Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2492. I oppose this rule for one simple reason: The Republican majority has again denied the House the opportunity to use this bill as the vehicle to finally consider and pass real congressional reform. The Republican majority has spent the last 10 months talking about the reforms the American people voted for last November. But talk is all we have gotten when it comes to enacting a gift ban and reforming lobby laws. I must ask, Mr. Speaker, is the Republican party all talk and no action? The majority leader has time and again promised action on these issues, but time and again the Republican majority has denied the full House the opportunity to take a vote on what the Republicans claim they were elected and sent to Washington to do. My colleague, the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz], has stated her intention to introduce new gift ban and lobby reform legislation and our chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], has stated his intention to hold hearings on this matter. But, I must again ask why do we need to keep on talking about this issue when the opportunity to take action is right here and right now. Because this rule will not allow the House to consider this issue today that I will oppose ordering the previous question on this resolution and will seek to amend the rule to permit the House to consider gift ban and lobby reform legislation. Mr. Speaker, we have heard many promises from the Republican leadership that this important reform will be considered by November 16. But Mr. Speaker, since January promises have been made only to be broken. I do not question the sincerity of the pledges made by my chairman or my Rules Committee colleague, but again, I must ask why wait when we can act right now? Mr. Speaker, when the Rules Committee considered this rule 2 weeks ago, I offered an amendment to the rule proposed by the Republican majority. My amendment would have allowed for the consideration of the gift ban and lobby reform legislation sponsored by my friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant]. At that meeting--2 weeks ago Mr. Speaker-- the Republican majority stated that the legislative branch appropriations bill was not the proper vehicle to consider such legislation. And even if it were, the legislation introduced by Mr. Bryant was in need of improvement. And so, instead of allowing the House the opportunity to make the so-called needed improvements to the Bryant proposal, much less consider it at all, the Republican majority proceeded to vote on a strict party line vote against my amendment to the rule. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if the Republican majority were so dedicated to the principle of reforming the House, then any bill would be the appropriate vehicle to carry such important reforms. And, Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Bryant's legislation is so flawed why then should we not bring the original proposal of Mrs. Waldholtz to the floor and amend that proposal as needed? And, in addition to the Waldholtz proposal, why not consider the lobby reform proposal of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McHale], whose bill has nine Republican cosponsors? Why not, Mr. Speaker? Since the Speaker's Task Force on Reform has not consulted with the Democratic members of the Rules Committee, we can only speculate about which amendments may be considered necessary to improve the Bryant proposal. I have read in the newspaper that the majority leader is considering rethinking the provision of the Senate-passed gift-ban relating to Members' attendance at charity golf, skiing, and tennis tournaments. Does the Republican majority believe that allowing Members to attend these events for free is a significant improvement on a ban on the acceptance of gifts from those who lobby Congress and seek to influence the legislative process? I have also read that the majority leader thinks the lobby reform legislation might also be the appropriate vehicle to attach a ban on lobbying by nonprofit groups--such as the American Red Cross or the YWCA--who receive Federal grants. Mr. Speaker, as the majority leader well knows, attaching that issue to this legislation is a sure way to guarantee that nothing is done this year and probably next year. And, Mr. Speaker, what kind of reform is it that allows Members to play golf with lobbyists at exclusive country clubs while at the same time prohibiting the Red Cross from lobbying in our offices? And so, in order to allow the House to consider proposals adopted by the Senate last summer, it is my intention to offer an amendment to this rule which would allow the House to consider the Waldholtz and McHale proposals along with the legislative branch appropriations bill. Mr. Speaker, this rule is being used as a convenient way to avoid directly addressing an issue that truly does resonate outside the beltway. Briefings and hearings in the Rules Committee really don't mean much to my constituents. Many of them pay very close attention to the United We Stand movement and support for this issue is considered to be a paramount test of an incumbent's willingness to truly reform the Congress. And, I suspect, on this issue, actions will indeed speak louder than briefings and hearings. Mr. Speaker, I have repeatedly offered amendments in the Rules Committee which would, had they been adopted by the Republican majority, afforded the House the opportunity to vote on the gift ban and lobby reform legislation. It is time to stop talking about reform and to start enacting reform. I would urge my colleagues to vote for real congressional reform and to defeat the previous question in order that this rule can be amended to allow the consideration of gift ban- lobby reform legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I would only point out to the gentlewoman that in 1989 the bipartisan committee that handled these matters was exactly evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. The Vice Chair was the gentlelady from Illinois. Mrs. Martin. The reforms of 1989 were done on a bipartisan basis which she decries now. The only other point I would make is we have a situation that this is manana, manana, always the next day, always the next week. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver]. (Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, we will offer an amendment to the rule that will add two new titles to the bill. The first will incorporate the text of H.R. 2268, the bill offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McHale], and the second one incorporates the text of H.R. 214, the bill offered by the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz], relating to gift reform. I am including the amendment to the rule and the text of the lobbying reform and gift ban proposals at this point in the Record. Amendment to H. Res. 239, as Reported, Offered by Mr. Frost of Texas At the end of the resolution, add the following: Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution, there shall be considered as adopted in the House an amendment adding as new titles at the end of the bill (H.R. 2492) the texts of H. Res. 214 (relating to gift reform) and H.R. 2268 (relating to lobbying disclosure), as introduced in the House on September 6, 1995, but excluding sections 16 through 23 of

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I further include at this point in the Record the following material concerning floor procedure during the 104th Congress:

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and to include extraneous material.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1322, the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Implementation Act. Israel is the only country in the world where the United States does not maintain its embassy in the host nation's declared capital. It is now time for the United States to accept Jerusalem as Israel's capital and to move the U.S. Embassy accordingly. Israel has never wavered from its position that Jerusalem is its capital. Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government--the president, the prime minister, and the supreme court are located in the capital city of Jerusalem. The reunification of Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty and its restoration as the capital of Israel is of utmost importance to the Jewish people in Israel--as well as to all friends of Israel around the world. As a matter of duty and principle, the United States must take a leadership role and support Jerusalem's permanent status as the capital of Israel and locate the U.S. Embassy there. Furthermore, I reject that this bill will undermine the peace process. The Israeli Government has never committed itself to opening up to negotiation the issue of its sovereignty over unified Jerusalem. Israel has always asserted that Jerusalem is its capital, and it is unrealistic for anyone to believe that Israel will compromise on the issue. In fact, I believe that the reluctance of the United States to locate its embassy in Jerusalem is more likely to undermine the peace process. It implies that even Israel's closest allies might be open to the idea of redividing the city or challenging Israel's sovereignty there. Again, as a world leader, the United States must act now and move the United States Embassy to Jerusalem--the capital of Israel.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, at 10 o'clock last night the Committee on Rules was called back into session to rewrite this rule. Now, what was going on? The Republicans are desperate to find votes to promote their $245 billion tax cut for the wealthy. Look in today's New York Times. ``For Republicans in the House, a Frantic Vote Trading Bazaar,'' and I want to quote from this. Today the office of Speaker Newt Gingrich became a kind of bazaar as lawmakers trouped in seeking concessions and Mr. Gingrich tried to please them. The bargaining was a little like Christmas shopping, as Republican lawmakers searched for gifts. To help pay for the sweeteners for the rural lawmakers, this is what they did. They decided not to expand Medicare coverage of chiropractor services and not to pay for drugs needed to combat nausea caused by certain anticancer drugs. A bazaar, a trading session, simply to be able to find enough votes to put through this plan, to cut Medicare by $270 billion. parliamentary inquiry

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced legislation that will attempt to correct a grave injustice that occurred in this country--an injustice that involved thousands of people who were the victims of secret government-sponsored radiation tests beginning in the 1940s. My bill will compensate some of these individuals and follows the President's Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments' recommendation in compensating those victims or surviving family members of plutonium, zirconium and total-body irradiation experiments and would authorize a payment of $50,000. This payment is clearly not adequate, but at least it is something. One of the people injected with plutonium, Elmer Allen, lived in my congressional district in Texas. Believing that he was being treated for bone cancer, Mr. Allen received an injection of plutonium in 1947. Although doctors did not expect him to live long, Elmer Allen lived another 44 years. But those were difficult years for a man troubled by numerous illnesses and health problems. We can never fully compensate these people for what their government has done to them. It's just astonishing that the federal government sponsored these experiments. However we can provide some measure of relief with this payment and recognition that the United States Government was wrong to conduct secret experiments on its citizens. Our country sometimes makes mistakes. However the great thing about this country is that we come to realize these mistakes and accept responsibility. It is time to accept this responsibility and act quickly on this legislation to correct this terrible wrong.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and I urge a vote for the rule.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has requested 1 additional minute in response to some remarks that the previous gentleman just made, and I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule which provides for the consideration of the conference report to accompany the fiscal year 1996 Department of Defense appropriation. The subcommittee chairman, Mr. Young, and his able ranking member, Mr. Murtha, are to be congratulated for negotiating an agreement which should receive strong support both in the House and the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I am personally pleased that the conference agreement contains $493 million for the continued production of the B-2 stealth bomber. I am a firm believer that in a troubled and dangerous world, a significant bomber capability is required to ensure our military preparedness and to protect our national interest. The B-2 stealth bomber is an important component in our overall national defense capability and the construction of additional aircraft in addition to the 20 already authorized will ensure the continued capability of our armed services to protect and defend our national interests. I am also gratified that the conference report provides $159 million for the procurement of six F-16's as well $2.2 billion for research and development funds for the F-22, the next-generation fighter intended to replace the F-16. The conferees are to be congratulated for providing for both the near-term and long-term tactical needs of the Air Force. And, while the conferees reduced the funds for research and development for the V-22 Osprey, I am pleased that the conference report does contain $758 million for this important addition to the Marine Corps arsenal. Mr. Speaker, this conference report represents a great deal of hard work and hard bargaining and I believe the rule merits the support of the House. I recognize that a number of my colleagues have reservations about the total amount of defense spending contained in the conference report. They will have an opportunity to express that concern by voting against the conference report itself and I urge that they support the rule. I urge my colleagues to support the conference agreement and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of the rule and defeat of this bill. This is a terrible piece of legislation. My colleagues have heard the speakers on our side. It would change 60 years of settled law in this country. Mr. Speaker, I urge the defeat of this rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 743 and to rule which provides for its consideration. This bill is nothing more than a thinly disguised attempt to return to the old days of company unions. Supporters of this bill represent it as a means of empowering employees in the 21st century workplace. But, I submit Mr. Speaker, that rather than looking forward, this bill represents a return to the early 20th century when employers controlled both sides of a bargaining table, if indeed such a table existed. Mr. Speaker, this legislation effectively repeals a worker protection that has been in place for 60 years. In 1935, when the Wagner Act was enacted, the Congress chose to extend a guarantee [[Page H 9518]] of a fundamental principle of democracy to the workplace. That principle, in essence, is the freedom of association, the right of employees to choose their own independent representative to negotiate with an employer over wages, hours, or conditions of employment. Common sense and decency demand no less for the working men and women in this country, most especially as we enter the 21st century. This democratic principle should serve as a moral compass as we, as a Nation, negotiate our place in the global economy. If we are indeed the greatest democratic Nation in the history of the planet, then how can we deny such a fundamental principle of democracy to our own workers, for are they not the backbone of our country and all it stands for? Proponents of this legislation claim that in order for business to compete in the new century that new efficiencies must be implemented in the workplace, by establishing work teams or labor-management cooperation programs. They claim section 8(a)(2) precludes such labor- management association. But I would beg to differ. Mr. Speaker, innovations such as employee work teams are already flourishing in the shops, businesses, and factories of this country, in spite of the existence of section 8(a)(2). In fact, the NLRB has already held, in General Foods, that the employer has the right to set up a method of production which delegated significant managerial responsibilities to employee work teams. And, in the Electromation case, the very case the proponents cite as a powerful example of the need for this change in the law, the court of appeals held that section 8(a)(2) does not foreclose appropriate employee involvement which focused solely on increasing company productivity, efficiency, and quality control. If one examines the law, one can see that section 8(a)(2) does not prohibit employee involvement, it merely distinguishes between legitimate and illegitimate activity. Section 8(a)(2) prohibits only one form of employee involvement: The employee program which is dominated by the employer and which deals with employees' wages or other terms or conditions of employment. Section 8(a)(2) merely seeks to assure workers that they will have the right to determine who speaks for them and who will ultimately be responsible to them. Mr. Speaker, if issues were left open by the Electromation case, then let us address those specific issues. If there was a chilling effect on existing employee involvement programs, then let us fix that problem. But H.R. 743 is not a fix: It is, instead, a fundamental change in the rights of working men and women. And it is a change that is unfair and unreasonable and I urge defeat of the bill.