Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. If I understand what is going on on the other side during the last 30 minutes, several Republican Members, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), basically urged the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) not to shoot the wounded. They have basically urged him not to try and strike this provision by objecting to it as a violation of the Rules. What we want to do, of course, is take the gun out of the gentleman from Iowa's (Mr. Nussle) hand by protecting this provision so that he will not be able to shoot the wounded. Mr. Speaker, I will call for a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will protect the section of the bill that raises the cap on the Military Housing Privatization Program and ensures that more of our troops and their families will be able to live in good housing. I offered this same amendment in the Committee on Rules last night, where it was defeated on a straight party-line vote. Mr. Speaker, I have served in Congress for 26 years now. In all those years, I have thought that one thing that both sides of the aisle could agree on was our support for our troops and making sure that their needs will always be addressed. I guess what I thought was wrong. Now we will be able to go forward. If we defeat the previous question, then we will be able to offer it. We will be able to protect this provision, and this bill will be able to be voted on. A vote against the previous question is the only way you protect our troops and the only way you protect the military housing provision in this bill. If we succeed on the previous question, then there will be a vote on the rule with our protection of that provision, and this bill can be brought to the floor.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Will the chairman of the Committee on the Budget please remain for a question? Will the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) please remain for a question? I do not think he meant to intentionally misstate a fact. I would point out that the authorization bill lifts the cap for 2006. It does not lift it for 2005. In fact, the administration has asked for the $500 million. I do not think the gentleman intentionally meant to misstate the fact, but he did make a misstatement of fact on the floor. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Last night the Committee on Rules met to report a rule for the Military Construction Appropriations bill for 2005. The bill has wide bipartisan support. It provides sufficient funding for America's military construction needs and includes funding to improve facilities and family housing on reserve and active duty installations around the world. The bill also includes a provision that protects the most successful military housing project in history, the Military Housing Privatization Initiative. Under this program, the Federal Government creates public-private partnerships to construct and renovate military family housing. The current state of military housing is a disgrace. It is often old and dilapidated. Under this program, quality homes for our troops and their families are constructed more affordably and more quickly. It is estimated that the government saves 10 to 15 percent over the life of the project, and military families receive improved homes in one-tenth of the time it will have taken using old methods of family housing construction. When the program started in 1996, it was tied to a cap of $850 million in government investment. The Department of Defense will reach this cap in November. The Military Construction bill contains a provision to raise the cap and ensure that the most successful military housing program ever will be able to continue. And herein lies the problem, Mr. Speaker. The rule that we are considering today puts this program in danger. It allows a point of order on the section of the bill raising the cap on the Privatization Initiative that would allow it to be completely stripped from the bill. If that happens, the program would be unable to continue past November of this year, and almost 50,000 military families would pay the price and continue to live in substandard housing. I made a motion last night in the Committee on Rules to protect this section of the bill so that it could not be stripped out, but it was defeated on a party-line vote. I just do not understand that, Mr. Speaker, because perhaps more than anything else in this bill, this provision will help raise the quality of life for our troops and their families. Perhaps worst of all is the fact that this is the only provision in the Military Construction bill that can be stripped out on a point of order. I think that shows real disregard and disrespect for our soldiers, and, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I find it disgraceful. We in this House are constantly talking about the need to support our troops, and yet when the time comes to actually vote on a substantive issue that could really help our fighting men and women and their families, some Members of this House are not following through. I, for one, am proud to support our troops. As a Nation, we continue to ask more and more of them, especially in this time of war and uncertainty. Our brave soldiers and their families deserve to live in quality housing, not slums. It should be their right, not their privilege; and that is why today I will attempt to defeat the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to protect the military housing cap in the bill from being stripped out on a point of order. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, countless military families and military organizations, and the President of the United States--let me repeat that, and the President of the United States, all support raising this cap. This House should too. America's troops and their families deserve to have our unconditional support as they continue to fight the war on terror. Vote ``no'' on the previous question and vote ``no'' on the rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would advise the gentleman from Florida that we have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of our time and urge adoption of the rule.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the United States has always fought for a peaceful, democratic and stable world, and now, more than ever, such a world is in our highest national interest. While the United States and her allies are making progress in the war on terror, Congress must remain committed to the ideals of peace and democracy and must do whatever it takes to maintain security here at home and elsewhere. That is why today, Mr. Speaker, I have come to the floor in support of H.R. 4818, the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act. Along with defense and diplomacy, foreign assistance remains one of the strongest tools we have to ensure that the world is safe for peace and democracy. The bill before us today helps ensure that the United States is successful in this mission by providing $19.4 billion for our foreign policy priorities. Among its major provisions, the bill contains significant funding for pressing needs in the war on terror, such as the reconstruction of Afghanistan, and significantly increases funding for HIV/AIDS programs in the Millennium Challenge Corporation. The bill also provides significant aid to Israel. Specifically, the bill provides Israel with $360 million in economic assistance and $2.2 billion in military assistance. Israel has always been a good friend and strong ally of the United States. She shares our common values of peace and democracy, and she continues to struggle to win the war against terror for the protection of her own people, as we do. America's friendship with Israel has never been more important, and I am pleased we can provide our friend and ally with this aid as we continue the joint struggle to achieve peace and freedom in the Middle East. Today we will consider the foreign operations bill under an open rule, which I support. However, four Members came to the Committee on Rules yesterday with important amendments that required waivers in order to be considered today and which I believe deserve serious consideration by this House. Unfortunately, not one of these four amendments was granted waivers. Each was defeated on a party line vote. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) brought important amendments dealing with women's health; the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) brought an amendment designating an additional $800 million in emergency aid for the global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria; and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) brought an amendment to help secure peace in the Middle East by transferring $325 million in aid for the Egyptian military into economic assistance that will improve the quality of life for the Egyptian people. The Lantos amendment, which we attempted to protect from a point of order, was not given an order. In recent months, Egypt has embarked on a major military buildup that may disrupt our efforts to bring peace to the region. It is my understanding that the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) may offer a modified version of his amendment which will not need a waiver today during debate on the bill. Although I am disappointed that four amendments were not protected, I am pleased that this bill is being considered under an open rule, and I plan on voting in its favor, as I do the bill. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to mark the passing of a great and unique American, my friend Al Casey. Al died at his home in Dallas Saturday at the age of 84. Few people have led more productive and significant lives. Al Casey was chairman and CEO of American Airlines when the company made the decision to move its corporate headquarters from New York to north Texas in 1979. That single decision did more for the economy of the Dallas/Fort Worth area than anything that has happened in the last 25 years. Today American Airlines is the largest single employer in the DFW metroplex. The ripple effects of its move will continue to be felt for many years. Al Casey was more than just a successful CEO of a major U.S. company. He served our country's president and chief executive of the Resolution Trust Corporation from 1991 to 1993. This was the entity charged with cleaning up the savings and loan mess in the southwestern part of our country. He served as Postmaster General of the United States in 1988 and was Distinguished Executive in Residence at the Cox School of Business at SMU. Al Casey was my friend. Even though he was a committed Republican, he always had a kind and encouraging word for me whenever we saw each other at the many public functions he attended in Dallas. He was the most optimistic and genuine person I knew and made everyone feel better when they were in his presence. Though we came from different religious traditions, I do not think Al would mind if I used a Yiddish word to describe him. Al Casey was a mensch. We will all miss him.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Cadet Justin B. Cope for his recent appointment as a Chief Petty Officer of the United States Naval Sea Cadet Corps. The United States Naval Sea Cadet Corps was first established in 1958 in order to develop a greater appreciation of the United States' naval history, traditions, customs, and significant role in defense. With only about one half of one percent of Naval Sea Cadets receiving the recognition and honor of being appointed as a Chief Petty Officer, Cadet Cope's ascension to the rank of Chief Petty Officer clearly reflects his superior qualities in leadership, expertise in seamanship, and patriotic character. Again, I congratulate Chief Petty Officer Justin B. Cope's great achievement and wish him all the greatest success in the future.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my support for the DeLay-Hoyer Israel resolution and urge Congress to strongly endorse the Sharon disengagement plan. Sharon is pursuing this plan even in the face of opposition from his own party. This disengagement plan proves once again that Israel is willing to make difficult sacrifices in order to pursue a peace agreement. Dismantling settlements has always been discussed in the context of negotiations with the Palestinians, but offered only in exchange for an end to terrorism. Unfortunately, with Arafat still in power, the continued terrorism against Israeli civilians, and the political process on hold indefinitely, Israel is willing to take action for peace on its own. The United States is engaged in a war on terrorism to defend our nation from the relentless men and women who hate our way of life and seek our destruction. We are taking whatever steps are necessary to protect our citizens. I sincerely hope that a viable two state solution can soon be reached, but in the meantime we must allow Israel, our friend, our ally, and a strong democracy that shares our values to do the same. Israel has enjoyed steadfast bipartisan support from Congress for years. This resolution by Mr. Delay and Mr. Hoyer will send a strong message to Israel that despite our partisan disputes on many foreign and domestic issues, the Democrats and Republicans in this Congress stand with Israel.

Mr. FROST

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