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, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott), one of our very respected new members.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. I have to ask, because I am a little confused, I will not refer directly to the Members at this point, but I am confused, Mr. Speaker, because the rule, I have my rule book, it says, ``The Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and in the case of disturbances or disorderly conduct in the galleries or in the lobby, may cause the same to be cleared.'' This seems to relate to decorum in the galleries or in the lobby. I do not read the rule to relate to matters on the floor of the House.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, does the gentleman----

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal). (Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the great crocodile tears shed on the other side on the issue of coupon settlement proposition. Of course, if they want to change that, they should support the Democratic substitute which is stronger on the issue of coupon settlements than their underlying bill. Also, it is fascinating to listen to the advocates of States rights on the other side suddenly shift gears and become advocates of a very strong Federal system. I guess there is just a fundamental distrust of our State court system on the part of Republicans, and I find that very curious and very interesting. Also, particularly in light of the fact that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States is opposed to dumping these additional lawsuits into the already overburdened Federal system. So we just have a peculiar situation in which people on the other side of the aisle are disregarding the Chief Justice of the United States, a member of their own party, and are also suddenly, in this particular instance, advocating for stronger action by the Federal system which would override the State system that they normally support. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote no on the previous question. Last night the Committee on Rules broke with its past precedents and refused to make in order two important amendments Democratic Members brought to the committee. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will restore fairness in the debate on class action reform that the House has adopted in the previous two Congresses. Under my proposal, the House will be allowed to debate one amendment by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) that will delete the bill's retroactive provisions; and, two, the Delahunt-Scott amendment to prevent corporations from using interlocutory appeals to run out the clock on class action lawsuits. No matter what their position is on this bill or on these particular amendments, all Members should support bringing fairness back to the process and vote no on the previous question. I am merely asking that all Members with serious amendments be allowed to bring them to the House floor just as they have been able to on the earlier occasions when we have debated class action reform. Let me make it very clear. A no vote would not stop the House from taking up the Class Action Fairness Act and would not prevent any of the amendments made in order by the rule from being offered. However, a yes vote will preclude the House from considering these two very important amendments that are critical to the debate on class action lawsuits. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendments immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, people viewing this may be curious as to why it is necessary that we consider this matter, other than the obvious that the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and I have stated. Under the current precedents and under the current judicial interpretation of the precedents of the House, a quorum is a majority of those sworn and living. If we only have five Members survive, three Members would be a quorum, and business could be conducted. The difficulty of that would be whether the country would have any confidence in legislation enacted by only five Members. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. FROST. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, this is different from the way we normally operate in the House of Representatives. Normally, a simple majority, which can be constituted entirely on the majority's side, on the Republican side, could prevail on any issue. We are choosing to adopt a different set of rules for this proceeding, and that is exactly the way we should be handling this matter to guarantee that one party will not be able to dictate the outcome on matters of this magnitude. I want to thank the majority party for agreeing to that and for moving forward with this very important resolution. This is a matter that I personally have spent a lot of my time on over the last year, but it would not be possible to move forward at this point had the majority party not been willing to do so. And I thank them on behalf of the minority, and I thank them on behalf of the country for their willingness to do this. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear to people who may be watching or listening to this again why we are discussing this. There is a historical aberration in our Constitution that provides that senators, when they die or are killed, may be appointed, replacement Senators, but there is no comparable provision for replacement of House Members. That historical aberration arises from the fact that when our Constitution was first passed all Senators were appointed. They were appointed by their State legislatures. It was only much later in our history that we went to the direct election of Senators. When we did that, we retained the appointment power for the governors of States to replace Senators who die or are killed while in office. No such power was ever in the Constitution originally for the House of Representatives, so we have a different situation currently as it applies to the Senate and as it applies to the House. Those of us who advocate a change in our Constitution are taking the position that, since the Senate is already covered, since there already is a way to replace Senators in our Constitution, there should be a comparable provision for being able to replace House Members in the event of a mass tragedy. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman). (Mr. SHERMAN 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, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to one of the issues raised on the other side, and that is the question of the adequacy of replacing Members of the House through special elections. Special elections, of course, are determined by State law; and the laws vary from State to State. Some State laws have special elections held rather promptly. Other States have special elections that extend over a long period of time. For example, in my home State of Texas, our former colleague, Mr. Combest, shortly after the convening of this Congress, announced that he was resigning, was leaving, and his successor, who was chosen in a special election under Texas law which included a runoff, was sworn in today, 6 months into the Congress. So there is a difficulty in citing the remedy of special elections as a way of replacing Members in a prompt way. I am very sympathetic to the historical precedent that Members of the House up until this point can only serve by election, but there are extraordinary circumstances. We hope the extraordinary circumstances never occur, but we do need to be ready, should anything like that ever happen. Mr. Speaker, in closing, this resolution is a very significant development. Again, I want to thank the majority for the way this is structured, for having the sides evenly divided, for requiring a majority vote in each House of the members on this joint committee, and I would urge that the Congress, that the House, promptly pass this resolution. I would hope that the Senate, the other body, would do the same thing, so the work of this joint committee could begin as soon as possible. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 190 creates a bipartisan and bicameral committee to study what new rules, laws, regulations, or constitutional remedies might be needed to assure the continuity of the Congress in the event of a catastrophic event. This resolution moves forward the discussions that began in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on this country. On that day, what had been unthinkable happened. On that day, amidst the carnage in New York, at the Pentagon, and in a field in Pennsylvania, the whole notion that this country is immune from terrorist attacks was destroyed in a matter of minutes. One of the potential targets of the terrorists that day was this building, the seat of our government and the greatest symbol of our democracy. Had those enemies of democracy succeeded, our representative democracy might have been thrown into chaos if a large number of Members of the House of Representatives had been killed, injured, or otherwise incapacitated. The simple fact is that the framers provided only for direct election of House Members, and there is nothing in law that would facilitate speedy replacement of Members of the House in the eventuality of a catastrophic event. September 11 provided a rude awakening in so many ways, but it is the duty of this body to find a remedy for the aftermath of a potential attack on this institution. This is a weighty matter, one that goes to the heart of representative democracy in this country. On the one hand, we want to ensure the stability of the legislative branch in the wake of such an attack. On the other hand, we should all understand the importance of preserving the unique character of membership in the House of Representatives, foundations that have not changed since the adoption of the Constitution over 214 years ago. In the last Congress, I cochaired, with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), a bipartisan working group which began serious discussions on what remedies might be available to the House in the event that a large number of Members were missing, killed, injured, or incapacitated following an attack on this building or any other location where a group of Members might be gathered. We had serious and thoughtful discussions that resulted in three simple rules changes that would aid the Speaker in convening this body in the event of a catastrophic event. Those rules changes were made part of the rules of the House last January. But it is very important that every Member understand that we cannot embark on these further discussions without an open mind on the issue of whether or not a constitutional amendment is necessary in order to allow this body to continue to function in the event that many, most, or all of us are killed or missing or incapacitated. The Continuity of Government Commission, cochaired by Lloyd Cutler and former Senator Alan Simpson, yesterday released their report and in it recommended the adoption of a constitutional amendment that would allow the Congress to provide for these eventualities by statute or other means. We have to understand the simple fact that the framers intended for this body to be the arm of the Federal Government closest to the people. For that reason, this body is the only body that requires direct election of all of its Members. As we all know, it takes a number of months to conduct elections; and if this body has lost large numbers of Members, I believe it is essential that the American public have confidence that every part of its government is up to the task of responding to a national emergency. Let me state this in the strongest possible terms. It would be a colossal waste of the time of the Congress if Members of this new joint committee go into this process with a closed mind on the issue of a constitutional amendment authorizing appointment or replacement of Members in time of crisis. We must have every option on the table; and we have to be willing, both on the joint committee and in this body, to explore the issues, pose the questions, and find the answers. For the sake of the country and for the sake of the stability of the people's House, we must all be willing to undertake this task. Our work last year was a positive first step; but we have a solemn responsibility to make sure that every option is considered, and it is important that the House work with the Senate to ensure that the entire Congress have a plan to respond to a national emergency. I want to commend Chairman Cox for his work on this issue in the 107th Congress and thank my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), for bringing the issue to the fore this year. This is a matter of such importance and such gravity that we must all devote considerable energies to it. We must be open, we must be nonpartisan, and we must always have in mind that this democracy is resilient, responsible, and ready to meet every challenge. So must we be. I want to read from the resolution one section which underscores the bipartisan nature of this undertaking. This is section (b)(2), appearing on page 3: ``No recommendation shall be made by the joint committee except upon the majority vote of the members from each House, respectively.'' Now, Mr. Speaker, what does that mean? Well, there are five Republicans from the House and five Democrats from the House on this joint committee; five Republicans from the Senate and five Democrats from the Senate. So that the five Republicans, acting on their own, cannot make any recommendations in the House; and the five Democrats, acting on their own, cannot make any recommendations. Each party has a veto. And, quite frankly, that is exactly the way it should be, that only upon agreement of a majority of the 10 Members from the House and a majority of the 10 Members from the Senate will we be able to recommend anything back to this body.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to express my support for H.R. 1954, the Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003. In the war against Saddam Hussein, noncitizen soldiers were among the first brave men and women to fall. Some were born in Mexico before joining the U.S. military like Pfc. Francisco Martinez Flores, Corporal Jose Angel Garibay, and Lance Corporal Jesus Suarez del Solar. Others were born in Guatemala, like Lance Corporal Jose Gutierrez; but all died fighting for a country where they could not even cast a vote. Mr. Speaker, in the last Congress, in May of 2002 to be precise, I first introduced legislation to help remedy the obstacles these brave soldiers faced on their path to citizenship, and I reintroduced my bill in this Congress before the war with Saddam Hussein began. So I am pleased that we are finally here today voting to ease the burdens placed on our legal permanent resident troops. The men and women who serve honorably in the Armed Forces have earned the respect and gratitude of every American citizen. All of those who have chosen to make the ultimate sacrifice for the defense of our country certainly have earned the full rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship. While it is unfortunate that it took a war to shed light on the sacrifices of our green card troops and compel the House as a body to act, I am hopeful that we will focus our attention on rewarding and enhancing our military personnel in time of peace as well as times of war. According to the Department of Defense, the number of legal permanent residents serving on active duty has risen to 37,401, or about 3 percent of our military. Additionally, thousands of immigrants serve in the Reserves and were called up for active duty. The ranks of noncitizens serving in the Armed Forces are growing, and today's immigrants are building upon a rich legacy of service in the U.S. military. Immigrants have fought in every American conflict from the Revolutionary War to the war with Iraq. The military service of immigrants reflects the strong strain of patriotism among generations who have chosen to come to America, and the patriotism of today's large Hispanic immigrant communities is particularly strong. However, thousands of those troops are still not citizens today because of the significant obstacles that remain. The sacrifices of legal permanent residents in our military are unique. They choose to defend freedom of American citizens while not sharing in the full rights and privileges of citizenship themselves. Unfortunately, the process for granting citizenship to immigrants within the U.S. still places heavy burdens upon them, especially those serving in the toughest overseas assignments. Mr. Speaker, simply stated, the Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003 will help remove unfair and unnecessary obstacles facing thousands of legal permanent residents serving honorably in the U.S. military trying to obtain their citizenship. While there are some differences in the bill that I originally introduced and the bill we are debating today, I am hopeful that certain changes can be made in conference. This is why I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation. Let us honor our truly brave soldiers who have shown the willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice for the country they dearly wish to be citizens of.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

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

Mr. FROST. Reclaiming my time, I would point out to the gentleman that when we were in the majority we did not try and dictate what amendments the minority will offer. We did not say, we will give you a Democratic amendment on that subject but the Republicans cannot offer the amendment they want. That is exactly what they have done in the reverse here. They said, we will give you a Republican amendment on this subject, but we will not let the Democrats offer the amendments they want. Of course, Democrats would offer a different amendment on a particular issue than Republicans would. Republicans would offer an amendment which was, of course, much more friendly to the basic provisions in the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

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