Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. The reasoning on the other side is very curious. I do recall in 2001 when they were promoting the first tax cut, the reason they gave for the tax cut was, oh, we have a surplus. Now we have this surplus, we need a tax cut so we can give that money back. Now we are in 2003 and we have a deficit, so we have to have a tax cut. Which one was it? It cannot be both. It cannot be we had a surplus, so we should have a tax cut; we have a deficit, so we should have a tax cut. I find their logic very curious. Everyone would like a tax cut. The American public obviously would like to pay less in taxes; and certainly we could have made the argument for a tax cut in 2001, perhaps not as large as they did, but we certainly could have made a valid argument: we are running a surplus; we do not need all of this money. Some of us felt like the tax cut was so large it was going to plunge us into a deficit, and that is what has happened. But it is hard to make the argument that now we are in a deficit, let us drive this country deeper into a deficit. Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. My amendment will allow the House to consider H.R. 2046, introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the Democratic Rebuilding America Through Job Creation plan. I guess I can understand why the Republicans are rushing through what they are claiming is a conference process to come up with a so-called economic growth bill. Every hour the American people have to see what the Republicans are up to, the less they will like it. It is a proposal that hurts American families, it hurts the American economy, and just digs the deficit hole deeper. In stark contrast to the conference agreement we will soon see here on the floor, the Democratic plan helps all Americans, not just the rich; and it helps the economy immediately. It provides middle-class tax cuts to stimulate demand; it gives tax incentives to all businesses, especially small businesses and U.S. manufacturing businesses; and unlike the Republican proposal, it is fiscally responsible. Yes, if I were a Republican, I might not want to have to explain a vote against the Democratic Rebuilding America Through Job Creation plan. But guess what, that is not a good enough reason to deny Members a chance to debate and vote on this measure. It is a terrible disservice to the American people if we let our fear of criticism prevent a vote on this very effective and responsible plan. Let me make it very clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of the conference agreement. A ``no'' vote will allow the House to consider the Democratic job creation plan as a separate bill. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House from taking up this responsible alternative. Make no mistake, this vote is the only opportunity the House will have to consider the Rangel plan. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Yes, there is a difference between the two parties here. The other side would impose billions of dollars of debt on my 6-year-old granddaughter and my 3-year-old granddaughter and my 2-month-old granddaughter. I do not believe we should be doing that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. FROST

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

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

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 Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). (Mr. SKELTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

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, for all of my 25 years in Congress I have worked for a strong national defense. Like so many pro-defense Democrats, I have bent over backwards to put politics aside and work together to support America's men and women in uniform. That cooperative approach is fundamental to our efforts to keep partisan politics from polluting the Armed Forces. So, repeatedly on the House floor and in the Committee on Rules, I have urged the Republican leadership to stop their assault on the bipartisan cooperation that has defined our approach to defense policy for so long. In response, the chairman of the Committee on Rules kept holding out hope that maybe, just maybe, in this second rule for the defense authorization bill the committee would allow a full and bipartisan consideration of serious defense issues. Last night, very late, the Committee on Rules reported out the second rule. Guess what? It does even more violence to the tradition of bipartisanship than the first rule did. For the second day in a row, the Republican leadership has prevented the House from considering serious and substantive issues in the defense authorization bill. For the second day in a row, they cast aside bipartisanship to protect the partisan and right-wing ideology that has been attached to this defense authorization bill. This is a shameful way to run this institution, an institution that is supposed to allow the voices of all Americans to be heard. For instance, Republican leaders used this rule to again defend their assault on America's environmental protections. The ranking members of the Committee on Resources and the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), offered their reasonable substitute to Republicans on environmental language. Republican leaders refused to allow the House to vote on this substitute. To prevent terrorists from getting nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the second ranking Democrat on the Committee on Armed Services and an acknowledged expert on defense issues, once again tried to strengthen America's cooperative threat reduction program, but the Republican leadership once again refused to allow his amendment, in spite of the fact that it simply does what President Bush has asked for. To protect the American taxpayers, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) tried to require that contracts over $1 million be awarded only in open bidding process, but Republican leaders decided to make it easier for big companies, for example, Halliburton, Brown and Root, Bechtel, to get private deals, so they rejected the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), a staunch defense hawk from Mississippi, had a substantive amendment relating to the next round of base closures. But instead of allowing him and the House the vote they deserve, Republican leaders simply shut out his amendment. Similarly, Committee on Rules Republicans blocked three important amendments that I offered to address defense issues that I have pursued for some time: helping immigrant soldiers earn U.S. citizenship, providing tuition refunds to Reservists called to active duty, and tax fairness for civilian defense employees serving in combat zones. Finally, Mr. Speaker, Republican leaders are using this rule to rig the game in favor of their attack on worker rights at the Pentagon. Now, these are the same Pentagon employees who showed such bravery and sacrifice on September 11. So the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) proposed an employees' bill of rights. It is a common-sense approach to protecting those public servants who work to protect us. It has the support of America's firefighters. But Republican leaders refused to allow the House to vote to protect Pentagon employees. All in all, Mr. Speaker, this rule makes a mockery of the bipartisan cooperation that has been the keystone to our approach to defense policy, so I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will amend the rule to allow the House to consider the Pentagon employee bill of rights. If the previous question passes, I urge a no vote on this rule. This is the only way to restore some semblance of bipartisanship to this process and to safeguard America's national defense policy from the partisanship and right wing ideology that are tainting this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST

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

Mr. FROST. Reclaiming my time, I am just proposing that we not try and tell them they are getting a really good deal here, that they are getting a really big tax cut, because the people who are getting the really big tax cut are the folks who are the millionaires, and the average folks out there are just getting a little bit. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings). (Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. The gentleman makes a very interesting point. Of course, that is sunset almost immediately. They may get that for a year or two, and then it is sunset.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), who has a very interesting description of the bill. I have a table here, table 5.1, ``Conference Agreement on Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.'' This table has some very interesting information in it. An American who makes a million dollars or more would get $93,530 of tax cuts on the average. If you make between $20,000 and $30,000 a year, you get $15 a month. If you make between $30,000 and $40,000 a year, you get a little bit less than $30 a month. Let me just comment, the gentleman is trying to say this is a wonderful thing for people in the lower income brackets. I suggest to Members that the great spread here of $93,530 for the millionaires and $15 a month for the fellow or woman making between $20,000 and $30,000 and less than $30 for the family of between $30,000 and $40,000, I am not sure what the gentleman is trying to say here.

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, here we are again, at quarter to eleven, the shades of darkness have fallen, and we have to ask ourselves a question, at least I do: Is the other side not particularly competent? Is that why we are here this late at night, as we always are on major pieces of legislation? Or have they intentionally put us here late at night so no one will watch this on television, so the American public will not know what is going on?

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. My amendment will allow the House to consider H.R. 2156, a bill introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) that would require the administration and the Congress to do something about the budget disaster their economic policies are creating. The Rangel bill attempts to avert the train wreck Republican economic policies are steering us towards. His bill would permit a temporary debt limit increase of $375 billion, on the condition that the administration and Congress come up with a serious plan to balance the budget by the year 2008. The Rangel bill would give the Republicans the opportunity to show some real leadership on economic issues. Mr. Speaker, let me make it very clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not keep the House from considering the conference agreement. What a ``no'' vote will do is allow the House to consider the Rangel balanced budget proposal as a separate bill. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House from taking up this responsible proposal. Mr. Speaker, the debt tax is not a tax we can repeal or sunset. This vote is the only opportunity the House will have to show some real economic leadership and consider the Rangel balanced budget plan. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of H.R. 2156 be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

Mr. FROST. I will complete my statement, and then my friend, the chairman, will have plenty of time to respond.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, it has been over 3 months since the FCC completed their Triennial Review and voted on new rules for the telecommunications industry, the most significant change for that industry since the adoption of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Yet, the FCC has still not issued the details. This is a shame. So long as the FCC delays, uncertainty will reign in the telecommunications sector. For one whole quarter now, investment and growth in the sector have been stalled. Mr. Speaker, the economy remains weak, showing no real signs of recovery, and numerous companies continue to lay off their employees. The current recession has been hard on workers. Telecommunications companies are set to invest billions of dollars in network infrastructure--investment that will help the weak economy and create and preserve jobs--but the current regulatory environment restricts growth and investment in the telecom sector. The FCC needs to act quickly and issue a ruling to help the telecommunications industry grow their networks, and help get America back to work.