibility. It tightens Federal spending and balances the budget using honest accounting, but it still meets priorities like defense, education, and health care, and it does more for homeland security than the Republican budget does. There are two other budget alternatives offered by groups of Democrats: the Blue Dogs on one hand, and the Congressional Black Caucus and Progressive Caucus on the other. They are worthwhile, and I am glad that they are in order under this rule. The Republican budget stands in stark contrast, Mr. Speaker. The Republican budget is intellectually dishonest, morally indefensible, and just plain bad for our economy and our Nation. It explodes the deficit and raises the death tax on all Americans. It shortchanges homeland security to pay for tax breaks for millionaires, and it proves once again just how out of touch House Republicans truly are. At a time which this Nation must come together, Republicans offer a budget that will pull us apart. Simply put, the Republican budget separates Americans into two categories: winners and losers. The winners are the wealthiest few who get hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks; the losers are everyone else, the people who have to sacrifice to pay for those tax breaks for the wealthiest few. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, never have so many been asked to sacrifice for so few. Mr. Speaker, the Republican budget skimps on homeland security. It slashes priorities like education and health care. It shortchanges veterans and farmers, and it still explodes the deficits. That is because the Republican budget is a shameless work of fiction. It calls for draconian cuts, cuts in priorities like veterans' benefits, student loans, and law enforcement, and still gives massive tax breaks to the wealthiest. But it requires the tax breaks to be enacted by April 11 and gives Republicans until July 11 to make the spending cuts. Mr. Speaker, when you get your dessert before you eat your spinach, you never eat your spinach. Any American parent can tell us that, and so can anyone else who has watched the Republican budget charade drive up the deficit over the past few years. As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the foremost proponent of fiscal responsibility in this House, told us yesterday in the Committee on Rules, the tax cuts will be enacted, and the spending cuts will be abandoned, and the deficit will continue to explode. Why are Republicans foisting this dangerous budget on America and on our economy? Mr. Speaker, for one simple reason: because they stubbornly insist on giving massive tax breaks to the wealthiest few. They say that to govern is to choose. Well, take a look at the consequences of the choices Republicans have made in this budget. American troops are at war, but Republicans chose to shortchange the veterans who defended this Nation in past years and to give tax breaks to millionaires. That is why the Veterans of Foreign Wars opposes the Republican budget. Republicans chose to slash education, and to give tax breaks to millionaires. They chose to cut health care for children and seniors on Medicaid, and to give tax breaks to millionaires. They chose to cut assistance to farmers and to give tax breaks to millionaires. That is why the conservative Farm Bureau opposes the Republican budget. Republicans are even shortchanging homeland security; and once again, they are making sure millionaires get all the tax breaks they want. Mr. Speaker, despite all these cruel cuts, cuts that touch almost all Americans and their families, this Republican budget still explodes the deficit. All the budget gimmicks and phony accounting in the world, what President Bush once called fuzzy math, cannot hide that truth. All in all, the Republicans are proposing an economic horror show at a time when Americans are still suffering from the latest Republican recession. Since President Bush took office, 2.5 million Americans have lost their jobs in the private sector, the surplus has gone, and last year's deficit was $317 billion. But Republicans refuse to face that fact, so they propose a budget that would actually harm the economy by driving the Nation deeper into debt, raising the debt tax on all Americans and their children, and increasing families' mortgage payments and credit card bills. Moreover, this Republican budget does not account for how we are going to pay for a war with Iraq that has begun. So yesterday in the Committee on Rules the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the top Democrat on the Committee on Armed Services, offered an amendment to set aside $20 billion in a contingency fund to begin paying for the war. But Republican leaders refused to allow the House to vote on it. Mr. Speaker, from veterans and farmers to students and seniors, this budget asks almost everyone in America to sacrifice. Everyone, that is, but the millionaires who get the big tax breaks. That is not just wrong; it is fiscally irresponsible. It is bad for the economy, and it is bad for America. Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning, we are one country and we are one Congress, especially when our troops are risking their lives abroad to protect us here at home. I am very disappointed that the Republican budget fails to demonstrate that. I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican budget and vote for the Democratic alternative offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), and join Democrats in restoring fiscal responsibility and protecting the economy against more of the same failed Republican economic policies. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, the preceding speaker asked what were the differences between the surpluses piled up during the second half of the Clinton Presidency and the deficits piled up during the first 2 years of the Bush Presidency. True, there was a terrible attack on our country, and we have had to pay quite a bit because of the consequences of that. But I would suggest that the $1 trillion tax cut forced through by the new administration is the main reason why we face the deficits we have today. The $1 trillion, which primarily benefited the wealthy, forced through by the new administration, is the primary reason why we have the large deficits we have today, rather than the surpluses enjoyed during the Clinton Presidency. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we are ready to proceed to consideration of this rule. The rule lays out three different Democratic alternatives. Unfortunately, the Committee on Rules chose not to make in order some very important amendments, specifically the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). We all support the troops. It is time for us to put our money where our mouth is. Unfortunately, this budget resolution does not provide any money for the ongoing war in Iraq. The Skelton amendment should have been made in order. It is regrettable the other side of the aisle did not give the House the opportunity to do what we all should be doing today. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

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

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 New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, the war to remove the grave threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his regime's weapons of mass destruction has begun. Throughout this mission, the men and women of our Armed Forces will have the unwavering support of Congress and the American people. I thank the leadership of both parties for bringing this important resolution to the floor. Today, this House speaks with one clear voice to America's allies and adversaries alike. We stand united in strong support of our troops. My wife, Army Major General Kathy Frost, Commander of the Army Air Force Exchange Service, recently visited our troops in four Persian Gulf countries. She has shared with me their absolute commitment to everything asked of them by our country to complete this mission. I also wish to recognize the thousands of American civilians, such as the AAFES employees, who are providing vital support to our troops in the Persian Gulf. The work of these civilians is essential to the success of this mission, and they, too, deserve our gratitude for taking the enormous risk to work in what is now a combat zone. Our troops will succeed in carrying out this mission. Like all Americans, I hope and pray they do so as safely and quickly as possible.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize and congratulate the remarkable Dunbar High School boys basketball team and their legendary coach Robert Hughes for winning the 2003 Texas Division 4-A championship. Throughout the championship tournament, sports fans across Texas eagerly followed the Dunbar team to see if Coach Hughes would win his fifth state championship just weeks after setting the national record for the most wins by a high school basketball coach. An outstanding group of student athletes from Fort Worth made sure we weren't disappointed. The championship game pitted Dunbar, the top seed, against No. 2 seed Oxen High School. Led by outstanding play from Jeremis Smith, Lance Jackson, Dominique Williams, Jeff Muriel and other Wildcats, Dunbar came from behind to win the second championship in Dunbar's school history. With the excitement of the tournament behind us, talk is turning to whether Coach Hughes will return for his 46th season of coaching. The Dunbar players, many of whom are returning next season and who desperately want to play for the title again in Austin, have made it very clear that they want Coach Hughes back on the bench. And all of us who greatly admire everything Coach Hughes has accomplished on the court and to help countless young peoples' lives also hope to see him back next year.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read to the House an open letter directed to the House of Representatives signed by Elizabeth Smart, Lois Smart and Ed Smart. Today, Elizabeth was introduced to the Amber Alert when she asked about a videotape in my office. After watching the coverage, Elizabeth asked why the legislation has not passed when it saved so many children's lives. I could not give her an answer! After a lengthy conversation about how the Amber Alert has been politicized, she asked me if there was anything she could do to help pass it. We decided to draft this letter. As you know, I can't express enough how our children can't wait another day for the National Amber Alert to be signed into law by President Bush. Please, please, please pass the stand-alone Amber Alert legislation NOW. As soon as you do, I will be there to celebrate and then go to work with you on lobbying the Senate to pass other pending issues for our children. I will submit the remainder of the letter for the Record, signed by Elizabeth Smart, Ed Smart and Lois Smart. March 18, 2003. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515. An Open Letter to the House of Representatives: Thank you very much for your continued support and warm wishes over the past nine months. We especially appreciate all of the representatives who are working together so diligently to pass the National Amber Alert Legislation. Today, Elizabeth was introduced to the Amber Alert when she asked about a video tape in my office. After watching the coverage, Elizabeth asked why the legislation has not passed when it saves so many children's lives. I could not give her an answer! After a lengthy conversation about how the Amber Alert has been politicized, she asked me if there was anything she could do to help it pass. We decided to draft this letter. As you know, I can't express enough how our children can't wait another day for the National Amber Alert to be signed into law by President Bush. Please, please, please pass the stand alone Amber Alert legislation NOW. As soon as you do, I will be there to celebrate and then will go to work with you on lobbying the Senate to pass other pending issues for our children. I wish to apologize to anyone who was offended by my excitement last week. You cannot comprehend the joy and adulation of having your child return. The Amber Alert will make this a reality for countless families. Please don't underestimate the immediacy and power of this legislation! This is your opportunity to show your leadership for our children. We look forward to seeing you soon. Sincerely, Edward Smart. Lois Smart. Elizabeth Smart.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to protecting our children, this House should never allow politics as usual to stand in the way of action. The House Republican leadership could allow Members to vote today to send legislation strengthening America's Amber Alert to the President. It is time to stop playing politics on this issue. So in a moment I will request unanimous consent to immediately take up the Amber bill in the House. This is the exact same legislation that passed the Senate earlier this year. Five children have already been rescued with the aid of the Amber Alert in March alone. By passing the Amber bill, we can make this lifesaving program even more effective, but that will only happen soon if we listen to people like Ed Smart and others and stop allowing politics to hijack the Amber bill. Request for Consideration of S. 121, The National Amber Alert Network Act on Tuesday, March 18, 2003

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that as the first order of business on Tuesday, March 18, it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House S. 121, the National Amber Alert Network Act.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I regret the ruling of the Chair. House Republican leaders have prevented us from voting on the Amber bill for over 6 months now and counting. This issue should not be treated like just another horse trade with the Senate. I implore the leaders of this House to let us do the right thing for our children and send the Amber bill to the President this week.