Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler]. (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] objects to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] speaking about the resolution of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], when the matter before the House is the rule on H.R. 2274. The Speaker has ruled on this issue several times in recent years. Probably the clearest guidelines about relevant speech during consideration of a rule come from the Speaker's ruling of September 27, 1990, and I quote: In the Chair's opinion discussing the priority of business is within the confines of the resolution . . . the Chair has ruled that it is certainly within the debate rules of this House to debate whether or not this rule ought to be adopted or another procedure ought to be adopted by the House . . . but when debate ranges into the merits of the relative bills not yet before the House, the Chair would admonish the Members that that goes beyond the resolution . . . Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] has not discussed the merits of Medicare legislation. He has not discussed the details of it or engaged in anything like a debate on that important measure. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas has confined himself to the priority of business argument, that the House ought to be debating the resolution of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] providing for hearings, providing for additional hearings, on Medicare before it gets to this important matter dealing with transportation. The gentleman from Texas has confined himself to the question of whether to adopt the rule before us or a different rule making in order the gentleman from Michigan's resolution that provides for hearings on Medicare. Mr. Speaker, I believe the speech of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] is relevant.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant]. (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 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 myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 224 and in support of H.R. 2274. This is urgent legislation and I urge its quick passage in order to protect the funds for the Nation's highway system. The Transportation Committee is to be commended for bringing forward a bipartisan bill which is truly in the Nation's interest. While there are several issues which are controversial, most notably the repeal of the Federal speed limit and the motorcycle helmet requirement, this open rule will allow the House to fully debate these and other issues. However, in spite of my support for this rule, it is my intention to call for a no vote on the previous question for this resolution. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the Committee on Ways and Means is holding its only day of hearings on proposals to cut Medicare by $270 billion. In spite of the fact that my Democratic colleagues on Ways and Means have objected in the strongest possible terms to giving these enormous changes such short shift, the Republican majority has not seen fit to give the public the opportunity to fully digest and comment on their proposal. And, I might add, no one has actually seen any text and clairvoyance is required to comment on the specifics of the Republican proposal. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I will call for a no vote on the previous question in order to allow an amendment to the rule to permit the consideration of House Resolution 221, a resolution sponsored by 201 Members calling for additional hearings on Medicare legislation. As I stated at the outset, I support the open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2274. Mr. Speaker, I especially want to thank the Transportation Committee for their designation of Interstate 35 as a congressional high priority highway. This road, which runs through the middle of my congressional district, stretches from Laredo, TX at the Mexican border, to Duluth, MN, at the Canadian border. It also connects by a trunk road with the transportation facilities in Kansas City, MO. I-35 is a vital transportation link between the three NAFTA partner- nations and has rightfully been called a river of trade. Because of the lack of adequate rail systems in Mexico, highways are truly a vital link for that Nation's trade to the north. In fact, approximately 74 percent of Mexico's trade with the United States travels on our highways and more than half of that amount crosses the border at Laredo. Interstate 35 benefits every State and every community along its 1,500 mile route because trade is truly a two-way street. United States and Mexican officials are predicting a doubling of trade between now and the year 2000 and another doubling by 2010. Texas commerce with Mexico accounted for $20.3 billion in exports in 1992, and Oklahoma's exports to Mexico in 1993 totaled $158 million up 226 percent from 1989 levels. Running through the Nation's midsection, I-35 links the entire United States with Canadian and Mexican markets through rail, air and truck links. It is the hope of the multistate I-35 Corridor Coalition that the designation of I-35 as a high priority corridor is just a first step toward the eventual designation of this vital transportation link as the International NAFTA Superhighway. With increased trade will come increased traffic and a need for enhanced safety mechanisms as well as construction and maintenance of the roadway. I-35 is currently the only fully constructed north-south Interstate link between Mexico and Canada and its high priority designation will enhance efforts to improve the road to accommodate the increase in commercial traffic that has begun and promises only to grow. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take the opportunity to salute my friend and colleague, Norm Mineta. His service to the Congress and particularly to the transportation needs of this great Nation has been a model of dedication and high-mindedness. He has been both a champion of noble causes and a workhorse in the day-to-day business of the House. Our country and this Congress are far better because of him and he will be missed. I salute you Norm and wish you well as you take leave of us. Mr. Speaker, I reserve 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 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 urge defeat of the previous question, and I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. If the previous question is defeated I will offer an amendment to the rule. The amendment provides for the immediate consideration in the House of House Resolution 221. House Resolution 221 requires that the public be given adequate time to examine the radical changes in the Medicare and Medicaid Programs proposed for the reconciliation bill. The resolution also insists that committees conduct more than a single day of hearings on the largest cuts to the Medicare ever proposed. The public should be allowed to express their views before we are required to vote on such changes. Mr. Speaker, at this point I ask unanimous consent that the amendment I intend to offer be printed in the Record.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on the point of order?

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the principle behind H.R. 1162, and, given [[Page H 8839]] the fact that this is the only version of lockbox the House will be able to consider, I intend to support the bill. I do, however, encourage Members to support two amendments which will be offered to that bill. I believe those amendments will significantly improve the legislation recommended by the Rules Committee and are deserving of strong bipartisan support. Mr. Chairman, I first want to congratulate the chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Solomon, and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process for holding a markup on this bill. This year, as we went through the appropriations process, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster] and the gentlelady from California [Ms. Harman] came to the Rules Committee seeking to offer lockbox amendments to each appropriation bill. While it was unfortunate that the Rules Committee majority did not see fit to allow the House to consider the request of these distinguished Members, our chairman did made a commitment to them that the committee would hold a markup on lockbox legislation. And, on July 20 the committee met and reported this bill. Mr. Chairman, prior to the markup, the committee Democrats were gratified that the Republican majority accepted a number of suggestions we made that we felt improved the chairman's mark circulated among our Members. However, the committee majority did not accept three important amendments offered by the committee Democrats. The first amendment related to out year savings. Because it is the intention of the gentlelady from California [Ms. Harman] to offer such an amendment today, let it suffice to say that this amendment is not in the least just a technicality. In fact, reducing statutory caps for budget authority and outlays in the outyears has a great deal to do with our ability to curb and reduce discretionary spending. If we are really serious about reducing this part of Government spending, I would urge support for the Harman amendment. Second, I will offer an amendment which would apply the provisions of the lockbox procedure to every appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996, not just those passed after engrossment of H.R. 1162. I offered this amendment to the lockbox legislation attached to the Labor/HHS appropriation and my amendment was rejected. I also offered it to the chairman's mark, but again, the amendment was rejected. If we are going to claim savings, then those savings should apply to every appropriations bill, and not just to Labor/HHS, DOD, and DC. Finally, we believe that the bill should have created a separate lockbox account into which savings resulting from spending cuts in individual appropriations bills would automatically be funneled. In that way, those funds could not be reallocated to other appropriations accounts and spent later. The committee bill, however, takes a fundamentally different approach, and while the committee did adopt an amendment which strengthens their original proposal by requiring OMB to reduce the discretionary caps for the fiscal year under consideration, we continue to believe that the creation of a separate lockbox account is an important part of proposal. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support the Frost and Harman amendments in order that we can be sure that the tough choices we have had to and will continue to have to make will actually go to deficit reduction. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. 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 rise in support of this rule. But my support for this rule does not mean I wholeheartedly support the version of lockbox reported from the Committee on Rules. While I will vote for passage of H.R. 1162, I believe there are significant improvements that should be made to this proposal but which, I fear, have little chance of passage on the floor. Those improvements would give this legislation real teeth and if enacted would take a significant bite out of discretionary spending for fiscal year 1996. Mr. Speaker, as of today, only one appropriations bill remains to be considered by the House. Short of the adoption of an amendment which will be offered by the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the appropriation for the District of Columbia would be the only one of the 13 appropriations bills to be subjected to the lockbox process contained in this bill. Yet, the House clearly expressed its support for locking away savings from appropriations bills early this year when a lockbox amendment was added to the emergency supplemental by a vote of 421 to 1. That enactment provided that the net reduction of funds from the supplemental was to be used exclusively for deficit reduction. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, in the months since the House considered the first supplemental, the lockbox has become more of a storage box. The version of the legislation originally introduced by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster] and the gentlelady from California [Ms. Harman], as well as the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo], no longer mandates net reductions from appropriations bills be dedicated exclusively to deficit reduction. Rather, this version has become more of an accounting tool. Now, I would like to commend my colleague from Florida, Mr. Goss, the chairman of the Legislative and Budget Process Subcommittee, for his work on this legislation. While Mr. Brewster and Ms. Harman appeared repeatedly before the Rules Committee in an attempt to offer their version of lockbox, the Rules Committee did make and follow through on a commitment to send some lockbox legislation to the floor. The committee recommendation may very well be the best version of the proposal we are going to get, but, as I said at the outset, this legislation can and should be improved to ensure that it will do what the original cosponsors of lockbox had intended to do. First, it is my intention to offer an amendment which will make this bill retroactive so that the net reductions from each of the appropriations bills for fiscal year 1996 will be subjected to the lockbox process. However, because I intend to take advantage of the family friendly atmosphere in the House and take my middle daughter to college, I may not be present to personally offer this amendment. It is my hope that the amendment will be offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Peterson], and that the House will support this important improvement to this bill. Second, the gentlelady from California [Ms. Harman] intends to offer an amendment which will capture savings in future years. As we all know, there are many Federal programs and projects with spendout rates which increase dramatically after the first or second year. Unfortunately, as the bill was reported from the Rules Committee, these savings can only be captured for the fiscal year in question and consequently savings in the outyears mighty well be reallocated to other programs. During the markup of this bill, the committee Democrats offered a version of Ms. Harman's amendment, but as matters turned out, the amendment was defeated by the Republican majority. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that Ms. Harman's proposal makes a great deal of sense: Let's not allow savings to slip through the lock box only to be spent elsewhere. [[Page H 8837]] Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the fact that this rule provides a germaneness waiver for the committee substitute. It seems to me that the only reason this waiver is necessary is because the final product is so very different from what was originally introduced that it does not bear enough resemblance to be considered germane. While I congratulate the gentleman from Florida for his efforts to bring this bill to the floor, I think Members should understand what this waiver really means. I believe the fact that the committee substitute is a departure from the original intent only reinforces the need to adopt my amendment and that of Ms. Harman. Without those two additions to this bill, I am afraid we are merely playing a shell game with ourselves and with the American people. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, many of us have supported lockbox because we want to make real cuts that will really reduce the deficit and assist our efforts to reach a balanced budget. However, as reported, this bill will not be applicable to 12 of the 13 fiscal year 1996 appropriations bills. I understand that my colleague from Florida, in the amendment that he has just discussed, is offering an amendment which will make this bill applicable to the labor-HHS and Department of Defense appropriations, but I think we should go all the way and cover every one of the 13 bills in this exercise. The DOD appropriation was reduced by $121 million, and those savings will be counted toward deficit reduction. If we can count those savings, why can we not count others? Mr. Chairman, let me give you a few specific examples of savings that have been made in the other 10 bills. We cut $20 million from the global environmental fund and $14 million from OPIC when we considered the foreign operations appropriation. We cut $65.8 million from the Treasury, Postal appropriation by reducing the funds for offices of the Food and Drug Administration. The energy and water appropriation was reduced $20 million by cutting the gas turbine modular helium reactor. Interior was reduced $5 million when we agreed to cut fossil energy research. In total, Mr. Chairman, the House has agreed to reduce discretionary spending by over $240 million, [[Page H 8847]] which, in anyone's calculation, amounts to real money. Mr. Chairman, the question has arisen about what happens if money saved from one bill has subsequently been spent in another. I know the Committee on Appropriations believes this amendment will hamper its ability to negotiate with their Senate counterparts. I know Members will say funds have already been reallocated to programs that really matter to their districts. But is it the answer really that we have had to make hard choices? We have made them, and in order to get credit for them, they have to be real. Mr. Chairman, if we apply lockbox retroactively, then maybe some of these cuts we have made will be real. That is what this Member intends when voting to cut, and I am sure that intention is shared by every other Member of this body.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, we have no additional speakers on our side.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, the University of Texas at Arlington, which is in the 24th Congressional District of Texas, celebrates its 100th anniversary this year. I'm very proud to represent such a distinguished institution and over the years have formed strong friendships with many of the fine people who work there. I have always been struck by the level of commitment of excellence at UTA. Over the years, this institution has grown from a junior college to university which now offers 55 baccalaureate, 60 masters, and 19 doctoral degrees. UTA is now the second-largest institution within the University of Texas system, with a student enrollment of over 22,000. UTA, located in the heart of the city of Arlington, is an integral part of the community, contributing vast resources to all citizens of Arlington. This level of excellence which has brought the university to this centennial celebration will guide it into the 21st century. Top scholars from around the country have come to UTA because of its national and international reputation. Faculty at UTA have always been committed to teaching excellence and fostering student achievement and have excelled at accommodating the returning student, who is starting a new career or building on his current one. This environment is imperative for universities in today's world. I look forward to working with UTA in the future, and again congratulate the university upon this occasion.