Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize Mr. Don Pierson, an outstanding individual whose bold approach towards life and its challenges epitomizes the values Texans hold dear. Mr. Pierson was born on October 11, 1925, in Abilene, TX. Throughout his fascinating life, Mr. Pierson has pursued many careers and professional endeavors. For example, he has been a land developer, a local hotel owner, a car dealer, a pilot, a cable television pioneer, and a city mayor. This list of successful ventures proves Mr. Pierson to be a man of initiative, resourcefulness, and ingenuity--a true Texan in every sense of the word. Texans respect the kind of vision and strong character that Mr. Pierson possessed and exhibited. Mr. Pierson's numerous accomplishments speak to all of us. They remind us of the possibilities and opportunities which remain within our reach if we are willing to accept the corresponding risks and obstacles in order to pursue and attain them. I am honored to have the opportunity to recognize this truly admirable individual.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown]. (Mr. BROWN of California 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, since the end of the cold war, the United States has called upon the men and women of our armed services to perform duties ranging from humanitarian assistance, to peacekeeping, to engaging in an all out war. And these duties have been performed ably and with honor in an era of decreased funding for the entire Federal budget. anything but pride in the job that our Armed Forces have done in Africa, in the Middle East, in the Balkans, or in the Caribbean. We are here to consider legislation to recoup the expenditures required for DOD contingency operations undertaken in the course of the past year. The President has asked the Congress to provide these funds, and we are fulfilling our responsibility by acting on that request. There is no other acceptable course of action. But, Mr. Speaker, I must rise in opposition to House Resolution 92 which provides for the consideration of H.R. 889, the Department of Defense emergency supplemental, as well as for the consideration of H.R. 845 which rescinds $1.4 billion in domestic discretionary budget authority. I want to be very clear that I support the provision of supplemental appropriations to the Defense Department in order that we, as a nation, do not find our strategic and defensive posture compromised. But, Mr. Speaker, just a few short weeks ago I joined with over two- thirds of my colleagues in this body in supporting a constitutional amendment to balance the budget of the United States. That amendment did not exempt defense spending from its requirements, yet I cannot help but think that this supplemental--whether designated as an emergency or not--is not paid for and only adds to the deficit which we are so committed to erasing. The Committee on Appropriations has recommended, in addition to the DOD supplemental, a bill which rescinds $1.4 billion in discretionary domestic spending which purports to cover the expenditures provided in the supplemental. However, there are many on this side of the aisle who wonder if these cuts are nothing more than a fig leaf. There seems to be some question whether our colleagues in the Senate will use domestic cuts to pay for defense increases. But, whether the Senate enacts these domestic rescissions or not, this bill still creates an outlay shortfall--nearly $300 million in this fiscal year and $645 million over the next 5 fiscal years. Mr. Speaker, where I come from those numbers can only mean one thing: We are adding to, not subtracting from, the deficit. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule in order that the Committee on Rules might reconsider how we might deal with the critical necessity of meeting these urgent requirements of the branches of our Armed Forces while not adding to the national debt. As this rule is constructed, there is really only one opportunity for Members to vote to not increase the deficit while at the same time assuring that DOD readiness is not impaired--by fully compensating the Defense Department for its contingency expenses. The Rules Committee has allowed for the consideration of only one amendment, a substitute by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. The Obey substitute is deficit neutral over the next 5 years. But, other than the Obey substitute, the committee has precluded the consideration of any other amendments, even amendments to strike portions of the bill and an amendment proposed by Mr. Brown of California which would actually cut the deficit. Mr. Speaker, I must ask why is only the Obey substitute made in order? Why is it necessary to consider this supplemental under such a restrictive rule? When the House considered the most recent supplemental--the 1994 California earthquake emergency supplemental-- the Committee on Rules provided for the consideration of six amendments, not just one amendment, the Obey amendment in this case. Chairman Solomon then protested that the rule was too restrictive. He said, and I quote: ``Even when you move a bill with all deliberate speed, you must still deliberate--that is, carefully weigh and debate the merits of the legislation and consider amendments to improve on it.'' I would recommend to my colleagues that the chairman's words are every bit as relevant today as they were 1 year ago. In addition, Mr. Speaker, when the House considered a supplemental appropriation in May 1993, under an open rule, my colleagues on the other side protested that the rule was not open enough. I would quote Mr. Goss who said, ``True this is an open rule, but because of the rules of the House, there are several important amendments that were brought to the Rules Committee that will not be allowed to be considered, even under this open rule.'' Mr. Speaker, the Democrats on the Rules Committee have not even asked for an open rule in the case of House Resolution 92. What we have asked for is an opportunity for the House to consider amendments which might allow the House to fulfill its commitment to deficit reduction, not for a closed rule as has been reported out by the committee. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would renew my appeal that this rule be defeated in order that the Committee on Rules might have an opportunity to quickly reconsider a rule for this supplemental. Time is of the essence, but so is our commitment to the defense of this Nation and to deficit reduction. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman]. (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], ranking member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, if this is the concluding speaker of the gentleman from California, I would then sum up by simply stating we continue to be opposed to the rule. I would ask the House to reject this rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the 100 years that the Corsicana Daily Sun in Corsicana, TX has been publishing. The first edition of the Corsicana Daily Sun was published on March 2, 1985 as a morning edition. The Daily Sun was prosperous, and in 1906 the owners purchased the Semi-Weekly Light and continued to publish both newspapers. In 1984 the semiweekly publication was converted into a weekly called the Navarro County Sun Extra. And in 1986, the Daily Sun began publishing a Saturday edition for the first time, making it a 7 day a week publication. Mr. Speaker, the Corsicana Daily Sun has been an invaluable addition to life and the arts in Corsicana. Although a fire displaced operations for 5 months in 1992, the Daily Sun continued to publish without missing one edition. Mr. Speaker, the Corsicana Daily Sun has documented local events and happenings for the past 100 years, and will continue to do so, we hope, for 100 more.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, in celebration of this year's theme, I am pleased to be here today to honor the memories of three great African- Americans in recognition of Black History Month. But first let us recognize Dr. Carter G. Woodson, the man who in 1926 first called for a period of time to be set aside for the recognition of important historical achievements by African-Americans. It is his legacy that we also celebrate today, and his work to create this important holiday. One hundred years ago, Mr. Speaker, in 1895, the lives of three giants in history intersected. Frederick Douglass, runaway slave and later educator to thousands, passed away. He left behind a legacy that has continued to inspire those who love freedom. After successfully escaping from slavery, he traveled widely, speaking against the enslavement of people everywhere and supporting the rights of women. He later held various government posts, including the territorial legislature of the District of Columbia. Mr. Speaker, Frederick Douglass was a man who refused to accept defeat. Even though he had been taught to build ships, the indignities of prejudice forced him to work as a common laborer. He helped President Lincoln to organize the celebrated 54th and 55th Massachusetts regiments of all black soldiers. And shortly before his death, he served as the consul general to the Republic of Haiti. Frederick Douglass led a life of which we could all honor. Mr. Speaker, W.E.B. DuBois was a prolific writer who challenged all our views about race. In 1895 he received his Ph.D. in history from Harvard University, the first African-American to receive such an honor. He worked as a professor at a number of universities before becoming involved with what was called the Niagra Movement. As a founding member of the NAACP Dr. DuBois believed that an important goal for African-Americans was the utilization of any and all educational opportunities. He stressed the need for African-Americans to promote their own cultural and social values. Finally, Mr. Speaker, Booker T. Washington delivered a famous speech in 1895, which outlined his philosophy of vocational education as an avenue of advancement. Mr. Washington's speech at the Atlanta Exposition urged the African-Americans at that time to try and gain an industrial education in order to make use of the rural areas where many blacks lived. Although his views were considered controversial at the time, he helped to further the dialog that led to equal rights for all of America's citizens. Mr. Speaker, these three men made their mark on history by pursuing truth, justice and equality. They were truly great statesmen, and great leaders.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, it is not my intention to object, but I would ask the gentlewoman from Utah as to what occurred in this instance. Why is the majority coming forward at this point and asking that the rule be amended?

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, do I gather this was something that occurred within the Committee on Rules? It was not something that occurred within the committee that originated the bill, but in the production of the rule inside the Committee on Rules?

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 51 is indeed an open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 101, a bill to transfer a parcel of land to the Taos Pueblo Indians in New Mexico. However, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate some questions raised during the consideration of the previous two rules today. Given the fact that there is absolutely no controversy surrounding this legislation and the fact that it was reported from the Committee on Resources by voice vote, I do have to ask why H.R. 101 is not being considered on the suspension calendar or under unanimous consent. Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the meeting of the Committee on Rules, our distinguished chairman stated that it is the policy of the Republican conference to limit the number of bills brought to the House on the suspension calendar, as was mentioned earlier today. The reason, he said, was simply because the consideration of bills on suspension prohibits the offering of amendments. However, I must point out for the new Members of the House that ordinarily bills considered under suspension have been those that have been thoroughly vetted through the committee process. In past Congresses, it has been common practice to thoroughly examine and deliberate issues in committee and, in so doing, it has been found that often all disputed issues can be resolved, thus eliminating the need for lengthy debate and numerous amendments by the full House. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Committee on Resources told the Committee on Rules yesterday that there is a large backlog of bills pending before his committee. Mr. Speaker, I share his desire to move these bills and would urge him and the Committee on Rules to consider using the suspension calendar to move noncontroversial legislation in the future. And I would observe also that, if I understand the procedures here today, that in fact any germane amendment will be in order when this bill comes up, that this is in fact an open rule, and that any germane amendment can be brought before the House. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentlewoman from Utah.

Mr. FROST. And it was by inadvertence on the part of the staff. We understand there has been some changeover in the staff and some of these things will happen as we all get up to speed.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the Dallas Memorial Center for Holocaust Studies, in cooperation with the Jewish Community Relations Council, the Anti-Defamation League, the Greater Dallas Community of Churches, and the Greater Dallas Veterans Council, for their work in putting together an event for the entire Dallas community celebrating and honoring the 50th anniversary of those heroic individuals who participated in the liberation of concentration camps during World War II. This tribute to these fine individuals will occur on February 12 at the Preston Hollow Presbyterian Church in Dallas. This event will most certainly rekindle memories of the worst atrocity in contemporary history and is a historical milestone that should be deeply praised. It is only through this type of continual recognition of those atrocities of the past and the heroism that stopped it that we can work to prevent such inhumanity from occurring in the future. We must remember both that while there will always be those who would commit horrendous acts against humanity, it is up to all of us to stand up and stop them. We must make certain that similar atrocities to those committed in concentration camps never do happen again. We need not look far to see that all around the world we are confronted by barbarism. We cannot ever allow ourselves to forget what terrible atrocities can occur if acts of barbarism are allowed to progress. Again, I commend those involved with putting together this important event of remembrance.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, for some time I have been a supporter of a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In the 16 years I have served in this body, I have seen the public debt triple to well over $4 trillion and have watched as the Congress has struggled to bring the Federal budget and the deficit under control. Until recently, we in the Congress, working with Presidents both Republican and Democratic, have had only limited success in curbing the spriraling growth of Government spending. Thanks to the policies instituted in the last Congress, we are now witnessing a steady downward path of the deficit, but I remain convinced that stronger measures are called for if we are to finally, once and for all, bring the budget of this Nation into balance. And, for that reason, I will support passage of a constitutional amendment when the House votes tomorrow. However, Madam Speaker, in spite of my record of support for just such a constitutional amendment, I must rise in opposition to this rule. My Republican colleagues made a number of points yesterday during our markup of this rule saying that it provides for the consideration of more options than have been considered in the past few years. But I would like to clarify a point. In the past the rules providing for consideration of balanced budget constitutional amendments have not been reported from the Committee on Rules. Rather, they have been considered by discharge petition or the Committee on Rules has simply reported a rule tracking the provisions of a discharge petition about to reach the floor, thereby limiting the terms of debate. My Republican colleagues will respond by saying this rule provides for the most free and open debate ever granted to a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. But I would like to say that this rule does not really provide for the free and open debate promised by Republican candidates for election to the 104th Congress. This rule reported by the Republican majority has limited the opportunities for Members to express their views on how to bring about fiscal restraint. The chairman notified the Members of the House that the committee might limit the consideration of amendments to those printed in the Congressional Record last Friday as well as to those amendments submitted in the form of amendments in the nature of a substitute. Yet the Republican rule contains a provision providing for the consideration of a concurrent resolution which not one Democratic member of the committee saw until yesterday, just prior to our markup. The Republican majority on the Committee on Rules recommended a rule that included consideration of five substitutes to the joint resolution. The Republican majority on the Committee on Rules rejected 23 amendments offered to the rule by the Democratic members of the committee during our markup. Not one single amendment was agreed to during the markup by the Republicans. A variety of reasons were offered. Time constraints prevented additional debate on further amendments. The rule makes in order four Democratic alternatives as well as one bipartisan alternative. Debate in previous Congresses was far more restrictive. Madam Speaker, I do not understand the need to limit debate.

Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. FROST. Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, I point out to the chairman that his party ran on a platform of open rules. I know that this gentleman is sincere. I know that this gentleman intends to have open rules. But for some reason we did not have an open rule in this particular case. For that reason, I must oppose the rule.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, as one of the three Members of Congress representing Fort Worth, TX, home of former Speaker Jim Wright, I rise to urge that Speaker Gingrich take down his own words. Last Friday, speaking to a Republican audience here in Washington, Speaker Gingrich referred to former Speaker Wright as a ``crook.'' In my opinion, such a comment does harm to the office of Speaker--both past and present. The truth of the matter is that former Speaker Wright served this body with dedication during his 34 years as a Member and 2\1/2\ years as Speaker. Contrary to the remarks made last Friday, Speaker Wright was never convicted of a crime nor was he even ever charged with a crime in court. Additionally, though ethics charges were lodged against him with the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, that committee never ruled against him on the merits of those charges. It is my opinion that the current Speaker, Mr. Gingrich, would serve both his own party and this House by desisting from making such references as he did when in the minority. The country expects a degree of civility from the presiding officer of this body. I, for one, have always respected the leaders of the opposition party even when I disagreed with them on the merits of an issue. It would serve the Nation if our Speaker would do the same.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would like to elaborate on the points raised by my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley]. In an attempt to control the unwieldy process of considering legislation in the House, the rules package presented by the Republicans on opening day contained a provision which prohibits the joint referral of legislation. This reform is well-intentioned, and may ultimately serve an extremely useful purpose as the House goes about its business of making laws. This change in House procedures may very well reduce or eliminate the endless arguments and delays occasioned by multiple committees staking claim to legislative provisions which may or may not be part of their assigned jurisdiction. However, Mr. Speaker, in the case of H.R. 5, in the rush to banish the old order, the Contract With America has created a truly regrettable legislative situation. This particular bill, as was pointed out by my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts, was primarily referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, with sequential and partial referral to the Committees on Budget, Judiciary, and Rules. Of their four committees, only the Committee on Rules held a hearing on this most complex proposal. The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight was not permitted to consider this matter in a full and open way. Many questions were left unanswered. Mr. Speaker, when it was signed by the Republican candidates for Congress last fall, the Contract With America explicitly stated that the election could result in a House with a new majority that will transform the way Congress works. The Contract With America also states that its goal is to restore accountability to Congress, and that the reforms embodied in the package are aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their Government. Mr. Speaker, these goals are laudable and are certainly shared by Democratic Members. However, I cannot see how ramrodding this proposal through the primary committee of original jurisdiction, the old Government Operations Committee, where hearings were not held and where amendments were not permitted to be offered, satisfies the conditions set out in the Republicans' Contract With America. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules is the committee of the House charged with the responsibility of overseeing the rules and procedures of this body. I find it quite troublesome that the committee has seen fit to ignore the longstanding tradition of allowing individual committees to debate and deliberate. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] so correctly pointed out that it is in the committees of the House that the real work of the people's business is done. Sadly, in the case of H.R. 5, which has enormous and far-reaching implications in the lives of all Americans, the committees of the House were not permitted to do their jobs. [[Page H337]] In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to respectfully disagree with the argument made by my Republican colleagues that this bill would be considered under an open rule and therefore the process has not been subverted. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule.