Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) did not see the press conference earlier today carried on CNN, I would advise the gentleman that the senior Republican Senator from Texas, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, who was a cosponsor of the Amber bill in the Senate, urged that the House take up the Senate passed Amber bill as a clean bill with a separate vote. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire, did the gentleman see Senator Hutchison's statement?

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would repeat my question, if I may.

Mr. FROST. If the gentleman from Maryland will continue to yield, my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), understands that by putting the Amber Alert legislation into a larger omnibus bill, this delays for a very substantial period of time the passage of the Amber Alert bill. There are a number of controversial provisions that have been added to it by the Committee on the Judiciary, provisions that were passed last year and were found unacceptable by the Senate. I would repeat my question: What is the objection simply to bringing the Amber Alert bill itself as a stand-alone matter that has already been passed by the Senate? What is the objection to bringing that to the floor of the House?

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, she introduced the Amber Plan in this Congress and had it passed unanimously 92-0, she and Senator Dianne Feinstein. That is all we are asking, that there be a separate stand- alone vote on the Amber bill in the House, just as there was in the Senate, so it can be sent to the President and signed into law. If the gentleman would indulge me further, I would like to very briefly read part of a letter that I received today from a city Councilman in my district, Councilman Joe Bruner from the City of Arlington, Texas. Dear Congressman Frost: I understand you have sponsored a bill which will take Arlington's own Amber Plan nationwide. In this day of turmoil and terror, I cannot think of any other means which would better cause the minds of moms and dads to return to normalcy. Doreen and I have always had a special place in our heart for little Amber and defy anyone to ever hinder the implementation of the Amber Plan. As councilman for the district here in Arlington where her body was found, I take exception to Congressman Sensenbrenner's refusal to let your bill go through. Then the letter continues. This really speaks to the fact that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and the majority leader insists that the Amber Plan be combined with a larger piece of legislation that has had difficulty in the Senate. I strongly urge my friend on the other side of the aisle, who has demonstrated an interest in children's issues, to persuade the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary to permit this bill to go forward.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, my question is, What is the objection on the majority side to bringing the stand- alone Amber bill to the floor which has already been passed by the Senate, to bring it to the floor as a separate item and not part of a larger bill?

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. As the gentleman knows, the Amber bill, the Amber Alert plan, was named after a little girl, Amber Hagerman, who was abducted and murdered in my district in Texas, in Arlington, Texas; and the Senate, as previously mentioned, has passed this as a stand-alone bill, unanimously, and has sent it to the House. I would ask my friend, the distinguished majority leader, what is the objection to bringing the Amber bill as a stand-alone matter, that has already been passed by the Senate, to the House either under unanimous consent or under suspension of the rules?

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I was sitting next to the gentleman from California, and I believe that I heard him say that this was payback.

Mr. FROST. All I can say is I was sitting next to the gentleman. I understand and I know what I heard last night. Mr. Speaker, assuming that the Republicans are pursuing some sort of payback because they do not like what we did when we were in the majority, I would only point out that we rarely granted closed rules, and they normally were bills out of the Committee on Ways and Means. Bills of this nature, of this controversy, when we were in the majority, we permitted the minority to have a substitute on the floor, something which they have denied us today.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, I was sitting right next to you.

Mr. FROST. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, we all agree that there is a problem in America's medical system, but Republicans are not taking a serious approach to this problem. They are just playing politics and risking the rights of patients in order to carry water for HMOs and insurance companies. We know this, Mr. Speaker, because Republican leaders have brought this bill to the floor under a closed rule. Now, on this very important subject, let me quote from a statement made 9 years ago by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), at a time that he was in the minority. He said, and I quote, ``I oppose closed rules, Mr. Speaker. I believe they are anathema to the concept of deliberative democracy.'' Mr. Speaker, if Republicans wanted to deal with medical malpractice in a serious and substantive way, would they be using a process that is, as the gentleman from California himself said, anathema to the concept of deliberative democracy? I do not think so. And would they be preventing the House from voting on Democrats' comprehensive medical malpractice reform plan? Certainly not. But that is exactly what Republican leaders are doing today. As a result, the only bill made in order by this rule today is the Republican one and it is a shocking attempt to protect insurance companies while attacking the rights of victims. Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, the Republican bill will not reduce doctors' premiums, but it will protect HMOs and insurance companies, and it will punish patients who suffer from medical mistakes, patients like 17-year-old Jesica Santillan, who died because of a tragic medical mistake in North Carolina earlier this year. Or patients like the 1- year-old baby who died in Dallas last August after a surgical error. That is right, Mr. Speaker. Instead of reducing malpractice premiums, Republicans are reducing victims' rights. Instead of protecting patients, they are protecting the profits of HMOs and insurance companies. It is absolutely outrageous, but that is what you get with this Republican Congress. It did not have to be that way, Mr. Speaker. Democrats, led by the two most senior Members of the House, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), offered a comprehensive plan to bring down doctors' insurance rates and protect patients. The Democratic plan combines tort reform and insurance reform. It cracks down on frivolous lawsuits. And, just as importantly, it forces insurance companies to pass on their savings to doctors. Without this rate rollback provision, Mr. Speaker, insurance companies can just pad their profit margins instead of passing the savings on. That is a lesson we learned in Texas when we passed tort reform. So the Texas legislature and then-Governor Bush agreed on a law that specifically required that insurance companies reduce doctors' premiums, and that is all we are trying to do here. But Republican leaders decided to protect insurance company profits while they were reducing patient protections. So they defeated our amendments in the Committee on Rules last night. Mr. Speaker, doctors and patients deserve better than this. So I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. Then we can amend the rule to bring up the only comprehensive plan to reform medical malpractice, the Democratic substitute. And if Republicans succeed in passing this rule, I urge a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill. Do not let Republicans sacrifice victims' rights in order to protect HMO profits. I would make one other point. Last night in the Committee on Rules when challenged by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the committee, explained why the committee was not going to grant an open rule, why they were going to grant a closed rule. What he said was, ``This is payback. This is payback for what you did when you were in the majority.''

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

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in commending the service men and women of our Armed Services. Mr. Speaker, I supported the resolution authorizing the President to use force if necessary to disarm the Iraqi regime. But regardless of Members' views on that resolution, we are united in our support of our troops. All of these brave men and women volunteered for duty and we have a responsibility to recognize the sacrifices that they have made to defend America's security. My wife, Army Major General Cathy Frost, Commander of the Army Air Force Exchange Service recently visited our troops in Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE and Qatar. She shared with me the commitment of the brave young men and women on the fronts lines and their willingness to do whatever is required of them by our country. And I would also like to add a word of support for the more than 200 civilian employees of the Army Air Force Exchange Service who are operating PXs in that region in support of our service men and women. We all sincerely hope that war in Iraq can still be avoided. However, this House is united today in sending a clear message to America's allies and adversaries alike: We stand united in support of our troops.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize and congratulate the remarkable Duncanville Pantherettes girls basketball team for winning the 2003 Texas Division 5-A championship. This weekend, Patherette fever was running high across North Texas as Duncanville battled Georgetown for the state title. Duncanville's defense was overwhelming as they held their opponents to a meager 27 points, a record low total for a UIL Class 5-A title game. The Pantherettes dominated their foes all season en route to a 39-1 record and talk of a repeat is already rampant. This year's championship team builds upon a remarkable record for girls basketball at Duncanville. This is the Pantherettes' 6th basketball title and 15th appearance in the state championship. Winning the state championship is a fitting culmination to the careers of Duncanville's seven seniors, five of whom have signed to play basketball in college and four signed with Division I teams. Those are big shoes to fill, but Duncanville's underclassmen say they are ready to lead the Pantherettes back to Austin next year. Congratulations to coach Cathy Self-Morgan and the other Duncanville staff who guided a super group of girls through a historic season. The 2003 Duncanville Pantherettes have earned the chance to savor this victory and reflect on all their achievements together. I look forward to following the Pantherettes as they try to return to Austin next year.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a local pioneer and doctor in Fort Worth, Texas. Dr. Marion Jack Brooks died on Monday, March 3, 2003, at his home in the city's Morningside community. He was 83 years old and a true local success story. He graduated from the former I.M. Terrell High School near downtown and was a founding member of Morningside United Methodist Church. Dr. Brooks began practicing medicine in North Texas during the 1950's. He and his brother Dr. Donald Brooks opened their own clinic that is still family owned and operated, on Fort Worth's famous Evans Avenue. During those days, when segregation was an awful reality in Texas and the entire South, black families who resided in the city could always count on Dr. Brooks to provide medical care for the children and the sick in their households. Mr. Speaker, it is also important that I note the many contributions that this great man made outside the field of medicine. Like many of our institutions that existed before the days of the Great Society, hospitals and medicine were not immune to the realities that African- Americans faced based solely on their skin color. When his patients needed treatment, Dr. Brooks was forced to treat them out of a basement at the old St. Joseph's Hospital. He was outspoken until local hospitals decided to do the right thing and change their policies. He also led a march from Fort Worth to Austin that coincided with Dr. Martin Luther King's famous pilgrimage on our nation's capitol. He also was active in local politics and was a driving force behind the Tarrant County Precinct Council. Dr. Brooks will be missed by his friends, family and community. He leaves behind a great legacy that will live on through his work in the sciences, the Sickle Cell Anemia Association of Texas, and an annual scholarship awards presentation for which he is the namesake.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, is an honorable man. Unfortunately, he has been strangled by his own leadership. His committee did their work and reported a number of appropriation bills out of committee prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, and his leadership prohibited him from bringing those appropriation bills to the floor where we could have an open rule and could offer amendments. Now, if the other side had really wanted us to have an open procedure, they should have permitted their own chairman to bring the bills to the floor after they had been reported out of his committee. But they prevented him from doing that. That is why we have this particular bill today in an unamendable form. I find it difficult to understand why it makes sense to run the House in the way that their leadership, the Republican leadership, has run it. They have always said they want open procedures, but in the most important matter facing this Congress in a way, the appropriations process, they have denied this House an open procedure, denied this House the opportunity to vote. Even though their own chairman and their own committee did their work, their leadership refused to permit their chairman and their committee to bring bills to the floor where they could be amended. And now we have this, 4\1/2\ months after the beginning of the fiscal year. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger). (Mr. RUPPERSBERGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. People listening to this proceeding, watching this proceeding may be kind of scratching their heads and saying, well, why are the Republicans not saying anything about this bill? Why are they just sitting over there? Could it be that they are ashamed of this process? Could it be that they have no way of defending what has happened here? Normally, on a major piece of legislation, each side takes its 30 minutes. Apparently the Republicans simply want this to slip as quietly through as possible, knowing that this is an indefensible process and that they have done things that no one has done in the past, and I hope that even they will not do in the future. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote against the rule. I will join Members on our side who will be voting ``yes'' on final passage, because we do need to make sure the government can operate, and there are important things in this bill. It is just regrettable that the House was denied the opportunity to work its will on so many pieces of the appropriations legislation during this fiscal year. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thought it might be interesting to the House and to people watching this proceeding to know what we are talking about, what bills we are mentioning. I said earlier that six appropriations bills were reported from the Committee on Appropriations but not brought to the floor, that the leadership on the other side refused to bring those to the floor. What were those six appropriations bills? Well, let us review that. The agriculture appropriations bill, vitally important to the farmers of this Nation, reported out of the House Committee on Appropriations on July 11, 2002, never brought to the floor of the House; the District of Columbia appropriations bill, reported out of the Committee on Appropriations on September 26, 2002, never brought to the floor of the House; the energy and water appropriations bill, reported out of the House Committee on Appropriations September 5, 2002, never brought to this Chamber for a vote; the foreign operations appropriations bill, reported out of the House Committee on Appropriations September 19, 2002, never brought to this House for a vote; the transportation appropriations bill, vitally important to people all over this Nation, reported out of the House Committee on Appropriations October 7, never brought to the floor for a vote; and the VA-HUD, Veterans Department, reported out of the committee October 9, not brought to this House for a vote. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest this is a terrible way to run a railroad or to run a House of Representatives. Because those six bills were reported from the committee, but never brought to this Chamber, they now are contained in this pile before me. Also in this pile before me are two other bills that were never even reported out of the Committee on Appropriations, and three other bills, of course, reported and passed the House but, of course, that never became law. So we are at this point today. Now, we never did this when we were in the majority. We never brought an omnibus appropriations bill 4\1/2\ months after the beginning of the appropriations fiscal year and refused to bring individual appropriations bills to the floor for a vote. That was not something that was done by the Democrats when we were in the majority. The other side does not care about the rights of the American people. Four hundred thirty-five of us were elected from districts. This a representative democracy. I represent 651,000 people, as does every other Member from the State of Texas, Republican or Democrat. The 651,000 people in my district and in the other, at that time, 29 districts, now 32 districts from the State of Texas, were denied the right to have their representative offer and consider amendments on the appropriation bills that fund this government. Mr. Speaker, that is wrong. It should never have been done. It is the reason that we are here today, and it is one of the major reasons why we have the size deficit we do. If we had been able to offer those bills and vote on amendments, perhaps the House, in working its will, would have made some cuts, and perhaps the deficit would have been smaller. But the other side did not care. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, normally, when I speak on legislation, I use a podium. This time we have a piece of legislation that is higher than my podium; so I am using the legislation. The podium is over here to the side. Mr. Speaker, when a bill comes before the House, the normal process is for members of the committee of jurisdiction to come to the floor and explain the details of what is in their legislation. Unfortunately, that is simply not possible today. Certainly the newspapers have reported on a few of the most egregious proposals in this conference report. For instance, Republicans inserted several sweeping anti-environmental provisions and severely shortchanged conservation resources. Democrats will try to fix these problems in the motion to recommit, which I urge Members to support. But an attack on the environment is just the tip of the iceberg with this bill, Mr. Speaker. Republican leaders did not file this conference report until six o'clock this morning, and they provided at that time only one copy for the more than 200 Democrats in the House. Even the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, who has worked very hard under the very difficult constraints imposed upon him by his own leadership, candidly and honestly admitted this morning before the Committee on Rules that he could not answer questions about all of the contents of this bill. So if the Committee on Appropriations chairman cannot tell us what is in some of this bill, it is obvious that the public and the members of the House have no way of knowing what is in this 3,000-page legislative monstrosity. All we really know is this: while Republicans are hurting the economy by driving America deeper in debt, they still shortchanged homeland security. The Republican failure to address homeland security right now is particularly disturbing, Mr. Speaker. As we speak, the Bush administration is urging Americans to buy duct tape and stock up on bottled water to prepare for another potential terrorist attack. They are urging the public to be on alert for suspicious activity; but while the public is on alert, the Republican Congress is asleep at the wheel. Even in this bill today, they still refuse to adequately support the firefighters and police who would actually respond to a terrorist attack. Republicans will say that they are doing all that they can afford. That is simply ridiculous, Mr. Speaker. Republicans may not be funding homeland security needs, but they are still driving America deeper and deeper into debt by their tax cuts. Why has Republican control of the government brought America such massive and dangerous deficits? I would submit that the dots are not too hard to connect here. Less than 2 years ago, Republicans forced through the Bush tax plan, a tax plan which gutted the budget to give tax breaks to the wealthiest. At that time Democrats and many economists and nonpartisan experts asked, Now that you have given away the store to pay for tax breaks for the few, how are you going to address national priorities like national defense and education? Unfortunately, the Republicans' response was as reckless as it was simple. They ignored the problem. The fiscal year started October 1. That was 1, 2, 3, 4, 4\1/2\ months ago. Republican leaders simply refused to bring up difficult appropriations bills last year prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. Let us look at the record. Five of the normal 13 appropriation bills passed the House. Two actually became law. Six other appropriation bills were reported out of the House Committee on Appropriations but were never brought to the House floor because Republican leaders did not want their Members to have to cast tough votes on painful spending cuts before the election, and of course two bills were never even reported out of the committee. The Republican leaders' timidity last fall directly contributed to the $300 billion fiscal year 2003 deficit we face today. That is why we are here today, with just 60 minutes to consider this rule and just 60 minutes to debate this massive 3,000- page conference report that the vast majority of Members have never read. Mr. Speaker, there is no way that considering 11 of the 13 appropriation bills in 1 hour, a half hour on each side, can provide the public with an honest assessment of the budget, 4\1/2\ months later of course. Normally each appropriation bill would get at least a day of discussion and Members would have the opportunity to offer amendments. But today the vast, vast majority of Members will have no opportunity to even read the budget for this year. Mr. Speaker, that is a definition of fiscal irresponsibility, and it is how Republicans have burdened our children with the crushing deficits we face today. Even the Bush administration is projecting deficits as far as the eye can see, over $300 billion this year, over $300 billion next year, and more than $1 trillion over the next 5 years. That is why even Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, was forced to sound the deficit alarm earlier this week. He pointed out that huge long-term deficits, the type Republicans have created in just the past 2 years, will hurt Americans by driving up interest rates and increasing families' home mortgage and credit card payments. Why is the American economy facing this harmful burden especially now when families are struggling with the weakest economy in a generation? Because the Republican House leadership refused to do its job last year. The chickens are coming home to roost today, and it is not a pretty sight. Mr. Speaker, this omnibus appropriations bill, 4\1/2\ months late, is an admission that the Republican Congress has failed in its most fundamental responsibility, addressing national priorities from homeland security and the economy to education and health care. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. Let us take some time to find out what is really in this 3,000-page bill and then let us sit down and honestly address the economic and homeland security needs that it ignores. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), a member of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. HASTINGS of Florida 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. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.