Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen]. (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, we have no other requests for time at this point. As my colleagues can see, there is some degree of controversy on this matter. I personally support the rule and support the bill, and I urge adoption of the rule, though there is some opposition, obviously, on both sides of the aisle on this question. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds]. (Mr. STUDDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. This rule, as the gentleman from Colorado has explained, waives points of order against the consideration of the conference report on S. 395, a bill to lift the ban on exports of Alaskan oil and to privatize the Alaska Power Administration. Mr. Speaker, this conference report also contains a provision which was not in the House-passed version of this legislation. This provision exempts oil and gas companies drilling under Federal oil and gas leases in deep waters offshore in the Gulf of Mexico, from paying royalties to the Federal Government. The inclusion of this provision is controversial in light of the instructions to conferees adopted by the House last July. That motion, offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], instructed conferees to insist on the House position on this issue. The House bill, of course, deleted these provisions. The conferees have, however, wisely included these provisions in the bill. Mr. Speaker, these exemptions will encourage exploration and drilling which will in turn increase the amount of available crude oil to U.S. markets. Mr. Speaker, increasing energy production in something our government should encourage and the provisions in this conference report do just that. I would encourage my colleagues to support the conference report and to oppose the Miller motion to recommit this conference report. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley]. (Mr. DOOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento]. (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. The issues are very clear, Mr. Speaker. This is a question of local control, which the other side says they believe in, but they obviously only believe in it in every case except the District of Columbia. This is a question of are we going to appropriate Federal funds to be used for school vouchers in the District of Columbia; are we going to do other things that have been described by the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon], the ranking member on this committee, that we have not done in the past. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and if the rule should be successful, a ``no'' vote on the bill.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition not only to this rule, but the D.C. Appropriations bill. Mr. Speaker, this bill makes me wonder what has happened to oft repeated Republican mantra of ``local knows best.'' After reviewing the contents of this bill and the amendments made in order in the rule, that mantra might rather be ``father knows best.'' The Republican majority has for the past 10 months explained away their dismantling of Federal programs by claiming that the American people elected them to Congress to return power to the States and local governments. Well, Mr. Speaker, if those claims are so true, can you explain why the District of Columbia Subcommittee has seen fit to send us a bill which micromanages the affairs of the rightfully and lawfully elected government of this city? Mr. Speaker, I am no particular fan of the manner in which the government of the District has been run in the past. It is bloated, inefficient, and taxes its residents far heavily. Its financial affairs are a disgrace, and that is evidenced by the street lights that are burned out and not replaced, the animal shelter nearly closed because the city did not pay its bills, and the ranks of the police force being decimated by the loss of senior experienced officers because of cuts in their basic rates of pay. The situation in which the Nation's Capital finds itself is very, very sad. But, Mr. Speaker, does this situation then grant license to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] and his subcommittee to impose their own vision of the world as it should be? Does this situation grant the Congress the right to subvert the will of those American people who reside in the District? Because, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, those people have no voting voice in this Congress and this bill ensures that what little voice they have in governing their own affairs is nothing short of meaningless. Mr. Speaker, if the content of the reported bill is not bad enough, then the rule reported by the Republican majority of the Rules Committee only makes matters worse. I am particularly opposed to the rule because of an amendment which was made in order. That amendment, to be offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] will allow the use of Federal tax dollars to provide vouchers for students to attend private and religious schools. I have long opposed the use of tax-funded vouchers and I must strongly protest the inclusion of this amendment in the rule. Mr. Speaker, in April the Congress enacted legislation which established the financial control board for the District of Columbia. That board, along with the city council and the Mayor, is working to resolve the deep financial crisis that faces this city. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, how prohibiting any city-owned or city-run facility from performing abortions is going to help the board, the council, or the Mayor find a way to fund the $256 million shortfall in funds provided in this bill. Mr. Speaker, we all agree the District of Columbia is in serious trouble and that much of this trouble is of the city's own doing. But that does not, Mr. Speaker, give this Congress the right to act in such a blatantly paternalistic manner. If the Republican majority finds such value in letting local governments conduct their own affairs, then I believe one of the first places they should demonstrate this commitment is in the city which houses our Nation's Capital. Let's let the financial control board do its job. Let's let the council make the laws which govern those American citizens who elected them. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon]. (Mr. DIXON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon].

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] accused me of misrepresenting the facts. I have a copy of his amendment in front of me. I would like to read from the amendment. The English language is very clear. There is hereby established in the Treasury a fund that shall be known as the District of Columbia Scholarship Fund, to be administered by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Secretary of the Treasury shall make available and disburse to the corporation, at the beginning of each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000, such funds as may have been appropriated to the District of Columbia Scholarship Fund. . . . There are authorized to be appropriated to the fund $5 million in fiscal year 1996, $7 million in fiscal year 1997, and $10 million for each of fiscal years 1998 through the year 2000. That is Federal funds going into those scholarships. That is vouchers. The gentleman accused me of misrepresenting the fact, saying that there were no Federal funds involved in those vouchers. It is in the language of his amendment on pages 110, 111, and 112.

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

Mr. FROST. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I believe the gentleman said there were no Federal funds involved, and that I was misrepresenting the fact that Federal funds were involved for this purpose. His own amendment, in the pages that I just read, 111 and 112, make it very clear that Federal funds were authorized to be appropriated under this bill for vouchers. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McHale].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I would point out to my friend from Florida that we brought this very issue up the first day of the legislative session in January. We have brought it up repeatedly. Every time we have attempted to get a vote on this issue we have been prevented from having that vote by the Republican majority, and we will continue to bring this issue up at every opportunity until, finally, it gets to the floor. The Republican majority has said, ``Oh, trust us, it will come up no later than November 16.'' Well, lo and behold, we will come to November 16 and there may just be another reason why it cannot be voted on at that time. Mr. Speaker, we will continue to raise this issue at every appropriate juncture. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], the ranking Democratic Member on the Committee on House Oversight.