Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As I mentioned previously, I support the legislation. I do. There are several amendments that will be offered shortly. I intend to offer one. The gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] intends to offer one. We will be discussing those very soon.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman]. (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) [[Page H 8843]]

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

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment being offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich]. The B-2 is an essential component of our overall national defense capability. We live in an increasingly dangerous world, and a significant bomber capability is needed to ensure military preparedness and to protect our national interests. The events of the last few years since the wall came down in Berlin and the Soviet empire began crumbling have vividly demonstrated that the world continues to be one where hazards abound. The Persian Gulf war certainly emphasized the point that the U.S. can never let down her guard, and that threats to our security interests may pop up at any time throughout the world. The B-2 is an incredibly powerful and effective aircraft. Just one B- 2 plane is needed to carry out a military mission that would normally require an entire squadron of planes. Thus, for a given military operation, only 2 pilots' lives will be put at risk when the B-2 bomber is used. It's imperative that we maintain all aspects of our military readiness in order to respond to threats. And maintaining readiness requires that we continue to modernize our bomber fleet with the best, most up-to-date equipment we can. The B-2 is a quality aircraft that provides stealthiness, long-range flying capability, and the ability to deliver large payments, on target. Mr. Chairman, the B-2 provides our Nation with important security. I urge my colleagues to reject the Kasich amendment, and support the B-2 bomber.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, some people viewing this proceeding, Members listening in the Chamber, certainly are aware that the United We Stand organization had a meeting during the break in my hometown of Dallas, TX. I went to that meeting and I had to regretfully tell the members of that organization that the majority leadership in the House of Representatives was stonewalling on the lobby reform issue, would not let us bring it up for a vote. I regretted that I had to communicate that to them. We tried to offer this on the first day of the session, and we were prevented from offering this in January. I tried to offer this in the Committee on Rules, waiving points of order, so that it clearly would have been in order, and I was voted down on a strict partisan vote in the Committee on Rules. Mr. Speaker, my only point is that the majority leadership in the House does not want this issue to come up, will not permit the lobbying gift ban to come up, and it is very unfortunate and I regretted that I had to inform the United We Stand organization of that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, last night in Fort Worth, TX, the local United We Stand organization had another meeting, and once again I informed them that I was going to attempt to bring this up today and once again the Republican leadership would steamroll this issue and not permit it to be brought up. 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 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] if he would like to respond to the gentleman who just spoke.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my friend, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], who is a very fine Member, before he leaves the Chamber I am afraid had a little case of selective amnesia a moment ago. He said that we had never passed this. I know he did not intend that. We did pass this bill last year. It was passed when the Democrats controlled the Congress last year, it passed the House of Representatives, went over to the Senate, was filibustered by Republicans in the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the gentlewoman, who is a new Member, that I offered a motion in the Committee on Rules to waive germaneness so this could be brought up on the floor today, and that motion was voted down on a straight party line vote. The Republican members of the Committee on Rules refused to waive germaneness in the Committee on Rules so we could address this issue today. The Democratic members asked that it be waived in the Committee on Rules. If the Republican Members had been willing to do that in the Committee on Rules, there would be no argument on the floor today about whether it is germane or not germane. This is all a game. This is all a sham on the other side of the aisle. This could be brought up. This could have been on the floor today if the Republican Members of the Committee on Rules would have permitted it to be on the floor today. It is 9 months now. We passed this last year. I want to make that point again, because the gentlewoman made the same point that the gentleman from Louisiana made: Why did the Democrats not pass this? The Democratically controlled House of Representatives did pass this last year, and it was blocked by the Republican Members of the U.S. Senate in a filibuster. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I have to say this. I think there are some Members on the other side who feel if they repeat something often enough that is not true, people will believe it, so I feel an obligation to repeat what is true. The previous speaker just said the Democrats did not pass this legislation. We passed this legislation last year. The gift ban was passed by the Democratically controlled House of Representatives. It is not true to say that the Democratic Party would not and could not pass this piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Then I will be yielding to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant]. Mr. Speaker, last night at the United We Stand meeting in Fort Worth, I informed the United We Stand members that the Republicans would unanimously vote against the gift ban today. That appears to be the case, based on what I have just heard. I think that is unfortunate. We have a chance to lay this issue to rest once and for all, but the Republicans will not permit us to bring it up. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant], the author of the gift ban.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, while I may not agree with the priorities established in the conference report to accompany the fiscal year 1996 legislative branch appropriation, I support this rule. I will, however, oppose the previous question. As we have in years past, the Committee on Rules has recommended a rule which waives all points of order against the consideration of the conference report. The Democratic members of the Rules Committee concur that these waivers should be granted. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the conference report is penny wise and pound foolish with regard to the continued existence of the Office of Technology Assessment. We all agree that every part of the Government needs to be carefully examined and subjected to cuts, it does not make a great deal of sense to me to abolish a congressional support agency which has provided us with invaluable information about science and technology. The work of the OTA has been supported on a bipartisan basis, and in fact, in July, the House voted 228 to 201 to continue the functions of this agency. Yet, the conference agreement contains a provision which terminates OTA. It is my view the abolition of such an information source is really counterproductive and the loss of this office will be one we in the Congress will live to regret. Mr. Speaker, while I support this rule, I will support the proposition of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] to defeat the previous question in order to allow the House to consider lobby reform and a gift ban. As we all know, the Senate has now adopted such a ban and it is high time that the House be afforded an opportunity to vote on this good government issue. This proposition is identical to the Senate passed lobby reform and gift ban adapted to apply to House rules. The Bryant proposal is not anything new and different, it is merely an opportunity to do for the House what the Senate has already wisely and prudently imposed upon themselves. For that reason, I will support Mr. Bryant and his proposed amendment to this rule. I would ask that the amendment to the rule be printed in the Record at this point. The amendment would adopt the text of a concurrent resolution providing lobby and gift reform, and I would ask that the text of House Concurrent Resolution 99 also be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], the ranking member of this subcommittee.

Mr. FROST

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I would only point out to the gentleman on the other side that I have offered this amendment on every single appropriation bill, and the gentleman who holds himself out as the defender of the taxpayers has led the fight to prevent this amendment from being offered on every single appropriation bill up until this point. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, the charade being engaged in by the other side on the lockbox provision is really quite extraordinary. As a member of the Committee on Rules, I have offered an amendment in the Committee on Rules to every single appropriation bill up to this point, trying to get the lockbox provision added so we could vote on it, so we could have some savings. The majority members of the Committee on Rules, day after day, bill after bill, rejected my amendment in the Committee on Rules, and only at this late date, with the final appropriation bill working its way through, did they deign to add the lockbox provision. Mr. Speaker, the charade they are engaging in is extraordinary: crocodile tears. If they wanted this lockbox provision all they had to do was make it in order a month ago when I offered it to one of the other appropriation bills; but every time they rejected it, so we cannot take them seriously on this matter. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the chair the time remaining on each side. Mr. SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] has 8 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] has 7 minutes remaining.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I would also point out on the same subject of lockbox that in the Committee on Rules last night I offered an amendment to make lockbox provisions retroactive so in fact we could cover all the appropriation bills that have already been considered, but that was rejected by the committee. So the gentleman from Wisconsin is entirely right. This is a meaningless provision as it is currently offered. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].

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

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself my remaining time. Mr. Speaker, this is an absolutely terrible piece of legislation. This is a piece of legislation that the other side should be ashamed of. Quite the contrary, they seem to take great pride in cutting programs that affect women, cutting programs that affect children, cutting programs that affect the neediest in our society. This bill should be defeated, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gene Green]. (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)